1968-03-25

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Douglas: 1. What were the total miles of branch lines abandoned by the C.N.R. in each province in each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	How many scheduled employees were laid off in each province by the C.N.R. in each of the years 1983, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
3.	How many non-scheduled employees were laid off in each province by the C.N.R. in each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
4.	How many scheduled employees were employed by the C.N.R. in Newfoundland in each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
5.	How many non-scheduled employees were employed by the C.N.R. in Newfoundland in each of the years 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1.
1963	1964	1965	1966	1967	TotalNewfoundland	1.4	-	-	-	-	1.4Prince Edward Is.	-	-	-	-	-	-Nova Scotia	-	-	-	-	12.8	12.8New Brunswick	-	29.7	-	58.2	-	87.9Quebec	23.1	7.6	-	16.3	-	47.0Ontario	20.2	54.6	42.6	23.5	1.2	142.1Manitoba	23.3	-	30.2	-	-	53.5Saskatchewan	24.5	-	-	-	-	24.5Alberta	-	-	-	-	-	-British Columbia	-	-	-	-	-	-Total	92.5	91.9	72.8	98.0	14.0	369.2
2 and 3. As the organizational structure of the company is on a regional and area basis, and with the exception of the Newfoundland area the boundaries thereof do not coincide with provincial boundaries, the company does not maintain records which would readily produce information to answer the question in the form asked. In so far as the question relates to the Newfoundland area; since 1965 the company has extracted aggregate data for those lay-offs exceeding 30 days or any complete month. In 1965, 1966 and up to November 30, 1967 such lay-off actions affecting scheduled employees numbered 151, 269 and 150 respectively. The classification "laid-off" is not normally used in respect of non-scheduled employees.
4.	New hirings of scheduled employees during the years 1965, 1966 and up to November 30, 1967 totalled 1067, 591 and 384 respectively. In addition, employee recalls for those who had been laid-off in those years or prior years for more than 30 days or any complete calendar month numbered 704, 660 and 556 respectively.
5.	New hirings of non-scheduled employees during the years 1965, 1966 and up to November 30, 1967 amounted to 12, 9 and 19 respectively.
Prior to 1965 this type of statistical records was not maintained in respect of the Newfoundland area.

March 25, 1968
Questions


FERRY TRAFFIC TO AND FROM PORT AUX BASQUES, NFLD.
Mr. Tucker: 1.	What	was	the	total	number	of	passengerscarried in	each	year	on the C.N.R.	coastal ferries
to and from Port-aux-Basques, Newfoundland, from 1960 to 1967 inclusive?
2.	What	was	the	total	number	of	passengerscarried in	each	year	from	1960 to 1967	by (a) the
coastal ferry William Carson (b) extra ferries added to the service for this period to look after additional passengers?
3.	What was the number of motor vehicles, autos, trucks and trailers, carried each year from 1960 to 1967 inclusive?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. 1960, 67,693; 1961, 69,163; 1962,
77,318;	1963,	92,304;	1964,	107,078;	1965,127,760;	1966,	158,214;	1967,	167,468.	2. (a)	1960,	62,366;	1961,	62,566;	1962,70,193;	1963,	77,408;	1964,	103,473;	1965,
120,108; 1966, 99,518; 1967, 92,405. (b) 1960, 5,327; 1961, 6,597; 1962, 7,125; 1963, 14,896; 1964, 3,605; 1965, 7,652; 1966, 58,696; 1967, 75,063.
3.
Trucks, buses
Autos	and trailers	Others1960	15,832	2,762	101961	16,551	3,509	141962	19,689	4,451	81963	22,744	5,160	121964	26,548	5,384	191965	28,818	5,629	261966	35,187	7,635	701967	42,278	8,767	261


DISCONTINUATION OF TELEGRAPH SERVICES
Mr. Hales: 1.	What are the names of the cities or towns, by province, where the C.P.R. propose to discontinue their telegraph services?
2.	What are the names of the cities or towns, by province, where the C.N.R. propose to discontinue their telegraph services?
3.	In cities or towns where both the C.N.R. and C.P.R. services are discontinued, from what center will telegraph services be provided?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as
follows: 1 and 2. Pursuant to a judgment dated January 24, 1968 and Order No. R-1514 dated February 16, 1968, issued by the Canadian Transport Commission, implementation of a proposal providing for the reciprocal withdrawal of telegraph offices in areas where the volume of business does not justify the retention of offices by both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific will commence with an initial group of 16 locations as undernoted. When this occurs, the remaining office will be set up to represent CN-CP telecommunications.
CN withdraws from Kentville, N.S. Sherbrooke, Que. Chatham, Ont.
Port Colborne, Ont. Smith's Falls, Ont. Sudbury, Ont. Moose Jaw, Sask. Red Deer, Alta.
CP withdraws from St. John's, Nfld. North Sydney, N.S. Moncton, N.B. Drummondville, Que.
St. Hyacinthe, Que. St. Catharines, Ont. Prince Albert, Sask. New Westminster, B.C.
To ease the impact of the technological and operational changes arising from this plan, agreement was reached by the companies with representatives of the Commercial Telegraphers' Union. This agreement provides protective measures to assist telecommunications employees who may be adversely affected by changes under this plan.
3.	Under the reciprocal withdrawal plan none of the communities involved will be without telegraph service.


C.N.R. HOTELS OPERATING RESULTS
Mr. Tucker: What was the profit or deficit in each of the hotels (in Canada) operated by Canadian National Railways for each year from 1960 to 1967 inclusive?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: The following statement indicates the profit or loss, after allowing for depreciation, which the railway received from the operation of the individual hotels. The amounts listed for the Queen Elizabeth and Hotel Vancouver represent the Canadian National's return from the operations and not the profits or losses of those hotels.


CANADIAN NATIONAL HOTELS
[Stage Direction]
1966	1965	1964	1963	1962	1961	1960Net Income or (Loss) from: The Bessborough	
The Charlottetown*	
Chateau Laurier	
The Fort Garry	
Jasper Park Lodge	
$ (165,766) $ 	
1,718 	
(27,201) 	
393,461 	
(98,013)	(91,293) $ (297,169) (153,503) 348,780 21,557	(82,645) $ 79,510 (102,650) (154,354) 218,055 33,366	(142,672) $ (22,773) (206,425) (69,107) 173,627 141,584	(174,740) $ (27,551) (144,824) (231,101) 198,869 299,812	(102,082) $ (10,650) (22,725) (165,657) 152,944 425,112 150,715 (479,914)	(109,225) 6,201 (55,072) (64,746) 96,967 458.110 198,099 (232,442)Newfoundland Hotel	
The Nova Scotian	
113,531 	
168,753	151,956 120,464	164,244 63,902	186,897 (84,964)	116,892 119,200	Net Return from:	
(180,214)	(640,664)	(230,935)	(247,842)	116,496	(53,265) 1,718,305	161,027 1,401,383Queen Elizabeth Hotel	
2,135,903	1,614,655	1,909,427	1,622,393	2,012,918	
The Charlottetown Hotel was sold effective 1 November 1964. The figures for the year 1967 are not yet available for publication.
March 25. 1968	COMMONS DEBATES
Questions
Questions

[Stage Direction]
March 25, 1968
Mr. Tucker: 1.	How many Canadian aircraft were licensed to hunt seals in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
2.	How many seals were landed by these aircraft in 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?
3.	How many Canadian ships or auxiliary vessels prosecuted the seal fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence in these years?
4.	How many seals were taken by these ships in these years?
5.	How many ships or auxiliary vessels prosecuted the seal fishery in these years off the coast of Newfoundland, and from what country did each come?
6.	How many seals were taken by each of these ships and how many in each year?


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: 1. 1964, N.A.; 1965, 50; 1966, 46; 1967, 62.
2.	1964, 30,198*; 1965, 18,675*; 1966, 21,832*; 1967, 16,986*.
3.	1964, N.A.; 1965, N.A.; 1966, 8 of 75 gross tons and over; 1967, 7 of 75 gross tons and over.
4.	1964, N.A.; 1965, N.A.; 1966, 45,219; 1967, 70,616.
5.	Canada: 1964, N.A.; 1965, N.A.; 1966, lOt; 1967, 5t. Norway: 1964, 15t; 1965, 14t; 1966, 13t; 1967, 15.t.
6.	Canada: 1964, N.A.; 1965, N.A.; 1966, 76,566t; 1967, 37,461*. Norway: 1964, 169,424*; 1965, 69,274*; 1966, 170,447*; 1967, 193,200*.
*	Includes a small number taken by landsmen in the maritime provinces.
+ These were on the "front".
*	Individual ship catches not available.


IMPROVEMENT OF C.N.R. ROADBED, MONTREAL-HALIFAX
Mr. McCleave: Has the C.N.R. any plans to improve the roadbed on the tracks between Montreal and Halifax used by the Ocean Limited and the Scotian and, if so, what are they?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows, Mr. Speaker. Regular routine maintenance will be carried out consistent with demands made by the requirements of traffic moving over those lines.


COMMUNICATIONS SATELLITE STATION, MILL VILLAGE, N.S.
Mr. Aiken: 1.	What was the amount of the original estimate of the cost of constructing a Communications Sat-telite Ground Station at Mill Village, Nova Scotia, when the Department of Transport gave approval in principle to this program in 1963?
2.	Were additional funds requested by the Transport Department in February, 1965, and if so, what was the amount of the increase and for what purpose?
3.	Were additional funds requested by the Transport Department in January, 1966, and if so, what is the amount of the increase and for what purpose?
4.	What Minister requested these increases in funds?
5.	What is the name of the company to whom a contract was awarded in June, 1963, for the making of an engineering study, and what was the amount of this contract?
6.	What is the name of the company to whom a contract was awarded in October, 1963, for the provision of project management, systems engineering, and the supply of equipment and field engineering for the station, and what was the amount of this contract?
7.	Were competitive bids called before these contracts were awarded and, if so, what are the names of the companies bidding on this work and the amount of their bids?
8.	Were final contracts awarded at a fixed price, or on a cost-plus basis?
9.	Was a project administrator appointed by the government when this work was initiated and, if so, what was his name?
10.	What was the composition of the Treasury Board when this project was approved in 1963?
11.	Did the Treasury Board assign a member of its secretariat to the Transport Department during construction stages of this project and, if so, what was his name and what were his duties?
12.	Were tenders called for the construction of the necessary buildings with related structures for the station in July, 1964, and, if so (a) how many companies tendered on this work (b) what are their names and the amount of their bids (c) what is the name of the successful bidder?
13.	Were tenders called in 1965 by the Transport Department to retain consultants to examine, evaluate and advise on the suitability of certain systems required by the station?
14.	If so, how many companies tendered on this work, what are their names and the amount of their bids, and what is the name of the successful bidder and the amount of his contract?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secreiary of Slate):: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and Treasury Board as follows: 1. Approval in principle for estimated cost between $3,600,000 and $5,500,000 by T.B. 604661 dated January 15, 1963 for a basic experimental station.
March 25, 1968

2.	Yes. Additional funds increasing the cost to $9,100,000 were approved by T.B. 636168 dated February 17, 1965 to meet changing technical possibilities, substantial added requirements resulting from Canada having become a member of the international telecommunications satellite consortium in 1964 and the urgent need for additional trans-Atlantic telephone circuits.
3.	Yes. Additional funds increasing the cost to $12,000,000 were approved by T.B. 649365 dated January 18, 1966 to meet the costs incurred in further system changes needed to cope with the rapidly changing technology and the agreements reached in the new international organization.
4.	The Minister of Transport.
5.	RCA Victor Company, Montreal, P.Q., in the sum of $50,000, T.B. Minute 611173.
6.	RCA Victor Company, Montreal, P.Q., up to $4,500,000, T.B. Minute 617210.
7.	No.
8.	The contract for the initial investigation was at a fixed price whereas the main contract for systems management, engineering and supply of equipment was on a cost-plus basis normal to this type of undertaking.
9.	No one named individual.
10.	The Hon. Walter L. Gordon; The Hon. Lionel Chevrier; The Hon. J. W. Pickersgill; The Hon. Arthur Laing; The Hon. J. R. Garland; The Hon. Roger Teillet.
11.	No.
12.	Yes. Tenders for buildings and related structures were evaluated in July 1964. (a) Three companies tendered, (b) Eastern Contracting Ltd., $1,155,295; Ron Engineering, $1,245,280; McNamara Construction, $1,248,870. (c) Eastern Contracting Ltd., T. B. Minute 628255.
13.	No.
14.	Not applicable.


DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, CHRISTMAS ISLAND POST OFFICE, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
1.	Have plans and specifications been prepared to improve the disposal field and improve the surface draining system at the Christmas Island Post Office, Nova Scotia?
2.	Has approval from both the provincial Departments of Health and Highways been secured?
3.	When will tenders be called for the performance of such improvements to be carried out?
Questions


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The plans and specifications are being prepared.
2.	Yes.
3.	When the necessary preliminary work has been completed.


FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR 1969 SUMMER GAMES
Mr. Forreslall: 1.	What is the total amount of funds allocated for the 1969 Summer Games?
2.	What portion is the share of (a) the federal government (b) the Province of Nova Scotia (c) the City of Halifax (d) the City of Dartmouth?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. $1,738,000.
2. The proposed cost sharing is: (a) Federal Government, 100 per cent of operating expenses up to a maximum of $838,000; one third of the net capital expenses up to a maximum of $300,000; (b) Province of Nova Scotia, one third of the net capital expenses up to a maximum of $300,000; (c) Cities of Halifax and Dartmouth jointly, one third of the net capital expenses up to a maximum of $300,000, the one third to be contributed by Halifax and Dartmouth jointly will be paid in a ratio equal to the capital costs expended in each city.


SITE FOR 1969 SUMMER GAMES
Mr. Forreslall: Has a site for the sports stadium for the 1969 Summer Games been chosen and, if so, at what location and at what stage are negotiations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes. The site of the sports stadium to be constructed for the 1969 summer games will be at St. Mary's University. Architects and engineers are presently working on plans and cost estimates and the details should be available in a few weeks.


REFUSAL TO CONTRIBUTE TO LOBSTER FISHERMEN'S DISASTER FUND
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Did the Government of Canada refuse, upon request, to make a contribution to the disaster fund for the lobster fishermen of Guysborough, Nova Scotia, following the disastrous storm of April, 1967?
2.	If so, for what reason?

March 25, 1968
Questions


Hon.   H.-J. Robichaud@Minister of Fisheries: 1. No. Application was received from the Nova Scotia government on behalf of the Canso and district lobster fishermen's disaster fund on February 8 and consideration is now being given to the means of meeting this request.
2. Not applicable.


ASSISTANT MANAGER, PRODUCTION BRANCH, PRINTING BUREAU
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Will the post of Assistant Manager of the Production Branch of the Canadian Government Printing Bureau be vacant shortly?
2.	If so, will this post be maintained?
3.	What is the percentage of employees in this Branch whose mother tongue is (a) English (b) French?
4.	If the answer to Part 1 is yes, will it be required that the candidate filling this post be bilingual?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, it has been advertised by the Public Service Commission under competition No. 68-3002.
3.	(a) 32.6%; (b) 67.4%.
4.	The poster advertising this position as issued by the Public Service Commission gives the following as the language require-quirements: "The person appointed must be sufficiently proficient in the English language, but proficiency in the French language will be considered a desirable qualification in the assessment of candidates".


TELEVISION SERVICE, DAUPHIN, MAN.
Mr. Forbes: 1.	Has CKOS Yorkton been granted a renewal of their licence as of last Fall to provide television to the viewing audience of the Dauphin area?
2.	If so, when will the licence expire?
3.	Will it be possible for the Dauphin audience to view programs directly from the C.B.C. that is to be extended to The Pas and Flin Flon areas since the C.B.C. will be using the Manitoba telephone transmitter line that runs through the Dauphin area?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: 1. Yes.

2.	March 31, 1969.
3.	No. Signals which emanate from public carrier microwave transmitters are not receivable on home television receivers because the frequencies involved are in a different band.


DEFENCE DEPARTMENT COMMISSIONAIRES
Mr. McCleave: 1.	Will Commissionaires be included in the reduction of personnel employed by the Department of National Defence?
2.	If so, how many will be affected, and how many will be retained?
3.	Has the Department considered alternative duties for Commissionaires who may be laid off and, if so, with what success?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Minister of National Defence):: 1. Commissionaires are not public servants but are employed by the Corps of Commissionaires and engaged on a contractual basis by the government.
2.	In connection with the over-all reduction program, a study is being made of the number of hours of commissionaires' service. When this study is complete there may be some reduction in the number of hours required.
3.	Should some of the commissionaires not be required for service with the Department of National Defence they would be referred back to the corps.


OCCUPANCY OF SIR WILFRID LAURIER BUILDING, OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,142
Mr. Lambert:: 1.	When did the Government of Canada take over the occupancy of part or all of the Sir Wilfrid Laurier Building in Ottawa?
2.	What is the name(s) of the owner (s) of the building?
3.	What is the term of the lease agreement and at what annual rental?
4.	Does the lease agreement provide for structural alterations at the expense of the tenant, or what are the covenants of the parties with regard to structural alterations?
5.	What are the reasons for the partition alterations to be made as announced by the Minister of Public Works on February 28, 1968?
6.	What further electrical and mechanical alterations may be necessary and at what estimated cost?
7.	What department (s) of government or agencies thereof occupy space in the Sir Wilfrid Laurier building and what is the total floor area occupied?
March 25, 1968


George James McIlraith: 1. September 15, 1965.
2.	Immeubles Laurentian Realties Co. Ltd.
3.	Present lease term is from June 1, 1967, terminating September 30, 1980. Annual rental is $908,461.30.
4.	The lease agreement reads: "the lessor agrees that the lessee shall have the right to make any alterations in or about the premises, that the lessee deems advisable, at any time, during the continuance of this lease or any renewal thereof; (a) said alterations shall be made by the lessee at the lessee's expense; (b) no alterations shall be made under this section to the frame or permanent structure; in this contract "alterations shall mean changes, alterations, additions, repairs and improvements to the premises".
5.	Consolidation of the Solicitor General's Department on the lower floors. Penitentiaries and Chief Treasury Officer to move into this building. Also the rearrangement of the Department of Labour on all of the upper floors.
6.	Electrical and mechanical alterations will be required on all floors from the fourth to the thirteenth. The estimated cost for this work was $130,000.
7.	Department of Solicitor General, Department of Labour, and a unit of the Queen's Printer. Total floor area occupied is 278,422 square feet of office space together with 29,840 square feet of storage space.


FLAGS FLOWN ON PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	On how many days since January 1, 1967, has the Royal Union flag (Union Jack) been flown from the courtesy staff on Parliament Hill?
2.	What special occasions or events were being recognized on these dates?
3.	Are flags of foreign countries flown from this staff to honour the visit to Canada of (a) heads of state or (b) heads of government?
4.	If (b) what heads of government were extended this courtesy in 1967?


George James McIlraith: 1. Three days.
2. On May 24, 1967, on the official observance of the Queen's birthday. On December 11, 1967, on the anniversary of the Statute of Westminster. On February 10, 1968, on the occasion of the visit of Prime Minister
Questions
Wilson of the United Kingdom, to parliament hill. On June 30, July 1, and July 5, 1967, the Queen's personal Canadian flag was flown, but from the Peace Tower, not from the courtesy pole.
3.	Yes, if the head of state or head of government is visiting parliament hill. However, during centennial year, 1967, when heads of state or the representatives of heads of state visited parliament hill the courtesy flag poles were not used because the appropriate national flag was flown at ground level on the hill alternatively with the national flag of Canada and the centennial flag. Moreover, if the visiting head of state had a personal flag that flag was flown with the national flag of Canada on the state visit stand.
4.	On October 25, 1967, the national flag of Poland was flown on the courtesy pole when the deputy head of state of Poland was here during the Polish parliamentary visit.


PER CAPITA MEDICAL COSTS
Mr. Rynard: 1.	When was the last cost survey of medical care per capita made in Canada?
2.	What was the cost of medical care per capita by province?
3.	When was the previous survey made and what were the results?


Mrs. Margaret Rideout (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, is February, 1968. It should be noted, however, that estimates of the cost of the medical care program are being consistently revised in the light of additional information as it is received. Such additional information would include changes in the provincial schedule of medical fees, changes in the level of payment in terms of the provincial schedule of fees made by public and private plans, changes in the pattern of medical practice, changes in the utilization experience and in the cost experience of private and public plans in the various provinces, changes in the doctor-patient ratio and changes in the population of each individual province. Thus the costs of the medical care program are not estimates at set intervals but are constantly updated as pertinent information is received.
March 25. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry The answer to the second part is, see attached table.


ESTIMATES OF PROGRAM COSTS OF PHYSICIANS' SERVICES CALENDAR YEAR 1968 ASSUMING FEDERAL PROGRAM IN OPERATION FOR TWELVE MONTHS PER CAPITA ($)
[Stage Direction]
Province	February, 1968 Revision	May, 1967 Program ReviewNewfoundland	20.54	20.60Prince Edward Island	30.74	30.91Nova Scotia	38.45	34.75New Brunswick	34.50	31.12Quebec	41.38	41.68Ontario	46.94	48.49Manitoba	43.15	43.57Saskatchewan	37.62	36.05Alberta	41.82	44.09British Columbia	41.60	41.24Yukon and Northwest Territories	22.22	22.22Canada	42.39	42.88
The answer to part 3 is, see the answer to part 1 above. By way of contrast to the most recent estimate, corresponding figures are presented for May, 1967. These latter figures are used as the basis for five year projections during the departmental program review.
George James McIlraith: Before the orders of the day are called I wonder if I may have leave to revert to motions for the purpose of tabling a corrected order for return.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: The question I have to ask I bring to the attention of the Prime Minister because it concerns two departments. I ask him, on behalf of the Indians in Alberta and Saskatchewan, whether he will look into their grave fears that there is to be a reduction in the amount of medical aid. They rely on

treaty No. 6 which was agreed to by Governor Morris and the Indian tribes at Fort Carlton in 1876, under which the Indians were guaranteed medical treatment and drugs for all time in return for which they ceded 21,000 square miles to the crown. There is great resentment amongst them. I ask the Prime Minister if he will look into this situation because these people deserve the assurance of the Prime Minister that their rights will be preserved and protected.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I will be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. I should hope that any commitment entered into by the crown will be maintained. I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare will be in a position to make a statement, at the latest by tomorrow, which will remove any fear that there is to be a reduction or deterioration in medical services for the Indians.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister about the letter which Premier Manning quoted in the Alberta legislature, allegedly a letter from the Prime Minister regarding the curtailment of medical services to Indians. In view of the fact that the premier of Alberta has quoted this letter publicly, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would undertake to table the letter today so we can see its contents.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to look into that at once. I had rather assumed that it would not be made public until the minister made a statement; but I have no complaint about that, and I do not see why it should not be tabled.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the Prime Minister's statement, would the government undertake to call the national health and welfare item in the supplementary estimates today so the minister will be able to make this statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already given an assurance in general terms. Since I am informed that we are going to be here tomorrow and the minister will be here tomorrow, perhaps a statement should be given tomorrow.
March 25, 1968	COMMONS


INQUIRIES OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roland Godin (Porineuf):: Mr. Speaker,
I also wish to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that there is more and more talk of national unity, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether the new interest rate on Canada bonds was set jointly by St. James Street of Montreal and Bay Street of Toronto?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe the question, in that form, is in order.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that there was a 10 per cent increase in the salaries and expenses of the office of the Auditor General of Canada, for the year 1967-68, although the increase in national production was only 4J per cent, will the right hon. Prime Minister consider advising his successor to retain the services of a less demanding auditor?


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can he give the house any information as to the reported large scale eruption into Laos by communist troops from North Viet Nam, as reported by Prime Minister Souvanna Phou-ma on Saturday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we did receive such a report, and we are looking into it. I hope to be in a position to make a statement in regard to the matter tomorrow.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister give an indication to the house of any reports received with regard to similar military penetration or infiltration into Cambodia and Thailand? Could he also tell us what is Canada's attitude and policy in the face of prospective communist escalation of the war into these countries on a widened scale?
DEBATES	7991
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we are very much aware of this danger. We are also distressed at the inability of the commission to get all the information that it should be able to get in matters of this kind. I hope to be able to make a longer statement on this question tomorrow.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. A. Bell (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the urgent need of house builders to make their spring plans, is the parliamentary secretary yet in a position to advise the house what the National Housing Act rate will be for the second quarter of 1968? Does he anticipate that it will be 9 per cent or more?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate bringing this question to the attention of the minister.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Who is Canada's chief representative in New Delhi, at the United Nations conference on trade and development which has been going on there now for the past month and which the Minister of Trade and Commerce and subsequently the Minister of Labour attended for short periods? Can the Prime Minister inform us whether any definite plans have been agreed to at this conference to improve the trade position of the underdeveloped countries?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I speak subject to correction but I believe the delegation is now being headed by the deputy minister of trade and commerce. However, I will check this and give my hon. friend the information regarding the personnel of the delegation. I know there have been long and difficult discussions on the subject of ways and means to assist underdeveloped countries. Perhaps I might be in a position to make a short report on that tomorrow, too.
March 25, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister, and I apologize for not having sent him notice thereof.
In view of the fact that, in the last few days newspapers have advised us that serious unrest threatens the ports on the St. Lawrence, can he tell us whether he has any information to give the house on this matter this afternoon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the Minister without Portfolio, who has been following this question over the week end, to make a short report on it.


