1968-11-22

Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-133, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the riding I represent from Wellington-Grey to Welling-ton-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


William Marvin Howe: -in order to give the necessary recognition to those parts of four great counties in southwestern Ontario that I have the honour to represent. I agree, Mr. Speaker, that in some areas a four word name may cause a little more confusion than a one or two word name.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister a question relating to the desire of the members of the standing committee on external affairs and national defence to hold discussions in some depth with the ministers concerned regarding future defence and foreign policy. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will assure the house that before any definite decisions are taken regarding a change in defence policy, specifically with regard to NATO and NORAD, the committee will have an opportunity to consider and to make recommendations on the course of policy.
29180-194}


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I understand there will be a meeting of the committee on December 3 when these questions can be discussed. I would further hope that at some time in parliament, on a supply day or otherwise, we will have an occasion to discuss the whole question of external affairs and defence policies.
As I indicated several times, the government has asked for this review because we want Canada to have the best policy for the times. We do not feel we can find it by any magic process. We can do it only by consultation. I would hope there would be consultation not only of experts but of those particular experts called members of parliament in debate. I still have no idea concerning the timing of this report or at what date it will come forward to the government. Therefore I cannot make any specific commitment as to when that will be debated.
I do want to assure members of this house, however, that we will not reach any policy through a device which has bypassed parliament or indeed public opinion. We do want to arrive at a policy which will represent a good policy for Canada and which will have been discussed at all levels of public opinion.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Why not set aside a day for that in parliament?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the apparent failure so far to arrange a time convenient to the Minister of National Defence to appear before the committee, could the Prime Minister arrange the earliest possible appearance before the committee of both his colleagues, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, because I understand the members of the committee are particularly anxious to question these ministers on the subject of the Brussels meeting.


Mr. Trudeau:: I repeat that December 3 has been set aside and the meeting of the standing committee on external affairs and national defence has been set up. I am quite sure the ministers, if invited, will be delighted to answer questions on any of these subjects.

November 22, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I first say I appreciate the Prime Ministers co-operation with regard to the committee and his colleagues appearing before it to tell the committee what the situation is at present concerning the commitments which have been made at the Brussels meeting. But with regard to the examination in depth of external affairs and defence policy, will the Prime Minister assure the house that every facility will be given so that evidence before this committee can be taken into account and taken advantage of by the government in arriving at a policy in these very important matters which will have such a bearing on the future of our country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indeed I can give that assurance. Such evidence before that committee will be considered as very important by the government. I might say once again that I do not imagine that on December 3 the ministers will be in a position to speculate very much on our future policy. They can report on what happened at Brussels, but on future policy every member of this house and every citizen of this country is authorized to speculate on the general kind of questions we are asking ourselves.


John George Diefenbaker: Speculation should be halted. There is too much speculation and not enough fact.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am told there is too much speculation. We happen to believe that thinking is a good thing.


John George Diefenbaker: I appreciate that observation, but thinking out loud on external affairs is something no Prime Minister should engage in.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: In view of the Prime Minister's willingness to have his colleagues appear before the parliamentary committee on external affairs and national defence, and in view of the likely divergence of views, would he himself be prepared to appear before this committee?


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Could the Prime Minister tell us if the government intends, once the review has been made, to prepare a White Paper to be placed at the disposal of the committee, which would

allow not only for constructive work but would also really help to improve our policy in general?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is an excellent suggestion, Mr. Speaker, and I will certainly take it into consideration.
As for my appearing before such a committee, as the hon. member has just asked-

I must ask how hon. members could expect me to go before that committee and not think aloud, as I am told by the right hon. gentleman I should not do?


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, consistent with the search for facts in this important matter of arriving at defence policy, will the government do everything it can to indicate to the Canadian people and the world at large, at the earliest possible time, which of the public stances which the government exhibits from time to time truly represents the Canadian policy, and whether all the assurances, whatever they may be, which are made from time to time to our allies are in fact worth face value?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this question, and I want to explain to the house that it is because of constant questioning on the hypothetical results of the review which is under way that I am forced to make all these statements and think out loud. If hon. members will stop asking me about the eventual results of the review which is still under way, then they will have no speculations.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to my right hon. friend that we would be quite happy if we were sure he was thinking before he spoke out loud.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest we now go on to another subject.



REPORTED INTENTION TO ESTABLISH OUTSIDE ADVISORY GROUPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whiiby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which he may or may not have anticipated today. I am always pleased when the Prime Minister or any member on the other side of the house is thinking, whether it is out loud or not. I should like to ask him whether he has given consideration to the
November 22, 1968

question I referred to yesterday. His memory seemed not to have done him a good turn, in that he indicated he had forgotten the details of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has had the floor for a while but has not asked his question as yet.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question, as reported at page 2574 of Hansard for November 8, was:
In view of the potentially serious effect in our system of parliamentary government of the right hon. gentleman's decision to establish a series of regional offices and a body of 150 extraparliamentary advisers, would the Prime Minister at an early date make a statement on motions as to the duties and responsibilities of these new groups?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I do not feel I should make a statement on motions, but I could by way of a short explanation indicate that these regional desk officers are in no way intended to compete with members of parliament. They are merely to provide an additional source of information to me as to what might be happening in various parts of the country. These persons in the regional desks have no legislative role and therefore they are perhaps more free to move around the country and to have access to people at times when members of parliament are held here in Ottawa. These desk officers will also be processing information from members of parliament to give to me. Therefore there is no intention to compete but merely to supplement members of parliament. There could be, of course, no competition anyhow because members of parliament are so far ahead in the political game.
As to the other part of the question, these people who have volunteered to take part in the process of constant evaluation of the performance of the government represent persons who have offered to let my office know of their assessment of the reaction in various parts of the country to things happening in Ottawa. Here again, of course, there can be no competition with members of parliament.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, he said at one point that the regional desks would be used to follow up information coming from, among others, members of parliament. Does this suggest that members of parliament, whether on the government side of the house or on this side, will have less access to the Prime Minister? I
Inquiries of the Ministry am thinking particularly of members on the opposite side of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the right hon. gentleman whether the people who are to evaluate the government's performance-people outside parliament, I gather-are to be paid for their functions, or is this a purely voluntary effort?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a voluntary effort, Mr. Speaker. I could say that as far as the desks are concerned, members of parliament who want to see me, and do not have time to wait for the appointment I could give them, would be invited to see regional desk officers.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the information that is going to be provided to the Prime Minister will be public. Will other members of parliament have it available to them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that the Conservative party would be able to find a few volunteers of its own.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in the same connection. Did the Prime Minister receive permission through the usual, proper channels to locate his aides and other ministerial aides in the diplomatic gallery, taking notes all week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is brought on by the reference to the Conservatives seeking volunteers. I ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware of the paid advertisements in the local papers last week in which the hon. member for Ontario, a member of the Liberal party, was seeking volunteers.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
3070	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry
In view of the importance of the coming federal-provincial conference, has the right hon. Prime Minister or the government reached a decision on allowing the representatives of the parties of the opposition to attend the conference as observers?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had the opportunity of mentioning last week that we intended to allot a certain number of seats to the parties of the opposition who could delegate observers to the conference. Obviously, this is what I suggested to the provinces, and I have every reason to believe that this sort of arrangement would be agreeable to everyone.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. When may we expect the government to present the white paper on costs and prices about which the Prime Minister was asked questions in the house on October 18? The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in the debate in this house on November 8, said it would be forthcoming shortly. I wonder whether the Prime Minister can advise when it will be available.


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having told me he would ask this question. I looked up the speech by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and found it to be a remarkably good speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He did say that the white paper would be available later this year. It is still our expectation that it will be available before the end of this year.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister advise how much later?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, there are about five weeks left.
IMr. Caouette.]
DEBATES	November 22, 1968



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister tell the house about the recruiting campaign going on in France under the leadership of Mr. Jules Nadon, an official of the federal Public Service Commission and former member of Treasury Board, to bring French citizens into the Canadian public service? What is the reason for this action? Are there not sufficient people in Canada to fill the positions? And is it a fact, as reported, that the reason for this is that the government wants to learn the French government's administrative techniques and experience?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This matter may be of importance but I doubt whether it is the type of question which should qualify for the question period. I think it ought to be placed on the order paper.


John George Diefenbaker: We must wait for weeks for answers there. It may be embarrassing.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
Since the winter works program has been discontinued, would the hon. minister, in order to fight unemployment, allow additional loans above the 6,000 already granted to contractors for the building of houses next winter?


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


Gérard Laprise: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English']



REQUEST FOR POLICY STATEMENT RESPECTING INDIAN HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he or the Minister of Indian
November 22, 1988

Affairs and Northern Development make a statement about the liberalization of government policy with respect to the deplorable situation that now exists in relation to native Indian housing?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the question. If it is related to housing and has to do with the department of Indian affairs, I will ask the two minister who are concerned with housing and with Indian affairs about the matter. I shall consult them.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is scheduled this week end to attend the annual convention of the native brotherhood of British Columbia being held in Victoria, there is an element of urgency in this, and I thought it might be appropriate for such a statement to be made. I wonder if there might be arrangements for such a statement to be made in conjunction with the speech the minister is to make there.



REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL QUOTA ON DURUM WHEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, may I direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt. Since the special quota for Durum wheat is to expire in a few days, and since many farmers in western Canada have not yet had an opportunity to deliver their Durum wheat because of a shortage of box cars, is consideration being given to extending the special quota so that all farmers will be treated equitably?


Hon. Oito E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the special quota on Durum will be discontinued effective November 29. The Canadian Wheat Board has given notice of its intention to discontinue the quota on the agreed date. The board believes that, generally, equitable treatment has been given, and because of the very large deliveries which have taken place this year, 15 million bushels as against 10 million bushels for a similar period last year, it will not be possible to extend the quota. Of course Durum may be delivered on the regular quota after that date.
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY



INQUIRY AS TO REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since by now he has probably studied the report of the royal commission on security, could he advise us when that part of the report it is considered prudent for the public to know about may be made available to the house?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, officials are now in the process of preparing that part of the report which could be tabled in the house. It has not yet been completed.



COMMUNICATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ed Schreyer (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister arises out of yesterday's report that France, Germany and the province of Quebec are to enter into a tripartite arrangement to establish an international communications space satellite. Is this arrangement to be covered by the government of Canada's diplomatic aegis, or will it be carried out some other way?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, may I answer that question. There is no basis to such a report.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I have a supplementary question for the Postmaster General. I should like the Postmaster General to indicate whether it is not a fact that the province of Quebec is building a ground receiving station for reception from the proposed space communication satellite.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question suggests its own answer, is argumentative, and cannot be asked in this way.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General who seems more modest than his colleagues about the distribution of his speeches. Would he be good enough to make available to members of this house the address he gave on the communications
3072	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry department, of which he has been ordained the head.


Eric William Kierans: Yes, I would be pleased to do that.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a question for the Prime Minister. A few weeks ago the Prime Minister met with the government of Prince Edward Island with regard to the construction of the Northumberland strait crossing. I believe at that time he assured the premier a definite answer would be available around the middle of this month. Since an answer is not available as yet, by the 22nd, can the Prime Minister indicate the reason for the delay on this important project?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: It is a very difficult decision to make, Mr. Speaker.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I wonder if the Prime Minister can give the house any definite indication as to when we may receive a definite answer on this project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes. We will have overcome the difficult very soon.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: How soon?



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Acting Minister of Finance if he is able to tell the house whether Canada has been requested to make any commitment relating to the support of the franc, "libre" or otherwise, and if so what that commitment is. I understand this is the day when the Minister of Finance should be in the house. Since he is not here, I assume it is proper to ask the Acting Minister of Finance today.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, since the discussions are still continuing it would be inappropriate for me to give a definitive answer now.


An hon. Member:: You don't know.

DEBATES	November 22, 1968


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waierloo):: I have a supplementary question. In view of the report that a $2 billion fund in non-franc currency is being set up, can the minister tell the house whether Canada has agreed to contribute to this fund?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the answer is the same.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Is the minister aware of the lack of hangar space at Winnipeg international airport for private and regional operators, and will the minister look into the possibility of providing some space at the armed forces hangars for these people this winter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have an impression that this is a repetition of a question asked yesterday by the hon. member. The suggestion at that time was that perhaps it might be discussed at the time of adjournment.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Last Friday the Minister of Transport undertook to reply to a question of mine with regard to the rising toll of traffic accidents across Canada, and to indicate what the situation was with regard to the establishment of the long awaited public safety board. I wonder if the minister could reply today.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minisier of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As my hon. friend is aware, the provincial ministers directly concerned with traffic safety met in Regina a few days ago. At that time they agreed they would like to join with the federal government in a program which would involve coordination and co-operation between the provincial and federal governments. It was suggested also that a conference be held which would include participation by federal and provincial ministers, and this is planned for early next year. There will be a number of items on the agenda of that conference, and I intend to ask that one of those items be the
November 22, 19S8

establishment of the advisory board. I understand there is no objection to this, so we should be able to proceed with it almost immediately after that conference early in the new year.


Max Saltsman: I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport could tell the house if at that conference a discussion will take place on changes in the methods of assisting municipalities in connection with railway grade crossings.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would not like to speculate on all the items that might be on the agenda. However, this one relates to a highly important aspect of highway safety, so I would expect the answer would be in the affirmative.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Roy-al: I have a question for the Prime Minister. I understood the government was investigating the possibility of publishing the research papers prepared for the royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. Would the Prime Minister find out if these documents are available, since possibly they would assist us in a consideration of the official languages bill?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I will inquire. I know the commission did intend to publish certain of their research papers, and of course the decision as to which to publish, and when, is in their hands.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: May I ask
a supplementary question. Some weeks ago the Prime Minister and I had a discussion in the house about the next volume of the report of this commission which was just about to be published. Since there is still no sign of that volume, I wonder how soon all the report is going to be available, since much of it has already appeared in the public press.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The answer is that it is the commission that will decide when to publish. My understanding again is that when this pirated version appeared, the report itself was not quite complete and it would be some time before it was published.
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Mr. Rene Maile (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us whether the government inquiry regarding the premature publication of the third volume of the Gagnon-Dunton commission report has been made, and what are the results?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is not the premature publication of the third volume of the report; rather, if I am not mistaken, it is about research made in a particular field for the publication of that report. I will wait until I receive a report on that investigation from the Solicitor General who, as hon. members know, is not in Ottawa this week.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister intends to give us a daily report on the whereabouts of the Solicitor General.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with regard to the publication of the report of the B and B commission. I wonder whether the Prime Minister will assure hon. members of this house that that publication will be made available prior to the federal-provincial conference in December.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that assurance. I do not control the commission. However, they will have been made aware of the representations of the hon. member.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question which I ask because of some confusion that has been created as a result of the exchanges. Is the Prime Minister suggesting that the report in respect to which the Renaud research was published in La Presse will be the next volume, or is it not true that the next volume will deal with education and that the other report is the third volume that is due quite a number of months hence?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is also my understanding. I was just trying to reformulate the question which was about the third volume, and I was indicating to the hon.

November 22, 1988
Inquiries of the Ministry member that he was probably referring to the research piece, not to the volume itself.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
A few days ago the Prime Minister stated that he would hold an investigation to find out where the leaks occurred with regard to the publications of the commission on bilingualism and biculturalism.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of a Canadian Press report that the government of representatives of the federal housing authority were considering a suggestion that the limit on mortgages be raised from $18,000 to $35,000. I ask if this is so, how will it cure the problem of those in the $6,000 to $9,000 income range?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister might answer the first part of the question. I would think the second part of the question would be unacceptable.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In answer to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I can only say that every conceivable device is being considered to try to extend to Canadians the maximum range of choice in housing and the maximum financial arrangements to permit them to rent or buy the homes of their choice.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I have a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister is also going to give cons.deration to increasing the loan limit for refurbishing a home?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That was covered in my first answer, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: On October 30 the house passed an order for the production of papers which I had requested concerning the British Columbia Hydro rail route from the Matsqui area to Roberts Bank. I wonder if the President of the Privy Council might look into the

reason for the delay in these documents becoming available.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: I would be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AID


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether he has received or studied a report which would have been supplied by the two Canadian members who went on a visit to Biafra and Nigeria and whether it is his intention to implement their recommendations?


Right Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet met those parliamentarians; I hope to meet them soon.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Si. George's-St. Barbe):: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the emergency which has arisen in northwest Newfoundland as a result of the closing of a fish plant, thus causing unemployment for some 500 people, would somebody on that side do some thinking to see if we can find a solution to this emergency?



SASKATCHEWAN-REPORTED INADEQUATE DRYING FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence and the absence of both the first and second acting ministers I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Since the Saskatchewan Federation of Agriculture has taken serious issue with statements made by the minister in this house
November 22, 1968

regarding the adequacy of grain drying facilities to meet the serious situation in Saskatchewan, and in view of reports by the Saskatchewan department of agriculture about the complete inadequacy of these facilities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot make a speech; he should ask a question.


John Stratford Burton: -would the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Agriculture to give further consideration to this serious problem in order to determine what measures should be taken to deal with it?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the assurances given to the Public Service Alliance of Canada that there would be no change in the status of surplus railway mail clerks until the matter could be settled through collective bargaining, could the minister advise the house why the Post Office Department has begun a reclassification of all surplus railway mail clerks without any prior consultation whatsoever with the bargaining agent for the respective employees?


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


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I suggest very respectfully that these mail clerks are being reclassified, and that the matter is of utmost urgency to them and should be raised today, not at some later date. I would ask that the minister be allowed to answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Temiscamingue.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Transport.
The Police Association of the Atlantic area has been informed by the Canadian National Railways of the lay-off recently of about 20
Inquiries of the Ministry constables. Is the minister aware of the situation and can he tell us what steps his department intends to take so as to avoid the dismissal of these constables in the Atlantic area?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I have asked the Canadian National Railways for a full report in respect to it.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, since he has been attending so dutifully today and has not had a question directed his way. Could the minister inform the house whether he is considering a bill similar to the one recently passed in the United States to protect television viewers against radiation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether this is a matter of such urgency that it should be asked at this time. It seems to me that the hon. member should put the question on the order paper.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting Minister of National Defence. The minister indicated in mid-October that a statement would be made on the armed forces salary scale about mid-November. I should like to ask the acting minister when the statement will be made.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that an announcement will be made on Monday.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister make a statement this afternoon when the
November 22, 1968

Supply-Inquiries of the Ministry transport estimates are brought before the house in regard to the Digby-Saint John ferry, other than saying that he would assure his hon. friends-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has brought the attention of the house to the fact that the transport estimates will be under consideration later today, and this question should be asked then.



FARM MACHINERY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that should be addressed either to the Minister of Agriculture or to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce but in their absence, and since farmers are consumers in Canada, I will address the question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. May I ask the minister whether his attention has been drawn to a news report appearing in today's paper which indicates that seven farmers went to England and purchased tractors, brought them back to Canada and realized a saving of $20,000?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether this question is in order. The hon. member is asking whether this report has been noted by the minister, and that in itself does not justify the question. If the hon. member sees an urgency to the matter which is not apparent to the Chair, then he can give me notice that he wishes to discuss it at the ten o'clock adjournment.


William Marvin Howe: With respect, Mr. Speaker, a survey is, after all, being conducted by the Department of Agriculture of the cost of agricultural machinery in Canada. I think this is a very urgent question at this time, and a news report about it has been published.


Mr. Speaker:: The purpose of the standing order is to provide that where there is disagreement as to urgency and an hon. member feels that the matter is urgent, the question can be discussed at the time of adjournment.


William Marvin Howe: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question is not in order, so there can be no supplementary.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of his statement yesterday that the Solicitor General had been tracked down, could the Prime Minister give us a progress report on the activities of the Solicitor General?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question period has expired.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Faulkner in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $8,292,200.
The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply, revised estimates of the Department of Transport for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1969. Vote No. 1 will be found at page 496 of the blue book; the details thereof are listed at page 501. Shall the item carry?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, in presenting the estimates of the Department of Transport I feel it might be helpful and useful to take a few minutes of the committees' time to give hon. members some general explanations in respect of the more important areas of activity in the Department of Transport, particularly in relation to where substantial expenditures are necessary. I propose to deal with the main estimates of the department first and to confine my remarks to them.
It will be of interest to note that the form of the estimates for 1968-69 is somewhat different from that of previous years. One of the recommendations of the Glassco commission, as approved by the government, was that:
-where appropriate (i.e. where revenues are sufficiently large in proportion to the total vote to justify it) revenues be offset against related expenditures in individual votes: in such cases votes to be shown in the estimates and controlled on a net basis.
[DOT] (11:50 a.m.)
After serious consideration of the many factors involved, not the least of which was that in 1968-69 we expect departmental revenues to exceed $48 million, we decided that we had reached the point where we should give effect to this recommendation. You will note, therefore, that votes 5 and 30 which provide funds for administration, operation and maintenance of marine services and of
November 22, 1963

air services, respectively, have this year been treated on the basis suggested by the Glassco commission, i.e., with the applicable revenues deducted from the gross total of expenditures to arrive at the net amount to be voted. We believe this manner of treatment of departmental revenues will be more informative.
In the year when such a change is first made it results in showing amounts which are not strictly comparable with those of the previous year when voting was on a gross basis, but this is only a one-time effect and will not be a factor in future years. We considered the possibility of showing the revenues of the previous year in the new manner in order to provide an exact basis of comparison, but this was found to be impossible because the previous year's figures would then no longer have indicated the amount actually voted by parliament. Nevertheless, if reference is made to the details of the estimates it will be found that there are listed, by sub-votes, both the revenues and expenditures of the past three years.
In dealing first with the marine services of the department I would like to report that the Canadian Coast Guard is involved in the annual sealift of northern supplies for government posts and installations in the Arctic. The tonnage involved is approximately 100,000, of which something less than half is for military installations. It is departmental policy that as far as possible supplies for the Arctic shall be carried by chartered ships with coast guard support confined to icebreaker and escort, and the provision of specialized landing craft which are not commercially available. An increase in estimated expenditure over last year is attributed to increases in charter rates, costs of stevedoring services and ship operating costs generally as well as some increase in the scope of our icebreaker activities.
Cost of operating coast guard lights and buoy tenders have risen some $74,000, due entirely to increases in wages, materials and supplies. The increase has been modified slightly by the substitution of one ship, the C.C.G.S. Bernier for two old vessels in the Quebec agency.
The Canadian organization for marine search and rescue is based on the use of all available resources under the general co-ordination of the Department of National Defence. In practice, the Department of Transport has a major role in marine search and rescue, as it has the largest fleet of government vessels, through its responsibility for the provision of
Supply-Transport
specialized craft and through the use of the D.O.T. communications network. An increase in estimates for this activity of some $200,000 is accounted for in part by an increasing commitment as a result of the larger number of small pleasure craft in our waters and greater public demand for this service as well as the first steps toward the acquisition of new craft under a program announced earlier.
The increase also reflects the acquisition of a hovercraft for operation on the west coast.
The department operates a service for the support of shipping in the gulf and lower St. Lawrence in winter consisting of aerial ice reconnaissance for the acquisition of information about ice conditions and an ice office in Halifax for interpretation and forecasting operated by the meteorological branch, ice information offices for the provision of information and advice to ships, and icebreaking. In addition, icebreaking is done in coastal fishing harbours, in support of some ferries and for flood control in the St. Lawrence between Quebec and Montreal. In general it is the department's policy to break ice only in the main shipping routes and approach channels, the responsibility for basins and water alongside wharves being left to their owners, except in the case of government-owned wharves.
Cost increases are partly due to general increases in the cost of ship operations, and partly the result of a growing demand for icebreaking brought about by the realization that the movement of commerce through our ice-congested waters in winter is perfectly practicable with the use of suitably strengthened merchant ships. The increase in winter trade in our waters has been spectacular in the last few years, and although it has slowed down it is expected that the long term trend will be toward continued increase.
Canada has responsibility by international agreement for the operation of an ocean weather station in the Pacific and this is undertaken by two coast guard vessels. The estimate for the operation of these craft shows a reduction from last year which was a transitional period between the use of old vessels and their replacement by the larger modern vessels Vancouver and Quadra. During the period of transition it was necessary to keep all four ships in operation while the new ones did trials and work-ups, but this period is over and the older ships are being disposed of.
The department maintains a college for the training of junior officers for the Canadian

November 22. 1968
Supply-Transport
Coast Guard. The college is also to be used for refresher and specialist training of older officers. The college now inhabits converted temporary wartime buildings formerly occupied by the navy at Point Edward, Nova Scotia, and the estimates include a provision toward the acquisition of a permanent establishment.
Improvements recently introduced in the marine traffic control system in the St. Lawrence river below Montreal will be assessed during the coming year and, except for some improvement in the radio communication facilities, 1969 will be considered as a period of consolidation for both equipment and procedures. Traffic control, with its attendant information services, will continue to extend gradually westward during the coming years in accordance with previously announced plans for an integrated system throughout the St. Lawrence waterway. Improvements in up to date methods of data collection, transmission, display and dissemination will continue in marine information services.
The widening of the ship channel through lake St. Peter began in 1969. When this project is completed, the minimum width of the channel will be 800 ft. throughout. Widening of this 20-mile long channel will take three years to complete at a cost of $7,500,000. The allotment for 1968-69 is $2 million. A project is at present under way to improve the north channel below Quebec. This is the only remaining section of the St. Lawrence ship channel not dredged to the statutory depth of 35 feet. This north channel work replaces the proposed plan to deepen the south channel in the same region to the same depth of 35 feet. Representations by the Pilots' Association, and a subsequently higher estimated cost to bring the south channel to prescribed standards, were instrumental in postponing the south channel project indefinitely. An amount of $2,139,000 has been allotted to the dredging below Quebec for 1968-69.
In the interest of safe navigation, work continued in 1968 on the removal of a midriver shoal at Trois-Rivieres. The 1968-69 allotment is $2,165,000.
Experimental ice booms and islands were placed in lake St. Peter in the fall of 1967 to develop a means to prevent ice from drifting into the main channel. The success of this experiment to date warrants its continuation in 1968-69. The allotment for 1968 is $525,000, to cover the cost of improving the ice boom system and artificial ice retention islands.

An amount of $300,000 is provided for the construction of a pilot boat to be based at Prince Rupert where it will replace a wooden boat which has come to the end of its useful life after 35 years.
[DOT] (12 noon)
Funds are provided to establish a maritime safety council, which would be a consultative body representative of government, management and labour in the commercial shipping industry, for the purpose of advising the Department of Transport on all matters of safety relating to commercial ships and vessels, at an estimated annual cost of $50,000.
Funds are also provided for the construction of 44-foot shore-based lifeboats, various barges and other small craft; also funds to cover research and development toward the construction of better and more efficient vessels to serve the Canadian public.
To increase safety on the St. Lawrence river and extend the navigation season $1.2 million has been provided for the construction of new offshore piers that will provide navigational lights.
Navigation throughout Canada will benefit from the construction of lighthouse buildings, light towers, fog alarms and fog alarm buildings which, together with the cost of equipment required to service these aids, represent an expenditure of approximately $4.5 million.
There are several items of significance in the air services. They include in the airports activity the takeover from municipal governments of the operation of airports at Saint John, New Brunswick, and House Harbour, Quebec, the complete operation of Goose airport for a full year for the first time, and the opening and operation of the new air terminal at Vancouver international airport which commenced operation in September. In the control of civil aviation funds have been provided for a new flight safety division which will permit a more vigorous compaign on air safety practices and accident prevention.
In air traffic control an accelerated program continues for recruiting and training controllers. Funds for five additional control towers are provided in the estimates and it is planned to provide each air services region with one mobile control tower for temporary control services as the need arises.
Funds for the telecommunications bureau and administration bureau, formerly included in air services accounts, now appear under
November 22, 1968

the Post Office Department in the main estimates and this results in a subsequent net reduction of $3,431,000 in air services expenditures.
In meteorological services additional funds are budgeted for new weather observing programs to be undertaken by contract ($200,000), increasing the number of ice reconnaissance flights ($140,000), and an extended program for fellowships and contracts with universities for research studies ($90,000). The estimates also include necessary funds for the transfer of the annual airlift of supplies for Arctic weather stations from the Canadian armed forces to commercial carriers at a cost of $100,000.
Funds are included for the acquisition and construction of complex facilities to serve the rapid development of air transport. Some of the major projects include the construction of a new area control centre at Vancouver international airport ($1,300,000), and the construction of a low level bridge across the middle arm of the Fraser river to improve access to that airport ($825,000), the start of construction on a second air terminal at Toronto international airport and a substantial program to improve existing terminals at Montreal and Calgary.
Special centre line and touchdown lighting, scheduled for major main line airports over the next five years, will be installed at Montreal and Vancouver international airports, costing $300,000 for each installation. These lighting systems will improve the frequency and safety of landings in very poor weather conditions. Provision is made for a start in the development of a main line airport to serve the Churchill Falls development, for a start in the redevelopment of the airport at Matane, Quebec, and for starts of runway improvements at Fort Chimo, Schefferville, Red Lake, Inuvik and Norman Wells. Experience has shown that work of this nature cannot be completed in one construction season. An amount of $600,000 is provided to acquire land for the development of a satellite airport at Calgary for light aircraft in order to prevent the volume of traffic exceeding the capacity of the main airport serving that city. An amount of $300,000 is also provided for further development of the satellite airport serving Winnipeg.
A number of special projects are planned to advance our techniques in the control of air traffic by the use of radar. These include a secondary surveillance radar system which will greatly enhance the amount of flight
Supply-Transport
information which can be sent electronically from the aircraft to the ground controller ($1,450,000); new techniques will be developed in the display of radar data and its conversion to electronic signals which will be adaptable to computer use ($350,000); and the continuation of improvement of radar displays so that they can be monitored under daylight conditions ($474,000). A program of improving instrument landing systems at major airports to meet new international standards is entering the third year of an eight year $5 million program.
With respect to railway and ferry services the introduction of the new rail car ferry Frederick Carter for the major portion of 1968 will result in a decrease from past years' cost on the Cabot strait ferry service. A new ferry service running between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Argentia, Newfoundland, commenced operation on June 14, 1968.
The construction program for terminals and vessels on ferry services has decreased considerably as a result of completion of the main facilities and vessels. The federal government has now taken over direct responsibility for provident fund deficits.
The proposed new road and motor vehicle safety office to be established in the department has been delayed somewhat because of the over-all government financial restrictions. It is expected, however, that the staff for this safety office will be recruited shortly and the office will become operational by the end of 1968. Following formation of the safety office a public advisory board will also be created.
In addition to the estimates of the Department of Transport I am submitting those of the National Harbours Board. The capital expenditures proposed for this agency aggregate $29,172,000, of which $5,022,000 will be financed from its replacement and other funds.
The major items in the construction program to be undertaken by the board contemplate expenditures of $11,394,000 for wharf construction and acquisition, $2,546,000 for shed construction and renovation, $2,390,000 for elevator construction and renovation, $5,-
800,000	for property acquisitions and site development, $2,235,000 for provision of facilities for container handling, $722,000 for renovation and construction of buildings, $304,000 for paving harbour properties, $340,000 for harbour railway extensions, $155,000 for patrol and work vessels, $2,000,000 for St. Charles river project, Quebec-construction of retaining walls, $425,000 for underground

November 22, 1988
Supply-Transport
services, sewer installation and replacement of electric sub-station, and $225,000 for replacement of electrical equipment-grain elevator system.
If I may I would now like to refer to the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. As of November 14, 1968, bulk cargoes were up by 8 per cent on the Montreal-Lake Ontario section and by 7 per cent on the Welland section, compared with the same period in 1967. General cargoes increased by 32 per cent on the Montreal-Lake Ontario section and by 40 per cent on the Welland section, compared with the same period last year. Total traffic is 11.6 per cent more on the Montreal-Lake Ontario section and 10.5 per cent more on the Welland than during the same period in 1967. The increase in bulk cargoes took place notwithstanding the seaway strike and a decreased flow of grain from the lakehead. The increase in general cargoes is due mainly to a substantial increase in the movement of manufactured iron and steel.
The 1967 navigation season marked the first full year of operation of the new traffic control centre on the Welland canal. This traffic control system, which had become operational in the summer of 1966, was expanded during the non-navigation season of 1966-67 to include the lock and harbour areas of the canal. The procedure, which includes the use of closed circuit television and telemetry, has improved the scheduling of vessels through the canal and has resulted in substantial reductions in lock cycle and round trip transit times.
The techniques and experience gained on the Welland are being applied gradually in the eastern region, with certain refinements. The first step in this project was the installation of new traffic lights and a surveillance system at the Beauharnois lock, as well as modernization of the Beauharnois traffic control centre. This became fully operational in 1968.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Work continued in 1967 and early 1968 at the Cote Ste. Catherine and St. Lambert locks to provide a better control of icing conditions during the critical closing and opening periods of the seaway each year. These works include ice diversion channels and ice flushing culverts at both locks and an enlargement of the regulating works at the Cote Ste. Catherine lock.
The seaway authority announced in March of this year that the Lachine and Cornwall

canals would be closed to navigation permanently at the end of the 1968 season. These shallow draft canals, once important links in the old St. Lawrence canals system, have become increasingly uneconomic in the face of rising operating costs and diminishing traffic resulting from the opening of the seaway in 1959. The 11 million tons carried by these canals in 1958 had decreased by 1967 to
338,000	tons on the Lachine and 100,000 on the Cornwall.
Although the closing will not necessarily affect the water supply and drainage facilities of local industries, the maintenance of such conveniences will, of course, become much more costly. Accordingly, the availability of a cheaper alternative is under study, and the matter will be reverted to when the study and consultations with interested municipalities and industries have been completed. Work continued in 1968 on the construction of a new channel to bypass the city of Welland. Settlement has been reached with about 83.6 per cent of the owners of the 4,000 acres of land expropriated for this purpose. Clearing of the right of way is essentially complete. Five major contracts have been awarded for about 5.93 miles of the total 8.3 miles of excavation required. By the end of 1968 contracts covering channel excavations for approximately 7.28 miles out of the over-all total length of 8.3 miles of the Welland by pass should be under active construction. Approximately 23 per cent of the required total channel excavation for the Welland bypass was completed as of August 31, 1968.
The year 1968-69 represents the first full year of operation of the Canadian Transport Commission which came into being pursuant to the proclamation of part I of the National Transportation Act last fall. While still undergoing the process of organization, the regulatory aspects of the commission's operations, to the extent authorized by the legislation thus far proclaimed, are proceeding in a normal manner and represent to a large extent a continuation of those functions carried out by the commission's predecessor agencies.
In keeping with the government's policy of maintaining the highest possible level of commercial air services in regional areas, the air transport committee has initiated an increasing number of examinations of regional requirements during the past year. For example, public hearings of this nature were undertaken in the maritimes, Manitoba, Yellowknife and Frobisher Bay and resulting decisions have been issued or are under current examination.
November 22, 1968



The railway transport committee has received and is dealing with some 160 applications relating to the abandonment of non-guaranteed branch lines, discontinuance of railway passenger train service, the removal of railway station agents and caretakers, and applications for the inauguration of master agency and customer service plans of the major railways. In addition the committee has recently conducted a public hearing designed to produce uniform costing procedures to be used by Canadian railways which will ensure that at all times the commission and the railways will use proper costing methods and that cost figures submitted by the railways or determined by the commission will be correct and acceptable for the purposes of the Railway Act.
During the past year over $26 million has been committed from the railway grade crossing fund to provide assistance to municipalities in meeting the costs of constructing or reconstructing 67 railway-highway grade separations, 11 diversions, and the installation or improvement of automatic protection facilities at 544 railway-highway crossings. In accordance with the provisions of the National Transportation Act relating to the gradual reduction in subsidies to railway and transportation companies, it will be noted that a decrease of $14 million has been made in the provision of the estimates now before the house, which reflects the first of the annual decreases established.
In the early part of the year the water transport committee completed the public hearings stage of the inquiry into the ownership and registration of ships in Canada. The committee's report is in the process of preparation and is expected to be completed shortly.
In accordance with the provisions of the National Transportation Act a research division has been created within the commission. In addition, an advisory council on research, comprising informed Canadians outside of government, has been established to assist in developing a research program and assigning priorities within it. The forecasting of transportation supply and demand and the undertaking of broad cost-benefit studies in the transportation area will be central to the research program.
The estimates for the Canadian Transport Commission, the National Harbours Board and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority have been referred to the parliamentary committee on transportation, while the estimates of the
Supply-Transport
department are being dealt with before the house. Indeed, I understand that the parliamentary committee is meeting today on these subjects. For that reason, in response to any questions from hon. members I propose to limit my comments or answers to matters concerning the department only, since questions relating to these other agencies should be raised and can be answered in the parliamentary committee where special witnesses are available for this purpose.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order, please. At this time I should like to make a suggestion to the committee. Further to the concluding remarks of the minister, the committee will notice that items 45 and L 115 dealing with the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation are part of the estimates of the Minister of Transport. If there is general agreement, I believe it possibly would be in the interests of orderly procedure if we were to avoid a discussion of these items because they are before a standing committee. We might concentrate in committee of supply on the transportation items alone.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I think we are in agreement with the exclusion of the housing item from the discussion, but in so far as these other matters are concerned which are before committees I feel we are entitled to mention them where policy is concerned particularly when the minister, so far as I know, has made no full statement before the committee. The first proviso, however, is valid so far as we are concerned.
May I say we are very pleased to have the comprehensive report the minister has given us. I believe it is one of the first concrete moves he has made to show he is interested in transport. Once or twice I almost detected a faint glimmer of pride when he was outlining the new and extensive activities of his department. The hon. member for Oxford is our chief spokesman in matters of transport and he has dealt extensively with this subject in the committee and in the house from time to time. I am really pinchhitting for him. If the minister understands anything about the navy he will realize that I have been taken out of mothballs to say something on these estimates today.
I recall that when the former minister, Mr. Pickersgill, left he made this announcement which has been mentioned in the house previously: "I am leaving the department. It is in great shape. My job has been completed. I have finished the great work in transport." Yet simultaneously in another interview the

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport
present minister said: "I consider this the greatest challenge of my life; the department is in such a mess." Of course, in thinking the minister might be right one is tempted to ask the rhetorical question, what kind of a mess is the Canadian Transport Commission now in with Mr. Pickersgill as its new head? I do not know who is right in this argument, but I do suggest that the department is a tremendously complex one which affects all walks of life in Canada.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)
I pay tribute to the minister in that I think he has the energy and capacity to tackle the problems facing transport. He did so in respect of national defence. I do not agree with what he did and I said so in the house, but if he puts his mind to these problems I think he has the capacity and has demonstrated that he can use it. I hasten to place on the record that transport has been sadly neglected while the minister has been galavanting about the country on his housing foray which has so far shown little success. We recognized long before the government that housing has a definite priority, but I wonder what is happening to his giant department while the minister is piloting this inquiry.
I cannot help but use nautical expressions when I think of the minister wiping out the navy. He seems to want to assume command and be the pilot. This is about the only nautical action in connection with transport that the minister has taken since assuming his present portfolio. In any event Mr. Pickersgill has left-I will deal with him later-and the present minister is at the helm. But all we have, as has been stated many times in this house, is a lot of unfinished business.
First of all, I think of the various reports and surveys which have been coming up so fast in this department. Many of them have been requested by members on this side of the house, but where are these reports? I have not had the chance to deal extensively with them and I do not know the state of them. This is one of the reasons we want the minister in the house, so he can deal with the problems of transport on a day to day basis and give us up to date information. We do not know, for example, the state of affairs concerning the marine branch of the minister's department. What is happening in respect of the Canada Shipping Act? We know something is to be done in this regard but we have not heard anything about it.