Hon. B. S. Mackasey (Member of the Administration):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house will be pleased to know that at 2.30 p.m. today at Montreal Judge Allan Gold announced the signing of an agreement between the International Longshoremen's Association and the Shipping Federation of Canada which ensures peace on the three ports of the St. Lawrence river for the balance of the year.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister without Portfolio. Does this include any settlement of the disputed sections in the Picard report which were outstanding at the beginning of the year?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, both parties have agreed voluntarily to submit to arbitration on these contentious points. A decision clarifying all these points will be rendered by the conciliation board, which will remain in existence in some form for the next nine months.


Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Minister without Portfolio now assure the house that he is taking steps to see that shipping surcharges on exports are immediately reduced to their pre-strike amounts? The minister well knows of my interest in British Columbia fruit shipments off-shore, the surcharges that were placed on them and the troubles we have had since.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I thank the hon. member for his question. He has shown much interest in this subject matter, having discussed it with me in private. I shall investigate further this afternoon and report back to him tomorrow.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: My
question ought to be for the Minister of Transport. In his absence perhaps Your Honour would let somebody take note of it. Considering the action of the President of the United States in calling on the secretary of transportation of that country to conduct an investigation into the automobile insurance industry, will our minister consider similar action in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I have let somebody take notice of the question.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent (Onl.)):: In the
absence of the Minister of Agriculture may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. Since the new dairy year in Canada begins next week can we anticipate a statement by the minister in this house outlining in detail government plans and dairy policies for the 1968 year?


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: I am not sure of the timing of the statement by the minister, but I am sure it will be made in the house at the appropriate time.



REPORTED SHORTAGE OF CHEMICALS TO CONTROL WILD OATS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bruce Silas Beer: On Thursday last the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar asked a question about the availability of avadex for the control of wild oats. I am informed by department officials that the manufacturer expects to be able to meet all orders and that supplies of the chemical will be increased considerably as compared with last year.
March 25, 1968

The second part of the hon. member's question was about the availability of other products for the control of wild oats. I am advised that the research branch of the department is carrying out tests in an extensive research program with other products, which may result in a similar control of wild oats.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that Indian women are now being admitted to some institution some weeks before confinement and kept there for some weeks after, would the right hon. gentleman look into what arrangements are now being considered with respect to admitting all such patients?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to look into it.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax):: In the temporary absence of the hon. member for Pictou may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and ask if he can report on the meeting held with Premier Smith of Nova Scotia over the week end concerning the McBean colliery.


Hon. Jean Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: As hon. members know, the situation of the McBean mine is a difficult one. It is not located on Cape Breton Island proper and consequently it does not fall within the legislation creating DEVCO. It is not considered to be an independent mine in the sense used in the agreement between Canada and Nova Scotia. So it is a special problem. I went down to Halifax on Saturday to meet with the premier and his advisers. We tried to define the problem in terms of ownership of the mine, its future operation, arrangements for subventions and pension plans. I made a few suggestions, and both governments are considering the matter now.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Am I to understand that the minister intends 27053-503J

Inquiries of the Ministry to give the situation at McBean the attention which was desired by the hon. member for Pictou during the debate on the legislation in connection with the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The question is put in such a way that I find it difficult to reply.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire of the Prime Minister whether he has an answer to the question I raised earlier.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. It is of importance now because April 1 is the deadline which affects men in the armed services who wish to leave the services because they do not desire to continue under the unification program. In view of the minister's earlier statement that these people would not be penalized in any way, I want to ask whether it is true that those leaving the armed services in these circumstances will not be granted the usual rehabilitation pay with leave of absence, nor will they receive any moving expenses, nor will they retain any pension rights. Is this the situation? If it is not, is anything being done to inform the men properly?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: People availing themselves of this particular provision in the act are considered on the same basis as anybody who asks for a voluntary release. There is no question of their being penalized; neither are they offered any incentive to avail themselves of this particular section of the legislation. This is the purpose of the whole exercise. We do not want to force people to stay in the services if they do not agree with the policy, and that is all.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are persons leaving the services not normally entitled to rehabilitation leave with pay, one month for every five years of service, I think? Will this be denied to men who leave the services under the provision to which the minister has referred?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: Not if they are normally entitled to it.
March 25, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry
STUDENT LOANS	EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



REPORTED PLANS FOR REDUCTION IN PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David MacDonald (Prince):: On Friday I asked the Prime Minister about reports of a possible reduction of 50 per cent in loans under the Canada student loan plan, whether such a reduction was contemplated at a time of rising tuition and residence fees. The right hon. gentleman said he would look into the question. Is he now in a position to give any information to the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Under the Canada Student Loans Act loans may be authorized only to those who are in need of a loan to continue their education. Federal and provincial officials responsible for the administration of the plan have been working out criteria for the assessment of needy students for assistance. These criteria have been reported to the house and made public from time to time. The officials concerned are currently discussing the more consistent application in practice of these criteria, and it may well be that some students who do not clearly need help under this plan will find that the allocations are being reserved for those students who do need help.
I can assure my hon. friend that these loans will certainly be available for students who really need them. That was the intent of parliament when it passed this act, and there is every intention of meeting both the spirit and the letter of the legislation.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that expenses have undoubtedly increased since the inception of the plan, and that new criteria are being drawn up, will the amount of money available be increased for people who now find difficulty in operating under the present provisions of the plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will have to look into that aspect of it, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: As a
further supplementary to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, may I ask is it the intention of the government to proceed with a bursary program that would supplement this loan program which seems to be in a decline?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at the present time.



NIGERIA-CANADIAN EFFORTS TO END CIVIL WAR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heaih Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, who is very answerable today. It is in connection with the Nigerian-Biafran conflict and is prompted by the welcome news of the joint appeal by the Roman Catholic church and the World Council of Churches calling for an end to the war between Nigeria and Biafra. Can the Prime Minister advise whether on the governmental level Canada is taking any new initiatives toward this same worthy goal?
Righf Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Not any new initiative, Mr. Speaker, although we have been trying to do what we can to assist in bringing this conflict to an end; and I hope to have a talk, either tomorrow or the next day, with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth association who, as my hon. friend knows, has been very deeply concerned with this matter and who is at the present time in Ottawa.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: As a supplementary question, can the Prime Minister tell us whether officials of the Department of External Affairs have been instructed not to meet with any senior representatives from the secessionist province of Biafra?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I know of no
such instruction, and I will be very interested to find out if there has been any such instruction.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question
would normally be directed to the Minister of Finance but in his absence perhaps the Prime Minister would take it. In view of the reported statements of the President of France, General de Gaulle, respecting France's attitude toward the development of a new international unit of exchange, can the Prime Minister tell the house what position the Canadian government will be taking at Stockholm, in view of what appears to me and to many others as a proposal by France that is even worse than its original one-
March 25, 1968	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder if the hon. member would not agree with me that he is
asking for a very general statement, which I suggest should not be made at this time.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of his statement last Friday on the Woods committee study, would the minister now say whether he is prepared to table the document, and whether he will be making a statement on motions?
Hon. Roger Teillei (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I now have the report at hand, and I hope to be able to table it within the next day or so. As to making a statement, I think this would be premature. It is a very extensive report, and I would want a little more time before being prepared to speak on it.


David Vaughan Pugh: As a supplementary question, in view of the fact that the minister has had this report in his hands for quite some time, at least in one language, I am wondering if he would not think it is in the interests of the veterans of the country, particularly because the Legion is going to hold its convention very shortly, that he should make a statement on this very important document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary question is argumentative.


Mr. Teillei:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would not want to deprive the minister of an opportunity to reply, if this is what the house would want. Certainly it is my feeling that the supplementary asked by the hon. member was argumentative in form and should not be replied to, but if it is the wish of the house I will recognize the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, I think in fact this would be a point of privilege because the premise of the question was quite erroneous.
I stated clearly in the house last week that I had not received the report. I have had the report in my hands since last Friday afternoon, in English and in French, and I want to make it quite clear that I have not had the opportunity of studying it.
DEBATES	7995
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe-Bagol):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the hon. Minister of Agriculture, I wish to put a question to his parliamentary secretary.
In order to follow up the notice of motion which I introduced in the house a few weeks ago, does the hon. minister intend to announce, before the end of this session, the increase in allowances paid for slaughtered animals under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I am not able to answer this question directly. I will bring it to the attention of the minister in the hope that we can have an answer for the hon. member.



PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-REQUEST FOR ACREAGE ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Perhaps his parliamentary assistant would take it as notice. Would the minister indicate to the house whether the government of Prince Edward Island has applied for acreage assistance payments in view of the very low prices for potatoes in the last few months, and whether the government is giving this request favourable consideration.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Siarr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will he look into the possibility of taking out of the supplementary estimates now under consideration the item or resolution providing for the increase of 15 per cent in war veterans' allowances, to see whether it can be given royal assent, so the war veterans of the country will not be deprived of these benefits at this time, and so their receipt of the benefits could be expedited.
March 25, 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
I shall be glad to look into that, Mr. Speaker. There will not be any delay, because once the estimate is passed I believe it is to be antedated.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I would direct this question to the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I should like to direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the hope the Minister of Transport expressed to me on March 19 that the long delayed announcement with regard to the Digby-Saint John ferry would be made soon, would the Prime Minister check with the minister or his officials and inform the house tomorrow whether the delay in respect of this announcement is on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway or the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to do that.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the meeting of the ministers of finance of the countries which belong to the International Monetary Fund is to be held in Sweden commencing on Friday, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any decision has been made in respect of who will represent Canada in the absence of our Minister of Finance.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. I have discussed the matter with the Minister of Finance and hope to discuss it with him again later this week.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my question also is directed to the Prime Minister but in his capacity as Prime Minister rather than on behalf of one of his colleagues who is otherwise engaged. 
Has the Prime Minister received a telegram from Premier Smith of Nova Scotia requesting that no further move be made which would affect the Greenwood-Summerside matter until a delegation from Nova Scotia can meet with the Prime Minister? If the Prime Minister has received the telegram, will he give it favourable consideration.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received it and propose to discuss it with the Minister of National Defence.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs may I direct this question to the acting minister. Has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs had an opportunity to look into the matter I raised last week, namely the increase in the price of milk?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question.

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


The Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply. When the committee rose on Friday, March 22, 1968 item lc of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources was under consideration.



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES

[Stage Direction]
lc. Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $144,000.
Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Chairman, I was a little surprised the other day when the minister in making a statement made no reference to the gold mining industry as a whole. While some of the ramifications of this question do not come under the jurisdiction of the minister, certainly this matter has a very strong bearing on one department that is directly under the jurisdiction of the minister. Gold certainly is a question which has recently received a great deal of attention in the newspapers and in various countries throughout the world. The discussions which have been carried on in Washington and are soon
March 25, 1968

to be carried on in Stockholm could have a very great bearing on the whole industry.
It may be that today the gold mining industry does not have the same place it once did in this country and does not have the same effect on the economy of the country that it did at one time. I can remember during my lifetime when gold mining was one of the major industries which contributed to the economy of this country and that is not very long ago. Over the years, however, because of policies established by the United States and followed faithfully by the Canadian government, this industry has declined to a great extent and certainly at the present time is in a very precarious position.
The Minister of Justice was in my constituency this past week end. In fact I was very pleased to see him when he appeared on the local television station last night. I am sure while he was there and spoke to the local people he must have had impressed on him just how urgent this matter is and how concerned the people of that neighbourhood are about the very unsettled situation pertaining to gold and the gold mining industry.
It was interesting that the minister was on display last night at $1 a head. I understand he had a fairly good turnout. I hope that before the evening was over he learned how the people of that neighbourhood feel about the situation. I hope also that he will be able to prevail on the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and that that minister in turn will use his influence on the Minister of Finance who probably is more involved in the situation than any other minister, certainly so far as the international situation is concerned.
If I might digress for a moment it is interesting to note the very good answer that was given by a member of our executive in Timmins when he was approached and asked to buy a ticket for $1 to see the minister. This gentleman is an immigrant who has been here for 10 or 15 years. His reply was "Why should I pay $1 to see the Minister of Justice; all he knows is what we have taught him." I thought that was a very good assessment of the situation.
I think we might review for a short time what has happened in this industry. I believe the minister should be quite concerned about this. It is interesting to note that the last time the interest rate rose to what it is at the present time was just prior to the time the price of gold was raised from $20.40 to $35, in 1934. It has remained at that price ever since.
DEBATES	7997
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources [DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
It was felt by many that the crash of 1929 followed by the depression of the 1930's came about as a direct result of those high interest rates across the country which strangled the economy. This is exactly what is happening at this time. The latest increase in the interest rate accompanied the latest announcement in respect of the price of gold. The interest rate is even higher now than it was prior to the crash which brought about the great depression of the 1930's.
Anyone who has spoken with people in the construction industry will know that the present level of interest rates is bringing this industry to a grinding halt. This will spread like a cancer throughout the country causing bankruptcies and business failures, which in turn will lead to unemployment through the closing down of factories. We will then be back in that vicious cycle we experienced some 35 years ago. Many people in today's working force do not remember that difficult time. I remember it because that is when I first entered the labour market. It was in the middle of that depression, about 1934 or 1935, when I went to work in the gold mining industry.
In looking back I can see the tremendous part this industry played in maintaining the economy of this country, such as it was, and the great contribution it made to the welfare of the country. The gold mining industry is a very substantial consumer in our society. It uses tremendous amounts of timber, steel, machinery and goods of all kinds. The effect of a shutdown in this industry is felt not only by the immediate community where the mines are located but throughout the country as a whole. When there is a curtailment of production in this industry employees are laid off in many other areas.
During the past 20 years or more we have witnessed the number of gold mines in this country shrink from 250 to about 25. About 10 per cent of the mines operating 20 or 30 years ago are still in operation. We have not felt the full impact of this reduction because the remainder of the economy has been growing. With the interest rate climbing to the point that it is strangling our whole economy, the closing down of the gold mining industry with the resulting loss to the economy cannot be offset by the rest of the economy. I think this industry is a weather vane to which we should pay attention. I am surprised the minister did not make any reference to it when he introduced his estimates on Friday.
March 25, 1968
7998	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources
We have obtained some information from the Minister of Finance in the last couple of weeks, since the decision was made in Washington to freeze gold reserves. Apparently we are not going to buy or sell any gold so far as our reserves are concerned. The understanding is that our reserves will be frozen at the present level. Everyone must realize that this is an impossible pipe dream. Apparently it is hoped that this step will buy the time needed for the powers to make up their minds what action to take.
When we questioned the minister we learned that the Canadian government is in a bit of a bind because of previous arrangements, agreements and regulations pertaining to the production and selling of gold. The government is still committed to purchase gold from Canadian producers at the fixed rate of $35 in United States funds per ounce. The answers given by the minister to our questions would indicate that the Canadian government does not know what to do at this time with the gold it is committed to purchase. Perhaps the government is waiting for some instruction from the United States. In any event we have been informed that the government intends to buy this gold and stockpile it in the mint until such time as a decision is made regarding its disposition.
I suggest that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should sit down with the Minister of Finance, if he can detain him long enough between trips, and put a bug in his ear. It has been reported in the last two or three days that the $20 Canadian gold coin minted last year is selling throughout the country for something between $80 and $140. Perhaps the minister could persuade the government to allow the mint to produce more of these gold coins rather than letting this gold sit in the mint. Apparently we could make a pretty fair profit on these coins, and this profit might help the Minister of Finance out of some of the difficulties in which he continually finds himself.
The gold mining industry has received pretty shabby treatment over the years. It should be clearly understood that I am not referring to the big companies which have been able to make large profits for reinvestment in other fields. Gold mining is a very small part of the total operations of these companies today. I am concerned about the men working in this industry and those who live in the communities which depend on it. These are the people I feel have had shabby treatment over the years


The people to whom I refer have subsidized this industry and this government, and indeed they have been subsidizing our great, wealthy neighbour to the south. That is the country which set the policy in the first place and has adhered to it rigidly over the years. These workers have subsidized this industry first by low wages. The industry has cried poverty and has received subsidies from the federal government in order to continue operations. The industry has said it cannot pay decent wages. As a result the federal government has subsidized the industry. It has done so over the years without being able to check in any way whether the subsidies have been justified. Some time ago the hon. member for Timiskaming and myself were able to discover from the minister that at no time did the federal government have a mines inspector in order to find out whether the reports upon which they were basing the subsidy were valid or just came out of somebody's head. It seems that the gold mining industry, like Caesar's wife, is beyond suspicion.
Over the years the federal government has paid $200 million to $250 million in taxpayer's money to the mining industry in the form of subsidies. The miners have received low wages, and have reached into another pocket and paid their share of taxes. Every time the United States was short of gold the Canadian government very willingly turned over whatever supply it had on hand. The last time it did so it turned over something in the neighbourhood of $114 million for which the United States paid $100 million. In this way the miners reached into a third pocket to subsidize the gold industry. The United States is supposed to be the wealthiest country in the world. Certainly it should be if every other country has subsidized it to the same extent that the Canadian government has in this particular field.
I was surprised that the minister did not see fit to say anything as to the future of this industry, and I was surprised that he did not mention any government plans for it. I should hope that before much more time passes we will receive a statement from the minister regarding the government's plans in this field. I think we are entitled to know what the government intends to do, or whether it intends to do anything.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. McLean (Charlotte):: I know the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is as anxious as I am to see that the communities established across Canada which depend on
March 25, 1968

the mining of gold for a livelihood should be maintained, and that the miners engaged in the industry should receive proper wages.
Under the present government and under previous governments the policy with regard to mining communities has been to phase them out of existence because rightly or wrongly the output of the mining communities, that is gold, has been considered as a monetary measure. People all across the world apparently still consider gold only as a monetary measure, but the recent man-made crisis in gold has made governments consider gold not only as a monetary measure but also as a commodity.
At the recent meeting in Washington the seven world central bankers came up with a solution to our problem by establishing two prices for gold. The first price, that of $35 per ounce, is for monetary purposes, that is for trading among central banks; the other price, which will be used in the market place, is the price of gold used in industry, the arts, and by investors and speculators. It seems to me this policy will be especially beneficial to Canada and the United States. At the present time all mines under subsidy must sell their output to the mint. I should like to quote the following from the Wall Street Journal:
Canadian gold miners are eligible for aid of up to $10.27 an ounce if they sell their output to the mint and can prove the $35 an ounce selling price isn't profitable for them.
Legislation authorizing the subsidies recently was extended until the end of 1970. Its main purpose is to bolster the small towns near the gold mines. About two thirds of the three million ounces of gold produced yearly in Canada is sold to the government, which pays out nearly $15 million a year in subsidies.
Here is the point I wish to make:
U.S. officials interpret a sentence in last week end's gold pool communique stating members "no longer feel it necessary to buy gold from the market" to mean governments must stop buying gold from producers unless the metal isn't added to monetary stocks.
Canada's legislation virtually forces Ottawa to buy gold from any producer who offers it and isn't making a profit.
"Canada gave a general undertaking to co-operate with last weekend's announcement", a finance department official said. "Now we're looking at the details". He noted much depends on what other gold producing nations, notably South Africa, decide to do.
One solution would be for Canada to re-sell to private buyers the gold it purchases from subsidized producers. Technically, the gold is purchased by the mint, which isn't a monetary authority, and it is only monetary authorities who are barred 27053-504
DEBATES	7999
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources from buying gold. Thus, the mint, which purchases the gold because it has the refining facilities, could buy and sell gold without apparently going against the gold pool agreement.
Such an outcome would create the possibility of the mint suffering losses if the market price falls below the $35 an ounce the law says it must pay producers, also, it might have to stockpile gold if it can't sell to private buyers all the output it buys.
Until now, the mint hasn't been selling any gold to private buyers. All it purchased has been sold to the government for addition to Ottawa's foreign exchange reserves. Some of that has been resold to the United States.
The finance department official said Canada probably is the only major country compelled by law to buy from and subsidize domestic producers of gold. It was indicated that because the major reason for the subsidies is to keep gold producing communities going, a way would be found to continue the aid. Canadian gold output has been declining steadily in recent years and a number of mines have closed due to exhausted reserves.
If this is true, then Canada has the best of two markets, and the mint could sell the gold to the highest bidder.
In view of the two price system it seems to me the Canadian mint should make an agreement with the United States mint that so long as we have a two price system the mining communities and the miners should benefit from it. The mints of Canada and the United States could agree to be the only buyers of gold and to buy all newly mined gold at a price of $70 an ounce. This price would be set for industry, the arts, investors and speculators. This is the price the U.S.S.R. is charging at the present time. We could then set the price at $70 for industry and $35 for use for monetary purposes.
In view of the fact that the United States and Canada at the present time are using $650 million worth of gold in industry and the arts-a great deal more gold than Canada and the United States are mining-the mines in both countries would benefit from the $70 price. No doubt this would bring into being a great many new gold mines and restore old ones. The danger of extinction faced by the small communities which depend on the gold mines would disappear, and gold miners would be able to look forward to better paying jobs. Indeed, this looks like a golden opportunity to set our house in order and revitalize our great gold mining industry.
Let me point out that a great deal more newly mined gold might be bought by the two government mints than would be needed for industry, the arts and investment. In such case the governments could use the surplus gold for monetary purposes at $35 per ounce, and give an average price of $60 or $65 per
March 25, 1968
8000	COMMONS
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources ounce to the mines. Monetary stocks of gold would then be increased at no expense to the government, and the taxpayers of Canada would save at least $15 million a year, which is now being paid to the mines in subsidies.
The financial press of Canada is full of propaganda against raising the price of gold, but why it should wish to subsidize the goldusing industry in both the United States and Canada by paying a price for their raw material which was equitable in 1934 is something which the financial press does not explain. If fish, butter, eggs, poultry, wheat or anything else is subsidized there is always an outcry in the financial press. However, the financial press remains silent when $15 million is taken out of the taxpayers' pockets to pay subsidies to the gold mines in order that those mines can supply private industry in the United States and Canada at a price of $35 per ounce, a price that was set in the depression days of 1934.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
The question has been asked in this house, who would get the advantage if the price of gold were advanced? I have heard it said that Russia and South Africa would be the countries which would get the advantage if the price of gold were advanced. The fact is that gold cannot be used in Russia for internal purposes. It is not used in South Africa for internal purposes. Where is it used? It is used to buy goods from the western world. South Africa is now using $1 billion in gold to buy goods from the western world. If the price of gold were doubled, then South Africa would buy $2 billion worth of goods from the western world. Gold is no good for internal use in South Africa because paper money is used just as in Canada. Russia would have a billion dollars to spend. Russia can build all the ships and other things she wants by using her own paper money. However, when she comes to the west to buy she has to use gold or United States dollars.
I would say, therefore, that the countries that would benefit from an advance in the price of gold would be Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, those countries which want to increase their export trade. These are the countries which would secure an advantage from an advance in the price of gold. It seems to me that the minister of mines, having not only the gold mining industry at heart but also the benefits which would accrue to Canada and the relief to the


taxpayers, should get together with the Minister of Finance in order to have the two-price system worked out. This would be of benefit not only to Canada but to the United States and would add gold to our monetary supply as well as making industry and the arts pay the proper price for their raw material.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote lc carry?