The pilotage report was completed, and I agree with many of its recommendations, but how are these being treated by the department? The minister has not said anything in that regard. We also have the National Harbours Board report. I understand the minister fell asleep over the week end while reading it. We do not know the position with respect to that report. The merchant navy has been under study on three occasions in recent years that I can remember. Promises were made during the election campaign in this regard. They have been referred to in the house, but what has the government done? It is going to conduct another study, but the difference is that this one is to be in depth. I hope we do not have to go through all these other studies and start new ones in depth.
The Canadian shipbuilding industry is floundering. What is the government doing in this regard? What is taking place in respect of containers? One of the officers of the transport commission said the other day that within a few weeks another research study would be conducted on containerization. We have many problems in respect of ferries, at least in the maritimes, and they are still up in the air.
I have only dealt thus far with the marine situation, but what is happening in respect of air transport? The minister told us about the many new plans the department has in so far as air transport is concerned. I should like the minister when he replies to tell us what the position is of the Wheatcroft report, the Robinson report and the Thompson report. Those are three I can think of right now without looking anything up, and there may be many more. What is happening to the new plans for airport development to accommodate the new jumbo jets?
We must not forget the rail transportation system. There have been all kinds of promises in this regard, and these promises have been indelibly recorded in this house. The former minister stood up when we were passing the National Transportation Act and said that the government would deal with the problems facing the maritimes if the house would only let that bill go through. We did so but these problems have not even been reported on. How about the changes in the Maritime Freight Rates Act? What is happening in respect of l.c.l. business? There have been so many reports on this subject I cannot keep them straight. They have been passed on to the provincial governments which have in turn passed them back to Ottawa. We must
November 22, 1968



pay attention to those regions of Canada which were left out when the new National Transportation Act was passed.
Many other matters dealing with different facets of transportation have also been postponed. I understand that the entire responsibility in respect of satellites has been turned over to the new Postmaster General. Perhaps that is a good thing. However, I do not know where these reports are. I hope the new Minister of Transport received them when he took over. I have referred to about ten of them. Are they lying around in the minister's office or did Mr. Pickersgill take them with him? Perhaps they are in the reading room of the Rideau Club. I want to know where these reports are and I want an up to date review. Let us know what is happening.
This brings up the question of who is really the boss in respect of transportation in this country. Is it the minister or is it the new chief dictator of the Canadian Transport Commission? One of them is relaxing and holding cabinet meetings-small ones, I must admit-at the Rideau Club each day. On the other hand we have an itinerant traveller in the person of the minister himself running about the country. Who is running this department and who is the real boss? Is it pious Paul or sailor Jack who is running this *department?


Mr. Harries:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Miller Bell: Yes.


Hu Harries: My friend has talked about the itinerant minister. He is referring to one of the most senior cabinet members in the government. Does he not think that part of the duties of the Minister of Transport is to travel about and find out what is going on in this country so that he can assess these problems and their effects on this nation? Does he not think this requires a diligent inquiry?


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister is travelling
throughout the country but we would prefer him to be in the house on the days he is supposed to be here, which are few enough as it is. We also think he should pay some attention to transportation as well as to housing. Let me take this opportunity to say something about the outrageous attendance roster for ministers which has been initiated. I see that the understudy to the Minister of Transport is in the house and I am glad he is here. I think I am paying him the biggest compliment I can by suggesting he is the type of man who
Supply-Transport
would be in the house every day of the week if only the Prime Minister would allow him to be here on those days he is not supposed to be here.
I have referred to the czar of the transport commission who holds meetings at the Rideau Club. I think he feels the weight of his responsibilities a little and that on many occasions when he holds these meetings and begins to stick out his chest he feels he is really still the minister of transport. Mr. Pickersgill was discovered at a meeting in Halifax on November 9. I know there has been some denial in the press in this regard, but I suggest there must have been something going on in view of the fact the minister said, as reported in a Halifax newspaper:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill said in Halifax during the week end he has confidential information to back up the statement.
The statement was that Halifax will be the likely choice as the eastern container terminal. I am not quarrelling in respect of Halifax v. Saint John, as we are friendly rivals in this regard, but I do not think the head of the transport commission has any business making statements which would indicate that he prefers Halifax over Saint John.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would you settle for Halifax, then?
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)


Thomas Miller Bell: This is what we are up against when we talk of transportation. I hope the minister will continue to stand up on his own two feet and be proud of his department. I hope he will accept all his responsibilities. Let us have full cabinet meetings to decide on solutions to transportation problems. Never mind these little meetings in the Rideau Club over lunch.
Another matter I want to refer to concerns the National Harbours Board. Its estimates are being dealt with in committee, as the minister has said. I only want to reiterate what I said the other day, that the National Harbours Board has in my opinion been very fair in the past in its treatment of all Canadian ports that come under its jurisdiction. I have no quarrel with the way it has acted in this regard. Many of us feel the National Harbours Board might have done more, but I do not think there is any allegation that it has given preferential treatment to one port over another.
However, a situation has developed in the eastern Canadian ports which requires that

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport
the National Harbours Board continue to be scrupulously lair with regard to providing facilities or advantages to each of the ports. We dealt with this question yesterday. I simply say that in connection with rail transportation rates in and out of these ports, and also the most important matter of wharfage costs, there should not be hidden benefits or advantages to any port. We have every confidence in the officials of the board but we do not want them to say that things are all right and find they are negotiating on an unfair basis with respect to all ports. They will be judged afterwards if it is found that in any agreement there has been any question of preferential treatment.
I am happy that we are moving into the container field. The first step, of course, is the provision of container facilities, but some day we will move into the land bridge concept on which there is some disagreement, according to Mr. Cope of the transport commission. I hope Canada will move forward and take its justifiable geographic position as the centre of the giant bulk transportation system which experts feel will spread throughout the world.
The other matter I want to mention concerns an incident involving myself and two or three other members when we were returning to Ottawa from the November 11 ceremonies in the maritimes and were stuck at Dorval airport for 21 hours. This was an unbelievable occurrence. The delay was due to a freak storm. I have no quarrel with Air Canada in this regard except that I think they were too optimistic about the possibility of clearing traffic. I feel there was a mistake in judgment, but at least it was an honest one and they were probably trying to save the taxpayers' money.
As I say, we were stuck in the airport for 21 hours. We could not even get to the railway station to use the trains that were evidently still running. All this time we were wondering about the runways being cleared, and nothing was done for a great many hours. The next day, 24 hours later, just the main runway was cleared. I made inquiries about the matter. I want the minister to investigate it because Montreal is trying to be the centre of air transport in Canada and to take the overhaul base from Winnipeg. I wonder what the reason was for the runways at Dorval airport not being cleared. It was put to us unofficially that the reason was that the contract did not begin until November 15 and because it was November 12 there was no equipment at the airport.

If the minister does not believe what I say about this matter he should talk to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who was right there with us. So that hon. members will not think ministers received preferential treatment I point out that it went through my mind, as we were being herded around like peasants, that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has been forgotten in this house and in respect of matters concerning the cabinet ever since the last leadership convention, and he was just as forgotten as the rest of us on this occasion. He was forgotten at Dorval airport, because we were all herded around like sheep and had to sit in chairs all night.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I say that we have to get moving in regard to transport. I am pleased to see that the Minister without Portfolio is in the chamber. He has been following these matters. If the Minister of Transport cannot handle the matters that fall within his department and feels that housing is his main interest, I hope that changes will be made because we must have a responsible minister in charge of transportation. He must be here every day reporting on various activities with regard to transportation. Mr. Pickersgill, with all his other faults, did this. Every day he was on his feet in the house saying something, and many times not incorrectly, about transportation matters.
The minister will have the chance to reply to these questions. If he is really making the decisions I want to know what the Canadian Transport Commission is doing. The minute the shipping review was announced the other day the commission hired a group of experts in Toronto to review shipping matters. What is wrong with all the research experts in the department? We know that a former member of this house was appointed a research expert in the department at a salary of $24,000 a year. I am in favour of that. I am glad he got the job because he was a good committee chairman when in this house. I do not think he knows very much about transportation in detail but he will learn. This is all right. He has a good appreciation of over-all transportation problems. But why is it that these high-priced research experts in the department are overlooked every time the commission wants something reviewed? Why do they hire experts from outside the department? Surely there are enough experts within this department to review these questions. I would like to clarify the record at this point, Mr. Chairman. The fact that I am in
November 22, 19B8



favour of the appointment of Mr. Macaluso to this position does not mean that I agree with all the appointments made of defeated, former Liberal members.
The main consideration of the transportation committee at this time should be to finish its trip to the maritimes. This point will be developed by other members as they raise various questions. We are trying in this debate to deal with transportation matters in an orderly way. I do not think the minister appreciates what constitutes an orderly development of transportation matters, but we are trying to demonstrate it to him this afternoon.
The other day I wrote the minister a letter. I hope he received it. I received an acknowledgement of my letter. The trip to the maritimes, which was promised in the house in order to study our problems and come up with a solution, has to take place. That promise must be fulfilled. It is indelibly written and has been approved by the committee. This trip was promised to us when we agreed, though we did not vote for the transportation bill last year, thank goodness, to withhold our substantive criticism of the bill because we knew that something would be coming forward.
I believe that the trip has to be completed by March 23, 1969; otherwise the freeze will lapse and new legislation will be required. The briefs which were prepared at great expense by bodies, organizations and communities in the maritimes-I would say the cost must have been in the order of $250,000-are becoming obsolete. We may be faced with a difficult weather problem but the freeze is hovering over us, with a March deadline, and the committee trip must go forward. It may be that the minister is afraid to send the committee on this trip because the members might get stuck in a snowbank again. The minister will also recall that while we were stuck in a snowbank the government was defeated, but surely there is no worry in that regard now.
My main theme is that the department must get to work on these matters. The minister must be in the house even though the Prime Minister may not want him here. He must come into the house frequently and stand up for the department. In addition, the maritimes trip must go ahead.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, my first
remarks on the estimates of the Department
Supply-Transport
of Transport will have to do with airstrips. In Canada our airstrips are most important. We must make sure that our major air services have feeder lines from smaller centres. Moose Jaw might be taken as a good example of a community with a small airstrip. We have a private airstrip about 40 miles from the major air base at Regina and there is considerable traffic between our area and the Regina air base. Recent consultations with the airport people and Air Canada officials have confirmed the usefulness of co-operative efforts to provide means for transporting people from our area to Regina. Included in our area, of course, are Assiniboia, Weyburn and other centres in that region. I ask the minister to pay close attention to the provision of feeder lines to major airports. I believe our transport committee has some responsibility for this matter.
I now wish to say a word about Transair. One of the directors of the company is reported to have said, according to a press report:
-we had to get people who can represent us in Ottawa and elsewhere. We needed people with political know-how to tell us where to go.
He also said that most Canadian companies strive to have well connected politicians or former politicians on their boards of directors. I am sure that the other directors on the board do not appreciate that statement. I suggest there is no place for this type of obvious political patronage in our scheme of things.
Another point I wish to raise has to do with the construction of railway spur lines or branch lines. The people of Canada expend much money in various forms in building spur lines and branch lines to different localities, as was done in the case of Esterhazy. Hon. members will no doubt be aware that the International Mining Company has mined a considerable amount of potash in the area. At present 35 trucks, each holding 20 tons, deliver potash 24 hours a day to the United States town of Northgate. From there the potash is shipped via a United States railroad to Chicago or exported. The question is, why can the railroad not compete with those trucks? There are facilities at Melville for the cleaning of box cars and hopper cars. Our railroad facilities there are now rendered useless by the competition from trucks and many people in the area are losing their jobs.
Why is it that a trucking company finds it economical to transport potash from Ester-hazy when the railway does not? Is the question of management involved here? Perhaps the minister can say what is happening. I

November 22. 1968
Supply-Transport
know there have been suggestions that the Canadian National cannot compete with the trucks, but I submit that does not add up. It costs a fair amount to operate these trucks to Northgate. Roads must be cleared, repaired and maintained. I cannot see how the competitive position of the railroad has been impaired. Perhaps the minister will look into this matter. It has been suggested that some details cannot be aired in public, but I think the minister ought to investigate the entire situation.
Can the minister please tell us how deeply Canadian National Railways are involved in pipe line experimenting? It is well known that after spur lines have been built to certain areas for the benefit of certain companies in those areas the companies have experimented with pipe lines to determine whether transportation by pipe line is economically feasible. A case in point is the construction of the spur line to the Pan American Petroleum Corporation at Big Stone. The company said that Canadian National would be assured of transporting 75 per cent of the sulphur produced in that area; yet some of that sulphur has been hauled by truck. A further examination disclosed that the company is conducting research into transporting sulphur by pipe line. There is nothing wrong with transporting goods by pipe line. Nevertheless I think we ought to examine what has happened in this instance. Why should the Canadian National be asked to build a spur line and then have to compete with a pipe line? Since public moneys have been expended I think the minister ought to look into the entire matter.
I now wish to say a word about the operation of the Great Slave Lake railway. I hope the minister is not condoning what is happening there at this time since it appears that Canadian National is conducting an experiment with that railway line. It seems to me that the railway is trying to operate trains with unqualified people merely to show that it can be done. I am informed that last July there was a major accident on the line with damage amounting to thousands of dollars. I wonder who cleaned up the wreckage and who paid for the damage? It is also apparent that to date no operating order has been issued for this line. Since the railway has hauled revenue generating traffic for three years, does the minister not think it fair that there should be an operating order issued? Failure to do so in my opinion constitutes sharp practice on the part of Canadian National in this area.

I am also given to understand that a contractor is still in control of the operation of some portion of this railroad. Does the government hand this contractor money to be paid to the employees working on the railroad? If so, I think it is high time for the contractor to take his hand out of the kitty. It is time that this railroad was operated as it ought to be. We have enough qualified personnel in Canada to operate the railroad. It should not be left to an independent contractor to operate. I wish to know whether any commitments regarding the control or operation of the railroad have been made. If so, how deeply is Canadian National Railways committed in this regard?
Although many questions on this matter could be placed on the order paper I wish to ask one question in particular having to do with the operation of the Great Slave Lake railway. I wish to know what employees are now employed by the railroad both in construction work and in operating trains hauling revenue generating loads. Also, is there any effective code of uniform operating rules? If not, why not? The suggestion was made that the Board of Transport Commissioners is responsible for safety on that line. I question this statement. I believe these employees should come directly under the act as it stands today in the same way as all other employees involved in the operations of both Canadian Pacific and Canadian National.
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
I should like to know also exactly how far we can go in our expectations that Canadian National will assume complete responsibility at an early date. If this question were answered sincerely I believe it might also answer some of the other questions because the whole picture would fall into focus. I am wondering just how much supervision of the operation of this road is being conducted by Canadian National and also what supervision is being conducted of the contractor who is being employed in the furtherance of the construction of this line? I understand that an upgrading of the line is being carried out. I think something is lacking somewhere and it is time we knew how far the transport committee and the minister are going to go in assuming responsibility.
Another point I should like to mention relates to the unsatisfactory settlement made with some contractors employed in the construction of a portion of the Great Slave Lake railway. I am sure the minister is well aware of this problem. I will not go into all the
November 22, 1968



details at this time, but I suggest that many contractors have tried unsuccessfully to have a settlement made of their outstanding claims against the Canadian National or the major contractor who was in charge of the construction of this line. We feel it is important that these contractors be given an answer forthwith. I am quite sure the construction of this line was embarked upon in the interests of this area. I am quite sure also that the many contractors involved are entitled to an answer to their inquiries as to why they have not been paid. Why has there not been a satisfactory arrangement made for the disposition of their outstanding claims? I am sure the minister could give me an answer that would help in this regard.
I was pleased to hear the minister refer to the amount of money expended from the grade crossing fund. I am sure he appreciates the fact that we can spend many thousands of dollars in the elimination of hazardous conditions at railway crossings. I am sure he appreciates also that some of these types of protection do not go far enough. I am pleased to learn that the National Research Council has done a considerable amount of work in this regard. I am pleased to learn too that other means of protection are being offered. I feel it is time the transport committee looked at alternative methods of protection against the hazards to highway traffic which exist at railway crossings. Many other methods of protection have to be examined, as a result of increasing highway traffic, in addition to the ordinary bells, gates, lights and so on. Many hazardous conditions exist today which result from the types of commodities being carried now by trucks. Therefore we can no longer allow this situation to continue. I am pleased to note that definite improvements are being considered.
There is one other point upon which I should like the minister to comment briefly when he answers. Just what control do we have over the passenger operations of the Canadian Pacific? I understand that a deliberate attempt has been made to downgrade the Canadian by reducing the number of cars on that train to as low as ten. Every member of this house appreciates how difficult it is to obtain space on that train. It is difficult to obtain space on Canadian National trains, but I must commend the Canadian National for its progressive attitude toward passenger traffic. I should like to know whether the Canadian Pacific would have to go before the
Supply-Transport
transport commission before it could downgrade the Canadian further by removing the sleeping car facilities. The rumours are that the Canadian Pacific intends to put on a day-liner from Winnipeg to Calgary. If this is so, I should like to know in order that these communities can be notified. I am sure everyone here realizes that this is something that should not and absolutely cannot be allowed.
I should like now to deal with the research program. Many questions have been asked about this program and the new director of the research division of the Canadian Transport Commission. Just what qualifications did that individual have when he applied for the job? I understand that when the requirements for this position were published they were quite restrictive. Did the director actually meet every one of those requirements?
I should like to know also what are the terms of reference of this research division. If this would involve a lengthy answer, perhaps the minister could give it in writing later. It seems to me that we go along consistently adding more research departments but we do not know what type of research they are doing. I am sure that if members were more fully aware of the research that was being conducted they could appreciate the various phases of research.
I should like to refer again to the National Research Council which I feel is doing an excellent job. The council issues an excellent report which enables us to appreciate the work being done. I am not too sure that we fully appreciate the research program that is being undertaken. If it means, in effect, that we are hiring a large group of people just for the purpose of eliminating positions farther down the line, then we might have to consider that fact. I realize that management has to do this sort of thing, but I would question just what the terms of reference of this research branch are and whether it should be given encouragement at this time.