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Is the minister going to make any statement in respect of this subject or is he going to ignore it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have no intention of speaking for the simple reason that we had a debate on the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act only last December when the legislation was extended. We had a full debate at that time and I gave all possible information. In recent days the Minister of Finance has answered the questions now posed. He has admitted that the policy with respect to what is to be done with the gold the mint is now buying has not been fully evolved. This matter is essentially one under his jurisdiction and not under mine. I am responsible for the administration of gold mining assistance; I am not responsible for the monetary policy of the federal government.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: In the first place, is the minister trying to tell us that the situation has not changed since the last time we debated the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act? Is he also saying that he has no concern or thought at all for an industry which is as important to this country as the gold mining industry?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have not said that. I simply indicated that I was not going to participate in the filibuster. My hon. friends can repeat whatever they want to say on this subject. I feel that the answers they would like to have have already been given or will be given later by the Minister of Finance. If they want to keep on repeating that the federal government is providing money to the gold mining industry that should be used in other ways, that is all right, but it is not so. The Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act is designed to help the communities which are dependent on these gold mines when they come to the end of their production or are in difficulty. My hon. friend saw the way the act operated the other day when the Hollinger mine was closed because it had come to the end of its ore. Other jobs were found in the area for the people who were laid off.
March 25, 1968


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: There is only one other point I should like to make. I quite understand what the Minister of Finance has been saying over the years, and certainly his opinions are backed up by many other people in this country. What they are saying in effect is that gold is a terrible master which strangles and makes slaves of the economies of the world. This may or may not be so, but the fact still remains that before gold can be replaced as an international unit of liquidity something else will have to be found in which countries will put the same faith as they have had in gold. This may be a very laudable objective but for 5,000 years various nations, particularly those which were at the peak of their power and wealth, tried to control gold. They have always failed in the past. I think we must realize that we are not going to be able to pull a rabbit out of the hat overnight.
If Canada were not a gold producing country I could understand the Canadian government slavishly going along with the United States plan. However, Canada is a gold producing country. If the gold deposits in this country were developed we would be second only to South Africa in world production of gold. The Canadian government either does not realize this or does not care about it. One of two things should happen. The government should take more interest in this industry or it should come out boldly and tell the gold mining communities they have no future because the government is doing everything possible to destroy them. The sooner this occurs, the happier the government will be. This has been the attitude of the Canadian government, or, at least, that is the only conclusion we can draw from the minister's remarks today.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Geological Research-*
40c. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $79,400.
Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question of the minister in this regard. I had no intention of speaking on the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources but a deputation called on me on Sunday in Toronto when I was home. As hon. members know, my riding is York-Humber and the Humber river flows the full length of the riding. It is considered by the Canadian government to be a navigable stream. The deputation that called on me consisted of pleasure boat owners who have taken great offence at an action taken by the 27053-5041
DEBATES	8001
Supply-Energy, Mines and Resources Ontario government with regard to the regulation of the disposal of the contents of toilets from pleasure boats.
As some members from Ontario will know, effective July 1 pleasure boat operators and owners were going to have to make arrangements to empty toilets on land rather than into navigable waters. However, such an uproar developed over the expenditure connected with the change in pleasure boats that the effective date of the regulation was changed to January, 1969. For the information of the minister I should like to say that the pleasure boat owners in the Toronto area, and those who have boats on the Humber river, are protesting because navigable waters come under the federal government. They are wondering whether the federal government will go along with a provincial government legislating in this field.
They point out that quite recently wide publicity was given to some action taken by the federal government against a boat at Nanaimo, British Columbia, which had dumped oil into the harbour there. If the federal government can move against boats that dump oil into navigable waters such as the harbour at Nanaimo, how can the province of Ontario legislate regarding boats that are using Lake Ontario which is an international body of water and is navigable? The Humber river also comes under the navigable waters legislation. Under vote 40c would the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources state whether the federal government will take action in this regard or allow the Ontario government to carry on?
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, very shortly, the question of pollution is a most difficult one. It is a difficult matter to rationalize. For example, why is it that under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the federal government can impose fines on ships in harbour that spread oil on the waters and does not impose similar fines when the offence is committed on the shores of a navigable river? What my hon. friend referred to as a mystery, is one to me as well. Well, in a sense it is a mystery and in another it is not. My department and I think that the question of pollution is constitutionally impossible of solution unless a pragmatic approach is taken to it. Because the jurisdiction is divided or shared between Ottawa and the provinces we must approach the matter in a practical way. We will take action against ships that spread oil across

March 25. 1968
Supply-Public Works
harbours and they will take action against people who pollute the rivers.
I can find no other way of dealing with this problem, Mr. Chairman. As I said on Friday, the matter demands habitual co-operation between the federal and provincial governments. I also said last Friday that in fields of divided jurisdiction co-operation must be a matter of course, not something that one does when one cannot avoid it. Otherwise we will never get anywhere. The examples that have been cited by the hon. member for York-Humber are a good indication of that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(The following items were agreed to:) Research and Investigations on Water Resources- 70c. Administration, Operation and Maintenance- To extend the purposes of Energy, Mines and Resources Vote 70 of the Main Estimates for 1967-68 to include the contributions detailed in these Estimates, $1.
B-Dominion Coal Board-
92c. Payments in connection with the movements of coal under conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, $4,636,900.
C-National Energy Board-
95c. Administration, $115,000.
Energy, Mines and Resources-
L25c. Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act, $335,000.
Item agreed to.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited-
L5c. To extend the purposes of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Vote L5 of the Main Estimates for 1967-68 to finance the costs prior to the in-service date of the Douglas Point Generating Station, $1.
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The committee will now proceed with the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Public Works.
(The following items were agreed to:)
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS A-Departmentlc. General Administration, $800,000.
Harbours and Rivers Engineering Services-
30c. Construction, Acquisition, major repairs and improvements of, and plans and sites for harbour and river works (including expenditures on works on other than federal property); provided that no contract may be entered into for new construction 
with an estimated total cost of $50,000 or more unless the project is individually listed in the Details of Estimates, $800,000.
Roads, Bridges and Other Engineering Services-
35c. Operation and Maintenance including authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the operating expenses of the New Westminster Bridge, $44,000.
50c. Trans-Canada Highway-Construction through National Parks, $150,000.


Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Public Works. The committee will now deal with the estimates of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development.



DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT

[Stage Direction]
(The following items were agreed to:)
A-Department-
Forestry-
23c. Contributions to the Provinces in the amounts and subject to the terms specified in the Details of Estimates, $1.
Rural Development-
35c. Payments in respect of projects and programs under the Agricultural and Rural Development Act, and payments to Provinces pursuant to agreements entered into under that Act, $5,000,000.
B-Canadian Livestock Feed Board-
40c. Administration and Operation, $30,000.
Herman Maxwell Batten: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Forestry and Rural Development. The committee will now consider the estimates of the Solicitor General.
SOLICITOR GENERAL C-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
20c. National Police Services, Federal Law Enforcement Duties and Provincial and Municipal Policing under contract-Construction or Acquisition of Buildings, Works, Land and Equipment, $505,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
25c. Payment in the current and subsequent fiscal years of a pension to Mrs. Vera Middleton Ryder in an amount equal to the amount that would be payable in that year under Schedule B to the Pension Act if she were the widow of a Lt. Colonel and entitled to payment of a pension in that year at the rate set out in Schedule B to that Act, $665.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I do not have before me at the moment a letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but as you can see from vote 25c we are asked to authorize payment in the current and subsequent fiscal years of a pension to Mrs. Vera Middleton Ryder in an amount
March 25, 19S8
equal to the amount that would be payable in that year under schedule B to the Pension Act if she were the widow of a lieutenant colonel and entitled to payment of a pension in that year at the rate set out in schedule B to the act, namely, in the amount of $665. Before I make some detailed comments on this matter I should like to ask the Solicitor General who Mrs. Vera Middleton Ryder is and what rank her husband held at the time of his death, since we are asked to assume that she is the widow of a Lieutenant Colonel, which evidently he was not when he passed away. Would the Solicitor General give us some facts in this matter? I have some comments I wish to make, comments that are sincere.


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the pensionee, Mrs. Vera Middleton Ryder, was the wife of an R.C.M.P. corporal who was killed while on duty. She then qualified for a pension. A short time after she remarried and the pension lapsed. When her second husband died, under the provisions of the act the pension was reinstated to her in the sum of $665 for this year.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, this item provides for the payment of a pension under the Pension Act as if she were the widow of a Lieutenant Colonel and entitled to payment of a pension at the rate set out in schedule B. I have received two letters within the last three weeks-I hope I am not going to be told that this comes under the Department of National Health and Welfare-from two widows those husbands died in the month of December, 1967. When they applied for payments under the new Canada pension act, which is one of the feathers in the cap of the Liberal government, they were advised that since their husbands had not lived until January, 1968 they were not going to get any payment under the Canada Pension Plan. These two women are left in dire straits. Their husbands contributed to the Canada Pension Plan as required by the law. They made their monthly or weekly contributions and the pension plan was built up.
I understand perfectly clearly why there had to be a starting date for the Canada Pension Plan so that people could not benefit from it until a certain number of payments had been made into the pension fund. I understand that under the Canada Pension Plan people had to contribute up to and including January, 1968 before their beneficiaries could draw any benefits from the plan.
Supply-Solicitor General But how in the name of heaven can we legislate in this case as though Mrs. Vera Middleton Ryder was the widow of a Lieutenant Colonel when evidently she was not? I should like to see an amendment made by the Department of National Health and Welfare to the effect that widows who lost their husbands in December, 1967 are not to be considered as widows until January, 1968, thus entitling them to payments under the Canada Pension Plan.
I do not like seeing us extend a special benefit to Mrs. Vera Middleton Ryder when we are prepared to extend no special benefits to those whose husbands did not survive until January, 1968, but passed away almost at the wire, one might say, before they breasted it. I cannot see justice toward the people of Canada when under the Canada Pension Plan we cut off widows whose husbands have made the necessary contributions but did not live until January, 1968.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I do not like seeing special exceptions made. I should like to see payments in favour of all those who can benefit from them and I believe that widows who became widows in December, 1967, are entitled to as much consideration under the Canada Pension Plan as Mrs. Vera Middleton Ryder whom I do not know. I do not even know where she lives. But if this government and cabinet are going to ask parliament to extend special privileges to Mrs. Vera Middleton Ryder I think the same special privileges should be extended to all who became widows in December, 1967 and who were told: "Because your husband did not live until January, 1968, you cannot get any benefits under the Canada Pension Plan." I do not like this special vote in the Solicitor General's supplementary estimates.


Lawrence T. Pennell: With respect, may I say to the hon. member that Mrs. Ryder does not come under the Canada Pension Plan. I should be pleased to take up the question raised by the hon. member regarding R.C.M.P. widows.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I did not say anything about R.C.M.P. widows. I said they are just Canadian widows. This has nothing to do with the R.C.M.P.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I am sorry, I misunderstood the hon. member. I shall be pleased to bring the question of these two widows to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, under whose department the pension plan is set up.

March 25, 1968
8004	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration


Mr, Cowan:: It is very kind of the Solicitor General to offer to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but I have already done so. I have had lengthy correspondence with the hon. gentleman and I have very full replies pointing out that nothing can be done. I will now refer the matter to the Solicitor General to see what kind of answer a fellow cabinet minister will get since a fellow Liberal could only get the answer: "These matters have been investigated fully and nothing can be done."
After I was given those answers in respect of the two widows to whom I am referring, lo and behold, I found on my desk supplementary estimates (C) in which I am asked to vote for a special provision for a widow as if she were the widow of a Lieutenant Colonel. I should like these other widows to be treated on the basis that their husbands died in January, 1968, instead of in December, 1967.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 25c carry?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police-
L92c. To increase to $750,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the R.C.M.P. Cloth Revolving Fund established by Vote 547, Appropriation Act No. 3, 1953, for the purchase and sale of materials for the manufacture of uniforms; additional amount required, $300,000.
Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Chairman, before my estimates are concluded I wish to recall the fact that earlier this year, as the house may recall, the hon. member for Kamloops asked certain questions relating to an alleged interference by the R.C.M.P. in the service of documents in the case of George Wilson. At that time I answered part of the question and refrained from making further comment because it was intimated that legal action might flow from the case. I have since learned that there is no intention to institute private legal action. I agree with the hon. member for Kamloops that the matter is of sufficient importance that I ought to investigate it. I wish to advise the house that I have asked for a full report. It is anticipated that inquiries will be made of some 32 people. I expect the report to be on my desk shortly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herman Maxwell Batten: That completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of the Solicitor General.



DEPARTMENT OF MANPOWER AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
Development and Utilization of Manpower-
5c. Administration, Operation and Maintenance- To extend the purposes of Manpower and Immigration Vote 5 of the Main Estimates for 1967-68 to authorize payments in respect of persons who will be afforded occupational training under the Adult Occupational Training Act and to provide that the provisions made by any Appropriation Act for the current fiscal year based on the said Vote in respect of occupational training for adults shall be applied for payments in respect of persons who will be afforded occupational training under the Adult Occupational Training Act and to provide a further amount of, $18,250,000.
Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Chairman, this item concerns the major part of the program dealing with the training and retraining of various classes of people. It also affects a point which some of us have raised, the difficulties in some of the larger cities with large numbers of immigrant families and their children. Despite the time of the session I think the minister owes the committee some kind of report of his stewardship of the new training program he has inaugurated.
One could make a lengthy speech about some of the failures of the program which have been reported, the lack of training facilities in many parts of the country, the substantial drop in the numbers taking advantage of the training facilities compared with earlier years, and the very great problems that have arisen as a result of the three-year requirement before the training allowance is paid. I do not want to do that unless I have to. Despite other considerations I think the minister owes this committee and the country some kind of outline of the policy and work which have been carried on before the committee passes this vote. When the minister came in with some sheets of paper in his hand I thought that perhaps he had notes for such a statement. I invite him to make one for our benefit.


Mr. Marchand:: Mr. Chairman, as far as that matter is concerned, it is true that during the past year, the retraining program has been criticized. The main criticism was that fewer persons had been retrained than under former program no. 5, and that there were also very serious deficiencies with regard to language instruction.
The first statistics that we could obtain- since the program has only been in effect for a year-indicate that as many persons have been trained under the new program this
March 25, 1968	COMMONS
year than under the previous program, last year, that is, 250,000.
I would not go as far as to say that this is enough and that it is a complete success, but, in my opinion, it is at least an answer to the objection raised to the effect that fewer persons were now being retrained under the new program. The figures now available-


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the hon. minister. What was the number he mentioned?


Jean Marchand: I said 250,000, Mr. Chairman.


David Lewis: Could the hon. minister tell us how many people were trained per province?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I shall only be able to supply this information a little later, since we get those figures from the provinces which are responsible for the training, which must supply the schools and which set up the programs. Therefore, we shall have to wait until they provide us with their own information. All I have at the present time is the probable number of 250,000, but I shall try to get more details.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Still, there is something extremely interesting about that figure of 250,000 and it is that there are many more people who take these courses assiduously than did under the former program. Contrary to what has just been said, there are fewer drop-outs under the new program than under the former, probably because of the allowance level, and that is a definite improvement.
Since the level of those allowances is, shall we say, more adequate, people tend to take courses right to the end. So, even though we have not reached the degree of perfection we should like to attain and our friends opposite would like to see us attain, the fact remains that the program, as I previously stated in this house, is now as efficient as the former and that it shall exceed it by far, unless the house refuses the necessary estimates to achieve those objectives.
Now, with regard to the teaching of languages, there have been deficiencies also, expecially in the Toronto area. Fortunately, they have been corrected. At the present time, a greater number of people attend language courses in the various provincial institutions, than a year ago, but this does not
DEBATES	8005
Supply-Manpower and Immigration mean that everything is perfect. Improvements have yet to be made, but the defects and deficiencies mentioned in this house some months ago no longer exist.


David Lewis: Are those courses for adults only or for children also?


Jean Marchand: For adults only, Mr. Chairman. We have no jurisdiction in the field of education to children. That is the exclusive responsibility of the provinces and, unless agreements entered into with the provinces are amended, we will not assume any responsibility with regard to language instruction for the children.


David Lewis: One does not suggest that the minister or the department should intervene in the education of children. But is the minister still adamant against giving some financial assistance to provinces where the load of providing immigrant children with an opportunity to learn the language so they may move into the educational or occupational stream is too great?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, in that connection, I think that the line drawn between the provinces and the federal government should be maintained.
Now, it is argued that as it is the federal government which is responsible for the coming of immigrants, it should assume the whole responsibility.
We are not the only ones, Mr. Chairman, who want immigrants in the country. The province of Ontario has immigration offices; it wants immigration, and rightfully so. The same is true for most provinces having an adequate economic growth. Thus, it is not our sole responsibility. It is also the responsibility of the province concerned.
However, I have started to consider a project to assist not directly the teaching of languages but perhaps the adaptation of immigrants in Canada; that might be interpreted by the provinces as an assistance to the teaching of languages. We are working on such a project at the present time and I hope the right formula can be found, provided money is available.


David Lewis: I thank the minister for his last statement. In developing this new project is the department consulting with the provinces
March 25, 1968

Supply-Manpower and Immigration and those interested in this field, or is this a project which is being developed in Ottawa to be shown subsequently to the provinces? I hope the latter is not the case because it seems to me many ol these projects have gone awry precisely because there has been lack of communication during their development.


Jean Marchand: We are in permanent contact with the provinces when studying these problems. I have been in personal contact with Quebec. I know that Mr. Davis will be coming to Ottawa, and this is the kind of subject we want to discuss with him. The sort of co-operation the hon. member has in mind will exist.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
6c. Payments In accordance with terms and conditions approved by the Governor in Council to Provinces and in respect of Indian Bands under the Municipal Winter Works Incentive Program during the 1967-68 and 1968-69 fiscal years of amounts not exceeding fifty per cent of the cost of labour incurred in a five-month period commencing either November 1 or December 1, 1967, as selected by the Province or Indian Band, and in the case of projects in designated areas within the meaning of the Department of Industry Act, sixty per cent of such cost; and to authorize payments in those fiscal years to Provinces in respect of previous Municipal Winter Works Incentive Programs, $20,000,000.
Mr. Laprise:: Mr. Chairman, as far as vote 6c is concerned, I would like to ask the minister if he has a statement to make about the extension of winter works this spring?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There will be no extension of the winter works season.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
10c, Grants, Contributions and Subsidies in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the sub-vote titles listed in the Details of the Estimates, $31,750,000.
Item agreed to.
Immigration-
15c. Administration, Operation and Maintenance, including trans-oceanic and inland transportation and other assistance for immigrants and settlers subject to the approval of Treasury Board, including care en route and while awaiting employment; and payments to the Provinces, pursuant to agreements entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council, in respect of expenses incurred by the Provinces for indigent immigrants, $900,000.
Ralph Bronson Cowan: I spoke to the Chair earlier and stated I wished to speak on the subject of immigration. I had no comment to make on

the manpower estimates but I have some comments to make on the item before us, 15c.
Those who are interested in the operation of this department know that drastic changes have been made with regard to the treatment of immigrants and would-be immigrants coming into this country. At the present time I am wrapped up in the interests of three men from Greece who are anxious to settle in Canada. Two of them are in the riding of York-Humber at this time. The third returned voluntarily to Greece where he is endeavouring to get back to Canada with landed immigrant status. I must say that this shepherd boy is receiving fine co-operation from the Canadian immigration officers in Athens.
At the moment I am more interested in the two would-be immigrants now living in York-Humber. I have advised the minister more than once that I was anxious to see these supplementary estimates called so that we might discuss a few of the features of the Immigration Act. I have coming up on April 3 a hearing before a special immigration officer in Toronto regarding one would-be Greek immigrant, and on April 9 I have an appearance before the immigration appeal board in Ottawa regarding the second. There are circumstances arising in connection with these cases which I believe apply to the entire immigration department and which need to be straightened out in a hurry.
I am sorry I have not had the opportunity this year of attending the sittings of the special joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons on immigration. I did attend them at some length a year ago and two years ago. Although not a member of the committee I exercised my right as a member of parliament to attend. I believe some fine changes were made in the administration of the act after suggestions put forward by the hon. member for Essex West, the hon. member for Hamilton West and myself. But there are still some snags in the administration of the act which need to be straightened out and I trust hon. members will bear with me while I elucidate.
One of these Greek immigrants came to Canada on a visitor's visa. Everything was in order. His relatives in this country are well able to look after him until he is well established. Of course, there is a ukase to the effect that he cannot accept employment, but he is not protesting against that at all. I shall take first of all the case of a 39 year old would-be immigrant whose people have done so well in this land that they are now living the lives of a retired lady and gentleman,
March 25, 1968

owning considerable property in the borough of York and the city of Toronto.
This man applied for landed immigrant status. What I protest against is the fact that when he was given a hearing by the immigration department no friends were asked to be with him. Then somebody shows up and gives him a written note assessing the kind of immigrant he is likely to be and the kind of man he is likely to be. According to the details set out in the regulations and according to the forms supplied by the Department of Manpower and Immigration, immigrants can sometimes qualify with 35 points, sometimes have to have 40 points and at other times 50 points.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
What I have objected to and objected strenuously, and I do so again now, is the fact that when this man is given his rating and is not given enough points to qualify for landed immigrant status, there is nobody there to advise him and help him. It is almost an examination. In fact it is an examination that he is being given, but he does not realize that he is being given an examination. Then in due course he gets a letter through the mail telling him he has been assigned a certain number of points and that he has not made enough points to qualify for landed immigrant status.
When the would-be landed immigrant receives that notice, having had this first examination against which I protest because it is done in the dark and behind closed doors without any advice being available to the would-be immigrant, he has to leave the country. I hate to use the word deportation. I do not think it should be used by the Department of Immigration. When it tells a man he has to leave the country it does not have to tell him he is being deported, but this is what it does. He has to show up at the deportation office on a certain date and he is deported. When boys in the army overstay their leave they are not called deserters the very next day. They are described as absent without leave. Why don't you call the boys who overstay their leave in the army deserters just as you call these would-be immigrants to Canada deportees the moment someone says they do not have enough marks to qualify to remain in the country?
In the case of this 39-year old Greek, the gentleman with whom I am going to appear before a special inquiry officer on April 3, it does not take a lot of mathematics to subtract 39 from 1968 and find out that he was born in 1929. He came into this country in the month of July or August of last year to visit
DEBATES	8007
Supply-Manpower and Immigration relatives, an aunt, an uncle and cousins. After he had been here a while he thought he would like to remain in the country and he made a formal application to the immigration department to remain. Unknown to his friends, and I call myself a friend of the family, he was given an examination in some office and later he was advised he had not secured enough marks to stay in the country.
In fact this 39-year old man got 24 marks on an examination that requires him to get 50 marks, and he was told that because he got only 24 points he could not stay. He got a letter from the department that I may yet read to the committee. He was told to get out of the country, that he was not wanted and had not got enough marks. He came to see me with his relations who are Canadian citizens well able to look after him. they asked me, "What goes now"? I said, "The only thing we can do now is fight a delaying action. The first thing to do is to enter an appeal to remain in the country."
We entered an appeal to remain in the country and we went before what is known as a special inquiry officer. They use the initials "S.I.O." in the immigration department to cover them. So we go before the special inquiry officer to argue that this gentleman, this 39-year old Greek, a fine looking man, should be allowed to remain in this country. He can be as big a success here as his uncle, aunt and cousins. The special inquiry officer goes through the usual bland questions and he comes to the point that under education and training, where a would-be immigrant can be given a total of up to 20 assigned points, this chap has been given a total of 4. He is 39 years old and under the immigration examination he can be given 20 points under section 1, education and training, one unit to be awarded for each successful year of education or occupational training. This chap was given 4 points by the first officer who examined him.
When the special inquiry officer who, you might say, was hearing the case again-I am not using the word "rehearing"-came to item No. 1 where this chap had been given only four points by a man I have never seen or met, I raised objection and pointed out that this fellow had been given four points on the basis of one point for each year of formal education that he could prove he had in his homeland. This man was born in Greece in 1929 and his people sent him to school when he was about seven years of age, about 1936. The young lad started school in 1936. He was going to school regularly and he was liking
March 25, 1968
8008	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration school. But in 1939 his school teacher was drafted into the Greek army because there was some fear of an invasion from the other side of the Adriatic. The young lad did not have a school teacher although he had a schoolhouse. All school teachers were drafted and his education stopped after three and a half years. We will call it four years because he was given four marks.
As there was no school teacher he worked around the farm with his father and the other members of the family. Very shortly, in came the Italians from the west and they burnt the village, they burnt the schoolhouse, and they burnt the boy's home. I asked him where he went when the Italians arrived. I am speaking of the war of 1939 to 1945. He said that his mother and dad took him up into the hills.
After a year or so in the hills they returned to their burned-out village. The lad remembers them rebuilding the place. They put up what you or I would call a ramshackle building because things were uncertain in Greece between 1939 and 1945. There were still no school teachers. They were in the Greek army, if they were still living. Then the partisans came up from the Aegean sea and internal war raged. They burnt the village again, they burnt the boy's home, and again his mother and father took him to the hills. At the meeting with the special inquiry officer I asked this lad, "What did you live in? Tents?" Through the interpreter he said "Tents? We lived in the hills. There were no tents. The army had the tents."
I give you this example of how this lad survived two invasions of his home town. He had no schoolhouse and no school teacher. When he comes to Canada in 1967 the immigration department wants to know why he quit school so early. I told the special inquiry officer that the fact this man had lived through two invasions was proof he was entitled to every mark in the book because he could survive under drastic conditions. How simpler it will be for him to live in Canada and establish his family in Canada when you consider the conditions under which he lived in Greece.
What is going on in the immigration department? I know of an Irish boy who was brought out to Canada in 1939 because there was a likelihood of bombers coming over from Germany to Ireland. This young lad came to Canada and went to school in Canada, but the Greek boy had to stay in Greece. He did not have the money. His schoolhouse was burnt down, his school teacher was in