James Hugh Faulkner: Order. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until 2.30 p.m.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Chairman, another point I wish to bring up concerns the existing situation at Roberts Bank. The transportation committee has discussed this situation but it appears that many factors are shrouded in secre-

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport
cy and the committee was unable to obtain clearcut answers to some of its questions. It is absolutely imperative that the minister and the government let the people know what is happening in this regard.
In this connection, I should like to pose one or two questions that might help to clear up the situation. First of all, who is going to control the rail line between Crows Nest and Roberts Bank? Who will set the freight rates over this stretch of line? Who is going to set the charges for transporting coal over the new rail line to Roberts Bank? By how much will these charges add to the cost of a ton of coal?
Another facet of the Roberts Bank situation concerns a matter that has been raised in the house, namely, the question of jurisdiction over the facilities in the area. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has tried unsuccessfully to find out what action the government intends to take with regard to the problem of constitutional jurisdiction. The hon. member for Kootenay West has also been attempting to get answers as to the jurisdictional problems that are involved in connection with the rail route to Roberts Bank. It would be appreciated if the minister would clear up any misunderstanding that may exist and put the record straight on this question.
I believe it is most important to the people most concerned that they be consulted about the location of the rail route in that area. I am referring to the lower mainland regional planning board. The courtesy should at least have been extended to them of prior consultation as to the location of the rail line, and the railroads concerned should have seen fit to contact the board about this matter. There have been too many innuendoes and arguments made about whether jurisdiction in this area lies with the provincial or the federal government. I am sure the minister recognizes that it is absolutely imperative for the National Harbours Board to have control and administration of ports. There would be a real hodge-podge if we were to allow a province to control one port and the federal government to control another. There would be a continual breakdown of relations.
There is another aspect I should like to refer to. In my opinion it is quite impossible for the present minister to handle the two portfolios of housing and transportation. I cannot see any relation between building a home and providing facilities therefor and constructing railroads to transport people. I
[Mr. Skoberg.l
hope that the Prime Minister will see fit to divide the functions of the minister because it is apparent to me that his present burdensome task is too much for one man to handle effectively.
I concur completely with some of the statements made by the previous hon. member in regard to the Canadian Transport Commission. I understand that the president of the C.T.C. is being referred to as the czar of transportation in Canada. I would hate to see "czar" change into "scar". It appears to me that too much authority is invested in one department for this state of affairs to continue any longer. The minister must be given time to take a really close look at the whole transportation field.
Another point I want to raise concerns the port of Churchill. I am sure the minister will give us some insight as to any future plans for this port to increase the volume of imports and exports. In my opinion it is fairly well substantiated that savings can be effected by using this port. For example, the shipping season could be extended beyond the present limit. We are aware of the fact that the marine insurance season is now the deciding factor, but I believe that in light of the facts the federal government should lead the way in suggesting that the marine insurance season be extended so that additional time could be made available to export wheat. With additional exports of potash, oil and so on such an extension would be very beneficial.
The first Canadian urban transportation conference is going to be held in Toronto from February 9 to 12. I would like to congratulate the minister on what he has done to assist this conference. I would also congratulate the federation of mayors and municipalities for arranging the conference. I ask the minister to consider seriously sending a goodly delegation from the present transportation committee to the conference in order that the delegation may learn at first hand what is happening in this field today. They have published a pamphlet headed "Opportunity Or Chaos", which I am sure the minister realizes is actually the position in which the entire field of transportation finds itself today. I ask the minister to make sure that as many members as possible attend the conference so that they can take an intelligent look at the picture in all its aspects.
a (2:40 p.m.)
I have one other point in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, concerning the statement made by the Minister of Labour last night on the
November 22, 1968



implementation of the Freedman commission report. If we expect peaceful labour relations in this country the requirement that no material change should be made in the working conditions of employees during the life of a contract must be insisted upon. The minister is aware of the situation which has existed in relation to the C.N.R. It is one which is continuing and until some effect is given to the recommendations of the Freedman report there will be continual disputes arising from material changes made during the life of contracts. I ask the minister to lend his support to the proposal made by the Freedman commission and to do his best to convince his cabinet colleagues of its importance.
1Translation]


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the consideration of the estimates of a department enables us to make suggestions to the minister or to state the complaints which we receive.
It is agreed that as far as transportation is concerned, we have a system connecting east to west by trains, planes, trucks, so that it is possible to cross Canada which is the largest or the second largest country in the world. This was made possible by measures taken not only this year or last year, but since confederation. People before us took decisions so that today we have a transportation system, a Department of Transport which plays a quite important role in the conduct of our national affairs and in the administration of the country.
I think that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) performs his task in a serious manner and as a true Canadian and that he has at heart the general welfare of the people served by these means of cummunication and transportation from one end of our country to the other.
This leads me to make some suggestions and to submit the complaints of some of our organizations with regard to railway services, for instance.
In my area-we also receive complaints from other areas-we have been asking for a number of years, improvements of the passenger train service between Noranda and Senneterre, between Cochrane and Sen-neterre and between Senneterre, Quebec and Montreal.
At the present time, we are faced with a problem which I think has not yet been solved, that of the Ontario Northland Railway Company which, not so long ago, informed the transport commission of its intention to 29180-195
Supply-Transport
discontinue service with trains Nos. 83 and 84 between Swastika and Noranda. However, when the administrators of the Ontario Northland Railway presented their opinion to the commission, they did not mention, for instance, the contents of this letter dated October 25, and I quote:

Although it was not included in the notice, a bus service will be provided as a substitute for trains 83 and 84 if these trains are discontinued. The bus service would be scheduled to provide a close connection at Swastika with Toronto-Coch-rane trains 87 and 88.

So, the Swastika-Noranda line would disappear. Representations were received from the cities and towns of Rouyn-Noranda, and from companies whose employees often travel on the Ontario Northland Railway. For instance, the city of Rouyn has sent me resolution No. 15,680 stating that it is categorically opposed to trains Nos. 83 and 84 being discontinued. The city of Noranda also sent me a copy of a resolution passed on October 7, asking that trains Nos. 83 and 84 be kept in service.
The Little Longlac Gold Mines Limited also wrote to the secretary of the railway transport committee, 400 Laurier Avenue West, Ottawa, to express the following views:

Our mining operations in the Rouyn-Noranda and Arntfield areas include Wasamac Mines Limited with over 300 employees and in addition employees in our other mines, East Malarctic Mines Limited, Barnat Mines Ltd., Malarctic Gold Fields (Quebec) Limited and Anglo American Molybdenite Mines Limited, etc., use the passenger services provided by the Nipissing Central and Ontario Northland railways regularly. Therefore, we feel justified in opposing the application to cancel the railway passenger services. Elimination of the service will greatly inconvenience our employees and their families as well as our technical and executive staff at head office in Toronto who use the travelling accommodation regularly.

Mr. Chairman, those who normally travel on trains Nos. 83 and 84 are opposed to the discontinuation of this service.
Other railway lines in Canada may not be economic, like, for example, that of trains Nos. 83 and 84; this is not the most profitable among the operations of the Ontario Northland Railway. However freight is provided between Noranda, Swastika and Toronto, so that profits are made. The same applies to the Canadian National for the service between

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport
Noranda and Montreal where great profits are made thanks to freight. However, the passenger service is not considered very-important.
We requested an improvement of the rail service between Noranda and Montreal; we demand it also from the Ontario Northland Railway.
Mr. Chairman, if you had the chance to see what kind of trains Nos. 83 and the 84 are, you would understand why people are not very interested in taking them, although there are some who do regularly. The same thing goes for the Canadian National trains that run from Noranda to Montreal. Once you see what kind of trains are used for passengers, you are not interested in taking them. That is why we are asking that better trains be used to transport people to the larger centres, whether it be Toronto or Montreal, and that the quality of the trains be improved to serve the people of our area.
It seems to me it is bad enough that we should be located 425 miles from Montreal and Toronto, almost isolated in northwestern Quebec, without being forced to travel in the type of trains now being used.
o (2:50 p.m.)
I believe the people up north, in our area, are as important as human beings as the people in Montreal, Toronto, Windsor, Winnipeg, and Vancouver. Let them be treated with more consideration than is now being done by the Canadian National and the Ontario Northland Railway.
I therefore ask the minister and his officials to study the situation before allowing the cancellation of trains Nos. 83 and 84, and see what kind of service should be given to the citizens of Rouyn-Noranda. The problem lies with a small line from Rouyn-Noranda to Swastika. It is just a matter of improving the service; this will attract more customers, because people prefer-I certainly do- travelling by train from Rouyn-Noranda to Swastika instead of by bus.
Now, in another field, something that concerns the Canadian National services in the Atlantic provinces. This morning, I put a question to the minister with regard to the possible dismissal of about 20 policemen. Here is the information I have been given by the Canadian National Railways Police Association, Moncton, Local No. 9, 96 Drummond St., Moncton, New Brunswick. This letter dated October 30, was sent to the members of the union of that police associa-
[Mr. Caouette.l
tion and signed by Mr. Webster, the secretary-treasurer.

Dear Sir & Brother:
This is to advise you that the Moncton local executive of the C.N.R. Police Association have been advised by Inspector F. B. Trainer that there will be a lay-off of constables in the Atlantic region.
He stated that there would be 20 constables, more or less, laid off in this department in the near future. No mention was made as to where or what location these men would be laid off. It was stated that Moncton would be hard hit.
This is an urgent matter, and any action which may be taken to alleviate this situation would be greatly appreciated.

example, this was done with regard to the Val-d'Or airport, which is a fine airport serving the area. I asked the hon. minister when the official opening of the airport would be announced; he did not know. However, the airport is being used today, and it is pretty enough to be opened officially. I would even invite the minister to take part in the opening ceremonies, for it is worthwhile.
Mr. Chairman, I also called the attention of the right hon Prime Minister to the matter of the passes used on Air Canada planes.
I wrote to Air Canada last August to inquire whether passes could be given to the leaders of the federal parties. There are four of us. I did not make the request for all members of parliament but for the four leaders. All the members can visit their riding every week, as everyone knows. However, they are limited to their own region or to their own ridings.
In the case of the four party leaders, the hon. minister is aware that they receive invitations from St. John's Newfoundland to Vancouver or Victoria. The ordinary members do not receive such invitations. Therefore, in asking for this pass, I would remind the hon. minister that the right hon. Prime Minister has the use of a special plane, to which he is fully entitled.
The Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) holds a pass which allows him to travel throughout Canada. On the other hand, two party leaders, the house leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Lewis) and the house leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, that is myself, have no such passes. Nevertheless, we get invitations and we are recognized by the house as leaders of national parties. Even if we are recognized as such and enjoy the leaders' privileges, our requests are turned down or remain unanswered while those passes would help us fulfil our obligations. I believe that both of us are entitled to advance our own ideas just as much as the Leader of the Official Opposition. Just like him, we have a duty to accept invitations.
As for the right honourable Prime Minister, I understand that on account of his function, the matter ought not to be discussed in his case But as far as the leaders of the opposition parties are concerned, I think, Mr Chairman, that it would be in order for Air Canada, the Department of Transport or the board of internal economy of the house to authorize the delivery of such a pass.
29180-195!
Supply-Transport
When I wrote Air Canada last August 8, Mr. MacMillan wrote me in answer on September 30-I remind you that I wrote him on August 8-simply as follows:
Having been away from the office quite a bit, I have been unable to reply earlier to your letter of August 8, delivery of which was undoubtedly delayed by the postal strike.
Nevertheless, upon receipt of your letter, my office got in touch with Mr. Fraser, clerk of the house, and asked him to explain to you what transport privileges are granted to members of parliament.
As you know, these are provisions of the legislation concerning travel by members of parliament.
It has nothing to do with the matter I raised.
Yours sincerely-
-Amen.
The letter was addressed to Mr. Fraser, Clerk of the House of Commons. As regards Mr. Fraser, he wrote me a letter on September 6 to tell me this, and I quote:
I do not suppose you know that, even though, according to the Senate and House of Commons Act, we cannot grant air travel certificates when parliament is dissolved-
It has nothing to do with what I asked.
And further:
-the internal economy commissioners have decided recently to authorize-
So they want authorization to be given by the internal economy commissioners.
-to authorize the issuance of three return tickets, economy class, for members wishing to travel from their riding to Ottawa, between August 1 and September 12.
This correspondence was exchanged during the dissolution. The letter goes on as follows:
The cost of these return tickets will be paid by the government rather than by the House of Commons, and members will only have to keep their ticket to be refunded.
That is a matter of administration, which is no concern of mine and in which I am not interested at all. The only thing I am interested in, Mr. Chairman, is that the hon. member for York South and the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste are issued an Air Canada pass.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
If one has to go through the internal economy commissioners, I do not mind, but passes should be issued. This is what interests me.

November 22, 1988
Supply-Transport
We should be in a position to accept invitations without any out-of-pocket travelling expenses in Canada.
Some hon. members have stated that the means of transportation are not the same as they were forty years ago and that is true. If the government decides at a given time to issue passes on Air Canada planes, as is done on C.N.R. and C.P.R. trains, I would not object. We are no longer living in a horse and buggy era, we are in 1968, using modern means of transportation in our travels. Indeed, hon. members have representations to make or must travel in the interests of Canada and their constituents. I do not object if all hon. members had one; but at least the leaders of the recognized parties in the house should have their pass just like the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister does not need any, since he has his own plane. Now, that would settle a situation which I find abnormal in the circumstances.
I will now deal with the repairs to Air Canada planes about which the members of western Canada and especially the Winnipeg area have made so much fuss and raised so much objection.
I shall give an example taken from another department, the Post Office Department. My colleague, the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) received recently a letter from Mr. Andre Houle, special assistant to the Postmaster General, informing him that the post office of Saint-Joseph-de-Mekinac would be closed, thus saving $1,500. The revenues of that post office for the fiscal year 1967-68 amounted to $621, while the operation costs amounted to $1,825. So, to save $1,200, the government closes a post office, depriving 85 users of that service. These people will go elsewhere to buy their postal stamps in order to save some money for the government.
As far as the Air Canada overhaul base at Winnipeg is concerned, it has been clearly established that the government would save millions of dollars in having its repairs made at Montreal rather than in Winnipeg. If such is the case, there is no reason to prevent the transfer of the Winnipeg overhaul base to Montreal. Let us take other means, from the social viewpoint, to prevent the disintegration of certain districts of Winnipeg. We do not object to that.
If the report had established that it would be cheaper to repair the planes in Winnipeg than in Montreal, the question would have been settled a long time ago. But the question is to take something from Winnipeg and to

bring it to Montreal. This stirs up a storm. There is even an implication of separatism. The transfer of the Winnipeg base to Montreal would depend on separatists. This is not the question at all. We consider the matter strictly from the viewpoint of economics, of costs, because everyone, especially the hon. ministers, complain that they have no money. If we have no money, it is about time to start cutting down in government expenditures, and it could be done in this area, since it has been established that the government would save millions of dollars by having the planes repaired in Montreal instead of Winnipeg.
Nothing prevents the government from inviting private airplane manufacturing companies to run an overhaul centre in Winnipeg, since there will certainly be an Air Canada base. In fact, Winnipeg is an important city where the majority of Air Canada employees will remain. Let us stop whining in this house and saying that Winnipeg is going to lose that.
We, in Montreal, have lost lots of things and the Maritimes too for example. The Mari-times would be better justified than Winnipeg to complain about the economic situation in Canada, in view of the closing down of the coal mines and the high cost of living. Mr. Chairman, even the Stanfield underwear firm in Nova Scotia has increased its prices by 49 cents per unit. That is inflation in the Maritime provinces.
The government, then, must reduce expenses as much as possible and if it is advisable to leave Winnipeg and go to Montreal, let it be go. The minister did not make the survey. It was done by commissioners, competent people, who established clearly that it would be less costly for Air Canada to operate an overhand base in Montreal rather than in Winnipeg. Something else can be done in Winnipeg, as was the case in other provinces.
Companies in Regina and Edmonton, have closed down, for some reason or other, and moved their business to another city. Why? To save money. Now, the Canadian government must set an example in that field without however neglecting to find solutions to the problems created by moving the people from Winnipeg to Montreal. All this means that we are not eager to create economic chaos in Winnipeg, but on the other hand, we do not want to spend merely for the fun of saying that we are spending in Winnipeg instead of in Montreal.
November 22, 1968



We of the Ralliement Creditiste take a strong position in favour of displacing the Air Canada overhaul base to Montreal, because this is the recommendation of the commission which made a study on overhaul costs of Air Canada.
Now, Mr. Chairman, before we finish with the Winnipeg overhaul base question, I pointed out this morning that the Montreal area members have not risen very often to deal with that question. I heard the member for Trois-Rivieres speak about it, but hardly any from Montreal. I even spoke to the member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Guay), a very good friend of mine, who is in favour of Winnipeg, even if repairs are to be twice as expensive as in Montreal.
I know that he has to look after number one and, if I were in his place, I would probably do the same. Therefore, we should get together to examine the matter for the general good of Canada. In fact, not only one area is concerned but the whole country. We spend not only the money of the citizens of Winnipeg or Montreal but that of all Canadians. We should therefore co-operate to spend it to better advantage and the hon. member for Saint-Boniface will admit that Montreal must be given the preference over Winnipeg for the maintenance of Air Canada's aircraft.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about Montreal's famous international airport which will be built eventually and which will probably always be called the Montreal International Airport. About two weeks ago, I had the opportunity of meeting the mayor and chief engineer of Drummondville as well as members of the Chamber of Commerce of the area, who made a comprehensive study on the building of such an international airport. Supported by statistics, the brief submitted by those people to the Minister of Transport and to the Transport Commission was very comprehensive. They showed quite clearly that there is in the Drummondville area a site quite suitable to the needs of a new international airport.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
That would greatly contribute to the development of the whole eastern townships area as well as the whole province of Quebec. The area is very close, for instance, to the Saint-Maurice, Quebec, Sherbrooke and Montreal areas. It was shown that, in a matter of about 15 or 20 minutes, either by an organized train or another suitable means of transportation, it would be possible to go from the centre of
Supply-Transport
Montreal to the Drummondville airport. Nowadays, whenever we have to board a plane in Dorval, it takes about two hours to go from the centre of the city to Dorval during rush hours. It is not so much distance that counts but the communications means which are unadapted and inadequate.
I should like, first of all, to congratulate the Drummondville authorities for having prepared and presented their brief the way they did. Those people are working seriously on that project and are taking at heart the interest of all that Quebec area without any prejudice to the people as a whole, while taking into account the services an airport should provide. I believe the minister has already received that brief, as well as the commission. It should now be considered thoroughly, and without any parochial considerations. The best proposal must be adopted so as to make sure that the selected site is not changed five or ten years from now.
Mr. Chairman, if Drummondville is a suitable site for an international airport, if the means of communication, the modes of transport from Montreal to that airport are appropriate and adequate, I believe we should recognize the fact and make a choice.
Besides, it is impossible to extend the landing strips in Montreal. They are surrounded by houses and the new jets will be unable to land at Dorval for that airport is no longer adequate. This does not mean that Dorval can no longer be used. It can be used for other purposes, but not as an international airport for it is too small. If the land required to extend the runways had to be expropriated, it would cost a fortune and it would be worse still than moving the Air Canada overhaul base from Winnipeg to Montreal. The economic aspect of the matter must therefore be looked at and the most economical solution found to the problem.
I believe the hon Minister of Transport-as I said in my opening remarks-manages his department in a responsible way. To date, I feel he has not shown too much partisanship in the administration of his department; every time I have needed his help, he has been most obliging with me. When I write to him, he sends me a reply. I say this without partisanship. This is not a matter of being Creditiste or Liberal, but a matter of improving our means of transportation to give the best possible services to the Canadian people.


Mr. Gillespie:: Mr. Chairman, in rising to take part in this debate on transportation I am

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport
acutely conscious of the importance of the role that transportation has played in the development of our nation and its cities, their quality of our life and prosperity. I am also acutely conscious of the role it will play in the future in determining the kind of society we will have. I refer to the sort of thing we hear and read about today in respect of urban renewal, rapid transit, superhighways, automobiles, pollution, and the advent of the jumbo jet which will increase in a very short time the outpouring of people from approximately 200 now in a stretched jet to 450 up to 700 in the space of five years.
I also have reference to the advent of the supersonic jet, which is not that far away, and the fact that we may be able to fly from here to Europe or Asia in a little more than two hours, though it may take some time longer to get to and from the airports. I am aware also of the possibility that ground effect vehicles will be used for moving people at fast speeds. All of this new technology raises the question, what will the effect be on people?
I should like to talk this afternoon about the proposed expansion of the international airport at Malton which was announced in August by the Minister of Transport. He stated this was to be a two-phase operation and that the first phase would carry us to approximately 1973 and would involve the expansion of passenger handling facilities on the ground and perhaps some modification of runways, but there would be no major changes as far as land use or runways were concerned. He was careful to point out at the time of his announcement that this was no more than a proposed expansion and that the closely associated communities would be invited to discuss compatible land use with the federal government.
At the same time the minister also pointed out that it was important to work out arrangements with the provinces in respect of handling of traffic and access. He reaffirmed this in the house last week and I think again this week. The implicit undertaking is, of course, that unless satisfactory arrangements can be worked out the proposals will not go forward in the form first suggested.
I was very happy, as I know all members from the Toronto region and indeed of this house were, to hear the emphasis the minister placed on the importance of the quality of life in reaching a decision on whether or not the proposed expansion would go forward in the form first presented. The question I think we

have to concern ourselves with is, what does the proposed expansion of Malton airport mean to the quality of life of those who live in Etobicoke, Mississagua and north?
The essential statistics at the present time indicate that at Malton slightly more than four million passengers a year are moved, that it is expected passenger traffic will build to a little more than double that by 1973, and that in the order of about nineteen million will be moved by 1985. The statistics also indicate that if this expansion goes forward the airport will handle close to 19 million people per year. There will also be a more than corresponding increase in freight handling.
We must concern ourselves with the type of aircraft that will be involved in this type of utilization as a result of the change from the jet as we know it today to the jumbo jet and to the supersonic jet with engines of greater power and, one can only assume at this stage, engines which will make more noise. Noise is the essential factor as far as the quality of life is concerned for those most directly associated with these airports.
Let me refer to the measurement most frequently used, being 100 decibels. This is considered to be above the level at which people can live with any degree of comfort; yet thousands are now being exposed to a level of this magnitude on a daily basis. With the proposed expansion to its ultimate form the figures I have-they are no more than estimates at the present time but reliable ones- indicate that about 160,000 people would be exposed to this noise level on a regular basis.
In assessing these problems in regard to Malton airport and what sort of expansion, if any, should take place, one has to recognize that at the start Malton represents a major investment estimated at $70 million with probably a replacement value very much greater than that. This is an investment which all the people of Canada have made. It is an investment by the community at large. One has to recognize the economic arguments in favour of employment, the creation of new service industries and growth. One must also recognize the needs of the traveller, whether for business purposes or for pleasure. One must recognize the claims of the pilots in respect of safety for those who would land these planes at this airport. One has also to recognize the carriers, those who are providing the aircraft.
November 22, 1968



[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
But more than any other single factor one has to recognize the people who live close to the airport. One has to recognize their health, happiness and privacy; one has to recognize their property values; one has to recognize that when they purchased their houses they had no conception of the sort of expansion that would take place. I think one also has to recognize the special claims of the municipality. Here there is a double effect.
In the first instance there is the effect on assessment. If this expansion should go forward the municipality might well have to reduce the assessment on a substantial part of the residential area just because the land use had been made less congenial, just because it had been downgraded in value. This means, of course, less revenue at a time when all municipalities are looking for opportunities to find more.
I think one also has to recognize the additional costs involved. This is the second side of the double effect to which I referred and with which the municipality is faced. I refer in particular to the question of soundproofing schools. In Etobicoke alone, for instance, more than $600,000 has been spent on soundproofing schools. This will be no more than a rather small drop in a pretty large bucket if the expansion goes forward in the form proposed. I think one has to recognize that a capital expenditure of this kind has to be considered in terms of the whole community and planning a whole host of community services. In Etobicoke, for instance, a hospital is planned and the construction is to commence early next year. A community college is already under way. Under one set of plans the approaches to runways would be directly overhead. This problem could probably be solved by soundproofing, but at enormous cost.
But I ask, Mr. Chairman, what about some of the other effects on people? No one really knows what these effects will be. Basic research with respect to noise and its effect on people has not been carried out, as far as I know, anywhere in the world. We are able, of course, to use the decibel rating and we know that a decibel rating of 100 is reaching an intolerable noise level. Certainly it is too high for animals.
Perhaps the best way of dramatizing the problem of noise is to contemplate a warm, summer evening in a residential area, the sort of evening one might like to spend outside
Supply-Transport
the house. If aircraft with highly-powered engines are arriving approximately every 30 seconds, the noise fractures the tranquility of this setting. This is no romantic notion, Mr. Chairman; it is a fact, and the noise level will become worse. More than that, the people in the area are not able to open their windows at night because of the noise.
We do not yet know what the effects of pollution will be. We know that they may be serious but we do not know to what extent. At the present level there is every indication that they are not serious. There is not the slightest evidence in fact, to indicate that the present level of activity at Malton constitute any danger at all. But here we are considering a major expansion which will change the rules completely. There are those who say that the Malton expansion must go forward. These people justify it on the basis that the airport was there first and those who bought homes in the area should have known what to expect. I ask, Mr. Chairman, how could they know what to expect when even the experts did not know? I am referring to the experts in the Department of Transport and those who have advised the municipalities in the area. I am also referring to those involved in operating aircraft. The pace of technological change so far as air transport is concerned has moved so rapidly that it has overtaken all the planners.
For these reasons I think we have to realize that the home owner in the area has first priority. I believe there are also other important reasons that we must consider. We must consider the argument that it is more economical to have one large airport than two. I say maybe, but this has not yet been proven. I think the estimates of land assembly costs for one large airport are well underestimated. I think one has to give full consideration to the whole question of waste, in the sense that if we build one large airport we will in my view have to start in 15 years to tear part of it down because we will have to have a second airport in any event. Toronto international airport will reach the saturation point in 1985. This means only one thing, that we must have a second airport. If this is true, let us start now acquiring the land for a second airport. Let us start planning and let us prevent the ultimate waste that a decision to build one large airport would involve.
I think we also have to look into the question of the social effects, again from the economic point of view and the point of view of the people concerned. If one looks at the cost

November 22. 1968
Supply-Transport
savings of one large airport versus two, one can say there are certain savings so far as the airline companies are concerned in the sense that they do not have to duplicate facilities right away. But there are other factors involved. There is the cost of soundproofing which I have mentioned. There is the cost of land and the congestion that will be caused. There is the factor of human cost which we cannot quantify. I refer to the costs that affect people.
I would like to read two short extracts from letters I have received, and may I say I have received several hundred letters on this subject. This letter was written by a family living close to the airport and one of the runways. It reads in part as follows:
This past summer, the noise from aircraft coming in to land was deafening. Not to mention the pollution from exhaust and the vibration from the motors causing damage to the structure of our houses. That was last summer. Project this into 1980 and the condition will be intolerable-a health hazard with delayed and far-reaching results. . . All surveys and technical reports on aircraft expansion at other cities in the US. favour decentralizing facilities rather than expanding existing outlets.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I have one other letter, Mr. Chairman. It reads as follows:
Dear Sir,
Do not destroy our home, please. We are against the plan to expand the airport. These new planes ... won't give us a day of peace.
That is typical of the kinds of letters which are arriving and which have to do with the proposed expansion. In the light of these representations and in the light of the arguments I have advanced, I strongly urge that the one big airport concept is wrong and should be abandoned in favour of a two airport plan; and further that we should proceed with a modified intermediate stage.
I do not argue that Malton airport should be closed down but I do argue that we ought to limit its expansion and start immediately to plan a second airport which would be built in conjunction with and in harmony with Malton international airport.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, I had intended dealing later in my speech with a matter the previously speaker has just raised. Since he made such a thoughtful presentation I think it would be better, in the interests of orderly debate, if at the outset I dealt with the matter of airports. Here I speak as a maritime member and not as a caucus spokesman on transport. Since the hon. member for

Oxford is not here I am trying to say what he would have said.
On page 552 of Hansard for the current session the Acting Minister of Transport answered eight questions that had been placed before the department dealing with supersonic transports and how Canada was preparing itself for the supersonic age. It is a matter of wry regret to me that the only people who became terribly excited about he answers were magazines that dealt with the problems of preserving bird life in Canada, and not newspapermen who supposedly deal with human problems. Be that as it may, and my sympathies are with the birds, it ought to be noted that on page 552 of Hansard the acting minister noted that in the Department of Transport a sonic boom subcommittee of the supersonic transport study group is engaged in continuing studies related to the over-all assessment of these noise problems. It was pointed out, however, that locating supersonic transport airports in remote areas would certainly be given consideration if results of the research studies suggested this course of action. The minister said that, hopefully, technological advances will preclude this necessity.
It was also pointed out that considerable research is being conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom on the physiological effects of noise and sonic boom overpressures on human and animal life, and that the local Canadian group has been closely monitoring this research in other countries.
One of my questions was as reported on page 552 of Hansard:
If the noise level is considered excessive to humans and domestic and wild life (a) is the Department considering the location of SST airfields where such nuisance would have a minimum effect, or (h) is it considering a legislative ban on flights, because of such circumstances?
The reply to the first part of the question with regard to locating airports in remote areas was that this would certainly be given consideration if results of the research study suggested this course of action. And, hopefully, technological advances will preclude this necessity.
The second part of the reply no doubt will interest the hon. member who has just preceded me, since he was most disturbed about the effects of noise on the residents of the beleaguered areas of Etobicoke and Mis-sissagua. Part of the reply is as follows:
Under the authority of The Aeronautics Act (part I) a regulation has already been promulgated which states that "No aircraft shall be flown
November 22. 1968

in such a manner as to create a shock wave, the effect of which is to create or likely to create a hazard to other aircraft or to persons or property on the ground."
I will not go over the ground the hon. member has covered so ably. Instead may I direct hon. members' attention to page 2968 of Hansard where the following question appears:
Has the federal government considered implementing expropriation proceedings to acquire additional land to increase the present size of the Toronto International Airport-
The answer as reported is:
There has been no decision as yet on acquisition of additional land for expansion of Toronto international airport.
I think the hon. member might be justified in thinking that the matter now rests in limbo.
In my file concerning the noise pollution problem as it relates to Toronto international airport I came across a map prepared by Bolt Beranek and Newman Dr. A. Borgiel. At least it is on the back of a notice sent by Dr. Borgiel to the Applewood Hills Homeowners Association in October 1968. Since Dr. Borgiel is president of the association it might be pertinent to put some of the notice on the record. It says in part:
The Department of Transport policy is as follows:
(a)	"In areas subject to noise levels of 110 PNdBs (perceived noise levels) or more, residential development should not be permitted under any circumstances.
(b)	In areas subject to noise levels of less than 110 PNdBs but at or above 100 PNdBs single family residential development should be avoided. All multiple family homes should be sound proof."
If that is the policy of the department, as I gather it is, it ought to have some bearing on the decision of he Ontario Municipal Board regarding subdivision development in the area. I think I am right in saying that such development has been held up. People have to wait and see what is to happen to the international airport. For that reason it is important that the minister should make a decision rapidly and make it known.
People in Etobicoke will not be able to enjoy fresh air; they will hardly dare to stick their noses outside their homes for fear of being assaulted with the hellish din coming from outside. That is pretty grim, and the minister ought to act quickly. People should not face such a prospect. The correspondence on the matter has been graphic enough. Since this matter may affect some 100,000 people who may have to live like moles in their homes, coming outside only to scurry to their automobiles, the minister ought to act immediately to try to correct this danger. If
Supply-Transport
the department decides to expand the airport and if no way is found to curtail the noise of the supersonic transports, it will be hell on earth in that area and in all other areas where such noise is permitted. I suggest that the transport committee should get busy and look into the noise problem. Perhaps that part of the minister's estimates having to do with this matter ought to be referred to that committee so that we may have expert advice and find out exactly where we are going.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This morning, sir, the Minister of Transport made a complete, and I think welcome, break with tradition. He made a frank acknowledgement that the ice breaking activities in the gulf of St. Lawrence and St. Lawrence river were exactly for the purpose that we from the Atlantic area have contended for years, that is the development of commerce. This is the first time this acknowledgement has been made, and I give the minister credit for it. He did not, as his predecessors have done for a decade, try to hide behind the story that the icebreaking activities were for the purpose of flood control only and that the increase in commerce was sort of fortuitous. Now that we have the cards frankly on the table, we are enabled to make points which we were not able to make with success before concerning the effects of this deliberate policy on our own commerce in Atlantic Canada. I will get to that point in a moment.
One cannot engage in a transport debate in Canada without bringing in the name of that happy, sailing warrior, John Whitney Pickers-gill, the president of the Canadian Transport Commission. In a speech in Halifax recently or in a press interview, Mr. Pickersgill raised the point of the subsidy being paid in Atlantic Canada. He said perhaps the time had come for a fresh look at this, and that the money paid in subsidy which is admittedly a large amount, could more usefully be spent in other ways. I do not know whether or not this was a trial balloon. In view of the very important decisions that have to be made by the minister and his government, I hope it was not a trial balloon and that perhaps Mr. Pickersgill was thinking out loud rather than flying any sort of advance signals on behalf of this government. However, this statement has worried me sufficiently that I should like to make some argument about it. In the abstract, it is a splendid statement, and perhaps that money could have been used for other purposes to

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport
improve transportation. By the way, the subsidies paid to the maritimes can be found in vote 25 of the estimates we are considering.
Suppose we take this statement one step further. I am not asking the minister if Mr. Pickersgill was enunciating government policy. However, I do ask the minister, if he considers that Pickersgillian opinion, would he consider this: In 1962, parliament voted $1.9 million for ice breaking in the St. Lawrence. In 1966, the amount was approximately $2.83 million. I presume it has risen since, having in mind inflation and the increase in icebreaking activities. Every time you break ice in the St. Lawrence river you add to the commerce going into the great ports along the St. Lawrence river. Now we have not only the acknowledgement of the minister that this has been done to help commerce, since there has been no alibi about flood control given today, but also we have been told there is going to be an increase in icebreaking activities because they were found to be of benefit to traffic on the St. Lawrence river. I am not one of those who wants to poach in one part of Canada to help another part of Canada. I just draw this very plain argument to the attention of the committee; if you do spend millions of dollars on icebreaking you are, in effect, subsidizing navigation to certain ports which are in competition with certain other ports.
If the Pickersgillian opinion ever becomes a fact and we cut out the maritime transportation subsidy of some $12 million a year, then I ask the government if it would apply these icebreaking charges, which must now be up to $4 million or $5 million a year, to the shippers who use these icebreaking facilities. It is a simple fact that if we cut out subsidies altogether, then special services should be paid for by those who take advantage of the services. So let us take the $4 million or $5 million, whatever the minister planned to use for icebreaking to help commerce, and charge it to the ships taking advantage of that service.
Then, let us go a step further. On page 500 of the estimates book, we find an item to cover the deficits of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority amounting to $2.4 million. If Mr. Pickersgill is the unhappy harbinger of what is to come, then let us take the $2.4 million and apply it to the ships that use the St. Lawrence seaway. Some of these ships use the Welland canal service. On the same page in the estimates book we find an item for $9,855 million to cover the deficit of that

operation. If the Pickersgillian formula is considered, then perhaps it would not be inappropriate if we were to apply that amount of money to the ships that use this great canal system.
I want to remind the committee as emphatically as I can that there are many amounts paid by the taxpayers of Canada which operate rather more to the benefit of central Canada than they do to the benefit of Atlantic Canada. I am not asking to cut them out. I am just arguing that we should not get that hell-bent to remove subsidies for Atlantic transportation that we forget to look at the ramifications involved in this procedure. Perhaps I have spent a little more time on this subject than I should, but after all Mr. Pickersgill does occupy a rather impressive position in the public service. I wanted at least to kick the idea around a bit-not him, because I do not believe in a personal approach and I have not attacked him. However, I did want at least to get my foot at his idea and boot it around the House of Commons for a few minutes for the consideration of members.
I should like now to deal with another matter, and perhaps when the minister replies he will deal with it. I refer to the end of the freeze on maritime freight rates, which I believe occurs around March 23. Perhaps the minister would give us some indication of what we can expect in that direction, and also whether he and the department are coming to grips with the l.c.l. problem that has been raised here before.
Now, there is the new matter of port development. The hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster made many interesting points with regard to the National Harbours Board operations. I agree with him that the board has been scrupulously fair in its decisions and has not acted by selecting one port over another. I think Halifax has had a break in the container age, with all respect to my friend from New Brunswick, because we have had a citizens committee which has been working with the port of Halifax commission, and the province of Nova Scotia has established a crown corporation which will help get Halifax into the new transportation age.
Finally, like most members, I am continually flying on the week ends and I should like to make a suggestion to the minister which I hope he will draw to the attention of the new president of Air Canada when that gentleman or lady is appointed next week. I say "lady" because there are a few people still on the fringes of the just society who have not been looked after yet. In any event, I would ask
November 22, 1968

the minister to make this suggestion to the new president of Air Canada. We have reached the end of the Viscount age, but these planes can probably still be flown economically. Therefore I would ask whether there could be more flights from a city such as Ottawa that bypass the cities of Toronto or Montreal.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
For example, Mr. Chairman, there is always a fair crowd of maritimes or Atlanticans on the flight I take to Halifax which leaves Ottawa on Friday afternoon. I do not think that the same traffic is there all week, but it seems to me that a direct flight to Halifax from Ottawa on certain days of the week would be of advantage. This would eliminate time spent in Montreal and the transfer of baggage from one plane to another that Air Canada now has to do.
I think that this is a useful concept. I think it could also be applied to flights from Ottawa to London, Ontario, which bypass Malton airport. Undoubtedly other examples come to the minister's mind. I think this is an approach worth looking at and I would be grateful if the minister would take this up on my behalf.


Mr. Danson:: Mr. Chairman, I think this is one of the most worth-while debates we have experienced here recently, dealing with problems of great import. Problems of transportation are a very major factor in our social and economic development. We have agreed not to include in this debate the portion of the minister's portfolio that deals with housing but I suggest in our remarks we cannot be unrelated to urban problems.
I was delighted to hear the hon. member for Etobicoke speak so well and so learnedly about a problem that affects his constituency perhaps more directly than mine at the present time, although in my constituency we are aware of these earth shaking noises that originate 10 to 15 miles away. This is typical of the research that is going on and the study being made by members from the greater Toronto area who are deeply concerned about the problem he raised. The hon. member for Peel South, who I am sure would have enjoyed participating in this debate today, is unfortunately ill, but he has done quite extensive work in this connection. We are trying to avoid parochial considerations in our thinking in relation to Toronto international airport. My colleague for Etobicoke has 29180-1964
Supply-Transport
covered the technical aspects of its development and proposed expansion, I think very creditably indeed.
We from urban areas and the fringes of urban areas do not necessarily think that the big cities of the world are the best cities. We do not even suggest that living in big cities is better than living in small towns or in the country. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, we sometimes have our doubts on that score. However, there certainly is a very great danger being brought home to us as time goes on in the form of proliferation of the great megalopolis and the problems this brings. We see these problems in the United States today, Mr. Chairman, and they are tragic. We have an opportunity to avoid these problems here, and we are very sensitive to them.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, I think we must thoroughly explore the moving of major air traffic away from large population centres. This is not a problem that is peculiar to Montreal, or Toronto, or Winnipeg, or Vancouver, or the other cities across this land. It is a problem that is being faced by every community in every country in the world today. It is a crisis that is upon us. We are forced to react to the problem rather than to plan for or anticipate it, and that is bad. It is a tough problem to anticipate. As my colleagues have said, technology is moving so fast that it is difficult to keep up with it. However, there are certain trends that we can see.
There are several agencies around the world that are dealing with some of the problems, I.A.T.A. being perhaps, the principal one, though I understand the Canadian Transport Commission is doing some excellent work. The commission is hiring some of the most qualified personnel in the world to come to this country to work in the challenging atmosphere of the commission. The Department of Transport itself is also conducting extensive studies. Other institutes are working on approaches to transportation studies, as opposed to urban studies.
In the case of urban studies we have as competent people in Canada as exist anywhere in the world. There are some outstanding people in the world, of course, but country for country and person for person I think that we can hold our heads pretty high and can staff any facility to conduct urban studies. However, there is an extreme shortage of experts in the area of transportation studies.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we in Canada should take the initiative to set up a world