the Greek army, and his own house was burnt down.
What was the Irish boy doing at that time? He was getting the best education we could give him in all of Canada. He was going to school regularly. No German bombers landed in Ireland or bombed the village from which he came and, lo and behold, in time we gave him a seat in the Senate and he is a great success. He came over the ocean because there was a war in Europe. But when this Greek boy survives the Italian invasion and the war of the partisans we tell him, "You cannot stay because you do not have enough education. You have only four points and you could have 20." Why do we treat with kid gloves the Irish boy who came here in 1939 and remained far from the field of conflict, and then tell this Greek to go back and see how he makes out if the Turks come in should the Canadian army unit be withdrawn from Cyprus?
I have appealed before on behalf of that shepherd boy being allowed to remain in Canada. The immigration department went to the tremendous length of speaking to the Secretary of State for External Affairs last June, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs advised the immigration department that there was now a stable government in Greece. That was terrific. I have a letter here from the immigration department telling me that the Secretary of State for External Affairs says that conditions are fine in Greece, that they are very stable now following the revolution of a year ago. It will be a year ago in April.
But what do we have now in Greece? I have in my hand the Globe and Mail of last Wednesday, March 20. There is a report of a statement made in the House of Commons under the heading "Cyprus Force Likely To Stay, Martin Says". The report reads as follows:
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
The three-month extension to June 26 of the United Nations peacekeeping mandate on Cyprus probably will not be the last, External Affairs Minister Paul Martin indicated in the Commons yesterday.
Andrew Brewin (N.D.P., Greenwood) had asked whether, in view of the improved atmosphere on the Mediterranean island, Mr. Martin could say the recent extension would be the last.
Mr. Martin replied that there had been "some improvement" but not such that this would be the last renewal of the mandate.
About 900 Canadians are in the 4,500-man UN Cyprus force.
Now we have Mr. Martin's factual up to the minute statement on conditions in Cyprus. Do not forget that the Turks and the Greeks
March 25. 1968	COMMONS
are facing each other there over a line of demarcation. The immigration department was putting pressure on this shepherd boy. His family thought that if he returned to Greece they could get him back here again more easily than if he stayed and fought with the officials and the appeal board. His Greek relatives in Canada raised the money and it cost them $424 to return the boy. I know their situation. They have a small restaurant.
Last Tuesday morning on the C.B.C. program "Preview Commentary" there was a ten minute commentary by Peter Mellors. We all know that since it was on the C.B.C. it must be true and factual. Mr. Peter Mellors was introduced as a resident of one of the islands of Greece. He gave a very factual rundown of the conditions there. I was interested in this rundown because I was waiting for an opportunity to speak about these two Greeks who wish to remain in Canada.
I wish to thank the C.B.C. for the very prompt co-operation I received in this regard. They gave me the transcript on Friday and I had asked for it on Tuesday morning. Some of you may have been waiting for Max Ferguson and may have missed Peter Mellors. He said:
Nobody outside of Greece can have any idea of the unending flood of propaganda the Greeks have had drummed into them since dawn last April 21st. And in every other socially and economically backward, I should say developed, country the radio is the most powerful means of thought control. It gets right into the homes spreading its insidious message as the children are being got ready for school, as the housewife does her chores, as the husband has the mid-day dinner and as the family gathers in the evening. They might not agree with this, they don't even have to listen to it, but the poison does its work all the same.
The Greek radio has never been anything but the mouthpiece of the party in power.
That is quite different from Canada, you know.
So the colonels are really only following the principles of the despised politicians in offering every hour on the hour an orgy of self-congratulation. The Prime Minister, Mr. Papadopulos, has been inundated with telegrams from the length and breadth of the land praising him for his surprising leniency in extending the recent amnesty to all the regime's political prisoners. Surprising indeed, that the amnesty had extended to about 10 per cent of such prisoners, but that is the sort of details the radio doesn't bother to report. Th same selectivity is used about the U.S. and other nations of the free world. American space achievements are the wonder of the universe, while the Russian efforts in that direction are dismissed with hardly a mention. As for Vietnam, that war has been won by our gallant American allies over and over.
In the grand old democratic days, Greeks could compare what the radio told them with what was in the newspapers. That would be a pointless exer-
DEBATES	8009
Supply-Manpower and Immigration cise now. The newspapers outdo the radio and even vie with each other in piling praise on Mr. Papadopulos and his highminded, patriotic, incorruptible and, of course, tremendously efficient cabinet colleagues. Report control in Greece doesn't end with the radio and the press. Special stamps were issued celebrating the April 21st revolution, stamps were cancelled with slogans extolling the virtues of the national government, as the colonels call themselves.
On the island where I live a big poster has appeared showing a labyrinth, sign-postered with those smears of a democratic society that Greeks were saved from by the national government. Anarchy, corruption, communism, of course, and something called red fascism. Most of the shopkeepers have put the posters up so that it hits you when you walk through the door. One or two,
I have noticed, have tucked it away almost out of sight. It's little things like this that tell you what the Greeks think of their government.
In fact, in spite of all the propaganda, not to mention a few good things the colonels have managed to do, the majority of Greeks seem to be thinking less and less of their rulers. What happens is that people have begun to compare the colonels' promises with their performance and no amount of propaganda can hide the fact that things are getting not better but worse, especially economically.
But what can anybody do? The slightest whisper of discontent lands you in jail. The politicians have been cowed, the army purged, the King kicked out of the country. The colonels meanwhile continue on their merry way buoyed up, one can only assume, by their own propaganda.
That report was broadcast on the C.B.C. network as recently as last Tuesday morning. This gentleman whose comments I accept as being factual, and who spoke on the C.B.C. over a broad network, said that things in Greece are getting not better but worse, especially economically. There was a revolution in Greece in April of last year.
I should like now to refer to the revolution in Cuba of six years ago. You may have read about the 24-year old Cuban girl who was in Vancouver taking part in a gymnastic competition. One might say that she jumped ship. When it was time to return to her country she could not be found. The Cuban people on the team could not find her and returned to their country. The girl showed up a couple of days later in Vancouver. Shortly after I asked the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in the House what action the department intended taking with regard to this Cuban girl whom I have never met and know nothing about. He informed me that he did not have the details but would advise me further the next day. The next day he showed me a detailed statement he had received from the deputy minister of manpower and immigration in which the facts were given about the
March 25, 1968
8010	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration girl who had disappeared and was found again in Vancouver.
This girl was applying for political asylum against the Castro revolution of six or seven years ago. She was 24 years old. Since then the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has been his usual gracious self and has inquired into this matter in detail. He told me that he felt inclined to give the girl political asylum from the revolution in Cuba. I told him I thought that was the proper stand to take and congratulated him on it. He told me that in a few days some formal action would be taken. On Friday last the Minister of Manpower and Immigration advised me that a special order in council was going to be passed by the cabinet to grant this Cuban girl in Vancouver political asylum. I congratulated him and told him that he could not pass the special order in council too soon to please me. This situation pertains to a revolution of six years ago in Cuba. I am speaking of a revolution which took place as recently as last April.
That Greek who last summer did not want to return to Greece because of the revolution was told that everything was stable in Greece. I pointed out that things were stable in Paris between 1941 and 1944 under the heel of Hitler. There is no reason that we should play favourites with a Cuban girl with regard to a revolution six or seven years ago and give different treatment in respect of a revolution only 11 months old.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
These Greek men do not want to return to Greece because war could break out there at any time, particularly in view of the situation in Cyprus. We have the assurance given to the Social Credit members some years ago, and I was in the house at the time, that if fighting breaks out in Cyprus the Canadian troops will be withdrawn immediately. We keep the peace as long as there is peace but when it is likely there will be a war we withdraw our peacekeeping troops, as shown by the Suez situation. The same thing will happen in Cyprus because the Social Credit members have the assurance that if fighting breaks out in Cyprus between the Greeks and the Turks the Canadian troops will be withdrawn right smartly.
Why should we send these Greeks back to Greece at this time when they might become involved in a war? They want to escape that possibility. This 39-year old man is married and has three children he wants to bring out to this country where his relatives can quite


ably look after them. He has been told that although he may have survived the Italian campaign and the partisan campaign, he is not too smart and has only received four points for education. What does it matter that his school teacher was drafted? What does it matter that the schoolhouse was burned down? What does it matter to us that he was only 16 years old when the war was over? That is apparently of no interest to the immigration department because he has only four points for education.
In my riding of York-Humber there is a man who asked for landed immigrant status, having come here from Australia. The immigration people in Toronto went over him with a fine-tooth comb. I do not know what marks they gave him but he did receive a letter telling him that he had to get out of the country, that he was going to be deported. They again used this word "deported" which means to me Botany bay for the English and Devil's island for the French. We are still using this word "deported".
This young chap is 23. Individuals of this type never come to me until they receive these deportation letters. That is the first I ever heard from him. This young lad asked me for assistance so he could remain in Canada. I asked him why he had waited until the stable door was shut-it is not locked but it is certainly shut-before he came. I said that I would see what I could do and I made inquiries about this 23-year-old lad from Australia. I found out that he apparently lived until age 16 in a central European country. When he was 16 his father decided there were better prospects for himself and his boy in Australia. They moved to Australia seven years ago. The father took up hairdressing down there and this boy learned the trade along with him and became very proficient at it. This young man today lives within 300 yards of my home.
This young man asked me if I could assist him to remain in Canada. I asked this proficient hairdresser whether he had told the immigration department that he was an Australian citizen. I asked him if he was actually an Australian citizen. He said that the moment his five years were up he took out Australian citizenship. I asked him whether he had told the immigration department of this fact. He said he did not know whether he had done so. He said that he had come from Sydney and that they should know he was Australian. He said he did not know whether he had mentioned his Australian citizenship. I
March 25, 1968

asked him to let me see his certificate. We went up to the place where he was rooming and he went into the bedroom and produced his certificate. It is really something. It has the Union Jack on it in red, white and blue, the Queen's picture, Australian leaves and everything else. This grants him Australian citizenship. He is an Australian citizen sworn before the deputy mayor of Sydney, Australia.
At this point I said to him that as far as I was aware we had not started deporting Australians yet and I told him I would go to see the immigration people the next morning. I went to the immigration department in Toronto and told them the facts of the matter as I have related them to you. I asked how many Australians we had deported in recent years. They could not recall deporting any Australians recently but they got on the phone and to my surprise-


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has now expired.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of speaking for very long but certainly-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Let the hon. member
continue.


David Lewis: If members of the committee would like to give the hon. member for York-Humber an opportunity to complete his speech I would be very pleased to sit down and rise after he has done so.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to thank hon. members for their cooperation. As we are in committee of the whole I was relying on having a break in my time so I could resume speaking later. If the committee wishes to give me unanimous consent to continue now I will do so. I thank the hon. member for York South for his co-operation.
As this chap from central Europe was an Australian citizen I went to the immigration people and informed them that they were deporting an Australian citizen. As this was something brand new to me I asked how many Australian citizens had been deported in the last 18 months. They replied that there had been very few deported, if any. I was
DEBATES	8011
Supply-Manpower and Immigration very glad to hear that. In any event they made a telephone call and after a lot of whispered conversation I was advised that because of a shortage of hairdressers in Toronto they were going to allow this Australian to remain in Toronto. They filled out the necessary papers and everybody was happy.
It was about this time that I realized what was going on. This central European is single. He had left his homeland to go to Australia with his father seven years ago. He learned his trade in Australia and became very proficient. In 1967 he came to Canada alone without his father. The father would be somewhere between 50 and 60 years of age. One must realize that there is conscription in Australia of Australian and British subjects for the Viet Nam war. We do not have conscription in Canada for the Viet Nam war or for any other war. Here was this Australian citizen who had been seven years resident in Australia. After five years residence in Australia he took out his Australian citizenship. He has his Australian citizenship and now he is a safely landed immigrant in the Dominion of Canada.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
What about the Greek? He does not want to go back to the revolution in Greece, but what does the immigration department care about him? We are only protecting those people who do not want to be conscripted for the war in Viet Nam. We may be a homeland for draft dodgers from the United States, but that is another matter. I am speaking now about an Australian citizen to whom the immigration department gave the status of a landed immigrant because there is a shortage of hairdressers in Toronto. Evidently there is no shortage of restaurant workers because the officials of the immigration department are telling Greeks to go back home. If a war breaks out with Turkey we will pull out our Canadian troops in Cyprus, but we will want someone to stand up to the Turks and the Greek people who come over here look like good cannon fodder.
I do not see how we can refuse this 39-year old Greek admission to this country on the basis of the number of points he gets. I have not been able to attend meetings of the immigration committee. However, I saw accounts of these meetings in the newspapers and I discussed some of the hearings with the hon. member for Cartier who was one of the joint chairmen of the committee. Miss Scott,
March 25, 1968
8012	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration the newly appointed chairman of the immigration appeal board, testified before the committee. I know the hon. member for Cartier questioned her rather closely on this point. He asked whether the immigration appeal board can reverse or upset the points score given by the first immigration inquiry to the would-be immigrant. Miss Scott said no, the points system cannot be reversed. She said they can only work on the grounds of humanitarianism as the facts are presented to them.
I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who in my opinion is doing a fine job. I am not saying this because I am asking now for special consideration. My requests for consideration have never been turned down, with the exception of the case of the Greek shepherd. I cannot understand why the Greek to whom I referred a while ago is not considered to be admissable and yet there are thousands of Greeks in Toronto who have established themselves securely there. The Greek shepherd boy is in Greece now but there are two other Greeks in York-Humber who are requesting landed immigrant status at the present time. However, Miss Scott said there is no use going before the immigration appeal board because the points score cannot be reversed. This fellow was given 24 points out of the 45 or 50 which he is supposed to have. He did not have much schooling so he cannot get marks under that heading. At the first hearing of the special inquiry I let the inquiry officer know what I thought of the treatment given the Irish boy who fled from the European wars and became a senator, while we tell these Greek boys who went through the second world war and a revolution at home to go back home.
The inquiry officer at that point said he would like to adjourn the hearing, to which I agreed. Now my Greek friend has received a second call to appear before the inquiry officer on the morning of April 3, and he received a letter asking him to bring his educational certificates with him. I hope they are in French and English because this fellow went to school for only three and a half years, and no doubt his instructors in Greece thought the immigration department in Canada would want to see the certificates in the future when he was 39 years of age. I wonder how many boys who went through two invasions of upper Greece in the last war have their education papers ready for presentation


to the special inquiry officer of the immigration department in Toronto. I will not bet any money on that, and this Greek fellow does not have such certificates. We have to take his word that he had about three and a half years of education before his teacher was drafted.
May I say to the minister, with all the feeling I can muster, that these men should not be given marks at a secret hearing and then be told later by the special inquiry officer that he does not have the power to change the decision on the number of points the man first received. In the case of the man to whom I referred, he was examined by somebody or other in Toronto for the duration of 20 minutes. During that time the telephone rang and the officer who was supposed to be examining him spoke over the telephone for six minutes on the subject of the employment of another immigrant somewhere in Toronto. So the man who was being examined was only given 14 minutes, at the end of which the inquiry officer decided to give him 24 points. We have such a clever immigration judge in Toronto that he was able to pass judgment and make a decision affecting the future life of this 39-year old man, his wife and three boys living in Greece after an examination lasting only 14 minutes as the result of which he gave the man 24 points out of the necessary 50. As a result this man cannot remain in this country, although his uncles and his aunts have established themselves successfully over here.
Why were other people not allowed to be present at the hearing so that the applicant could have received full credit for the conditions under which he had lived? Up to 15 points are given for the applicants, adaptability, motivation, initiative, and other similar qualities as they are assessed by the immigration officer. Yet this 39-year old Greek who went through two wars as a child, which showed some adaptability, motivation and initiative, was given by this wise examiner in Toronto 6 points out of 15. I wonder whether the special inquiry immigration officer would have survived the first invasion, let alone the second. The all-important examination in these cases is the first one. The special immigration officer admitted he cannot do anything to change the first decision on the points system, and so did the chairman of the immigration appeal board. She said she can only act on humanitarian grounds.
March 25, 1968

We know that under the new rules the minister does not have the authority to change or to supersede the final decision of the appeal board. The two Greek cases I have mentioned have not yet been before the appeal board under the new rules. I appeared before the immigration appeal board on two separate occasions. One involved a gentleman from Jamaica and the other involved a gentleman from Italy. The appeal board found against the applicants. I took the matter up with the minister of immigration and citizenship who in those days had the authority and who granted special permits to the Italian and the Jamaican. The two of them are now well established in Toronto, and their families are here with them. If anyone wished to look up the official government record he would find that it still says the applicants must leave the country. I took the matter up with the minister, a man with a big heart and with compassion, and he granted these two men special permits to stay. If I were to bring the case before a special immigration board now there would be no appeal.
In the case of the Greek fellow we could file an application for political asylum from the Greek revolution. If the little girl in Vancouver could escape from Cuba to Canada by a special order in council of the cabinet giving her political asylum in this country, then these two Greeks should not have to go before the special inquiry officer on April 3 and before the immigration appeal board on April 9. These men are trying to get away from the rule of a military junta which is controlling Greece today, particularly in view of what was said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs last week, and in view of what the C.B.C. reported as recently as last Tuesday morning.
I suggest to the minister that when the first hearing is held the relatives of the applicant be advised that this is the all-important hearing and that they should be present at it and bring their counsel if they wish so that the applicant will have the best chance of receiving the largest total number of points possible. If he is going to be examined behind a closed door the decision reached will be an anchor round his neck when he goes before a special inquiry officer to appeal the first decision. As we know, there is no use appealing because the anchor around his neck will drown him from the first hearing. I say to the minister, there must be a change in this regard.
I have here in my hands four recent copies of the New Statesman and Nation, the most
DEBATES	8013
Supply-Manpower and Immigration recent ones to have come from London. Each of them contains an article on the situation in Greece which points out that democracy in that country is dead. How in the name of heaven can we give political asylum to a girl from Cuba where the revolution is six years old and not give asylum to these would-be immigrants from Greece who have paid their way over here and who have relatives here to look after them? Why should we have to go through the rigmarole of a special inquiry and a hearing before the appeal board? Can the minister give me an answer?


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, when I rose earlier I said I would not speak as long as the hon. member for York-Humber. I can say now quite definitely that I certainly will not. I have two or three brief remarks for the attention of the minister and the officials of his department. But before I make them I want to express my appreciation of the careful and considerate way in which the officials of the minister's department have always dealt with any matter I have brought to their attention, and I have had many of them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Lewis: There is a large number of new Canadians in my constituency, particularly of Italian origin, and therefore I have had many dealings with the department. I am personally grateful to the minister's officials, on behalf of these people and indeed on behalf of the people of Canada, for the very intelligent, gracious and helpful way in which they have dealt with these cases. As a matter of fact, I have not had occasion to go to the minister himself or even to the deputy minister more than once or twice because the officials of the department were either able to give my appeal favourable consideration or else were able to persuade me that their rejection of it was based on unobjectionable grounds.
I am very concerned about the tests given to applicants. I appreciate the fact that when the minister and his department prepared these tests for applicants they tried to arrive at a much more objective set of questions than had previously been the case. I do not object to the intention or the objective which they set for themselves, but the tests have always worried me. It has always worried me that a person who gets 35 points has a passing score and the person who gets 33 points fails. The lower mark might easily be the result of a particular characteristic of the officer who
March 25, 1968

Supply-Manpower and Immigration is interviewing the applicant. It always worried me at school as well as at university and it worries me now when my children are going through school.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I have often wondered how a professor of English can say that an essay is worth 74 marks and not 75 marks when 75 would have given the youngster first class honours while 74 gives him second class. This is all right for an essay which does not matter very much, but it matters a great deal to an applicant. It matters a great deal to the person who is seeking to remain in Canada or to come to Canada. If because the examining officer has a certain attitude, was bitten by something or was abused by someone an hour before the examination takes place, his response to the applicant is different from what it might otherwise have been and the applicant loses, then I suggest to the minister he consider the possibility of rechecking so that the matter is not left to the judgment of one officer.
I appreciate that this would increase the load of work. In view of the large number of applications with which the department has to deal it may well be that this is not a practical suggestion. I really do not know. I am being frank and honest with the minister when I say this. However, I am worried as a result of the experience I have had about leaving the decision in the hands of one officer in a one-shot interview, which is generally the case. One officer, in a one-shot interview, may be fallible and is, may make errors and does. The only way I can see to overcome that is either by regular rechecking, automatic rechecking by another officer or, alternatively, rechecking at the request of the applicant or someone connected with him. This will not give perfection either. I appreciate that you can never arrive at perfection.


Mr. Clancy:: Will the hon. member allow a question? What does he mean by old Canadian and new Canadian?


David Lewis: I was not aware-


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Define it. Put it on the record.


David Lewis: I was not aware I was speaking about that at all, Mr. Chairman. May I continue? I appreciate that even a recheck will not bring perfection, but at least if you had two officers independently agreeing on a situation you would have a much closer approximation to justice than you have now.

Another point I wanted to draw to the minister's attention is the difference between a person who comes to Canada as a tourist and applies for immigrant status while he is here, and a person who makes application in his own country. If he comes as a tourist and makes application while in Canada, eventually he has access to the appeal board. The new appeal legislation gives the appeal board not only permission but authority-I would suggest almost a direction-to take humanitarian and compassionate grounds into consideration. When an applicant has not met the test on the number of points required he is able to go before the appeal board, either himself or through someone else, and present a case on humanitarian and compassionate grounds. However, a person who makes application in Rome or, as in one of the most recent cases to come to my attention, makes application in London, does not have access to the appeal board in Canada. It is impossible for the higher officers in Ottawa to recheck the application. If he is rejected as a result of the one-shot examination over there, then really he is through except that he may start over again and keep pressing at this end. Therefore it seems to me, that unless something has happened of which I am not aware, and that could easily take place, the point system has to be changed or a difference should be made to take cognizance of this fact.
There is a case I have in mind of a person who has a very old aunt here who cannot nominate him for various reasons. She does not have enough income or she does not believe she can live as long as the five-year guarantee requires. He has no closer relatives except a large number of cousins in Canada who are very anxious to help him become established in this country and are able to do so. He makes application overseas without sponsorship as an independent applicant. He has to meet, if I remember correctly, roughly 50 points if he is an independent applicant. He does not quite meet that test. I do not yet have the information, and I am not at all sure whether I will get it, as to what points he did reach. He is through, except that I will probably be landing the case on the minister's desk because the information I have persuades me that this person ought to be admitted.
The minister may want to give the case favourable consideration, but he is in a spot. He cannot see the applicant because he is overseas. He can only go by the record in the file and presumably the record will show that
March 25. 1968

this fellow lacks sufficient points in education, in training or in skills. Perhaps the officer who examined him thought that in the personal initiative category he was entitled to only 5 points out of 15. Perhaps he did not come within the category in which there may be a job for him. The minister, if he is to change the decision, will have to have a great deal more information than I may well be able to give to him.
Like all other hon members, I have some uneasiness about asking the minister or any one of his officers to make a special case without some valid argument. If the man were over here these valid arguments might be present but they are not in my hands to bring to the minister. It seems to me that since a person who makes application outside the country cannot have available to him the final appeal on humanitarian and compassionate grounds to the appeal board which someone who is resident here can have, the department should give very serious consideration to the possibility of varying the requirements. Perhaps they could be rearranged so that more weight would be given to one aspect than another to meet this situation.
I have raised two points which I hope will be helpful. Certainly they are concrete. It seems to me they are at the basis of immigration selection because the selection is now based on an objective test. I have said already that the officers certainly do their best but there were these two points that I wanted to bring to the minister's attention.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to say a brief word about something that does not fall directly under these estimates. I will not take more than two minutes to do it, if that long. The subject is related to these estimates. When we bring immigrants into Canada we have to be concerned about the facilities available for them to become citizens. The more I deal with Canadians who have recently come to this country, the more I am impressed by the fact that a relatively small proportion of those who have lived here the required length of time become citizens. At every election, whether federal or provincial, when I finally see the voters' list for my riding I am astonished and discouraged by the fact that not only not all but I would say less than half of those who could be citizens as a result of the length of time they have been in this country are in fact citizens. And, Mr. Chairman, for the most part they want to be. I have talked to them and been given to understand that they feel they are not getting
Supply-Manpower and Immigration the opportunity to become citizens as a result of the requirements of the citizenship courts, the tests to which they are put, and the fact that they have to lose money by being off work when they are trying to save every penny they can.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I will not say anything else on this subject because I appreciate that it is not in order, but I would appeal to the minister of immigration, who is concerned about those whom his department assists and admits to Canada, that he do all he can to change the manner in which persons make application for citizenship and are tested for that purpose. I do not know whether the minister will take time to deal with the points I have raised; I am not at all sure he would want to at this stage. However, I hope his department will pay serious attention to the suggestions I have made, not because I make them but because from my experience they seem to be matters deserving attention.


Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words at this stage.
I think that all members of the house have already joined in the tokens of sympathy expressed throughout the world towards the victims of the terrible earthquake which occurred in Sicily recently.
I know that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand) has already assured the house that special arrangements would be made to make it easier for the greatest number possible of those victims to immigrate to Canada and settle here.
A great number of the electors of the Lafontaine riding that I represent in this house are of Italian origin. They are building great hopes on the special arrangements announced by the minister some time ago. But time goes by and results seem to be long in coming. Can the hon. member give us some details on the results of the special steps which were taken by his department in that instance?
In addition, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out, as other members have done I am sure, that a large number of citizens who have immigrated to Canada in the last 10, 20 and 25 years have never asked to become Canadian citizens. That problem probably falls within the jurisdiction of the immigration service, but I wonder if the hon. minister might not be able to tell us something in this regard.
March 25, 1968
8016	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration
Recently, an immigrant, who was on the point of being married, needed a passport to go abroad, as he had lost the passport of his country of origin, and he could not obtain a new one within a reasonable period of time because the town where he was born had been destroyed during the war. Naturally, because he was on the point of being married, he was told that he would have to make an application and wait for months before getting his Canadian citizenship.
I wonder whether, in such cases, it might not be advisable to intensify our efforts with a view to encouraging the immigrants who have been in Canada for quite some time to become Canadian citizens.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, just a few words in reply to those various questions.
The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) described in great detail the cases which were submitted to him. He will surely understand that I am not in a position to discuss those cases as he did this afternoon, because I have just been acquainted with them. In any event, I will surely look into what happened to ascertain whether our policy is really lacking.
As for the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), I believe he is right in theory. Independent immigrants who have asked to come to Canada should have at least the same rights that tourists enjoy in Canada. Indeed, it is the tourists in Canada who have exceptional privileges. I do feel it is practically impossible to grant the right of appeal in the case of all direct applications that can be made.
But, in any case, the point system inaugurated last year is not sacred. It is still under study because we want to find out how it can influence immigration or what discrimination can result therefrom. Of course, suggestions made to us will be studied seriously and we will see to it that it is improved, if need be. In any case, it is a system which, in my opinion, has improved considerably our immigration policy, particularly with regard to sponsored immigrants. Moreover, it is a system which rests in part on discretionary power. It is difficult not to have discretionary power and, when a point system is applied, it can become too rigid. It is a matter of finding out if, in practice, the system works as well as it should.
That is all I want to say for the time being, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, I want to take just three or four minutes to express to the minister of immigration my dissatisfaction with section 5 of the Immigration Act and in particular its application. Section 5, as hon. members know, spells out the categories of persons who are simply not admissible to Canada as immigrants by reason of mental incompetence. Section 5 stipulates clearly that:
No person, other than a person referred to In subsection (2) of section 7-
That is the section dealing with the discretionary power of the minister.
-shall be admitted to Canada if he is a member of any of the following classes of persons:
(a) persons who
(i)	are idiots, imbeciles or morons,
(ii)	are insane or, if immigrants, have been insane at any time-
Last Friday, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Fort William sponsored a bill, No. C-30, the effect of which would be to grant permanent immigrant status to persons who until now have been denied it simply because they may have had a medical history of mental illness. Even if it had only lasted for short intervals, apparently this has barred them from being given permanent immigrant status. The bill debated last Friday would have changed the law in this respect. The hon. member made his case sa clearly and logically that I for one do not understand how this anomaly in the law has been allowed to exist.
In order not to digress I want to hark back to section 5 which prohibits the entry into this country of certain categories of persons who have a condition of mental illness or mental incompetence. Section 7 permits the minister to exercise discretionary powers. Although I am not challenging that provision it was my understanding until very recently that the minister felt he was under an extreme injunction not to exercise this discretionary power. Therefore I presumed that few, if any, persons in this category were allowed into this country.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
My involvement with this section of the act comes about through an individual case. I shall not take up the time of the committee to relate all the particulars. Suffice it to say that two families from a South American country had satisfied all the requirements of Canadian immigration law and were deemed eligible to enter Canada as immigrants. However, they
March 25, 1968	COMMONS
were prohibited from so doing because one person, one dependent, in this two-family group was considered mentally incompetent. In all other respects the applying families met the requirements of our immigration law. Ironclad guarantees were given with respect to the employment of these people in this country and with respect to financial arrangements for housing and so on. There was no good reason to deny these families entry as new Canadians except that possibly they could not leave one member of the family behind. The mother was very old and one brother was mentally incompetent.
The minister has the power to use discretion in these matters. I am not suggesting he should not have that discretion. I was surprised to learn from the hon. member for Spadina, who spoke last Friday, that 176 mentally incompetent persons in 1966 and 179 mentally incompetent persons in 1967 were allowed into this country despite the provisions of section 5 of the act. The minister was able to use his discretionary power and allow them in. I do not challenge that but I wish to ask the minister one question. He must use some criterion. He deals with every case on its merits and it would be hopeless for him to try to explain how he justifies every decision to allow persons into this country. I know he must take into account the circumstances applying to other members of the immigrant's family. But surely it is possible for him to indicate in a general way what circumstances must obtain before he is prepared to issue a permit for the entry into Canada of a dependent person who is mentally incompetent. If the minister will not answer now, perhaps he will take my question as notice. I intend to debate it with him at some opportune time in the future.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting to hear what the minister might say in answer to the hon. member for Springfield. I do not wish to speak at length on the matter. I was happy to receive the assurance from the minister that the points system is not an established sacred cow. I must tell him that from the advice I have from the Toronto immigration office it is an established sacred cow there at the moment. I am glad to know that the minister will disestablish that situation.
There is one point I want to emphasize to the minister and it is this. What is the competence of the examining officers in the first place? I have already extended public thanks, and I have done so privately as well, to the minister for having granted a special permit
DEBATES	8017
Supply-Manpower and Immigration to a gentleman and family from Jamaica. I sat through the hearing in Toronto before the special inquiry officer on the Jamaican's application. We were accompanied by the minister of his church, Pape Avenue Baptist Church, and heard the questioning of the Jamaican citizen who is now in Toronto. The questions were fired at him by the special inquiry officer. I would have presumed that he was an able, well educated man who knew what he was doing. He asked the Jamaican what was the date of the armistice in the first world war and the Jamaican said November 11, 1918.
The inquiry officer fired another question. He said, "What was the date of the armistice in the second world war?" That was the first moment I intervened. I was called a counsel, although I am not a lawyer. The only way I could get into the hearing was as the Jamaican's counsel. So I said to the special inquiry officer, "What are you talking about? No matter what answer this Jamaican gives you he will be wrong because there was no armistice in the second world war. It was unconditional surrender." Judging from what some members of parliament have told me, a peace treaty has not been signed yet between Germany and the allies, so the investigating officer's question was wrong. Peace not having been signed, the war is not over technically. So I said, "There was no armistice in the second world war. No matter how this fellow answers he is going to be wrong and either way you are going to dock marks off him."
To show the mental capacity of that special inquiry officer I would point out that there was a transcript made of the questions and answers, and because my interventon showed that the special inquiry officer was not master of the situation-he did not like to be shown up in this way-there were some changes made. If you will look at the departmental transcript of the hearing you will find that he has changed his question. In his question he now says, "What was the date of the end of the second world war." I am shown as objecting. "I object to the question because there was no armistice in the second world war." If the examining officer has no more intelligence than that shown by his secondary question, it does not say much for him. He altered his question without making any contact with me. I intervened because of the falseness of his first question. The altered transcript shows that the special inquiry officer is not very bright.
March 25. 1968
8018	COMMONS
Supply-Manpower and Immigration
I think that in the first instance we should have higher quality judges in the department.
I agree with the hon. member for York South. More than one man should be required to make this life or death decision affecting the welfare of families. I do not know whether I would agree that three people of the quality of the one I have just described are better than one good, intelligent man, but certainly I believe the quality of the examiners should be raised.
Since the minister has been kind enough to say that the point system is not sacred I should like to ask him what is the meaning of the paragraph on page 6 of the regulations dated September 12, 1967, which reads:
The regulations also provide that either a nominated relative or an independent applicant who comes to Canada as a visitor and then applies to remain permanently will have to meet slightly higher selection standards than if he had applied overseas.
A 24-year old chap to whom I am referring, a Greek, got a total of 45 marks-I have the examination marks right here-on his examination. We were told by the special inquiry officer that he had to have 50 marks because he applied in Canada. Why does the man who applies in Canada have to have five more marks or points than the man who applies overseas? What is the difference? He is not a different man overseas than he is in Canada. In fact, he has had enough get up and go to pay his way out here and also to buy his return ticket. He must have the return half on his visa. And because he has shown some spunk and got here on his own he is told, "You must have five more points than if you had not come here and had applied through any average, regular immigration office in Europe, Asia or South America." I have had South American applicants. Why must people get five more points in Canada than if they applied elsewhere?
Mr. Minister, I have already said I have no complaints with the handling of these cases by the officers of your department. I have congratulated you for your fine spirit and deep concern about this matter. You have said that the points system is not sacred, that you are not going to sanctify the points system in this mundane world. I also wish you would drop the use of the word "deportation" on every piece of printing material that comes out of the immigration department for would-be immigrants.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Chairman, I should like to give a brief answer to the question put by the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) with regard to Sicilian and Italian immigrants.
We have given priority to all applications made in Sicily; we increased the number of our agents in Rome so that priority is given to all Sicilian immigrants and their applications are considered as fast as possible. Moreover, we have given priority to applications from sponsors of Sicilian immigrants coming from Canada, and that method proved effective. Unfortunately, I cannot give figures to the hon. member this afternoon.
As for the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Fawcett)-
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)

I am no more satisfied than is the hon. member with section 5. We know that some illnesses which were incurable years ago can today be cured. This is where we can use our discretion. We shall amend this section as soon as we are able to do so. I shall not advance any argument on the point because I agree the provision should be changed in 1968.
The question has been raised: why should it be more difficult for would-be immigrants to obtain immigrant status when they apply here in Canada rather than in the countries from which they come? The answer is that if this policy were not followed people would not bother to go to our offices in Europe at all. They would come directly to Canada and make application here on the ground that it would be easier and processing would be quicker. If we are to maintain offices abroad, then those who respect our regulations should have some kind of preference. That is why there is a slight difference. We do not refuse applications made in Canada but we indicate it is preferable for application to be made in the immigrant's own country.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: To comment on the minister's last observation, I have the minister's remarks here, as he has made them for the past several years, and I notice he points out that in this modern day and age people can be transported much more quickly and easily from one country to another. People come here as visitors and after seeing the country they decide to stay. If a man comes as a visitor he does not apply to the immigration office overseas. Very likely he has only been
March 25, 1968

tempted to remain as an immigrant because of the opportunity he has had to see the country at first hand.
The 24-year-old Greek I mentioned was given 45 points on his examination in Toronto. He was told he needed 50 points because he had applied in Toronto. The question which arises is: Can we send him back to Greece? With the 45 points he was given in Toronto he would be entitled to entry to Canada provided he made his application in Greece. He obtained 45 points in Toronto which he was told-and I was there when this took place-would be sufficient if he applied in Greece. It looks a little ridiculous if, having failed by only five points in Toronto, he buys a return ticket to Greece and passes on the marks he has established in Toronto. Of course, it is a good thing for the air lines. I wish that Air Canada flew to Greece so they could get all the revenue. But I believe the young lad would only pay Air Canada as far as New York and would fly Sabena from there to Athens. The hon. gentleman has been very kind to me in connection with my applications but I must say I do not see eye to eye with him 100 per cent in connection with that last statement.


Jean Marchand: We could probably have a more lengthy discussion on this subject when we amend the Immigration Act, but I am sure the present policy is sound.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
2c. Acquisition of railway cars and other equipment, $76,500.
Robert Jardine McCleave: I have just one question which I raised earlier in the absence of the minister. Perhaps the hon. gentleman can reply to it now; I have given him notice. It concerns a request by the Shipping Federation of Canada, Halifax branch, and by the longshoremen of the Halifax area for further consideration of a projected increase in pilotage and boat costs for Halifax harbour. I shall not put forward the argument which has been made to me. I think it is really a matter of their having time in which to present their case to the minister and the department. This would be the preferable course. It is a matter of some urgency because the expected increases which have been mentioned were to come through as of April 1. Perhaps the minister could indicate whether their pleas and mine have had some effect.
Supply-Transport


Mr. Hellyer:: I am pleased to advise the hon. member that as a result of the representations which have been received I have given instructions that the date be extended by 15 days to give all interested parties a chance to make representations.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am very grateful to the minister.
The Assisiani Deputy Chairman: The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Mr. Mongrain:: I will relinquish my turn to the hon. lady from Vancouver-Kingsway.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Has
the minister anything to tell us about the state of negotiations between Ottawa and the province of British Columbia with regard to the Roberts bank development?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We are carrying on negotiations. I have received another letter from the premier which crossed one I had sent to him. We are both interested in getting on with the job. In the meantime we are going ahead with the technical plans for the port. I hope we can reach a satisfactory conclusion because it is important that the port be opened in time to handle the first shipment called for in the contract with the Japanese. We have every intention of seeing that this is done.


Winona Grace MacInnis: am well aware that the jurisdiction with regard to the deep-sea port is federal but is there any attempt being made to work out a satisfactory degree of co-operation which will allow some degree of provincial participation or control?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: In my first letter I said we would be pleased to co-operate with the provincial government with respect to industrial estates, the land assembly program for industry which is associated with the port facilities. This could be worked out on the basis of a 50-50 partnership as suggested by the province, or under any other agreed formula.
So far as the port facilities are concerned, I indicated in my first letter that the federal government was willing to accept full responsibility. I also indicated subsequently that we were making a study of the question of ownership and control of port facilities in Canada and that this study might suggest some changes in connection with control, more particularly in connection with local participation in management. However, in view of the fact that this subject has not been studied for

March 25. 1968
Supply-Transport
many years, not during the last 25 years to the best of my knowledge, I feel we should await the results of the study-I hope it will only take a couple of months-before agreeing to any new form of port control. I think this is particularly important because there are some basic questions involved which have to be answered. I do not believe we have sufficient information yet on which to base a policy as suggested.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
On the other hand, it could well be that following the conclusion of the study there would be some recommendation for increased local participation. We have left the door open for this to happen at some future date and have suggested that in the interim it would be in the interests of all parties involved that the federal government go ahead with the technical plans so that the contracts could be called and there would be no delay on the physical works.


Winona Grace MacInnis: What has been the response of the provincial government to this proposal?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The response has been one of continuing negotiation. I have not yet received a reply to my last letter but I think the will exists to try to work the thing out co-operatively. I certainly hope that is the case.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the house right away that I shall be very brief. I only want to deal briefly with two points.
First of all, I must tell the minister that he made a very good impression during his visit to Trois-Rivieres yesterday. I visited my riding this morning in order to listen to comments and read newspaper reports, and that does not surprise me, because such a welcome is customary in our area.
There is only one thing I wish to point out to the minister, and it is that the member for Trois-Rivieres is an independent. Therefore, when the Prime Minister or the leader of any party pays a visit to his municipality, he is happy to welcome him on behalf of the entire population of Trois-Rivieres. If I am saying this, it is because when certain candidates come to Trois-Rivieres, they invite the member, through their organizers, who then makes a point of being present, but he would not want to give the impression that he favours a candidate more than another.

That was my preliminary remark.
My other remark is perhaps more substantial. I remember that the minister said either in the house or elsewhere, that he would consider the advisability of paying some compensation those who suffered damage caused by flooding.
A little later on, I understood the minister to say that he had some misgivings, because it was an act of God for which the government was not responsible.
In the name of all my constituents-and I think this also answers the expectations of some of my colleagues who received the same requests-I should like to ask the minister today to undertake a serious inquiry into the situation. Along with others, I believe there has been negligence on the part of some responsible officials of his department. I do not blame the minister, nor his senior officials, but those responsible who should have foreseen the situation and taken appropriate measures before it was too late.
In my opinion, the least the hon. minister can promise the house and those who have been greatly injured by what has happened, is to set up a neutral and responsible body to study the situation in detail and with all due objectivity so that, if it is proved that responsible officials in his department have been guilty of negligence, at least partial compensation can be given in the most serious cases.
There are some pathetic cases which I find extremely unfair. In fact, for many years, we proved to the people that we were able to make the necessary arrangements in order to avoid a similar disaster, and those people invested tremendous amounts in properties which, in several cases, have a certain value. Today, we condemn them to assume those damages without any compensation, especially if we take into consideration-as I have written myself-the fact that most of those victims are people of limited means, even poor in many cases and doomed to a precarious situation because of that act of God.
I repeat my question so that there may be no misunderstanding on the part of the minister. I do not ask him this afternoon to promise officially in the house that he will give a 100 per cent compensation to those who suffered damages, but at least I should like to know whether he is prepared to make the necessary arrangements so that one individual or a group of responsible, competent and unbiased individuals could study the situation in detail with a view to granting a partial compensation in the most extreme cases, if
March 25, 1968

some deficiency, weakness or neglect can be proven.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, first of all I would like to thank my hon. friend for his kind words and I apologize for not having met him at the reception in Trois Rivieres. Certainly I will see he is invited next time and will be most delighted to meet him there. It is also true, as he suggests, that I received a warm welcome. I was not surprised but I was certainly delighted with the degree of the welcoming warmth that I received there.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: I will send you the
clippings.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Merci bien. So far as the question that he has raised is concerned, I did have an inquiry made earlier because of the allegations which had been made, and there was no indication that there had been any negligence. If my hon. friend has any evidence to the contrary I would be glad to see it. In the meantime I would undertake to send him the report which sets out day by day exactly what was done so that he can study it. Perhaps this will assist him in reaching some conclusion in his own mind whether or not everything possible that could be done was done.
There were unusual circumstances. It was one of the most severe winters in many years. As my hon. friend knows, the only thing that the department can do is break a channel and let the ice flow out to the sea. If in certain parts of the river there is very little current and there are adverse winds, the ice does not move toward the sea. Then we get a jamming condition which can produce very serious results. Sometimes it brings about flood conditions. When that happens it is due to the weather and is beyond the control of the department. This, to the best of my knowledge and belief, is exactly what happened. I would be pleased to send my hon. friend the information I have and I think it will satisfy him. If after having read it there are any further questions in his mind or he has evidence over and beyond what has been made available to me, then I would be glad to reconsider the question.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Roland Godin: Mr. Chairman, the items before us now are public items and as we must consider ourselves as representatives of the
Supply-Transport
Canadian people, we must either accept or reject those estimates.
Now, when we consider the way those estimates will be spent, we find out that one part will be used in favour of a company operating under the aegis of this department, and I am referring now to the Canadian National Railways.
Therefore, I avail myself of this opportunity to point out to the hon. minister that our constituents are asking for details as regards the administration of this crown corporation. We know that grants enable it to make both ends meet. We also know about the means used to put it on its feet again. It is public knowledge. But when the time comes to tell us how those amounts are spent, it becomes a question of internal administration, and the matter is taboo.
I personally placed on the order paper a few questions concerning the activities of the Canadian National Railways. As an example, I shall quote one question I considered then as being in order and the answer I was given. It was question No. 1068 of August 29, 1966.
How many employees of the Canadian National Railway get a salary (a) between $4,000 and $6,000, (b) between $6,000 and $8,000, (c) between $8,000 and $10,000, (d) between $10,000 and $15,000, (e) between $15,000 and $25,000, (f) of $25,000 or more?
In order to support my previous statement, I will quote the answer given by the parliamentary secretary to the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Kootenay East (Mr. Byrne):
The management of the Canadian National Railways gives the following information:
It was not considered in the best interest of the company to disclose information as required on the earnings of the employees.
I often placed questions on the order paper and an employee, responsible for its editing, gave me a phone call and said: Mr. Godin, I did receive your question, but do not try to place it on the order paper or to have it accepted. It pertains to internal administration and you will not get an answer.
It is a fact that it is the company's interest to prevent its administrative methods from becoming public knowledge and to keep certain details secret.
However, when the company is faced with a deficit, when it requires 50 or 60 million dollars in order to make both ends meet, then it becomes public business and they come before parliament to make up for the deficit. Then, the government does not hesitate to

March 25, 1968
Supply-Transport
make a grab for the handbags and pockets of Canadians. It is indeed revolting to learn about such things when we know how those deficits were created.
I wish, once again, to take this opportunity to point out to the minister how those deficits are created and what is their cause.
The main cause, I think, is patronage. When I speak about patronage, I refer to the ridiculous rates granted to certain companies by the Canadian National Railways.
I could name a member of the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways who is also an honorary member of a company in the province of Quebec. The company uses this official to obtain favorable prices.
Now the big companies contribute to election campaign funds, but I should like to point out to the minister that the companies' money does not always reach those funds, and that certain agents fatten their wallets with some of it. In fact, I know one of those agents who earns $1000 a month just by sitting as a honorary director of a company. Now, as soon as he goes back to sit on the board of the C.N.R., he can get advantageous prices for the company which pays him for his small services.
It is obvious then that the companies which do business in a territory other than that of the C.N.R., that is to say which must transport their goods by the C.P.R., which operates in a reasonable manner and with a profit, are left behind those which benefit from C.N.R. rates.
Since transport is more and more important in a country such as ours, where it must be admitted that a large number of people owe their success to the C.N.R., I think that a little more consideration should be given to the generous offers made by the C.N.R. to a few companies. Whether we like it or not, this can cause irreparable damage to those who want to hold their own by using other services. This can also cause irreparable damage in the sense that certain companies will be forced to close down, being unable to get rates similar to those of their competitors.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this is dishonest and unfair competition, since all those companies must live, they provide work for Canadians and they do not receive an equal treatment. Some companies can benefit from ridiculously low rates, while others get the short end of the stick.
Some truckers are hard hit by that situation, and I would like to read a resolution I

received from the Federation des associations de camionneurs de la Mauricie Inc. It is resolution No. 11 passed at their general meeting held in Saint-Adolphe on October 12, 1967, a copy of which was sent to the then member of the administration (Mr. Chretien). I quote:
Inquiry concerning the reason why the C.N.R. allegedly has reduced its freight rates with regard to the transportation of hard wood logs from Rapide Blanc to Ste-Thecle, Laviolette County, and from Rapide Blanc to Garneau Jonction, Laviolette County?
As a result of such action, about 30 truck owners who are members of the Federation found themselves in a difficult situation. We would be much obliged to you if you could give us the reason of such a dractic measure, since the C.N.R. thus becomes an unfair competitor, which is unjustified since the C.N.R. is a crown corporation, therefore a company owned and subsidized by the people. We therefore ask you to take the necessary steps to remedy that state of affairs and to get things straightened out.
I can say that things have not been straightened out in that area, but also that other similar situations arose elsewhere and on a much wider scale.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to bring up another matter. For the third time, I would like to tell the minister about the living conditions of the C.N.R. employees, especially those who work on mobile teams and must sleep in railway cars during the summer months.
During election campaigns, on great occasions, for instance last year for the centennial of confederation, some people expressed their appreciation in high sounding speeches to those who built our country. Of course, we counted deceased persons among them, because we know very well that they will ask us nothing; we also counted people who had worked on the construction of railroads.
Indeed, the construction of a railway is important, but I claim that its maintainance is not less important. In a vast country such as ours, which stretches for miles and miles, workers have to labour unsparingly and they must give service regularly, in extreme temperatures, while here, in parliament, where we have good heat and good lighting, we cannot imagine what it may be like for a man to work in all kinds of weather.
Now, many tasks are carried out by special machines, but machines will never replace manual labour, for accurate work for instance. There will always be impossible spots, where only a human being will do, and the worker will always be indispensable to operate the machine.
March 25, 1968

March 25, 1968
Supply-Transport
are merely asking for something quite in order for our own people.
Now, I should like to see the hon. minister at least make an effort to house the Canadian National workers in the same way he houses our soldiers, our sailors and our airmen. In any part of the world, even in the underdeveloped countries, we always find it possible to house them well and to feed them well, and I imagine that in our own country we could see to it that they all are well-housed and well-fed.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock, because I still have a few remarks to make after the dinner recess.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, perhaps there would be some disposition on the part of the committee to sit for a few minutes to see whether others wish to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roland Godin: Mr. Chairman, if the house will permit, my remarks will not take too long.
Since I was talking about construction, I have before me a document which could assist the minister. It is an article written by Mr. Jean Cote in La Semaine Illustree, in the June 5-11 issue, where he refers to the picnic car, and I quote:
In order to enlighten the public with regard to the extravagance of the C.N.R., determined also to bring about an inquiry, we shall deal with the specific case of the picnic cars or the private cars of the privileged few of the company. After describing the situation, we shall see that it would be possible to reduce the deficits if the PASHAS, integrated within an overall policy of restraint, did not live in style at government expense.
When referring to style and all the rest, Mr. Cote illustrates his article with some revealing pictures.
Throughout Canada, there would be more than 75 picnic cars, of which 25 are in Quebec. They are available to a small group of lucky people, vicechairmen, foremen and other officials, and are being used for various purposes.
Those luxurious cars, the building of which cost half a million dollars or more, are real palaces on steel wheels. By means of a masterly arrangement, all the modern-life advantages were gathered under the same roof, showers, kitchen, bedrooms, parlours, and so on.
About 15 persons can sleep there comfortably, and a hundred of meals may be served every day without the guests being obliged, on account of the lack of space, to keep their hands in their pockets.