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport
institute of transportation studies. It could be situated somewhere in this country and staffed by people pre-eminent in this field. We could make it a world centre for transportation studies. We could use our own people and also bring in on a permanent basis experts from around the world associated with the institute as members of the faculty. We could also invite visiting experts from all parts of the world. I do not like to keep using the word "experts" because I do not think that anyone can be that expert. Expert implies a perfection; I am referring to the highly qualified specialist. These people can conduct studies on methods of transportation. As my hon. friend from Etobicoke said, Mr. Chairman, this institute could conduct studies which are presently not being done on the effect of noise.
What we require, Mr. Chairman, are long range programs. We have to have-I was going to say crash programs but I should not use that word in terms of air transportation. What we require are studies that focus upon constructing terminals which are situated some distance from urban areas to handle the supersonic and jumbo jets, as I mentioned before.
This would eliminate, Mr. Chairman, the great problem caused by noise. It does not eliminate the noise, but at least it would place it somewhere else than in a densely populated area. It would also eliminate air pollution, if that proves to be a problem; it would help air safety and ease congestion in the air and on the ground around the airport.
If we could use the Toronto international airport as an example, Mr. Chairman, and consider that Toronto is facing the same problem as Montreal, then we could conceivably establish one major facility midway between Toronto and Montreal. This would involve one cost rather than two costs. The economic studies on this matter indicate that the actual cost factors, aside from the social factors, are so very much in favour of a single facility.
The key to this concept, Mr. Chairman, is of course getting people from the major centres of Montreal and Toronto to the central facility which, let us assume, is in the King-ston-Trenton area. There is a lot of advantage to an area such as this in that the lake is to the south, and you have largely unused land, certainly land with a much lighter density of population than in the major centres, to the north. Straight across the lake there are communities like Syracuse and Rochester, and
[Mr. Danson.l
possibly Buffalo. These communities could be serviced perhaps by hovercraft; so that the facility would truly be an international one.
However, Mr. Chairman, as I have pointed out, the key to this is getting people to the airport from major cities. This is where I suggest our basic study be done, and that we establish an institute to study the problem. Once we begin to move these people from urban centres to the facility at speeds well in excess of 100 miles an hour-and I think we have to talk in terms of moving them at 200 miles an hour-then the journey can be done well within the hour. This is the time it takes to get to airports now, and it will take much longer in future unless something is done. Once we solve this problem, we solve the problem of short-range transportation. If we can move people between Montreal and a midway point in an hour, we can move them from Montreal to Toronto in two hours, and I believe a lot of people would be delighted to go to Toronto. The point is that we should be taking 80 or 90 per cent of the inter-city traffic out of the air and putting it on the ground. Let us begin to think in terms of bringing people back to the ground. The same solution handles the two problems. Cities within a radius of 500 miles could all be served by a radically designed method of fast transport. It is not enough to schedule turbo trains four times a day, because planes are taking off constantly.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
We are inclined to think of air traffic only in terms of people, but the airlines are quickly becoming large-scale carriers of cargo. The trend shows a rapidly accelerating increase in the amount of cargo handled, and means must be found of getting this traffic in and out of the major communities to which in most cases it is headed. I suggest two forms of transportation should be studied more thoroughly than others. One is the monorail system, the techniques of which have already been worked out. Special containers could be designed for both passengers and freight, in large and small units, for use on this system. Since the power source would be kept going all the time, people and goods could be moved along a monorail as the need arose. High speeds would be possible and great flexibility could be achieved. Right-of-way problems would still remain, but not nearly to the extent created by tracks on the ground. Traffic engineering would be simplified since, of course, roads could be built beneath the monorail.
November 22, 1958

The form of transport which I really think should be investigated is the pipe line system. As people, we do not like to think of ourselves being propelled through a pipe line. Most of us are familiar with the apparatus used in some stores by means of which money and messages are sped through tubes by use of a vacuum. This principle can be applied on a much larger scale to carry cargo and human beings. Right-of-way problems would be greatly reduced because, of course, a tube can be buried underground. Here again, containers could be specially designed, and aircraft could be built to accommodate these containers. We might indeed reach a stage at which every passenger had his own little container; we would be loaded into the tube with our luggage and remain there until reaching our destination. This may appear far out, but it is not so far out that we should not look to it as a real alternative to the chaos which is developing now.
There are subsidiary benefits. An intermediate location between Toronto and Montreal could serve the upper New York state area as well. Remember, we have a man like Mr. Buckminster Fuller, an artist in materials and a clear thinker at 73 years of age-a present-day Leonardo de Vinci, and one of the great men of our age. He has suggested the construction of a proto-city for Toronto, but such a city could be built anywhere. The optimum population would be about 100,000 people, and the new city might very well be built to accommodate those who will have to serve and maintain the projected airport, together with their wives and families, the services they themselves will need, and so on.
It would not need to be under the noise pattern either. Taking advantage of high speed transportation, these people could live a hundred miles away and still get to work daily. Such a project allows a great opportunity for planning. If a new city were built on the east side of the airport, and worked out well, we could build another on the west side, taking the pressure of growth from the metropolis and spreading it across the country where work is needed and where people can live well. Profiting by high speed transportation they would still be able to experience the advantages and disadvantages of the city, if they wished.
Combined with action along these lines we could take advantage of our International Institute of Transportation Studies and associate it with a university such as Queen's at Kingston. It would be a good idea to make
Supply-Transport
Queen's pre-eminent throughout the world in transport studies. There are other things, such as the Bureau for Municipal Research in Toronto which is doing excellent studies for 45 cities around the world with populations of a million or more. It is pleasant to think that there people can come from countries all over the world directly to our great international airport, and be in Toronto within an hour, or in Montreal in the same time should they wish to visit IATO or EXPO. But if we can institute such a rapid transit system between Toronto and Montreal, what is to prevent our extending it to Quebec or, maybe ultimately, right to the end of the St. Lawrence?


An hon. Member:: Or to Moncton?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Or to Moncton; an important place. Or right down to Windsor. Then we would have fast transport from Detroit to the mouth of the St. Lawrence. And what would prevent our running a transportation link to Ottawa? Once we have achieved this technology we shall have solved a problem of particular importance to a country such as ours, with its vast distances and difficulties in communication which make it hard to get around, even to summer resorts; at one stroke we shall have found a way toward an improved economy and a richer life. For reasons which may not even be known to ourselves, Canada is a country highly regarded around the world and any initiative on our part would be well received by other nations, many of which would be glad to join with us in a venture of this kind, making Canada an outstanding centre for developing a better way of life.


John Howard Lundrigan: I did not at first intend to take part in the discussion of these estimates. Lately I have developed a habit of becoming involved in discussions concerning a number of estimates produced by various departments, and today I thought I would remain silent. But then I realized we do not see the minister in the house every day of the week. We know he is a very busy man who has been moving around Canada a great deal in the last couple of months.
It is not every day that we have a chance to present our points of view and discuss our problems with a minister who himself confronts one of the greatest problems in Canada, which is the satisfactory discharge of his duties as minister responsible for both transportation and housing. In these circumstances I thought I would say a few words. I am all in favour of having a minister take the bull

November 22, 1963
Supply-Transport
by the horns. When we ask this or any other minister to take the bull by the tail and do a good job, it is really asking too much. I concur with a number of other hon. members who have made reference to the onerous burden carried by this minister in having to administer a dual portfolio. As I say, this is asking him to take the bull by the tail and, although I would have to ask some of my western colleagues about it, I believe this is a nearly impossible job.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I consider the transport portfolio to be one of the most important areas of activity and endeavour with respect to most of the regions of Canada. How can we talk about economic development unless we are prepared to talk first about transportation? Everybody knows that Canada is a resource country. How can we talk about opening up the resources of our nation without first considering transportation? How can we talk about markets and labour problems, and how can we cope with the costs of living when we have transportation problems that concern these things? I consider transportation to be one of the main avenues, one of the main foci for the development of parts of Canada which are suffering as the result of regional disparity.
I do not pretend to be an expert on transportation, but if I had time today to develop the position of many great thinkers, many great economists and many great people in the areas of development in other countries, in the United States and other countries of the world, I could show that transportation is the necessary avenue for the development of our nation and for the elimination of many of our regional problems.
Today I wish to focus on one major problem in transportation, and that is Canadian ferry services. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of people in many parts of the Atlantic region I have already made representations to the Minister of Transport about ferry services, and I must admit that most of what I have been seeking is at least receiving some consideration. But I think it is time that the question of ferry services in the whole of Canada came up for revision and discussion.
The only trans-Canada highway for people living on islands that are not going to be connected with the mainland is the ocean, and the ferry which bridges the gap. This is their trans-Canada highway. I am aware that substantial subsidies are being paid to individuals and various organizations and

groups to operate ferries in various places, but I cannot understand why significant segments of the population living on islands have to pay for the use of their trans-Canada highway.
Why is it that people living on islands four of five miles off the coast, islands with populations of 5,000 and 6,000 people, have to tolerate the kind of services now provided by private enterprise with the assistance of the federal government, and yet have to pay to the point where it is prohibitive for them to use the ferry services? How can we give equal economic, social and cultural benefits to all the people of Canada if we prevent people from travelling to the mainland by not providing good ferry services and, when we do provide those services we do it at such a cost that it is literally impossible for them to travel?
I could describe in detail a number of problems faced by my colleagues from the Atlantic region, and by a good number of my friends from British Columbia, from various parts of Quebec and other parts of Canada. I could describe the costs that people living on islands have to pay in order to travel on their trans-Canada highway. It is time that we gave up this higgledy-piggledy method of providing services to people in island communities, and that we took a hard look at what we are actually doing.
Every now and then a private operator who is not getting enough from his ferry service makes representations to his member of parliament, to the Minister of Transport, and to Jack Pickersgill if he knows him well enough, and the result is that we get an extra $2,000 or $5,000 channeled into that service. This is the sort of lack of planning that my hon. friend from one of the important ridings in the Atlantic region mentioned several days ago. This is not taking issue with the problem.
Although I know I will not get attention given to this point tomorrow morning I think it is time that the government of Canada started treating people on island areas-I do not mean areas which contain only five or ten families, but areas where ferry transportation will have to be provided for much larger numbers over the next 10, 20 or 50 years-as if they are part of Canada. The government should provide these people wtih free ferry services so that they can have a better chance to take advantage of the economic circumstances that people in other parts of Canada take advantge of at present. The government
November 22, 1968

should help these people take part in this just society of ours. Ferry services should be provided free of cost by the Canadian government, or by private enterprise with the assistance of the government, so that these island people can use their trans-Canada highway without paying a prohibitive cost.
A few months ago I had the privilege of visiting one island community in my riding. I got to the island but I was a little leery about getting back when I realized how much it cost to get there. It cost two friends and myself $48 to travel six or seven miles of ocean, and this is a service that is provided only five or six times a week. Some 5,000 people live on that island and I say they are not treated like people in other parts of our country. As I say, it is time the government of Canada started treating these people in accordance with the facts, which are that the ocean they travel over is part of their trans-Canada highway, and is the only trans-Canada highway they will ever know.
To be more specific, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take issue with only one section of the estimates of the Department of Transport. I have been looking rather closely at the costs of administration of the Canadian Transport Commission. We hear all kinds of conversations and reasons as to why we cannot provide this or that, that we have scarce economic resources, that we are scarce in dollars and cents and must budget accordingly. Yet at page 537 of the blue book it has been drawn to my attention by quite a number of my friends who are not of my political affiliation, who are not even members of the opposition, that 17 members of the Canadian Transport Commission receive a grand total of $461,000 in salaries. We have a president of that commission who gets $40,000, enough to see him through the winter. Two vice presidents get $35,000 each. We had three chairmen getting $27,000 each and now we are being asked to increase the number to five chairmen, each getting $27,000. Then there are nine commission members who receive the lowly figure of $24,000 each.
The 17 people working for the federal government get an average of $27,000 a man, not including expenses. I do not know what the grand total would be, including expenses. The Minister of Transport will know that, but this is a staggering figure $461,000 to run one commission, and that covers just the top executive, just the crust of the commission. If we were to poll the 264 members of the house I believe the great majority of them, at least
Supply-Transport
people who have a conscience, would take issue with this kind of spending of the people's taxes. To me this is an atrocity. I cannot support this kind of spending.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I shall not go into the detail of a few specific problems I have, because I believe the minister is already aware of these, since I have had a discussion with him concerning the problem of Gander international airport. However, I might make one brief reference to Gander international airport. I have spoken to him and have made representations to his office. I feel one way in which the government of Canada can take issue with the problem of disparity in one part of Canada is by paying the attention it should to Gander international airport, because this airport could provide economic stimulus to the whole of the east coast of Newfoundland. I hope the parliamentary secretary will communicate this to the minister. I have already made representations, but I have not received a response to these, although I understand the minister is considering my problem.
I did indicate that the present 8,900 feet of runway space there is inadequate to serve the growing needs of changing technology, if I might use the jargon that is used by people. The 8,900 feet of runway will not serve the needs of the aircraft. Several prominent people in aviation, including a noted Canadian figure, have stated that unless runway facilities are at least 11,000 feet, within a year many of the present airports not having these facilities will soon be out of date.
The international airport at Gander has a great future and I believe it could provide a stimulus for the whole of the east coast of Newfoundland. I will not go into any of the plans which are presently being negotiated with regard to other phases of the airport, because with the advent of the jumbo jets and stretched jets we cannot discuss these concepts until we have adequate landing facilities. We have a fine airport at Gander, but unless we get the little bit of extra runway which is necessary we can forget about the future development of the east coast of Newfoundland as I envisage it at the present moment.
Lastly, in looking at the estimates, page 539, I see an item of $27,500 for a ferry service between Carmanville and Fogo Island in Newfoundland. This amount of $27,500 is about one fifth of what should have been provided to serve the people in this island

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport
community. As a result of my correspondence with the minister's office I have information that the amount of the subsidy to be paid in 1968-69 will be $40,000. I wonder what the reason is for the discrepancy. Perhaps I am misinterpreting the intent of the estimates. I bring this specific point to the attention of the minister, and he might like to comment on this later on.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I have found it interesting and informative to listen to the statements made in the past while by the previous three speakers. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for York North, who made some mention of Mr. Buckminster Fuller. It seems to me that the hon. member would strike one as being a junior Canadian version of Mr. Fuller. The majestic sweep of his forecasting leaves one in awe. I do no say that in a facetious manner. I certainly concur with his long range view that with the advent of supersonic and jumbo jet aircraft it will be necessary to depart substantially in our thinking from the present practice and attitude of the officials of the department, and even of Air Canada. The notion of a regional airport or regional air service centre to serve a vast region including the metropolitan complexes of Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa strikes me in a very positive way. I am one of those who believe that a national policy is not worthy of its name unless it takes adequate cognizance of the regional needs of the different areas of the country.
I should now like to refer for a few moments to the fate of the Air Canada base at Winnipeg. I notice that the hon. member for York North extended the geographic regions that this air centre would serve first to Montreal, then Quebec, and then moving east to Moncton after I talked him into it. I was hoping he would find something in the scheme of things for Winnipeg in respect of the overhaul facilities it has for jet aircraft at the present time. What is pertinent at this time is that just last night the minister for regional development made a speech in the city of Montreal on the concept of regional disparity in Canada. Since I cannot find a report of his speech in any other paper except La Presse I should like to place on the record one paragraph which I believe relates directly to this entire problem of regional disparity. This ties in directly with the problem
[Mr. Lundrigan.l
of the transfer of the Air Canada base. It is as follows:

Mr. Marchand defined as a long term objective of his regional department the regrouping of industries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edward Richard Schreyer: The honourable members are too enthusiastic.


Mr. Clermont:: No, it is for the way you speak French.


Edward Richard Schreyer: I continue, Mr. Chairman.
-not in huge "cancerous urban centres" but in three or four average-sized industrial centres which would be, for instance, in Quebec: Montreal, Quebec, Rimouski and Chicoutimi, On the other hand, the implantation of industries adapted to the needs and regional conditions in the underdeveloped areas.

As I understand the hon. minister he is saying that it is a great mistake, in respect of the national economy, to take a laissez-faire attitude and not take an interest in the phenomenon whereby more and more industry and more and more technical capability becomes crammed into one or two metropolitan complexes, while the rest of the country remains underdeveloped and some areas which have been slow developing slide back. In connection with the great metropolitan complex of Montreal I should like to say it is my understanding that because of the tremendous increase in air traffic in the next few years it will be necessary to spend many millions of dollars to extend the air terminal facilities at Montreal. No one is complaining about that. This is an obvious necessity and one which will be taken care of by any government at the federal level. In addition to that, however, it is my understanding that not only will millions of dollars be spent on expanding the air terminal facilities but also that it will be necessary for Air Canada to spend millions of dollars in increasing its jet aircraft hangar facilities. This is something that was not taken into account at the time when one or two inquiry commissions made their inquiry and report on the problem of the location of the Air Canada base.
I should like the Minister of Transport to indicate clearly whether or not it is a fact that in the next decade there will be a major capital expenditure for increased air terminal facilities at Montreal. In addition, would the minister indicate clearly whether it is in the plans of Air Canada to spend a major amount
November 22, 1968

of money in capital construction costs to increase the size of the jet engine overhaul and hangar facilities at Montreal. If that should be true, then it does in a substantial way impinge upon the decision as to whether or not there is a purely economic overwhelming case that this overhaul base should be transferred from Winnipeg to Montreal.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
There is much more I should like to say in this connection, but since I made some reference to the subject not long ago I shall desist from saying anything more at this time. It is difficult for me to understand the hon. member for Temiscamingue-not my colleague, but the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste- who said, and I believe I understood him correctly, that we must consider the problem of the location of the Air Canada base "stric-tement du point de vue economique": that is, strictly from an economic point of view. I was surprised to hear the hon. member say that, because he knows full well that other considerations are involved. He has had to fight hard during the past five years for the establishment of a policy in our crown corporations and the C.N.R., which should be used as an instrument reflecting the bilingual character of this country. You cannot look at these operations all the time strictly from the point of view of economics. If that were so, how could one hope to persuade these crown corporations that they should, even at extra expense, undertake to provide services in a bilingual manner in order to meet the needs of Canadians, regardless of whether they are French or English speaking? The hon. member for Temiscamingue was not taking the position that the operations of our crown corporations must be looked at only from an economic point of view, because at times there are other factors which become overriding.
In connection with the Air Canada base at Winnipeg and whether it should be removed completely and added to the already large operation at Montreal, this does not involve just a matter of the internal operation of that crown corporation but also the question as to the regional needs in different parts of the country. We must consider whether we should put our eggs in one basket and follow the trend of some of the so-called banana republics, where everything is crammed into one or two large metropolitan cities and the rest of the country remains in extreme poverty and squalor with very little opportunity. This is what is involved, not just the internal
Supply-Transport
economic operations of crown corporations and balance sheets.
At this time I wish to refer to a subject which has been touched upon by two previous speakers on the other side of the house, the hon. members for Etobicoke and York North. They ventured to suggest that within the Department of Transport a greater effort should be made, either under the aegis of the D.O.T. or a separate body, to perform a greater amount of research in the field of transportation, its economics, the implications of new modes of transportation and public health and safety. I am in complete agreement. Neither of those gentlemen referred to research into the effects of sound, but mentioned only research in respect of noise, as they put it. They mentioned noise in relation to public health and safety, or the dangers involved.
It is my feeling that this idea should be extended to encompass research into the effects of sound, not just noise, which implies sound at the upper decibel range. We should also consider sound which is imperceptive to the human ear; the sounds of high frequencies, supersonics and so on. It is my conviction, having been interested for several months in this matter, that the Department of Transport, although it performs the function of licensing of equipment and operators, does not really know what the safe permissive standard of radiant energy emission is. I would not say that if I did not feel convinced that this is so. There are a number of officials in the Department of Transport licensing branch whose function it is to check all applications for telecommunications equipment operations. Presumably they check to make sure that the power output is within a frequency range, and issue a license on the assumption that the equipment will operate within that acceptable range and that the power output will not be such as to pose a threat to public health and safety.
Much more research has been done in the United States in this regard than here in Canada. Many millions of dollars have been spent in this area and the people there are much more uncertain and uneasy about their standards of safety than we are in Canada. This is a very puzzling situation. If one asks the Department of Transport here whether it is satisfied that a microwave tower emitting energy at the rate of about 5 watts, at a frequency range of 6,000 megacycles, is safe, he is told it comes within the standards which have been accepted for a number of years