The picnic car is a skilful version of the luxurious cars of the regular lines where, for a few dollars, you can take it easy whenever by chance you board a train for a restful trip to a distant city.
Of course, the marquess' friends will spend unforgettable hours as guests on fishing or hunting trips in the most remote areas of Quebec.
We are told that the cars are not entirely new. The old can be made new.
Today, palaces on wheels are no longer made. Rather the old is made new, that is to say existing cars are converted into picnic cars, which is just as costly.
There is not enough space to give details on this scandalous situation, to give some names to our readers, to tell about some nice fishing parties amongst people who appreciate comfort and some spicy adventures that would be the talk of the town.
I do not intend to linger on this subject. I only wanted to show the minister that old cars could be made quite modem without adding all that was added to those picnic cars.
Mr. Chairman, since I would speak for ten more minutes, I would point out that it is six o'clock.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Herman Maxwell Batten: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows: the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), Indian Affairs-request for reconstitution of parliamentary committee; the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, (Mrs. Maclnnis), Consumer and Corporate Affairs-investigation into increase in price of milk.
It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Roland Godin: Mr. Chairman, it is true that I am the one who called it six o'clock upon consideration of item 2c, regarding the acquisition of railway cars and other equipment.
Now, I have other remarks to make but they will mainly deal with the other item.


Mr. Gregoire:: Mr. Chairman, does item 2c not involve a general debate, as the-


Some hon. Members:: -No.
March 25, 1968


Mr, Gregoire:: Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, I could go back to another item which I see here, item 5c.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to get some information: Does item 2c, the first one to be considered at the present time, as in the case of other departments, not authorize a general debate on the overall policy of the Department of Transport, or do we have to wait for a specific item on this matter?
The Assisiant Deputy Chairman: Order. At the present time the committee is considering a specific item.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask a question or two directly related to this vote 2c which has to do with the acquisition of railway cars and other equipment. The supplementary amount being asked is $76,500. In checking the main estimates for the fiscal year that is about to conclude, I find there is an item for $200,000. The comparable amount asked for in 1966-1967 period was $610,000. Turning to the main estimates for the coming fiscal year, which have already been tabled, I notice that $200,000 is indicated as the amount required.
I wonder if the minister can explain just what this supplementary vote is for? Following that, perhaps he could explain whether the vote results from the termination of a certain program and, in being asked to vote this amount of $76,500 are we, in effect, only being asked for this amount for the current fiscal year, or will the full spending for this year be $276,500? As I asked earlier, does this indicate the completion of a certain program of acquiring equipment?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This additional amount is required to pay for the replacement of the Governor General's cars Nos. 1 and 2.


Mr. Orlikow:: I wonder if I could use discussion of this item to ask the minister a question which is becoming of increasing concern to railway workers across Canada? Some months ago there was a very sharp lay-off on both railways, but we are concerned particularly with the Canadian National. Several thousand railway workers across the country were laid off and there were protests from every part of the country. Last week I think there was an announcement in Winnipeg by
Supply-Transport
both the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National repair shops that they would be closed for a full month this summer. This means of course that every railway worker who works there will get at least one week's holiday without pay. Some of course will get more. There are recurring fears among railway workers that the lay-offs which I mentioned just a moment ago are going to continue.
The Assisiant Deputy Chairman: Order, please. The committee is not studying item 2c and there is nothing in that item related to working conditions or lay-offs. I ask the hon. member to confine his remarks to the subject mentioned in vote 2c.


David Orlikow: I have almost completed my remarks, and I am only going to ask a question. I assume that if the companies acquire railway cars, at some point those cars are going to need repair. Has the minister a statement to make as to whether we can expect more lay-offs of Canadian National Railway workers? This is the point I wanted to raise. If this is the wrong item, I can of course raise the matter farther along the line. It really does not make much difference.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall vote 2c carry?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. In view of the matters which were being raised for discussion on this item at six o'clock, I ask Your Honour to permit the minister to answer briefly the relatively simple question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North. The minister appears to be in a fairly amiable mood. I think he must have had a restful week end. I am sure he is ready to answer that question which is related to the operations of his department.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not want to transgress the rules of the committee, but during the last discussion I had with the management of the railway, which was just a few weeks ago, I received information that no lay-offs were planned, and that the special retirement arrangements which have been made in the Canadian National will permit the railway to reduce its total labour force to the extent required at the present time. As I indicated to my hon. friend, that information is not current, but I have no reason to believe it is not accurate now. I would be glad to make further inquiries of the railroad.


David Orlikow: May I ask one more question? Has the minister any information as to the

March 25, 1968
Supply-Transport
number of men that have been laid off since the large lay-off about which there were so many questions?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I do not have that information at my fingertips, I am sorry.


David Orlikow: I do not want to hold up the estimates. Can the minister get that information in the next little while, as to the number of Canadian National employees who have been laid off since September 1, 1967? If the minister would agree to give me the information when he gets it, then I will be quite satisfied.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If my hon. friend would give me the time period in which he is interested, I would be glad to get the information :for him.


David Orlikow: September 1,	1967, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
3c. Reimbursement of the Department of Transport working capital advance for the value of stores which have become obsolete, unserviceable, lost or destroyed, $145,697.
Item agreed to.
Marine Services-
5c. Administration, operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to increase to $28,971,100 the commitments for the current fiscal year for the Canadian Coast Guard service, $792,100.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, item 5c allows us to deal with the administration and maintenance of aids to navigation. Of course, that includes winter navigation on the St. Lawrence and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) is well aware of my long-standing interest in that problem.
One hundred years ago, fifty years ago and even twenty-five years ago, there was not so much talk about winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. The best winter ports were located along the Atlantic shore and winter navigation on the St. Lawrence was practically inexistant.
Thanks to modern technology in the field of transport, to new ship-building methods-including stronger hulls-to more powerful engines, to new methods of keeping the St. Lawrence open and with the help of Scandinavian countries and of Russia-Canada has not necessarily led the way in that regard-it

was realized that winter navigation was possible as far as Quebec city, Trois-Rivieres, Sorel and Montreal. Today however there is a problem: the government must change its attitude towards winter navigation. There are there different trends of thought on that point.
First of all, according to those who live in the eastern part of the country, in Halifax and Saint John, the representatives of the ports of the maritimes-and I understand their attitude-no step should be taken to develop winter navigation on the St. Lawrence and no icebreakers should be sent on the St. Lawrence so as not to harm the harbours of the maritimes. I understand their attitude, since that means something to the maritime provinces.
Secondly, there are those who say, as the former minister of transport put it a year or two ago: We will do no more and no less than what we are doing now in respect of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. They are the ones in between, those who do not want to give an opinion, who want neither to delay not to promote winter navigation. In other words they are neutral.
Thirdly, there are those who ask the Minister of Transport to establish a clearly progressive policy in that field and to take the necessary means to open the St. Lawrence to winter navigation, up to Montreal. Thanks to our knowledge of navigation on the St. Lawrence, even during the most bitter cold weather, to the new developments in shipbuilding, the improvement of engines, the reinforcement of hulls, etc. I think it is possible for us today-not in 20 years from now, but today to facilitate very easily winter navigation on the St. Lawrence up to Montreal.
We already have ice-breakers, maybe not enough, but it it is up to the minister to adjust his policy. Studies should perhaps be carried out concerning certain details but the greater difficulties have been overcome. What we need now is not technical knowledge or means, but that the Minister of Transport should take a decision, because he knows that we can carry on winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. What we need now is a decision from the minister.
I admit that he is caught between two groups-that of the maritimes and that of Quebec, that is the ports along the St. Lawrence-but progress means opening up navigation as far as possible inland. Once
March 25, 1968

there is winter navigation up to Montreal, it will not be many years before there is navigation along the St. Lawrence seaway as far as Toronto, and then, the head of great lakes. Progress demands that the channels of communication be opened as far as possible.
The solution now lies in the decision the minister will reach. Is he willing to decide to keep the St. Lawrence open to winter navigation, not just so-so, or half way, but formally?
It will be remembered that last January, ships were trapped in the ice. Navigation was closed down for almost a month. Some will tell me that ice jams are caused by the cold but the real reason is that the minister who is responsible for keeping the channel open did not do so, when he should have.
Here is an article by an expert on winter navigation on the St. Lawrence, Mr. Denis Masse, the maritime correspondent for La Presse who wrote this on January 23 and I quote:
In the city's shipping circles, it is said that the department could have prevented those ice jams by keeping the biggest and the most powerful ice-breaker in operation between Montreal and Quebec City. It is remembered that the d'Iberville was on patrol in the Saguenay and that the John A. Macdonald was in the gulf before the ice jams built up between Montreal and Quebec City.
Past experience has shown also for quite some time that the ice jams which are never easy to break up build up in January. Although it is true that the ice jams formed earlier than usual this year, it remains that the situation should not have come as a surprise to anyone.
As early as January 9, the air survey of the ice showed the possibility of ice jams in the narrow sections of the river. Then, what were the icebreakers doing that same day? The John A. Macdonald and the Simon Fraser stayed in Quebec City and the Montcalm alone went out for a routine trip. Shipping was at a standstill the next day.
Mr. Chairman, several of those ice-breakers have an helicopter on board. Last winter, before the famous ice jams which were responsible for the floods and the closing of the channel built up, the helicopter pilots from the ice-breakers had warned the authorities of the Department of Transport in Quebec city on January 7, 8 and 9, 1968, that ice jams were building up near the Quebec bridge and a little further upstream. Department of Transport authorities took no notice of that. Why? Because they were ordered not to prevent ice jams but to break them up after they have formed. The ice-breakers did not move, even if Department of Transport authorities in Quebec city were well aware,
Supply-Transport
following reports made by the pilots of their helicopters which were watching the situation, that ice jams were forming at the Quebec bridge and upstream as far as Trois-Rivieres-and that for three days. On the 9th, the day before the ice jams formed, despite the repeated warnings of the officials in the helicopters, two of the three ice-breakers in service at Quebec city remained alongside the wharf, and the third made only a routine trip, as reported by Mr, Denis Masse, maritime reporter for La Presse.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The mistake of the Department of Transport results from the order being given not to prevent ice-jams but to break them up after they have formed. If, as soon as the ice jams started building up, on January 6, 7, 8 and 9, the ice-breakers had begun their work, then the ice jams would not have formed and navigation on the St. Lawrence could have continued as usual in January. But after ice jams have formed, if there is a delay, whatever it is, they thicken; that is why on January 15 and 16, they had reached a thickness of 30 to 40 feet; ice-breakers in the maritimes had to be summoned then to help break them. But even if there were as many as 9 icebreakers at a given time, due to the thickness of the ice, it took about ten days to break the jams, and navigation was closed for 26 days.
The main problem is not that the ice-breakers are unable to break the ice jams, but that they wait until the ice jams have built up and are too thick. Ice-breakers should be constantly kept in service, from the beginning of the winter, to prevent any accumulation of ice in the bends of the river and at the most narrow stretches. Today, with the equipment at its disposal, the Department of Transport can do it. But, since he is the authority in that field, the Minister of Transport will have to assume his responsibilities-a thing his predecessors avoided doing the past 8 or 9 years-and decide once for all that ice-breakers are not merely there to break up ice jams, but to prevent them. If ice-breakers were working continuously, 4 or 5 or them would be sufficient to prevent ice-jams from developing and the St. Lawrence could remain open up to Montreal all year round.
Mr. Chairman, it is as simple as that. All we need is a decision from the minister.
The minister told us this winter that he was studying the matter and that temporary islands were being tried in lac Saint-Pierre. But that is not the place where the worst ice

March 25, 1968
Supply-Transport
jams developed last year and, moreover, it is not because of these that navigation was closed for 26 days. It was due to the ice jams which developed between Quebec and Trois-Rivieres, and the reason why the river between Quebec and Trois-Rivieres was so solidly jammed up is that the ice-breakers had waited too long before starting to do their job.
I do not want to put the blame on the captains of the ice-breakers, for all they did was to obey the orders they received from the department, that is to say break the ice-jams when they have formed, and not prevent them when they are forming. In view, Mr. Chairman, the minister should now announce in person the clear and definite policy of his department. What decisions have been taken by the Department of Transport with respect to winter navigation on the St. Lawrence? Does the minister intend to maintain the status quo, as did his predecessor, Mr. Pick-ersgill, that is to say do nothing more and nothing less? Does the present Minister of Transport really intend to take the decisions that must be taken in order that the channel may be kept open all year round? And when I speak of taking the decisions that must be taken, Mr. Chairman, I do not mean adding a large number of ice-breakers to those now in existence.
The studies made by Professor Michel Bro-chu of the Ecole des hautes etudes commer-ciales of Montreal have shown that there were enough ice-breakers now to maintain open navigation all year round, but on condition that they do their work and that they constantly be at the ready to prevent ice-jams. The department has all the equipment needed, especially since other ice-breakers are to be added to the number already at its disposal. One of them, the Louis Saint-Laurent, I think, is practically finished, and my colleague the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) tells me that another one, the Tracy, will also be put into operation soon. So that if two ice-breakers are added to those already in service, this will make an amply sufficient fleet, as long as the ships are put to work. But at the present time, they spend most of their time at the docks. This is just as costly, for when an ice-breaker is idle in its home port, it has to keep its engines running in order to maintain heat inside the vessel.
The quantity of oil burned to keep the engines running is just about the same as if the ice-breakers were operating. Moreover, a full-time crew has to be maintained aboard. The employees have to be fed, accommodated and so on. Keeping an ice-breaker in its home
[Mr. GrSgoire.l
port costs just as much as letting it run between Quebec and Trois-Rivieres, between Trois-Rivieres and Sorel or between Sorel and Montreal. That would not increase the expenses.
What we are asking for is simply a decision on the part of the Department of Transport, to the effect that the river must be open the year round. Should such a decision be made, one captain and the crew members of those ice-breakers assure me that they are able to keep the channel open the year round. Let them be free to keep the channel open and they will feel in honour bound to keep it open all year round and see to it that it is never ice-bound.
Mr. Chairman, I have been told by captains and crew members of icebreakers that they would be able and happy to keep it open. But nowadays, they are not put to work. They are only instructed to leave their home port when ice-jams are already formed and their work is then much harder, because once ice-jams are formed, the ice thickens and it takes several days to break them up.
Therefore, I ask the Minister of Transport not to increase expenditures, as mentioned earlier, but to take a definite stand this evening with regard to that very important problem, not only for Quebec, because the minister, who is from Toronto, must be well aware that once it is demonstrated that the channel can be kept open as far as Montreal, and that will be possible as early as next year, the same efforts could be made in future years to keep the seaway open as far as Toronto. Then, Toronto will also benefit from it. The Minister of Transport should keep that in mind. Not only St. Lawrence ports, but also those along the seaway, and as far as the lakehead, will benefit from it.
What a asset it would be to have such an inland seaway reaching almost to the heart of the continent and serving its largest industrial cities.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman, I think Canada should no longer oppose progress. If special maritime subsidies are required in order to help these towns develop according to their situation and natural resources, I have no objection. On the contrary, I am in favour of these subsidies. But I do not think areas along the St. Lawrence or the St. Lawrence seaway should be prevented from developing. There can only be progress if it exists in all regions.
March 25, 1968



In the light of these arguments, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. Minister of Transport to tell us-and he must have expected this-what is the definite policy of the Department of Transport concerning the opening of the St. Lawrence river to year-round navigation? I hope the minister is able to give us an answer tonight, and I would like him to give it now.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I called the minister's attention to damage suffered in the Trois-Rivieres area last winter due to floods resulting in fact from the ice-jams which the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) mentioned earlier and which were quite unusual, I admit.
The minister gave me an answer and I appreciate it, but I must tell him that I cannot accept it as it is and for very good reasons.
The minister offered to send me the report he mentioned. I have received it from his department and I thank him for it.
I read it very attentively several times. Unfortunately, I find many weak spots in it. First of all, I see that it was prepared by his officials who seem to hold the injured parties responsible for the negligence I deplored this afternoon-and for which I asked the government to pay compensation. Therefore, this should be an unsatisfactory report which should be revised by disinterested people outside the department.
Second, if, as the hon. member for Lapointe has been saying for years every time he criticizes the government for not keeping the St. Lawrence open in wintertime as it should, the government is really doing all it can, if it has the necessary equipment and assumes the responsibility for preventing ice-jams, then the government also has the moral obligation to compensate those who have suffered from the fact that winter navigation has not been possible at all times.
There is talk of acts of God which are not the responsibility of the government. I realize that the government can do nothing to prevent an earthquake, for example. I understand that if a hurricane destroys a section of a city or part of a county, or if there is a great tidal wave, there is nothing the government can do. I understand also-if that is true-that the government has everything it needs to maintain navigation on the St. Lawrence, to prevent ice-jams. Let them assume their responsibilities and if they are unable to do so, let them compensate people
Supply-Transport
who invested large amounts along the St. Lawrence because they were told that there would be no more floods as there used to be 75 or 100 years ago, since the government was keeping the St. Lawrence open.
I do not agree with the hon. member for Lapointe when he says that the responsible people, like ship captains and area superintendents may not be at fault since they await orders. I cannot believe that it is proof of intelligence to interpret the department's orders so strictly as to wait until ice-jams are so thick that there is no way to break them. It strikes me that a most obtuse interpretation is given to the instructions of the department when he says that the icebreakers are there to prevent ice-jams from forming. There, as in other fields, the best defense is still attack. If the instructions of the department are poorly interpreted, it is up to the department to clarify them.
And now, I come back to the policy I asked the hon. minister, this afternoon, to kindly adopt, because I maintain it is the responsibility of the government to offer compensation, at least to some extent and in some serious cases. I maintain that the report the hon. minister mentioned a while ago is incomplete, inaccurate, and even tendencious. I should not want to embarrass him during his present campaign, which is important, but I warn him, as courteously as possible, that if he comes out victorious in his campaign-and even if he is still Minister of Transports-I shall go knocking at his door to refute some of the allegations contained in that report.
I will also go and knock on his door so that the people who have been so seriously wronged as a result of what I call neglect or lack of intelligence on the part of those who were supposed to interpret the instructions of the department, may get a compensation. Besides, if it is more serious than that, if the department was not clear enough in its explanations, then we shall know, because it must be written somewhere. But I say that a basic justice is required. Some poor people have been the victims of serious damage and, under the circumstances, it is the responsibility of the government to give them a compensation to a certain extent, or at least to study objectively the merits of their claims, in order to see whether or not they are justified.
Once again, I am sorry, but I cannot accept the answer given by the hon. minister. I shall not press the point any further tonight, because I should like to give him the opportunity to carry on his campaign in all peace of mind. But I warn him that as soon as it is

March 25. 1968
Supply-Transport
all over, I shall make a fresh effort, and I will not be the only member to do so, because we already had the opportunity to talk about this and to examine closely the claims which have been presented.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I can agree with the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres that, in case the minister should one day find himself in another position, this may be a good opportunity to remind him of the unfinished business he has in front of him in his present capacity. One of the matters which I note comes under this item is the operation and maintenance of the Canadian Coast Guard service.
I want to remind the hon. gentleman that this is a matter of great concern on the west coast of Canada as a result of the announced intention to delay the construction of certain larger coast guard vessels. Many people had been looking forward to seeing these vessels in operation at a relatively early date. I am sure the minister has by now become fully aware of the generally accepted view on the Pacific coast, that while the present type may be suitable for some purposes they are not adequate to deal with the conditions which can be expected from time to time in the open Pacific.
When it was announced that plans were in preparation to develop larger and more adequate vessels for this work, a great deal of pleasure was expressed by those affected. Some of my hon. friends from areas where many people earn their livelihoods directly or indirectly from shipbuilding have, quite properly, sought occasions in this house to draw attention to the effect the delay in this construction program is having upon employment in those areas.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
I, as a member representing a constituency where coast guard services are a very necessary item, have tended to look at the matter from the other end of the picture, keeping in mind the need and requirement for improved facilities. The two things go together so far as I am concerned. Nonetheless I think that when we talk about our shipbuilding industry we have to keep in mind that ships, if they are going to be built, should be built to serve a useful and necessary purpose, and it is from this point of view that I want to make my representations to the minister.
[Mr. Mongraln.i
I have been looking at the general pattern as I see it, and while I am concerned with the kind of announcement made in the house some time ago by the President of the Treasury Board, when he singled out these two particular items, two new ships on the west coast, as an example of things being pruned from the proposed spending estimates of various government departments, I see a development arising from that announcement.
If I read the picture correctly from the estimates as they have been presented to the house from time to time, this announcement by the President of the Treasury Board simply appears to be an accentuation of an already existing trend, because under the item of marine services for the construction and acquisition of buildings, works, land, vessels and other equipment, we find in the main estimates for 1966-67 the sum of $51,507,300 was allocated. In the main estimates for the current fiscal year we find the sum is $50,387,700, which is a drop of $1,119,600 in round figures from the previous fiscal year; and if we turn to the more recently tabled estimates forecasting the future we find that the figure for 1968-69 is $48,328,000, which is a further decline of $2,059,700 from the estimates for the current fiscal year.
There is no provision in these supplementary estimates for any expenditure under this particular heading, and so we find that in a period extending over three fiscal years there is a drop of over $3 million in this particular area of government spending. Yet at the same time we recognize a growing and increasingly urgent need for the provision of such facilities as were proposed in the construction of these larger coast vessels.
I think the minister owes the committee some explanation of what is happening in the marine services operation of his department. Are we starting on a trend that is going to take us steadily downhill in the provision of this kind of service? I do not know whether the minister has the particulars before him tonight, but I would remind him that, in addition to the proposal for larger coast guard vessels his predecessor in office informed me, by correspondence, of plans and proposals which the department had under consideration for the establishment of additional life boat stations on the west coast of Vancouver island, as well as on the northeast coast in the Queen Charlotte strait area. At that time I was hopeful that at last we were going to have developed a really adequate system of coast guard coverage by the
March 25, 1968



provision of larger vessels and by the provision of these useful life boat stations in areas along the west coast where previously we had no such services.
The proposal respecting life boat stations was that in addition to the existing stations of Tofi.no and Bamfield along that coast of Vancouver island, which at one time was known as the graveyard of the Pacific, there would be established two additional life guard stations. I had argued for the establishment of three additional stations, but it was suggested to me that for the time being there should be one established somewhere south of cape Cook and another one somewhere north of cape Cook, and I was told that investigations were going on to determine the exact locations of these stations. It was also suggested that there was a requirement for this kind of facility in the Queen Charlotte strait area off the northeast coast of Vancouver island.
In examining the total spending program of the department I realize that this is a nationwide program, and that certain sections of the program may have been completed in other parts of the country. But when we are faced with the kind of announcement that was made by the President of the Treasury Board last November, one begins to wonder whether the Department of Transport, in the over-all spending planning of the government, is being permanently bled of the necessary funds to improve the efficiency of services that many Canadians feel are a proper responsibility of the government.
I would like the minister to give us some indication of where we are heading, with particular reference to the expansion of the coast guard service through the provision of these very necessary larger vessels on the west coast and, if he has the information available, I would like to know what is happening with regard to the planning of the additional life boat stations I have mentioned.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, if the minister is not going to answer the hon. member for Comox-Alberni I would like to refer to a matter in his department that is of more than passing interest to the people of York-Hum-ber, and to British Columbia as well. Since we last discussed estimates concerning water navigation I have been informed, by reading a letter to a private individual in York-Humber, that the administration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act has been transferred from the Department of Public Works to the Department of Transport. I want to congratulate Canada on this move because I
Supply-Transport
believe that now this act will be enforced with the proper intention under the Minister of Transport, something which it has not been for the past several years under the Minister of Public Works.
My interest in the Navigable Waters Protection Act has to do with the illegal filling of navigable waters and with the inaction of the cabinet in enforcing the regulations. I now believe that under the Department of Transport we will get action on this matter in Toronto, and may I say that I believe the same situation is developing in British Columbia.
I am not a lawyer and I know that the Minister of Transport is not a lawyer. But the Minister of Public Works is, and in the past, when I raised objection to the fact that the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act were not being enforced, I was given learned lectures by the Minister of Public Works as to what is legal and what is not legal. Mr. Chairman, I have had better lectures from better lawyers, including my brother-in-law, who for many years was deputy attorney general of Ontario, and who has forgotten more about that act than the Minister of Public Works will ever know.
The reason I refer to this act now is because of the lessons that the Minister of Public Works endeavoured to give me, a mere layman. He drew my attention to the legal nicety that the beds of rivers and the beds of lakes are in the jurisdiction of the provinces, and that the beds of the lakes and the beds of the rivers being in the jurisdiction of the provinces, when the provinces granted a patent on a water lot the federal government had no authority over such lots -which is 100 per cent wrong, but that was the lecture.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
This is interesting, because in the borough of Etobicoke it is possible for real estate developers to pour all the land they want on to water lots in lake Ontario,-as the Minister of Public Works says, because he does not enforce the Navigable Waters Protection Act. Precedents are being established for the province of British Columbia, which may in time bring tears to the eyes of the federal government. In the last few months we have had a statement from the Supreme Court of Canada, after a reference from the federal government to the Supreme Court concerning whether or not offshore mineral rights belong to the federal government or the province.

March 25. 1968
Supply-Transport
Certainly it was a victory for the federal government when the Supreme Court ruled that the mineral rights off our shores belong to the federal government and not to the province of British Columbia.
If the province of British Columbia will take the lesson the Minister of Public Works has been giving me for nothing they will realize that all they have to do, since they have control over the water lots and the beds of the coastal waters, is issue patented water lots to themselves, and then they can fill in the patented water lots as far out as they want and start to mine because, according to the Minister of Public Works, the beds of a lake and of coastal waters belong to the province, and they can issue patented lots. They can go as far out as the sovereignty of the province extends. Now we have the Roberts Bank proposition in British Columbia, where the premier of British Columbia wishes to develop a port. Normally this would be considered to be under the jurisdiction of the federal government under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but Wacky Bennett can go ahead and give himself all the land he wants off the coast of British Columbia, if he grants water lots to himself.
Very dangerous precedents are being set up by the federal government in not enforcing the Navigable Waters Protection Act in the borough of Etobicoke, in the riding I represent. The Minister of Transport is a Toronto man. He knows Toronto well and I believe he knows the waterfront well. Surely with an able man like the Minister of Transport we will be able to have a halt placed on the illegal filling of lake Ontario. Someone may say that this is a small matter involving York-Humber. It is not a small matter when it establishes a precedent for off-shore mineral rights. If a province wishes to provide patented water lots to themselves and then mine them, what is to stop them? Or if the province of British Columbia wishes to build a great harbour off the coast of British Columbia south of Vancouver, they need only to grant themselves patented water lots and then they would have control because the Minister of Public Works did not enforce the Navigable Waters Protection Act when it was in his jurisdiction. Patented lots come within provincial jurisdiction and the province can grant these to themselves.
I would ask the Minister of Transport to please consider enforcing the Navigable Waters Protection Act by declaring as national park land the illegal land that has been filled

in on the north shore of lake Ontario in the borough of Etobicoke in metropolitan Toronto. This land is worth anywhere from $800,000 to $1 million an acre. If we have an uncooperative cabinet minister who is not going to enforce the Navigable Waters Protection Act, then we will soon have a lot of land in the heart of metropolitan Toronto worth $1 million an acre. If the cabinet is not willing to enforce the Navigable Waters Protection Act under the Minister of Public Works I believe the Minister of Transport will enforce it. If the cabinet is unwilling to enforce the act in the borough of Etobicoke, surely they can realize the danger of the precedent they are setting because lake Ontario is an international body of water.
There are dangerous precedents being established which I believe will only be avoided if the Department of Transport will start to enforce this act and see that the illegal fill that has been placed on the north shore of lake Ontario between the Humber river and Etobicoke creek, is declared to be national park land. By so declaring it they would stop the land developers putting acreage into the public waters of lake Ontario. I ask that the Minister of Transport give this his early consideration, after the leadership competition has been decided, and that he pay a visit to Toronto. I know where to look and I would be glad to accompany him along the lake shore of York-Humber and the section between there and Etobicoke creek.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member for York-Humber whether many of these patented water lots which have been filled in have had commercial development on them.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: In answer to the hon. member for Springfield may I say that in the five years I have been talking about the patented water lots and casting aspersions on their title no one has as yet dared to proceed with commercial development on them. I will not live forever, although I presume I might be reelected. However, the Minister of Transport, being a young man and a healthy specimen I would hope will survive me and would do something about this. He is engaged in a scrap right now. If he does not come out the winner, at least the others will know they have been in a fight.
While I am on my feet there is another matter which may not exactly come under the heading of vote 5c. It is, however, a matter which I should like to bring to the attention
March 25, 1968

of the minister. I have in my hand a letter from the Bell Telephone Company of Canada written and signed by a vice president. During the last several months, each month I have been receiving a bill from the Bell Telephone Company of Canada which has been quite amusing to me. It is the only type of bill-I have received five-I have ever received that shows me owing zero.
I was interested when I received a bill from the Bell Telephone Company with five cents postage on it stating that I owed nothing. It came from Montreal. The following month I got a bill showing I owed nothing and there was postage on the envelope. Then I had a third, a fourth and a fifth. The fourth one came with a four cent stamp and I have referred the matter to the Postmaster General. He is looking into it. I wrote to the Bell Telephone Company asking why they send invoices to people who do not owe anything. When I was in active business we saved our money by not sending out bills to people who did not owe us anything. I have a letter here signed by a vice president. The minister will be interested in this paragraph:
When this machine method of government irregular billing was arranged with the Administrative Telecommunications Agency of the Department of Transport it was mutually agreed that "nil" accounts would be rendered to inform members monthly that no long distance calls were made and that there was no balance outstanding.
I should like to ask the minister whether the administrative telecommunications agency of the Department of Transport has such a low opinion of the mental processes of the members of parliament that it feels they must be notified each month that they do not owe an account, so that they will be able to discover that they do not owe an account.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Of all the things I have read, this is certainly one of the most entertaining I have seen for a long time. It states:
-it was mutually agreed that "nil" accounts would be rendered to inform members monthly that no long distance calls were made and that there was no balance outstanding.
I don't know why the Chateau Champlain in Montreal, the Nova Scotian hotel in Halifax or the Fort Garry hotel in Winnipeg do not write me monthly to tell me that I do not owe them anything. There are certainly enough people who write when one does owe something. In any event the Department of Transport has asked the Bell Telephone Company to send out an account each month to 265 members of parliament to inform them that no 27053-506*
Supply-Transport
long distance calls were made and that there is no account outstanding. This seems to me to border on the ridiculous. Surely this can be corrected.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Before this vote carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that so far as the question about fill is concerned, I will be glad to look into this matter. I remember hearing about this at an earlier stage when my hon. friend raised the matter.
I really cannot say why nil accounts are rendered by the telephone company, but I shall try to determine whether there is any reason for this, other than what my hon. friend has suggested.
Having regard to the question raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, if he looks at page 514 of the estimates for 1968-69 he will find that although the amount being voted is reduced from $52.9 million to $50.4 million for marine services, in the text of the vote the amount given is $60,524,900. This shows a very substantial increase of about $10 million over the previous year. The reason for this seeming discrepancy is related to the difference in accounting method. The $50 million required for 1968-69 is the net figure after deducting revenues collected for services rendered, whereas the previous figure of $52 million was a gross figure. The amount of money being provided is substantially increased.
The hon. member also asks about life boats, and I am pleased to inform him that the life boat program is continuing, but the location of the stations has not yet been finally settled.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: While the minister is on this coast guard question regarding the west coast, perhaps he could say something about plans for larger coast guard vessels?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There is no immediate plan for the restoration of the program for larger boats. As my hon. friend knows, this was cut because of the necessity to effect economies. I think he is in agreement with us, that economies have to be made. As a matter of fact, I believe he was one of the members who voted against the recent increase in taxes, so he must have thought at that time that some reduction in expenditures was highly desirable. He will have to at least share the responsibility with other members of this house for the elimination of this program. You just cannot have it both ways. You cannot have more marine services, and less expenditures with consequently lower taxes. Things just do not

March 25, 1968
Supply-Transport
work that way, and I am sure the hon. member would be the first to admit that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Does the minister not recall that the proposed tax increase and the cut in respect of coast guard vessels were announced simultaneously, or in close sequence, by the government? How can he suggest that my vote against the tax proposal was a vote against larger coast guard vessels?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think the hon. member can accept responsibility for one and avoid responsibility for the other. If he is going to have a reduction in expenditures, then cuts have to be made somewhere. This was one of the items which had to be cut. I know my hon. friend regrets this, as much as many other people, but there was not sufficient money available to provide all the services demanded in all parts of the country.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Why don't you ask me to support a tax measure which would provide for construction of vessels, and see what happens?


Mr, Hellyer:: If my hon. friend would agree to vote for the next tax measure, perhaps this would reinforce his suggestion that we should provide additional services.
Having regard to the question of navigation on the St. Lawrence, I think if my friend will refer back to an earlier discussion in the house he will discover that I indicated it was the policy of the government to keep the river open from the beginning of freeze-up. There is no policy to wait; rather the directive is to open the channel at the earliest possible date and keep it open in so far as is possible during the winter, to allow the ice to flow out to sea. It was also pointed out that it is better from a mechanical standpoint not to start this until an ice cover forms. If you break up the ice too soon, a lot of needle ice forms. This is likely to increase jamming, making it more difficult to keep the channel Open. I have looked at this situation and cannot find any discrepancies in the information given me by my departmental officials. If hon. members have some information which I do not have, then I would be pleased to look at it. If I find the information to be sound I will ask for another investigation. In the meantime I cannot see that an investigation involving a further expenditure of public funds is warranted. I cannot do this just on the basis of hearsay.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there is one other matter about which I should like to
IMr. Hellyer.]
question the minister. He will recall that from time to time I have raised questions regarding action flowing from the report on small vessels harbour administration presented to the department by Dr. Tom How. On the most recent occasion when I asked the minister about this report he indicated he would consider the idea of making at least part of that report public. I am sure the minister is as aware as I am of the great desire on the part of commercial fishermen and others on the west coast that there be some early conclusion to the present unsatisfactory state of affairs as far as administration of small vessels harbours is concerned, with particular reference to the present method of levying side wharfage charges.
The minister is probably aware that there exists what one might almost describe as a state of incipient revolution on the part of commercial fishermen and others in this connection. This is certainly true in areas of my constituency, and from what I read in the press it is true in the large centres of the neighbouring constituency of Coast-Capilano. I would be very surprised if the minister has not heard something about this from his colleague, the hon. member for Coast-Capilano. While there is a great deal of unhappiness about this, there is also a genuine desire not only on the part of vessel owners but also on the part of local administrative bodies, such as town councils, to assist in finding a constructive solution to what is readily agreed to be an unsatisfactory situation at this time.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
I think it would be useful if the minister could expand somewhat on the statements he has made very briefly in reply to questions raised on orders of the day. If he could give us some indication as to what the department has in mind, or at least in what general direction it is thinking of moving, I think this would serve to give some hope to those who are faced with an unhappy situation in the coming year that perhaps things will get better in the near future. What can the minister tell us at this point about the progress that is being made, and in particular what information on this whole question can he make public now, because until now he has not been prepared to do so?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As my hon. friend knows, this is a very complex subject on which there is a very thorough report. There are a number of recommendations involving substantial expenditures. I know from my hon. friend's action earlier that he does not wish to propose any
March 25, 1968

additional expenditures at this time. Therefore he will realize that any further works, regardless of how desirable they may be, will have to be postponed, at least temporarily.
I have given some consideration to publishing part of the report, and I still have this under consideration. However, it is the feeling of some of my officials at least that it would require a very large amount of work, and that the results would not justify the expenditure involved. However, at the moment this is not a closed matter. It is being considered interdepartmentally, and I hope to receive some recommendations within a few months on which a policy could be based, assuming that revenues were available at some future time in order to implement policy changes which might be adopted by the government.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister keeps harping on revenues being available. I think perhaps in return I should remind him that while there are situations when additional revenues are required, there are also situations when better use could be made of existing revenue. I do not have detailed figures before me, but I think if he looks back he will find that either my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, or I took pains to put on the record the situation about revenues from mortgage charges accruing at the present time. If my memory serves me correctly, under the present system something like 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the total revenue collected is spent in the cost of collecting it. I suggest to the minister that this is not a very effective or efficient way of collecting revenue, and that it has been argued in this connection that it would be far better to have a system whereby the revenue collected could be put to some more useful purpose than simply to allow it to go into the pocket of the man who collects it.
Not only ministers of the crown are concerned about the effective use of collected money. I am being constantly surprised by the great concern of a great many ordinary citizens about matters of this kind. One of the key points worrying a lot of people is the very wasteful and inefficient method of carrying on this particular aspect of government service at the present time. I am hopeful that, while it may require some extra revenues, a more efficient arrangement would largely offset the revenues expended if the moneys paid by the users of the facility were put to some useful service. If the stated policy of his predecessor is the correct one, and if this is the policy base on which the present minister is planning to go forward-and he
S up p ly-Transport
has given no indication of any alteration of this basic approach from that which was announced by his predecessor, particularly when the transportation bill was before us- then I suggest that not all of what is involved will require an additional vote of money, but rather a more effective use of revenues which may accrue from the operations themselves.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I found this suggestion of my hon. friend sufficiently attractive to have passed it along for consideration. I think it is worth looking at.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) has replied to several questions that were put to him. Perhaps he could tell me whether he intends to reveal the policy of his department with regard to winter navigation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I answered that question a moment ago. I pointed out to my hon. friend that if he would go back to Hansard he would find that I said it was the policy of the department to keep the channel open from the very beginning of the freeze up.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. Minister of Transport, since his department's policy is to keep the channel open during the winter months, whether he also intends to make the ice-breakers available to shipping, namely whether the icebreakers will be there to help the ships that need them. Will the ice-breakers be on the spot to make sure that there is always an open channel? Will they also be given the responsibility of helping navigation?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I have explained to my hon. friend on numerous occasions, when the channel is kept open it is made available for ships to use which have the proper reinforcement and which are strong enough to operate under ice conditions. Of course they still run some risk because under extreme conditions, such as those we sometimes encountered last winter, it is just impossible to keep the channel open by any means whatever.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct another question to the hon. minister.

March 25, 1968
Supply*-Transport
Could he also tell us whether the buoys and other signaling devices in the channel will be maintained? If the channel is to be kept open to shipping, at least up to Montreal, will the hon. minister maintain the buoys system all along the channel up to Montreal?
Before the hon. minister rises to give me an answer, I should like to ask him whether his department sent this year and intends to send next year a notice to all ships venturing into the harbour entrance to the effect that they are proceeding at their own risk and that the ice-breakers will not be there to help them or, on the contrary, whether the department and the icebreakers will do their best in order to facilitate navigation? We know that, in past years, notice was given to the effect that the channel was closed and that those who ventured there did so at their own risk. The notice also mentioned that icebreakers were not there to help navigation.
Will the situation change in the years to come, now that the channel will be open and since it is the policy of the department beginning this year?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I will take this question as notice and perhaps reply to it when my main estimates are being considered. I think there is a certain amount of risk involved in winter navigation on the river, and there always will be, regardless of the fact that icebreakers are available to the channel, which make it possible for ships to operate when conditions permit. It must be taken into account that this river is subject to extreme conditions from time to time, when there is no guarantee that, even with the best use of existing icebreaking facilities, they would be adequate to meet the needs of shipping at all times. There are some limitations imposed under extreme conditions such as those we had this year.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to delay the debate, because, I realize that the minister has set his heart on it; I merely want to obtain additional information on my previous question.
The minister tells me that when he will take the matter under consideration, he will study the possibility of the altering the old notice given in remote posts on the St. Lawrence, to the boats venturing in the St. Lawrence and stating that they were doing so at
IMr. Gregoire.]
their own risk. I admit that there was a certain risk, because it was colder than in the summer.
But the notice appearing in the light-houses and wireless beacons at the entrance of the St. Lawrence mentioned that the icebreakers were not there to help ships, but only to prevent floods and that ships could not rely on the assistance of ice-breakers.
Does that part of the notice which, according to the maritime insurance companies, was responsible for increasing drastically the cost of maritime insurances, will be changed to say that ice-breakers will help ships which enter the St. Lawrence, that is to say that they still will venture at their own risks, but at least they will get help from ice-breakers.
The difference between what I am asking the minister and the previous situation is clear. Would the minister give me an answer in this respect?


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 5c carry?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would have another question about a different subject-


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Poor Canada!


Gilles Grégoire: -I know that it is during consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport, that one must deal with those problems.
As regards pleasure craft, Mr. Chairman, I may have a few things to point out to the minister, for I am especially interested in that problem.
Here is the first. I once had the opportunity of travelling by water from Ottawa to Chicoutimi. It is a very nice trip; the St. Lawrence is magnificent and, the Saguenay tremendous: it is one of the most beautiful rivers in the world, and I strongly recommend the trip to those who have never sailed up the Saguenay. It is a most tremendous place! The Ottawa river, from Ottawa to Montreal, is also tremendous-except for the St. Lawrence seaway locks, about which I would like to say a few words later on.
But from Montreal to Quebec city, it is all very smooth sailing. It is true that when the wind drives billows on Lake St. Pierre, it is a bit rough, but just the same, a good pilot will take you through.
However, when you get beyond the island of Orleans, sometimes up to Tadoussac, the river is quite agitated and things are a little
March 25, 1968

hard for pleasure craft. At any rate, those who take the risk consider themselves pretty good sailors and feel they have a rather good craft. Indeed, I took the risk myself, Mr. Chairman.
However, there are some things which could be improved. For example, boats leaving Quebec for Chicoutimi, before entering the Saguenay, have to make a detour towards what is known as the "spinning top". I see the hon. member for Saguenay (Mr. Blouin) knows what I am talking about. It is a lighthouse five miles off-shore, at Tadoussac, warning boats to keep away from the coast because of rocks and sandbanks over a distance of about 3 or 4 miles, which force them to make a detour some 5 miles off the coast.
From Quebec and even from Montreal up to around La Malbaie and even further, up to Cap-a-l'Aigle, there are signposts, luminous buoys and lighthouses which show the way very clearly. But approximately ten miles before reaching the mouth of the Saguenay river, ten miles before reaching the "top", there are no longer any buoys, beacons or signals. Now, if it is the least bit foggy and it is necessary to bear off from the shore, then I know of many captains of small pleasure-boats who, like myself, had to look for a long time-if the visibility is not more than three or four miles-for that famous "top", even though it stands out very high over the water. It can become dangerous, and the boat can be driven off its course, precisely because one has to steer clear of the shore.
Could the minister take this matter under consideration and have the required study conducted in order to add two or three light buoys perhaps which would show us the way to that large beacon located at the entrance of the Saguenay river? I can tell him that many skippers or owners of pleasure craft find it difficult in foggy or rainy weather or in a storm to find that famous light house which is linked to the bottom of the sea, strongly anchored and in fact, which stays there permanently.
The minister might consider that request to add two or three light buoys to help the pleasure craft which want to reach the Saguenay.
Still about pleasure craft, I know that sailing them has become one of the most popular sports or hobbies, and is attracting more and more people. We have become aware lately-I spoke earlier of the journey between Ottawa and Montreal or Quebec city-that there is something which is lagging and
Supply-Transport
which renders the pleasure navigation very unpleasant. When we leave the Ottawa river come into Lake St. Louis to enter the St. Lawrence, we have to cross two locks in the St. Lawrence seaway.
I did that journey many times. The lock staff is very nice and give assistance to pleasure boats. Of course, when there are 75, 80 or 100 pleasure boats in a lock, and 15 million gallons of water are turned out of the lock to enable the boats to get at a lower or higher level, the water eddies heavily. But, the personnel at the lock-gate is very kind and co-operate fully with those pleasure-boats. It happens however that the pleasure-boats are not the only ones to use the seaway. There are also-and it was mainly for them that it was built-ships from the Great Lakes, from Toronto going to Montreal, to Quebec, to the open sea or still further. It is obvious that those ships, without having priority, will go through before a simple pleasure-boat, as the personnel at the lock-gates will wait until there are many pleasure-boats to let them go through. That means that going through those two lock-gates may take sometimes six or eight hours. On the other hand when a whole party of pleasure-boats comes in at the same time, then they have precedence if their coming was made known beforehand, and the crossing will be a matter of a couple of hours.
But, there would be a way to cope with that. Before the building of the St. Lawrence seaway, there was the Lachine canal that enabled boats to go from Lake St. Louis to the St. Lawrence river. The Lachine canal is still there. It may not be able to absorb the shipping from the great lakes, but it could be used for the pleasure boats. It would be an attraction for the city of Montreal to see all those small pleasure boats use the Lachine canal to pass from the Ottawa river to the St. Lawrence river.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I wonder if the minister could not take this problem into consideration. I am not asking him to give me an answer tonight because he probably does not have all the data at hand, but he could have an investigation made which might prove advisable to keep the Lachine canal in use for the pleasure boats which will become increasingly numerous. It is a holiday activity which will develop as rapidly as all the others. Might it not be timely to make the necessary survey before the Lachine canal is completely blocked and we then have to get it back in working order

March 25, 1968
Supply-Transport
for the owners of pleasure boats who might want to use it?
I therefore hope that the hon. minister will be willing to take this into consideration, because it might prove useful to a large part of the population. Some come from Ontario, from the great lakes, there are some from Quebec that go to Ontario and it would encourage the movement of small boats.
I therefore ask the hon. minister to take the matter into consideration, to have a study made of it and perhaps, when his next estimates come up, he can give me an answer on the problem I have just brought up.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, we are engaged on a study of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Transport. I do not expect to be here tomorrow and I am not sure whether we will reach vote 75c tonight. Therefore I should like to ask some questions on that vote, which deals with a payment to the National Harbours Board to be applied in payment of the deficit expected to be incurred in the calendar year 1967 in the operation of the Jacques Cartier bridge, Montreal harbour. Tomorrow night I am speaking in Toronto on the subject of civic financing, when I shall be comparing the civic financing of Toronto and the civic financing of Montreal.
I have in my hand the report of the Auditor General to the House of Commons for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1967. At page 178 you will find this paragraph-


Herman Maxwell Batten: Order. Is the hon. member now referring to vote 75c?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Yes. Mr. Chairman.


Herman Maxwell Batten: In order for the hon. member to proceed with a discussion of that vote it would be necessary to stand vote 5c by unanimous consent and then get unanimous consent of the committee to proceed to vote 75c.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think we might carry the other items. This would put us in the position which would seem to meet the pleasure of the house.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, I agree to passing 5c but I want to make some comments on 15c.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Gr£goire.l
Railways and Steamships-
15c. Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the Company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the Company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the Company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the Company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1967 in respect of the following:
(i)	Canadian National Railway system (subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the Company from the Consolidated Revenue Fund)
(ii)	Ferry Services:
Newfoundland Ferry and Terminals:
Prince Edward Island Ferry and Terminals and
Yarmouth, N.S.-Bar Harbour, Maine, U.S.A., $21,245,100.
Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, on this
item-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, no one on this side has spoken this evening.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I understand the comment made by the hon. member for Digby-Annapo-lis-Kings, but I point out to him that the hon. member for Springfield had already given notice that he wished to refer to this item. I will see the hon. member later.