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport
and that there cannot be any possibility of danger.
I have found from reading through some of the records of the hearings by the United States senate commerce committee, on this topic of radiation control for health safety, that the top experts in the United States agree almost unanimously, or certainly by an overwhelming majority, that the standards maintained there during the past decade are seriously out of date. They suggest they are crude, require refinement and that a better assessment of standards should be made. The standards upon which we issue licences do not take into account the possible non-thermal effect of radiant energy over long periods of time on human tissue, and forms of biological plant and animal life.
What are we doing in this country to deal with this problem or potential hazard? It is becoming more important with each passing year that something be done, because there is an increasing use of this kind of equipment. There is greater use by military authorities and the telecommunications industry. Beginning about two years ago there has been a steady increase in the use of this type of equipment in kitchens. Many ovens are equipped to use microwave radiant energy to cook foods.
The examples I have given represent only a small part of this phenomenon, which is growing with the state of knowledge in this area. I say without apology or wish to hurt anyone's feelings that our research and understanding in this regard is extremely inadequate. Our Department of Agriculture is conducting some research in this field. It has granted $3,000 to the University of Manitoba for research into the potential hazards of the thermal effect of microwave radiation and microwave energy. I suggest this is nonsense. Any research worthy of the name in this field must engage itself over a long period of time in field conditions, and not just laboratory conditions. It must concern itself with research into possible non-thermal effects of microwave and electrical frequency radiation. I am not speaking futuristically when I say there is an urgent need in this respect. The need is now. Since the Department of Transport issues licences for the operation of this equipment, it must undertake the research and not leave it to the Department of Agriculture. The Department of National Health and Welfare is not carrying out this research either. There does not seem to be any liaison between the departments that

might be concerned, and to the extent that there is research it is inadequate not only in terms of dollars and cents but in the terms of reference. All in all, it is a pretty sad situation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I hope that the suggestion of the hon. member for York North and others for more research by the D.O.T. is accepted. I hope this research will be undertaken in a more comprehensive way, rather than confining it to noise. I hope the research will direct itself to the possible harmful effects of sound on all ranges, and radiation energy.
I would like to put on the record excerpts from the hearings held before a United States Congress committee, but because of the time factor and the fact that other hon. members wish to speak on these estimates I will deny myself that temptation. I feel tempted, however, to send to the Minister of Transport not just a few excerpts but all three volumes of the hearings, so that he will not treat this matter cavalierly and with indifference.
Another matter I should like to mention is the attitude of the Department of Transport with respect to regional air carriers. I know that the D.O.T. is preoccupied with our large-scale rail and air operations, but in Canada there are air lines of small and intermediate size that are of significant importance to the economies of their areas. I find, just as the hon. member for Churchill has been pointing out in the last few days, that the Department of Transport is not very much concerned with the operating difficulties which some of our regional air lines have to face.
Let us take, for example, the Winnipeg international airport complex. The regional air carriers-and there are a number of them often find it difficult to get enough hangar space, area space, in order to service, maintain and overhaul their aircraft. They find it difficult, therefore, to always meet their licence requirements in terms of frequency of service, and the like, and this becomes an increasing problem to them. This is a pity indeed, because for the northern areas of every province, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and others-in fact, from sea to sea-the importance of the smaller carriers cannot be overestimated. To the extent that the Department of Transport is unco-operative in assisting these air carriers to maintain their operations, the department is doing a disservice to the economic development and servicing of the north country.
November 22, 1968

A few days ago, in a rather informal way and at rather short notice someone in the Department of Transport-I suspect it was the minister or the minister without portfolio from Winnipeg, or both of them-ordered the convening of a meeting at Winnipeg to which were invited the regional, smaller air carriers. This meeting was convened because there has been a persistent problem over the last few years for these air line managers and operators to obtain co-operation from the Department of Transport with regard to getting hangar space.
I want to know how much longer this situation will persist. The Department of National Defence has a few air force hangars there. The rumour is that for long periods of time these hangars are under-utilized and could be made available on a rental basis to some of the smaller air line operators. This has not been done. I think the Department of Transport could give some help in this regard. The leasing policy of the department is not any help. As I understand the situation at the airport sites, they insist upon only short term leases and expect the smaller air lines to build permanent facilities. There is a need for conciliation to solve this problem.
I think it would be just as well, Mr. Chairman, if I resumed my place. I have drawn to the attention of the minister and his associate three problems which I consider to be important at the present time. One is the question of the proposed move of the overhaul base from Winnipeg; the second is the lack of enthusiasm by the Department of Transport with regard to accommodating the needs of regional air carriers and smaller air line operators in different parts of the country, with particular reference to Winnipeg; and the third is the need for vastly expanded research by the D.O.T. in the area of the hazard and threat to public health and safety of various forms of microwave energy, which is the form of energy used in telecommunications and which the D.O.T. licenses.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I would like to answer as many questions as possible in the few minutes remaining this afternoon. May I begin by answering some of the questions raised by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster. With regard to the Robinson report which was received in October, 1967, I can say that the department has been actively engaged in the evaluation and implementation of the recommendations. The recommendations covered a broad range of activities-
Supply-Transport
organization, recruitment, training, personnel matters and operational equipment.
Many of the recommendations respecting terms and conditions of employment are subject to the collective bargaining process. In this regard the Canadian air traffic controllers and the employer completed negotiation of their first collective agreement in August of this year. The tremendous growth in aviation has required that there be continuing improvement and adjustment in the air traffic control services-recruitment, staffing, training, equipment, etc.-on a programmed basis to keep pace with the requirements and maintain the department's standard of safety, which is second to none in any country. The hon. member also raised the question of general assistance to the Atlantic area, maritimes freight rates assistance, less-than-carload lot rates, and so on.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I will not take much time to deal with the matter at the moment. I shall merely assure my hon. friend that we are undertaking a very active study. A day or two ago I had a chance to speak to one of the people directly involved in the task force which was established by the Atlantic premiers. He has indicated they are well advanced with their thinking and we should have a report from them in a few weeks. In the meantime the studies which have been done by the Canadian Transport Commission have been going forward in parallel, so that we may look at them both concurrently. Very early in the new year we hope to give these our undivided attention in the hope that we can come to some conclusion designed to provide the best value with regard to transportation facilities for the people of the Atlantic region.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I interrupt the minister, Mr. Chairman. Will he undertake, say in the next two weeks at some appropriate time, to say something about the matter of the expiry of the freeze on certain types of rates. I ask that, since it looks as if we shall have no new legislation before March. That is our insurmountable problem. I assume the minister agrees that the freeze will cause trouble. I understand the governor in council might be able to deal with it; but since this matter is fairly important and looms large I should appreciate an assurance from the minister with regard to the expiry of the freeze on rates. That might be enough for the time being.

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think I can give that commitment, Mr. Chairman, because it is related to all the other aspects of Atlantic transportation. I would not want to comment on one aspect, when that might be out of context with other aspects.
With regard to the other reports referred to by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster that come within the jurisdiction of the department, I can assure the committee that work is proceeding as quickly and as effectively as possible.
With regard to revising the Canada Shipping Act, an outside consultant has been engaged to take an independent view of the research work done by our own experts, as well as to recommend a form that new legislation ought to take.
With regard to the report of the royal commission on pilotage, the government has received the first part of the five part report and a team of departmental officials has been established to prepare the groundwork for policy decisions by the government, in addition to those already known to my hon. friend.
The hon. member also wanted to know what happened at Dorval on November 11. Perhaps the hon. member's knowledge is more extensive than mine. In any event, the department has sufficient equipment to keep the airport open and, as a matter of fact, runways were never closed at any time during the storm in question. The aircraft parking apron was, however, in a bad condition, because of inability to move snow off the apron. Trucking of snow off the airport was carried out by contract; the airport was not equipped with trucks for this purpose. The contractor was advised that his services would be required by a stated time but his trucks were unable to reach the airport, due to the blockage of roads leading to the airport. Vehicular traffic was completely disrupted due to stalled cars, etc., and some of the airport staff who left work at 4 p.m. did not reach their homes until midnight. Operations at the airport were suspended for ten hours due to a combination of blockage of road traffic to the airport, conditions of the parking apron and visibility. The latter factor was instrumental in many airlines suspending their operations. The storm in question was the worst in years in the Montreal area from the point of view of snowfall. I assure my hon. friend that I will speak to the personnel of our meteorological branch and ask them to see that this does not happen again.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I interject, Mr. Chairman that we, who were on the way to the House of Commons in Ottawa, were most upset because we could not find the V.I.P. room until five o'clock in the morning.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It must not happen again.


An hon. Member:: Is that the washroom?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think I had better not comment further on that interjection. The hon. member for Moose Jaw inquired about extending the season at the port of Churchill. We have a study nearing completion that deals with the extension of the shipping season. This is being carried out, with some degree of co-operation, with the Manitoba royal commission investigating the future of northern Manitoba. It is expected that a preliminary finding will be available in published form within three or four months. I can also assure my hon. friend that at the proposed first urban conference on transportation, members of this house will be represented. I hope they will include some members of our transport committee.
The hon. member for Temiscamingue asked for consideration with respect to the continuation of trains 83 and 84. I am sure he will appreciate that this is a matter for the Canadian Transport Commission and that representations should be made to the railway committee of that commission when public hearings are held. I noted, however, a slight degree of inconsistency in the hon. member's remarks. Although he insisted that the decision respecting the Winnipeg air base should be made strictly on economic grounds, he said that these trains ought to be kept in service notwithstanding-and I took this admission from his remarks-that they are not economical. This lack of consistency appears from time to time in public life and must be taken into account when future plans are being made.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is a good sentence.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is one I copied from a former holder of the office now occupied by the hon. gentleman.
The hon. member for Etobicoke made an excellent representation on behalf of the residents of his riding advising against the major expansion at Toronto international airport. He raised a number of problems which are indeed relevant. All I can say at this time is that they were also raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants and all those
November 22, 19G8

factors that have been raised will be taken into consideration before a final decision is made. I think that has been understood from the beginning. There are many factors in favour of the major expansion, although there are good reasons to know that would disturb quite a number of people. I can only assure my hon. friends that all points of view will be listened to and considered before we make a final decision.
The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate asked a number of questions. I shall only deal with one of them as my time has almost expired. He mentioned the Carmanville-Fogo subsidy. I can only say that this is administered by the water transport committee. Perhaps the hon. member could pass his question to the Canadian Transport Commission and have it dealt with before the committee of that commission. In addition he asked about the possibility of extending the runway at Gander. In that regard I have a letter which I will send him in answer to an earlier inquiry. It states, in effect, that the department will expand these runways when there is a demand for this from the users. At present we have not been requested, either by international or domestic users of this airport, to expand the runway facilities there. These questions are constantly under review and if it is decided that an additional runway is required in order to facilitate the landings of aircraft, that of course will be taken into consideration by the department.
The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants raised a question similar to the one raised by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster with respect to maritime transportation generally. I can also assure him that this matter will come under very active consideration in the weeks ahead and I hope it will not be too long before a report on the matter is presented.
He also asked for consideration to be given to providing flights from Halifax to places like Ottawa. I expect he realizes that this will come about when traffic is sufficient to support that kind of service. A number of new services have been inaugurated; for example, there is a flight now from Winnipeg to Ottawa. Without doubt a great many more services will come into being in the months and years ahead as additional traffic is generated.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
The hon. member for York North made a very interesting speech in which he proposed
Supply-Transport
a far out, but perhaps not that far out, alternative to the expansion of Toronto international airport. In doing so he also raised a number of interesting ideas and suggestions in respect of urban development in the broader sense, and better value in housing. I was therefore listening in both capacities and trying to put the whole scheme together in my mind. I can only thank him for at least stretching our minds a little by giving us these ideas to consider.
The hon. member for Selkirk mentioned his concern about the five watt microwave transmitter of 6,000 megacycles. I should like to remind him, not as an indication of my lack of concern, that during the war radar was operated on the order of one million watts without any harmful effects being observed. At the same time I can assure my hon. friend we are interested and concerned in adding to the total bank of scientific knowledge relating to modern technological developments. I am sure there is a lot we do not know as yet. I am sure, too, that the hon. member knows that the sun radiates energy not far from this section of the spectrum. This, too, has effects on the human body which are not fully appreciated.


An hon. Member:: Will the minister permit a question?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I think perhaps the next time around, because there is one more answer I should like to give and I have already transgressed on the good nature of the house to the extent of an extra five minutes.
In so far as the Winnipeg airport is concerned, I should like to advise that recently there were negotiations between my department and the Department of National Defence as a result of which the Department of National Defence agreed to make available to us half of hangar No. 4, that is on the east side. This space will be available immediately and will partially accommodate the traffic there. We have also made an arrangement for a parcel of land adjacent to hangar No. 4. Next summer we will commence construction of additional facilities on that parcel. Furthermore, the consultant's long range study that the government requested has been considered by our department. This is the subject of further negotiations which are presently taking place with the Department of National Defence and will enable us to provide additional facilities. I think it will not be too long before we will be able to provide adequate facilities for commercial users at Winnipeg.

November 22, 1968
Supply-Transport
Finally, Mr. Chairman, may I thank all hon. gentlemen who have participated in the debate this afternoon. I think they have been most constructive in their interventions and I hope that if there are any questions remaining we can deal with them at a future date, or on orders of the day.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Richard):: It
being five o'clock, shall I rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
Progress reported.



MOTION TO FORGO SITTING ON THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 28

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I should like to request permission to revert to motions so that we can make an order with respect to the business for next week.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Has the
minister leave to put his proposal forward at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It was suggested that the house might not sit one or two days during next week so that members could give all their attention for a day or two to the business before the standing committees of the house. Consultations have taken place through the usual channels, and I believe that the motion which I am going to suggest to the house would be generally accepted. I move, therefore:
That the sitting of this house on Thursday, November 28, 1968, shall be suspended, but for the purposes of the special order made on September 20, 1968, that day is to be counted against the total of 17 days allotted to the business of supply.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to say a word at this time, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that we are prepared to go along with this motion in an effort to expedite the work of the committees. I should point out, of course, as is indicated in the motion, that this day comes off the very limited number of days available to the house for supply. We are agreeable to this in an effort to be co-operative, in view of the very high degree of congestion in the work of the committees which is aggravated, of course, by the fact that there are two sets of estimates coming before this session of parliament. This means that the committees,

in addition to being concerned with their ordinary work over a full session, are confronted by an additional work load.
Quite frankly, I think the committees are finding it difficult to be properly manned and to discharge the burden of work with which they are confronted. We are agreeing to this motion, not because we do not value the relatively few supply days that are available, but because we feel it is necessary to do so, in view of the congestion of work with which the committees are confronted. We are prepared to try this procedure for one day, to see if it will afford some relief to this extreme congestion.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Naturally, Mr. Speaker, we welcome this motion since it implements a suggestion made from this corner of the house. I just have one point I should like to make, and this is not a reservation or qualification so far as this motion is concerned. If this experiment is tried again, we would not like it to be a precedent to be followed every time the house takes a day off for committee work that the day has to come off our supply days. We think that can be negotiated in the future, and we would not want the passing of this motion to be taken as a precedent in that respect.


Mr. Arnold Peiers (Timiskaming):: Since there is a time limit on the consideration of the estimates, Mr. Speaker-I think it is December 12-would the house leader not consider extending this motion to cover two days in this week rather than just one? It seems to me if it is good to have one day, then it is better to have two. If we are willing to give up this time, there is no reason why that should not be done.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I indicated to my hon. friends opposite that initially the government would have been prepared to take two days. There was a disagreement about taking Wednesday. Tuesday, as you know, has been the subject of a special order by the house for a debate on external affairs, and there seemed to be a general reluctance to take Monday or Friday. By the process of elimination, therefore, only one day was available.


An hon. Member:: We might get a second day the following week.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, because the committees are burdened with
November 22, 1968

work this session, we agree that it is advisable to take that day as an experiment, to see if that would give results. But, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) pointed out, we would not like it to be a precedent in case the experience does not prove as successful as we hope.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: May I
direct a question to the minister? At the last meeting of the standing committee on agriculture we were informed that the committee would not meet on either of the two regular days next week, that is Tuesday or Thursday. May I ask the minister if, in the event the house agrees to this procedure, this situation will be changed, and the standing committee will be able to meet next week?
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to draw that to the attention of the co-ordinating committee.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Then I have the minister's assurance that he will do so; am I correct?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will bring the matter to the attention of the co-ordinating committee. I cannot make a commitment now. This committee has the job of co-ordinating the committee work of the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the approval of this order?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, might I at the same time make a confirmation with regard to Tuesday's business. The business for the early part of next week is as I outlined yesterday; that is to say, on Monday the estimates of the National Capital Commission. I should like to call special attention to the fact that on Tuesday we will be considering a motion for concurrence in the second report of the standing committee on external affairs and national defence, under the terms of the special order of the house made on November 6, 1968. I call this to the attention of the house, principally so that it might be reflected in the proceedings of the house that day.
Immigration Act Amendment


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: It being five o'clock this house will now turn to the consideration of private members business, as appearing on page 12 of the order paper, public bills.



IMMIGRATION ACT AMENDMENT


Barry Mather: the second reading of Bill No. C-10, to amend the Immigration Act (mental retardation).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I notice in rising to speak that approximately one quarter of the time that is usually devoted to private members bills has already expired. With that in mind I intend to be even briefer than I usually am, and I recommend the same policy to other hon. members who I am sure will rise to speak in support of my proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Especially the "talker-outers".


Barry Mather: Thank you. I was motivated to introduce this bill by the troubles and appeals of a number of people in my area of British Columbia who are parents of mentally retarded children and members of the local Mental Retardation Society. Their complaint, which they still make today, Mr. Speaker, is that when they and their families visit across the border in Washington, Oregon and other states with their children who are mentally retarded, they run into a good deal of trouble and delay. As we can understand, people with mentally retarded children have so many troubles in the ordinary course of events that they naturally wish if possible to avoid additional friction when visiting relations or friends in another part of this continent. This is why, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to put forward in legislative form the suggestion that families who come from the United States to visit Canada and who similarly have mentally retarded members should not run into similar difficulty in our border restrictions.
The hope of the families on behalf of whom I speak was, and still is, that if Canada would reform and update our border crossing regulations in this respect it might well be that this would encourage the making of a mutual arrangement with our neighbours to the south, the United States, in regard to their regulations. The explanatory note to Bill No. C-10 which I have put forward reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to provide that a person afflicted with mental retardation may be
November 22, 1968

Immigration Act Amendment admitted to Canada under the Immigration Act if he is not likely to become a public charge.
In other words-the absolute prohibition against such a person is relaxed to the degree applicable to persons who are "dumb, blind, or otherwise physically defective".
The phrase which I have used dumb, blind, or otherwise physically defective" appears in section 5 of our present Immigration Act, which deals with prohibited classes. Under existing laws these persons may be admitted to Canada if they have sufficient means of support, if they are not likely to become public charges, or are members of a family accompaying them or already in Canada and the family gives satisfactory security against such immigrants becoming public charges.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, the bill before the house would provide similar safeguards and privileges for members of families who are mentally retarded to come into this country. The effect of the bill would be to eliminate the additional trouble caused those families with mentally retarded members when crossing the United States border into Canada. Hopefully, Mr. Speaker, the country to our south, the United States, would respond by passing similar legislation.
The intent of the bill was to ease, if this is possible, entry from the United States to Canada of families with mentally retarded members, in the hope, as I say, of reciprocal legislation. This restriction was to be lifted for visits only. However, as drafted the bill would also provide for the visit or permanent entry into Canada of such persons, with the safeguards that I have enumerated.
There are, of course, provisions in the United States in the form of waivers to help in this sort of situation. I believe these waivers are attached to the entry visa and provide a way around the prohibition that exists in their immigration legislation in regard to mentally retarded people. I am also informed that for our part Canada has a similar type of waiver which can be applied for in order to permit the entry of such persons.
However, in both countries the actual immigration legislation does not in itself provide for what, to me at least, seems a common sense, humanitarian thing, namely the entry without special application of people who conform to the provisions in the act regarding persons who are dumb, blind or otherwise physically defective.
I have in front of me the current issue, fall 1968, of the publication "Mental Retardation". The general question that my bill concerns 

itself with-that is, the passage across the international border of the type of person I have described in the bill-is very well dealt with, to the extent of several pages. A chapter dealing with the retarded and border crossing regulations is included in the pamphlet for the information and help of people concerned, namely those families with mentally retarded members who wish to make visits to or take up permanent residence in the United States or Canada, as the case may be. There are certain regulations in both countries with which these people must concur, and the chapter describes in detail over the course of several pages the different steps that should be taken to surmount the prohibition that exists in the legislation. It ends by saying:
It is perhaps unnecessary to point out how archaic these provisions in the Immigration Act are. Changes should be made to reflect more adequately the social and economic realities of present day life.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
The same idea as is expressed in the publication from which I have quoted, and in my own bill, was also put forward by the former minister of citizenship and immigration, now the minister responsible for forestry and rural development (Mr. Marchand). In 1966 a white paper was issued under the name of that hon. gentleman in which the following is stated in section 58 under the heading Immigration Policy:
Scientific knowledge and medical skill have reduced substantially the element of risk once inherent in certain illnesses. The present grounds for prohibition do not altogether reflect this advance. Nor are they altogether in line with modem medical and sociological concepts, particularly in respect of mental illness and epilepsy. Persons actually insane or suffering from contagious or infectious diseases ought not to be admitted as immigrants or non-immigrants, unless they are coming to Canada by previous arrangement and under proper safeguards to take treatment. However, an illness that has been cured or brought under control to the point where no danger to public health or safety exists, should not be a bar to either temporary or permanent admission.
Nor should mental or physical defectives be excluded for that reason alone, but only if they represent a danger to society or are not assured of private care.
With this I fully agree, and I urge the house to give at least approval in principle this evening to the subject matter of the proposed bill so that it may be proceeded with at committee level.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: The
purpose of this bill, as outlined by the hon.
November 22, 1968

member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) is to provide that a person afflicted with mental retardation may be admitted to Canada under the Immigration Act, if he is not likely to become a public charge. In other words, the prohibition against the admission to Canada as a landed immigrant of such person would be removed.
I wish to commend the hon. member for his humanitarian attitude, because I have also had the privilege of introducing bills of similar intent which had the effect of proposing amendments to the Immigration Act. In my case, the proposed amendments were designed to give permanent status to immigrants who had suffered mental disorders, who had been admitted to a mental institution after their admission to Canada as landed immigrants, and who had apparently been cured. I am referring to the introduction of Bill C-30. I was very fortunate in that this bill was accepted by the government, and that on March 22 of this year the amendment which I had proposed became law.
As a former parliamentary secretary to two ministers of citizenship and immigration, I am naturally in sympathy with the objective which the bill under discussion would achieve, if approved by parliament, and I welcome the opportunity to make a few observations about it. First of all, I would agree that a person afflicted with mental retardation should not always be regarded as hopeless. Recent advances in medical knowledge and techniques may well, in some cases, have the effect of alleviating the affliction. From a report on mental retardation by the executive director of the National Association for Retarded Children, I wish to quote the following:
Historically, mental retardation has been viewed for the most part as a static, unchanging, incurable condition. Although there were some brilliant thinkers and gifted practitioners who envisioned the potentials of training and treatment for the retarded, the idea "Once retarded always retarded" led over the years to the general practice of providing humane treatment with little hope that the afflicted individuals could ever participate in the competitive world of employment and civic responsibility.
Indeed, the concept had so strongly crystallized that, in 1916, Terman described the mentally retarded as follows-"They will make a little progress in a well-managed special class, but with the approach of adolescence, at latest, the state should take them into custodial care for its own protection." Terman held that mental retardation was inherited-that mental deficiency and moral deficiency were synonymous, that mental growth stopped in adolescence, and that since intelligence was a general problem-solving behaviour then if one was retarded at all one was
Immigration Act Amendment
retarded in each specific area of human functioning. With this type of concept, it is small wonder that little effort was made to try and improve the performance of the mentally retarded.
Several years ago, as a matter of fact, scientists were working to lay the foundation for a revolution in the physical sciences, one which has changed our lives and is changing them every day. Our present world has been transformed by the great scientific revolution of the last quarter of a century, from television to the space rocket. Science has created a new world with new problems, dangers and challenges. A number of Nobel prize winners have devoted themselves to the subject of mental retardation. For example, in 1958 a man by the name of Lederberg shared the Nobel prize for uncovering some of the basic mechanisms underlying heredity and worked in the Kennedy laboratories devoted to mental retardation. A Dr. Lejeune from France won the Kennedy award by proving that certain characteristics in the cells of the human body offer hope of controlling some forms of mental retardation. Another scientist by the name of Donald Glaser, winner of a Nobel prize in physics, was so interested in mental retardation that he switched his field of interest to microbiology, feeling that in this field lay the challenge of the future. The work of these scientists who are seeking an understanding of the human mind and body, together with the processes of fundamental life, will have consequences for the surprisingly vast number of the mentally retarded in Canada as well as for the millions elsewhere in the world.
It has been reliably reported that nearly half a million Canadians suffer the handicap of mental retardation in one degree or another. In other words, it is estimated that about 3 per cent of Canadians are to some extent retarded. Only four other disabling conditions, mental illness, cardiac disease, arthritis and cancer have a higher prevalence, and these tend to come later in life, whereas mental retardation comes early.
Mental retardation ranks as a major national health, social and economic problem. It afflicts twice as many individuals as blindness, polio, cerebral palsy and rheumatic heart disease combined. Mental retardation does not respect station in life, or geography. It may afflict the children of the rich, or of the poor, in any part of the country.
Great strides have been made in learning new ways to educate and rehabilitate those, who a few years ago, had no hope. The Canadian Association for Retarded Children, the
November 22, 1968

Immigration Act Amendment Canadian Mental Health Association, and others, have made outstanding efforts to help the mentally retarded. But surveys made by the Canadian Association for Retarded Children, its member associations and other organizations, reveal a serious shortage of facilities for mentally retarded children and adults alike.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
The great hope of these handicapped persons lies in the implementation of the many new concepts developed in treatment, training, vocational guidance and permanent care, which will bring about a greater integration of the mentally handicapped into the community, and more humane treatment for those whose disabilities are so severe as to require constant supervision.
I have no hesitation in saying that in my view the problem of mental retardation has been neglected, and only in recent years have we become conscious of the need to do something about it. In order successfully to meet the problem more co-ordinated efforts should be made on the part of the municipalities, the provinces, and the federal government.
In 1964 there was the first Canadian federal-provincial conference on mental retardation. The conference was conceived as a timely and essential step in seeking to improve, extend and achieve greater co-ordination of health, welfare, education and vocational services for mentally retarded children and adults.
Following the conference a steering committee met in Ottawa in February 1965, to review the work of the conference. The committee felt that it was the federal government's responsibility to provide leadership by working with the provincial authorities and voluntary health and welfare groups. It felt that attention should be given to mental retardation in mental health research, child and maternal health research, and related research programs. It believed that the conference itself had indicated that there were many avenues to improve services and better co-ordination of agencies and facilities, and that to pursue these required only a spirit of conscious concern on the part of all responsible persons. The committee also felt that the conference, in heightening this sense of conscious concern, had accomplished its major purpose.
What we have been able in past to accomplish for the mentally retarded in Canada is


only a beginning when related to the great accomplishments that we can attain in the years ahead. I suggest that we should accept a more responsible role in the field of mental retardation, as our knowledge expands in this great field of public welfare which offers avenues of hope undreamed of in the past.
In my opinion the bill in question could well be broader, affecting not only paragraph (s) of section 5 of the Immigration Act, but it might well have also dealt with section 5(a) (iv) which refers to those afflicted with epilepsy. This is also an affliction that has responded to new medical knowledge and techniques.
However, I must point out that the bill which I have referred to as Bill C-30 dealt with an amendment to give permanent status under the Immigration Act to immigrants who have suffered from a mental disorder, but who apparently have been cured. The minister realized that when the Immigration Act was framed insanity was regarded as an incurable illness, and saw the merit of the need for a change in the act. We are all grateful to the former minister of manpower and immigration for his foresight and humane understanding, from which many immigrants are enjoying the benefits in the change of the legislation, restoring to them the dignity and the right to apply for Canadian citizenship which was denied to them under an unfair section in the Immigration Act.
Whether paragraph (s) of section 5 of the Immigration Act, which this bill is trying to change, is unfair, has to be examined in the light of circumstances surrounding individual cases. For instance if the person seeking admission is a member of a family already in Canada, financially responsible and capable of giving satisfactory security against such an immigrant becoming a public charge, in such a case there would appear to be sufficient justification to relax the regulations to enable that person to join his family. On the other hand, a person with no family ties in Canada would most likely become a public charge, and a rather serious one. The amount involved would run into thousands of dollars for each person.
Another point on which I would like to make an observation is that other departments of government, besides that of manpower and immigration, are particularly concerned, such as the Department of National Health and Welfare on the medical side, and the Department of Justice with regard to legal
November 22, 1968	COMMONS
consideration of this bill. They should express their views on the bill.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the intent of Bill C-10 is certainly commendable. It is the sort of measure that one can gladly support, but it could profit by amendments that would widen its scope. We should be certain that it is acceptable, from the medical and legal point of view, by those departments of the federal government that are also concerned with its application.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is with much pleasure that I lend my support to this bill. I express our gratitude to the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) for introducing it. It is a very minute bill but it is of much importance to a lot of people.
I have listened with much interest to the very eloquent speech just made by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Badanai) and I gather from those remarks, from one who is interested in the whole problem of mental retardation and our responsibility in society to those so afflicted, that here is a gentleman who does have a concern and also an in-depth knowledge of the problem. I commend him for the remarks he made. However, I find it difficult to understand his reasoning in asking that this bill be set aside for the purpose of expanding it to meet other inadequacies in the immigration law, because to open the whole Immigration Act, even to this problem, is something that goes far beyond the scope of Bill C-10. Therefore I would urge him to reconsider his stand and look at Bill C-10 for what it actually says.
The bill is intended to make it possible for parents who have retarded children in their families to bring those children to this country in the same way as they are able to bring their other children. The bill is even so cautious as to specify that the parents must be able to guarantee that there is support for such children.
Let me be specific. I know of at least three cases, and I am thinking of one in particular, of families having a very real problem because our immigration laws do not permit a child suffering from mental retardation to have the normal status of his brothers and sisters in this country. The particular case I have in mind is that of a professional man. He came to this country, well qualified, a few years ago, but he has to go back to the immigration people year by year to receive a permit to allow his only child, who happens to be retarded, to stay here in Canada. There
DEBATES	3115
Immigration Act Amendment is doubt and a lack of security hanging over the heads of this family, and this is something which is just not reasonable.
This regulation in the act must date back to the dark ages, or at least back to a time when people looked on retardation as some sin of parents expressed in their offspring. It just is not logical in the light of what we know today concerning retardation, and is not in agreement with the progress we have made in society. I would go even further than the hon. member sponsoring this bill, who very mildly suggested that we should let the bill pass so that it could go to the appropriate committee and be studied further.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
My mind goes back to the time when I was a quite junior member of this house. The hon. member who now is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) proposed a seemingly insignificant bill the effect of which was to change the name of our national air lines from Trans-Canada Air Lines to Air Canada. There was good will in the house with regard to this one particular bill, which might have been much more controversial than the one we have before us. The house let the bill go through. Not only was it in effect a very major change in so far as Air Canada was concerned, but it also gave hope to many backbenchers in the house that perhaps they did have some worth, perhaps some of their suggestions were reasonable and perhaps there was some justification for being a backbencher in this house.
I suggest to members of the house that we have here a bill with which everybody can agree. It is very short and concise. Its purpose, as is stated, is to provide that a person afflicted with mental retardation may be admitted to Canada under the Immigration Act, if he is not likely to become a public charge. That is all it says. We can accept that. We cannot really argue against it. Why do we not end our deliberations and permit this bill to pass?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Norman Thompson: In this way we would make a worthwhile contribution to a surprising number of families who would otherwise suffer an unjust hardship because of the antiquated effect of the Immigration Act. I suggest that at the same time we would give some encouragement to the backbenchers, indicate to them that they have some ideas
3116	COMMONS
Immigration Act Amendment which are worthwhile, and show that they can make some contribution in this chamber as lawmakers.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Bill No. C-10 is to provide that a person afflicted with mental retardation may be admitted to Canada under the Immigration Act if he is not likely to become a public charge. In other words, the absolute prohibition against such a person would be relaxed to the degree applicable to persons who are dumb, blind or otherwise physically defective. To accomplish the objective, the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) proposes to repeal paragraph (s) of section 5 of the Immigration Act which prohibits the admission of the following individuals:
Parsons, not included in any other prohibited class, who are certified by a medical officer as being mentally or physically abnormal to such a degree as to impair seriously their ability to earn a living.
The sponsor would substitute:
Persons, not included in any other prohibited class, who are certified by a medical officer as being mentally or physically abnormal to such a degree as to impair seriously their ability to earn a living, unless, where such persons are abnormal by reason of mental retardation.
(i)	they have sufficient means of support or such profession, trade, occupation, employment or other legitimate mode of earning a living that they are not likely to become public charges, or
(ii)	they are members of a family accompanying or already in Canada and the family gives satisfactory security against such immigrants becoming public charges.
I am certain the hon. member has proposed his amendment with the best of intentions. I think we all agree that its expressed objective is a commendable one. I cannot, however, support Bill C-10 since unfortunately it would not accomplish the intended purpose.


Robert Norman Thompson: Of course it will.


Gérard Loiselle: My hon. friend proposes to amend section 5(s) of the Immigration Act as a means of facilitating the admission of the mentally retarded. I think, however, he has misunderstood the nature of section 5(s). By including section 5(s) in the Immigration Act parliament provided a discretionary power which can be used under very limited circumstances and only on the basis of a medical certification. Section 5(s) is a residual section. It covers individuals not included in any
[Mr. Thompson (Red Deer) .1
DEBATES	November 22, 19S8
other prohibited class. It cannot be applied without medical certification. A certification can only be made if an individual is mentally or physically abnormal "to such a degree as to impair seriously their ability to earn a living".
Because of the restrictions contained in section 5(s) it is rarely used. As a matter of fact it was used on only two occasions in 1965, five occasions in 1966 and six occasions in 1967. If the mentally retarded are prohibited, it is usually because their retardation is so severe as to place them within section 5(a)(i) of the act which absolutely prohibits the admission of idiots, imbeciles and morons whether they wish to come to Canada as immigrants or non-immigrants. The amendment proposed by my hon. friend would neither remove nor relax that prohibition. Hence its passage would give only the semblance of a relaxation on behalf of those unfortunates who are mentally retarded.
I think the members of this house will agree that the absolute prohibition on the admission of those who suffer severe mental retardation probably accurately reflects the views which were prevalent some 15 years ago when the present Immigration Act was passed. But I think it will be generally agreed that it does not reflect today's attitudes. The previous minister and the present minister relaxed the absolute prohibition on the admission of those afflicted with mental retardation by using the authority provided by parliament, and allowed them to enter under ministers' permits. In 1966, there were 65 ministers' permits issued allowing the admission of such persons. In 1967, we see that 72 were issued, while 56 were issued during the first nine months of 1968.
This of course is a temporary solution. The white paper gives a clear indication of this government's opinion that substantial changes are desirable in the existing statutory grounds for prohibiting the admission of people to Canada. These changes would include a removal of the absolute prohibition on those afflicted by severe mental retardation. As indicated in paragraph 58, page 25 of the white paper, which the hon. member for Surrey read when he was speaking, they would be prohibited only if they represented a danger to society or were not assured of private care.
The views contained in the white paper will be reflected in the new immigration act. Until that act is passed we shall continue to provide relief through the use of ministers''
November 22, 1968	COMMONS
permits. The need for this practice would not be removed by the passage of Bill C-10 because, as I hope hon. members now realize, this bill would not in effect relax the present statutory prohibition against the mentally retarded.
In summary, may I say that I appreciate and share the desire of the sponsor of this bill to facilitate the admission of the mentally retarded by amending the act. I cannot however support his bill since it would not accomplish that objective but indeed might raise false hopes.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Surrey some changes should be made in this act concerning the rules. In article 63(b) of the white paper we find that the following type of person would be prohibited:
A mentally or physically defective person unless he is a member of a family otherwise admissible and well able to look after him.
So, this is clear-cut in the white paper on immigration of 1966, when this white paper is acted upon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When will that be?


Gérard Loiselle: The hon. member asks when that will be. Well, I am not a minister; I am not a minister yet. The hon. member has asked me when the subject of this bill could become part of the immigration law. I suggest this will not happen this session, but not later than next session. If I was the minister perhaps I could suggest a date, but I cannot implicate the minister by making a declaration. I feel that at the next session this parliament will decide on the recommendations in the white paper on immigration. The subject of this clause will be included in the new act and there will be no further question in respect of ministerial permits referred to by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
As I mentioned earlier, there has been a change regarding the issuing of these permits; the immigration law has been changed since 1953. Between now and the time the new immigration act becomes law this problem will be taken care of, in the same way the hon. member suggested earlier the problems in respect of parents and children are handled.
I feel that until we have a new immigration act we should carry on in the same manner, allowing the department to look after these special cases as it does now. Perhaps the hon.
DEBATES	3117
Immigration Act Amendment member does not agree, but I think we should continue in that way. The result of the hon. member's bill will not correct the part of the immigration law he wishes to change.
Perhaps by some other bill the hon. member could make this correction in the law. Bill C-10 does not cure the problem referred to.
For various reasons I agree there is a problem. The government has felt there is a problem, as indicated by references in the white paper on immigration. The minister has indicated that he intends to correct this difficulty and will do so when the new act becomes law. I ask the hon. member to be patient for another few months and allow the department to take care of this situation as it has done in the past. Within a year everything will be corrected, and in the meantime the department will follow this practice, even though it may not be satisfactory to the hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could make a suggestion in respect of this bill, because there seems to be general support for the principle. Even the hon. member for Saint-Henri (Mr. Loiselle), who thinks the bill is defective in drafting, supports its principle. I draw attention to the fact that we have lost 15 minutes of allotted time for this discussion. I realize this was agreed upon by all, but this loss of debating time is unfortunate and I wonder whether we might not continue the discussion in one of two ways. We could let the bill retain its place for another time-


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -or perhaps we could refer the subject matter-not the bill-to one of the standing committees. I heard "no" in reply to the suggestion that it retain its place. Let me try the alternative. I move:
That Bill C-10 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on labour, manpower and immigration.


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, if I correctly understood the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he wants to postpone second reading in order to refer the bill to the committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just the subject matter, not the bill. There is quite a difference. This is a means of having the matter discussed in the committee.
November 22, 1968

Immigration Act Amendment


Gérard Loiselle: Why should we have this matter discussed in the committee when we are now attempting to deal with it, and know that the Department o i Immigration is already taking care of these cases? We will solve nothing by bringing this matter before the committee. We will not solve the problem by discussing the bill during three, four or five sittings of the committee. I think it would be much preferable if the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) proposed another bill which would correct the proper part of the Immigration Act.


Mr. Godin:: Question.


Gérard Loiselle: If the hon. member for Port-neuf (Mr. Godin) wants to speak he should get permission to do so. I now have the floor and he should let me talk. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is an expert in the rules of the house and the committees, but I still do not see what use there
could be in sending this to the standing committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did
the hon. member not hear the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say today that thinking about these things is a good idea? We should do some thinking in the committee.


Gérard Loiselle: Let us dispose of this bill today. We have discussed and explained what the government is doing about the situation. If the hon. member is a member of that committee he can pose this question and discuss it the way he wants to, when the committee-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. It being six o'clock the hour for consideration of private members business has now expired.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November 25, 1968