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, this vote provides for the allocation of $21 million to the Canadian National Railway Company. I think this is the appropriate stage to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has yet come to any decision on the requests that have been relayed to him by myself, by some Senators, by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy' River and others asking him to study the allegations of a number of contractors involved in the construction of the Great Slave Lake railway. These contracting firms allege that the C.N.R. enforced the terms of the contract in a most unfair and onerous way.
It is over a year now since a request for an investigation into these allegations was made of the minister's predecessor. I note that on February 16 last an hon. senator was in communication with the present Minister of Transport, as was the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, asking that he refer the subject matter of the allegations of unfair treatment by the C.N.R. either to a Commons committee or to co-operate in having them reviewed and investigated by a Senate committee. Before I say any more, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister whether he will indicate if he has made a decision about these requests.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I have not yet come to a conclusion on this matter. I hope to
March 25, 1968

do so soon, but it may not be possible during the next two weeks.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Chairman, I thought there was some interest on the part of hon. members to pass these estimates tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I thank my hon. friends across the way for giving me a send-off. Perhaps I will have to delay the estimates, because they were too loud. I did make an impulsive comment, Mr. Chairman, but no real reflection was intended on the Chair. I merely wanted to be recognized. I did want the committee to know that since eight o'clock tonight no member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition had spoken on the estimates.
I do not intend to speak on any policy matter involved in the estimates; I merely want to ask one question about a specific project, the Digby-Saint John ferry. In order to expedite this matter would the minister undertake to make a statement about the present progress of the negotiations between the C.P.R. and the government? I realize the minister may not be able to do so tonight, but perhaps he would by the end of the week. We may not be here all week, but I would ask him to make his statement before he moves on to other pastures; and wherever he goes I wish him well.
I realize this matter may not interest members from the west, but certainly we in the east do not want to have to go through another mutation process, or a change of ministry, to find out how far the negotiations between the railway and the government have progressed. I am not going to blackmail the minister about this; we have had enough blackmail in this house during the past three or four days.
This project has been kicking around for some 20 years. I have before me some 23 extracts from Hansard on the matter, starting with the leader of the opposition in Nova Scotia, Mr. Regan-a former member for Halifax in this house. The minister's predecessor did admit that this ferry was an integral part of the transportation system of Canada.
It seems that every time we reach a certain point of agreement between the government and the C.P.R. an election occurs or there is a change in ministry, and this means a delay while the new minister acquaints himself with the background. However, would the minister make a clear and concise statement
Supply-Transport
explaining where the negotiations have got to and what the present objections are. If he cannot make such a statement I will have to put some blunt questions to him.
I appreciate that negotiations are sometimes sensitive and delicate. However, it is time that the minister took the people of eastern Canada into his confidence. I understand from the clippings I have read of his speeches that the minister is espousing the new politics of the land by being frank and realistic. What I should like to know is how the negotiations are affected, if the company is taking one position and the government another. If the minister can answer that question I will say nothing more. In any event, I should like to ask a couple of questions later.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend has asked if I would undertake to make a statement within the next few days. My reply to that is that I should like to, but I am not in a position to guarantee that I shall be able to.
Negotiations have been going on for some time. They have reached the stage where only two points remain to be worked out. One of them, I am confident, can be worked out without much difficulty, but the second one is a little more difficult.
For obvious reasons I should be delighted if I could make a positive statement and have this question settled immediately. There would be some obvious advantages if that could be done, and I do not think my hon. friend needs to use too much imagination to know what the advantages would be for the people of New Brunswick as well as those of Digby-Annapolis-Kings, and others who are interested. But there is a course of responsibility to be followed, and that is to try to bring the project to a successful conclusion. Whether I can make the statement will depend on my assessment of whether that would be in the interests of a successful conclusion.
One thing I shall undertake for my hon. friend. In so far as the continuity of this question is concerned, I shall take a direct personal interest in it, so far as I am able to in the weeks ahead, to make sure that it comes to a successful conclusion. I am as anxious as he is to see that after all these years something happens and that we just do not continue debating the question. On the other hand I hope the hon. member will be generous and co-operative enough to realize that it might prejudice the situation if I

March 25, 1968
Supply-Transport
undertook to do something which I did not feel later was in the best interest of those involved.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I appreciate the minister's partial statement. Regardless of his future capacity, and I know he will be busy in the next few weeks, I appreciate his personal interest in the matter. That certainly will help. I would appreciate it if he would consider this matter as a burr on his backside and be prompted to stand up and say in the committee tonight whether the two objections in question, or the two points in question, still have to be clarified. Incidentally, were those points raised by the Canadian Pacific Railway or by the government? The minister knows I know what the points in question are. Perhaps he could say a word about them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are raised by the railway, and the railway is asking for certain concessions in exchange for building a new ship and carrying on a service. I think they want greater concessions than have previously been indicated. The question, of course, is fair and reasonable in the light of all circumstances. That is the question to which the government is addressing itself at the present time.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have another question to ask. Considering the minister's answer, is the Canadian Pacific Railway asking for any concession that has not been given to the Canadian National Railways, or will terms be negotiated that will affect the Canadian Pacific Railway and not affect the ferries run by the Canadian National Railways. Or is the government trying to resolve it by having the same rules apply to both bodies?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If my hon. friend were not a member of this house I might engage him to try to get for me the answer to that question. Unfortunately, because he is a member of parliament, he is barred from giving that kind of service to a government department. That of course is one of the things that is being examined and I cannot answer that question at the moment. Perhaps I shall be able to before the matter is resolved.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall vote 15c carry?


Edward Richard Schreyer: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago I asked the Minister of Transport whether he had decided to refer the subject matter of the Great Slave lake railway construction to an appropriate committee. He replied that unfortunately he could not do so yet, because

the briefs involved were luminous and he had not had time to study them in sufficient detail. I do not want to be unfair, but I suggest that is not good enough. It is not good enough for the minister to say that he hopes to make a decision in about two weeks. That will take us to April 6, and who knows what the fate of the Minister of Transport will be? He might have a different portfolio.


An hon. Member:: Or be the Prime
Minister.


Edward Richard Schreyer: He might perhaps be that. The point is that it is more than a year since the complaint was directed to the Minister of Transport. I admit that originally it was directed to the minister's predecessor, Hon. J. W. Pickersgill. But the officers of the department have had ample opportunity to consider in depth the allegations and complaints made by the construction firms that were engaged in the construction of this railway.
Though the circumstances are complex I might summarize them for the minister. The majority of the 13 or 14 construction firms involved in the project lost heavily, half of them being forced into bankruptcy. If that had happened to only one or two one might say, "Well, it was a case of poor management, or of poor bidding." But when half the firms-seven firms involved-go into bankruptcy, it is safe to assume that there was something rotten in the state of Denmark and that the contract conditions must have been onerously enforced. Or perhaps the C.N.R. specifications were sloppy in the extreme and grossly inaccurate. Many elements could enter into the matter.
It is not as though our group, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, or I, were asking for an adjudication of the claim; we are only asking the minister to submit this matter to an appropriate committee for investigation or to agree to co-operate with a Senate committee investigating the matter. Or, failing that, perhaps the minister might submit the matter to an inquiry. It could be a one-man inquiry commission, or something like that, and it could look into the alleged injustices that we are told prevailed during the time in question.
The minister, I understand, has been a minister of the crown since 1956 or 1957, and he must be familiar with the construction of the northern Ontario pipe line. In that matter we have a precedent for investigating claims by contractors which have worked for the crown or crown agencies. I have been
March 25. 1968

informed that in seven instances with respect to the construction of that pipe line, contractors made additional claims, either because specifications as given in tendering were inaccurate or for other reasons. I might place on the record some of the firms which claimed, to show the minister that there is a precedent for the sort of investigation we ask for.
With respect to the construction of the northern Ontario pipe line, Mannix Company Limited submitted a claim for about $16,000 as additional compensation and eventually received, in settlement, about $6,600. Mat-tagami Construction Company Limited submitted an additional claim of about $27,900 and eventually received a settlement of about $17,900. Mannix Construction Company claimed for $972,000 and received $420,000 in settlement; Canadian Comstock claimed $96,969 and settlement was eventually obtained for $65,243; Dutton-Williams Brothers submitted a claim for $2,776,731 and a settlement with the crown was eventually reached at $692,496.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
So there are precedents. I do not want to take up the time of the committee any longer just now in this connection. I do not wish to be unfair by suggesting that the minister has been derelict in his duties. On the other hand, I do not think the hon. gentleman is being quite fair when 14 months after a request has officially been made to his department he comes back to say he still needs more time. Who knows whether two weeks from now he will be in a position to reach any conclusion in connection with this request? I do wish he would be a little more fair.


Mr. Bower:: Had the minister been more specific in answering the questions raised by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings I might not have spoken on this item. However, either because he was unable to do so or because he thought it propitious not to do so, the minister did not make a very saisfactory response. I feel therefore I should bring up some points in connection with his department and the vote before us which are of interest to western Nova Scotia.
The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings and I represent the entire western end of the province of Nova Scotia, an area inhabited by some 175,009 people who have been grossly neglected as far as assistance in developing the economy is concerned. Such indices as I have been able to develop indicate that the average income in Nova Scotia as a
Supply-Transport
whole is between 20 and 30 per cent below the national norm. In western Nova Scotia the average is 30 per cent below the provincial norm. So if there is any truth in all I have heard since I have been here in parliament, and in all I have read from the Economic Council of Canada and similar sources, we have a case which needs attention.
While I recognize that the government, having go itself into a most awful mess, must and should economize, I insist that these economies should be applied selectively. Take the case of an adult with an infant child. If for some reason or another the food for the pair had to be reduced by one pound a day, nothing could be more absurd than to take half a pound from the diet of the adult and half a pound from the diet of the infant. The child would die, even though the adult might survive. This, however, is the system which has been adopted in the estimates-a blanket cut-and it is absurd.
I am the first to recognize that the economy of western Nova Scotia will not be metamorphosed overnight. But I insist that things must be done in order that we do not fall further behind than we already are. The press of the area takes a similar views. A paper which favours the government carries the headline "Billions for others, little for us''.
One of the biggest supports for our provincial economy, particularly in the western end, is tourism, and at present transport facilities are lacking. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings mentioned the ferry across the bay of Fundy to Annapolis. I have a lively interest in this service, but there is another ferry service which runs from New England to Yarmouth. Last summer thousands of cars were turned back because they could not be accommodated; the tourists probably never did see Nova Scotia.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It being ten o'clock, shall I rise and report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lawrence T. Pennell: I wonder whether there is any disposition on the part of the committee to conclude the estimates of the Department of Transport.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: It will be necessary for the Chair to report first.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.
Supply-Transport

March 25. 1968
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the committee have leave to sit again? Later this day or the next sitting of the house?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I again pose my question and ask is there a disposition on the part of the house to conclude the estimates of the Department of Transport tonight?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous consent I think it would be advisable to try to finish this minister's department and let him get away, but I think it should be understood it would be only this department.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the acting government house leader that we are quite willing to proceed on this basis.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to sit for one hour.
Personally, I have two points to bring up. I shall attempt to do so very rapidly, if I get a good answer. If the house agrees to sit until eleven o'clock, I would be willing to agree to it. Still, if we do not get any replies it could last a long time. I am willing to put my ideas forward without all the arguments. A while ago, I put questions concerning winter navigation and I did not get any answer.
I would therefore suggest that we sit until eleven o'clock and, if the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) wants to set a one-hour limit, I should be willing to accept it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Do I understand that now there is general agreement that the house will sit until eleven o'clock but if the estimates of the Department of Transport are finished before that time no other estimates will be considered? Is this unanimously agreed?


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, there is one point that I would like to make. I have waited patiently tonight to raise a matter under these estimates, but so far I have been unable to catch the eye of the Chair. If I am unable to succeed by eleven o'clock I will still want to raise this matter. So long as it is understood that it is eleven o'clock or the finish of the estimates, whichever comes first, then there is no objection on my part.


Gilles Grégoire: If we are not through by eleven o'clock, we will continue tomorrow. [The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I just want to be clear so that there is no misunderstanding. The house will continue to eleven o'clock if the estimates of the Department of Transport are not passed, but it will rise if they are passed prior to eleven o'clock. At any rate, I wish to inform the house that it is proposed to call the estimates of the Department of National Health and Welfare first tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles:: Perhaps there should be one other understanding, that since we are sitting late, the late show can be put off to another night.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that if the house sits until eleven the questions on the adjournment motion will be considered tomorrow?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Tar-dif in the chair.


@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Order. House again in committee of supply, supplementary estimates of the Department of Transport. Shall item 15c carry?
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Railways and Steamships-
15c. Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the Company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the Company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the Company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the Company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1967 in respect of the following:
(i)	Canadian National Railway system (subject to recovery therefrom of accountable advances made to the Company from the Consolidated Revenue Fund)
(ii)	Ferry Services:
Newfoundland Ferry and Terminals;
Prince Edward Island Ferry and Terminals and Yarmouth, N.S.-Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., $21,245,100.


John Oates Bower: Mr. Chairman, before the proceedings of the committee were interrupted a moment ago I had endeavoured to outline the serious situation that exists in the western part of Nova Scotia and the need for correcting it. As the case in point I was dealing with the ferry service to maximize the tourist
March 25, 1968

industry of the area, and indeed of the whole of the province of Nova Scotia, of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, because Yarmouth is the point of entry from the United States to the maritime province so far as the ferries are concerned.
The ferry is inadequate at the present time. A year ago I raised with the minister of transport the matter of supplementary summer ferry service. Nothing whatever has been done about it. As I have mentioned, during the past summer potential tourists were turned away because of inadequate service across from New England-Bar Harbor specifically-to Yarmouth. Last summer was a relatively poor summer for Nova Scotia. Our normal increase in tourism did not occur. On the contrary, according to many accounts, it slipped backward due, some say, to the attractions at Expo and the fact that the overflow which we were going to get never occurred, apparently because by the time the people got through at La Ronde they did not have enough money to go to Nova Scotia. I do not know about that, but in any event we had a poor tourist season.
It is hoped-and it is very much needed -that there will be a large increase in tourism. I understand there is a possibility, which perhaps did not exist last summer, of obtaining a supplementary ship to run between Bar Harbor and Yarmouth. I brought this matter up with the minister.
We are due shortly to have a recess. It is necessary to have time in which to make preparations and arrangements for something of this nature. So before I go back to western Nova Scotia, to the complaints of disappointment and despair, I should like to know whether something is going to be done about this.
Speaking of the longer term situation, I should like to refer to the matter of the second New England ferry, so called, that would go from some point "X" in the United States to some point "Y" in Nova Scotia. That seems to have gone into a sort of suspended animation, although everybody in Nova Scotia, particularly western Nova Scotia, would like to know what if anything is being done in that regard. That is my sea issue. I have another, the air issue.
Yarmouth is an airport of entry from the United States. Some five years ago one of the runways at this airport was improved so that it would be able to handle up to date planes. However, the cross runway was not improved
Supply-Transport
and therefore there was no effectual improvement, in so far as modernizing the facilities for the type of equipment that could come in there is concerned. I have learned now that there is a proposal to rebuild or improve the air terminal building. That indeed is putting the cart before the horse. I think perhaps we could make do somehow or other with the terminal building, but airplanes cannot be landed on a terminal building; there must be a cross runway.
I think it would have been far more sensible to have planned the fundamental thing, the two airstrips, rather than the lace on the drawers, the terminal building. These are matters of fundamental importance. The way tourism is being fomented in that area it is becoming possible for people from New York, Philadelphia, Wilmington and Boston to come down for week ends and leave their families there during the summer. This could provide a tremendous source of revenue. These people could buy old abandoned farms and build modern summer homes, provided the heads of the families could fly back and forth from their work on week ends. Their families could stay for the summer. That is the significance of the development of proper air services into Yarmouth.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
I recognize that there is a big investment at the present Yarmouth airport location, and I do not suggest for one moment that it be changed. However, there should be a supplementary emergency airport. Time and again there is thick, heavy and low-lying overcast at the Yarmouth airport. Sometimes only 15 miles inland there is good landing weather. I am not referring to a large fancy airport, but rather just a place where planes could land. Customs facilities could easily be set up at such a location.
There is a site about 15 or 20 miles inland which would be ideal for this purpose. These are the kinds of things which should be done in an area of fragile economy. People down in Nova Scotia read about the huge deficits and the amounts being spent on national arts centres and other things. They are not against this, but they feel their economic situation should be considered in the scheme of things. Some modest investment of the type I have suggested would make all the difference to western Nova Scotia. Perhaps it could then be something other than an abandoned corner of that province.

March 25, 1968
Supply

Transport


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Chairman, I am a little bit disappointed that the minister had to leave the chamber before I raised this point.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: He will be returning in a moment.


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: Perhaps he will get back when I have finished. The problem I have in mind relates partly to vote 15c and partly to vote 30c. They are so closely intertwined that perhaps I might be allowed to raise the problem under this item, so that I will not have to shuffle from one item to the other. This is not a new problem. I can recall raising it when Hon. Leon Balcer was minister of transport. That is how long it has existed, and that is how long this unfair situation has continued.
When I was first elected to this house the C.N.R. provided a pretty fair service from Timmins down toward Ottawa and Montreal. During the first couple of years I was a member of parliament, I could get a berth on a sleeper car at Timmins and come down on the O.N.R., which was hooked up by the C.N.R. and brought to Ottawa. After a few years this service was curtailed and I had to go down to Swastika, the next division point, where the O.N.R. swings north up to Moo-sonee. Then the years went by and you had to go down as far as Englehart before you could get sleeping accommodation on the C.N.R. A year or two later you had to go down to North Bay. At that time your sleeping car would be sitting on the siding and you could climb aboard and go to sleep. The western train coming through would pick you up and take you on through to Ottawa.
Finally, for some years now, there has been no accommodation whatsoever on this train. This is true of the rail service in the area that I represent, as well as in other constituencies such as that of the hon. member for Cochrane, part of the constituency represented by the Prime Minister and two or three other constituencies the focal point of which is the Timmins region, which is serviced by this railway.
Steadily over the years the railway service in this area has deteriorated. If you want to travel by train from the Timmins area to Ottawa or Montreal you are faced with one of two options. As I said before, you can go to North Bay and land there in the wee hours of the morning, about one o'clock or 1.30 a.m., and wait in a very unfriendly and cold station until the western train comes through at two,

three or four o'clock in the morning, depending on how late it is, and then board a sort of semi freight train-there is a coach on it but it has neither a diner nor a sleeper. This is not very good accommodation, as I am sure all hon. members and the minister would agree. The other option is to drive over a very crooked and hilly road some 70 miles southwest of Timmins to the main line at Foleyet.
There is no way in which one can find out whether the train is on time or whether it is late. In fact, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands will recall the time when I drove him at breakneck pace, but when we arrived at the station on time we found that the train had left early. My colleague had to cancel appointments and make other travel arrangements the next day. When one tries to find out whether the train is on time, he is told to call Winnipeg; but it is one heck of a long distance from Winnipeg to Foleyet and even though the train may be on time in Winnipeg it could be either late or early in Foleyet. This is the kind of service that is provided in this area.
Of course we have air service. As I said, this problem not only relates to this vote but also relates to vote 30c. We have a very good air service, depending on one's destination. There is an excellent service from Timmins to Toronto providing three flights a day, one of them direct. The fare is very reasonable, at $54 for a return trip between Timmins and Toronto. If the minister wished to check the statistics regarding the number of passengers carried on this route he would find it is a well patronized route and compares favourably with any service across the country.
However, there is one interesting point which I have raised with various ministers of finance dating back to Hon. Leon Balcer. I have carried on a war with the president of Air Canada, and if the minister would like to see my file I would be glad to supply it to him. The distance in road miles from Timmins to Ottawa is 12 miles longer than from Timmins to Toronto. So far as air miles are concerned, there is very little difference.
However, the difference in fares is another matter. As I mentioned before, the fare from Timmins to Toronto costs $54, but from Timmins to Ottawa it costs $92. The reason for this is that Air Canada, in its wisdom, instead of flying its passengers Timmins-North Bay-Ottawa, flies them via Toronto. That is their business, as I have told the president of Air Canada. However when they
March 25, 1968

start charging us for the extra route, that is our business, the business of the people in the north country. This matter has been neglected year after year and by minister after minister. I think it is time something was done about it.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I recall when I first raised this matter with Air Canada the excuse was that in the early days when the Timmins airport was first opened they tried this route, but it was not a paying proposition. When I pointed out that air travel of 10 or 12 years ago and air travel today are two different things altogether, they had another excuse. A number of people are air conscious today, and a number of them have speeded up their schedules so that they need air service. The congestion on the highways is such that it is not safe to undertake a long trip because you don't know whether you are going to get there or get back. These are factors which should be considered now.
When we beat them down with that argument, they raised another one. Air Canada said they had kept a record of the number of passengers using this route over a six month period, and that the number did not warrant the flight. My reply was: Of course, not; when you are charging them double, why do you expect they will fly? I am still getting answers to these questions.
I am sure hon. members recall that not long ago I received a lot of publicity through the Thomson newspapers across the country, through the courtesy of their parliamentary correspondent Mr. Patrick Nicholson, who pointed out that the hon. member for Timmins was as expensive to the taxpayers as the hon. member for Victoria who lives some 3,000 miles away. This journalist totalled up the air fares charged in my name for a year and compared them with those charged various other hon. members. I did not mind this sort of criticism at all, Mr. Chairman, because he did prove two things. First, he proved that I am in Ottawa during the week and at home on the week end looking after my constituents. I do not believe that is anything of which an hon. member needs to be ashamed.
He pointed out another thing, Mr. Chairman, the very point I have been raising. The charge that was opposite my name was some $3,500 for air fares going back and forth to my constituency. If I had been charged, and if the people of Timmins who did use this service had been charged the proper fare, the amount would have been $2,000, not $3,500. I am glad Mr. Nicholson raised this point
Supply-Transport
because it clearly illustrates the injustice that is being perpetrated against the people in the Timmins region.
There is another point that is very important. We are very appreciative of the air service we have between Timmins and Toronto. It is interesting to note that the train service between those two points is excellent, with an overnight service both ways. The train leaves Timmins at six o'clock at night and it leaves Toronto at 6.30, both trains arriving at their destinations about 8.30. I have tried to get an answer to this question for years and years. Why is it that where the train service is good, the air service is good, and where the train service is poor, the air service is poor? What kind of competition are we trying to have with ourselves? Both companies are operated by the government. Surely we should be trying to provide service to the Canadian people and not compete where the service is good, then pay no attention to places where the service is bad. Surely we can reach some agreement among ourselves as to how we can get some sort of sensible transportation policy in these two fields.
There is another very important point, Mr. Chairman. My constituency is comprised of about 15 per cent French speaking Canadians. The surrounding areas served by the Timmins airport contain about 75 to 80 per cent French speaking Canadians. Their natural link is with the province of Quebec, with Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec city. This is where their relatives and friends are, and this is where they would like to go-not to Toronto. There is therefore an added injustice to these people because, as I mentioned earlier, the train service is very poor and getting worse all the time. It is not as good as it was five years ago, and much worse than it was ten years ago.
At the same time, Mr. Chairman, no compensation is being offered by the air service. Although the air service does operate there, it charges such a terrific rate that you cannot afford to pay the fare. The result is that you either have to take this very poor train service or you have to drive a long distance by car, a journey that involves the daily dangers presented by highway travel with its consequent loss of life and limb.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, this situation is an injustice. The problem is not new; I raised it when Hon. Leon Balcer was minister, when the present hon. member for Northumberland was minister, and with all the other successors down through the years.

March 25, 1968
Supply-Transport
However I raise it once more with this minister. We have had some examples of the minister's despatch and efficiency. Surely if he can join the three services together he can put some common sense and fair play into the transportation service from Timmins to the Ottawa and Montreal region.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
20c. Construction or Acquisition of Buildings, Works and Land, Dock and Terminal Facilities, including improvements to Terminal Facilities owned by Newfoundland, and of Vessels and Related Equipment as listed in the Details of the Estimates provided that Treasury Board may increase or decrease the amounts within the Vote to be expended on individually listed projects, $1.
Item agreed to.
Air Services-
30c. Administration, Operation and Maintenance, $844,000.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to speak at length on that, but I shall merely sum up two paragraphs, from the newspaper La Presse of Wednesday February 14 afterwards, I will simply ask the hon. Minister of Transport what one must think about it and what are his conclusions.
Therefore, I quote this article from La Presse under the following heading:
"No money for Montreal, $9 million for Toronto."
And sub-heading, we find this:
"After tripping up Dorval, Ottawa gives a staggering blow."
It is rather harsh as a heading. Here are the first two paragraphs of that article written by Mr. Andre Chenier, from La Presse:
The federal Minister of Transport, Mr. Paul Hellyer, has just announced that estimates amounting to $9 million will be used for the expansion of Toronto's airport, which will be provided, among other things, with a new air terminal and a parking lot that will accommodate 1,500,000 more passengers per year.
For Montreal, it is not merely the tripping up of two months ago, through the elimination of estimates intended for a new runway at the Dorval International Airport: It is now a staggering blow on the most widely patronized airport in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to money being spent to enlarge the Toronto airport. The more Toronto expands, the happier I will be. But if money is taken away from Montreal to give it somewhere else, especially if those credits had been earmarked for two years for the Montreal airport, that is another story altogether. If what has been earmarked

for expanding and improving Montreal's Dorval airport is left alone and other credits are given to Toronto, I do not object to that.
I am asking the Minister of Transport what is earmarked for Montreal. Can he give us an idea of what must be done to develop the Montreal airport to keep it up to date and in step with the increase in air traffic, in the number of passengers, in the size of airplanes, etc.? I would like the minister to give me an answer and then, if I have some comments to make, I will.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated publicly since this newspaper report appeared, the expenditures for the two airports at Toronto and Montreal for the next 20 years will be almost identical. In addition, this year there is provision in the estimates for those supplementary facilities that are required at Montreal to enable the airport to handle the jumbo jets which will be coming into service in 1970.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
The reason we have not yet been able to announce exact, immediate plans for the Montreal expansion is that the engineers who are studying the situation have not yet decided whether we can expand Dorval to meet the 20-year requirement, whether we shall have to build a new airport to replace Dorval or whether we shall have to build a new airport and operate it as well as Dorval. We do not yet have a recommendation on options from the consultants who have been looking at the question, but I hope to have their report within a few weeks. Once I do, of course we shall know exactly what they recommend.
In the meantime it has been recommended to us that we should not proceed with the runway, even if funds were available-which is not the case, at the moment. As I say, once we have received the engineer's report we shall know what is the best thing to do for the long range requirements of the metropolitan Montreal region. I assure my hon. friend that this is being given every possible consideration. I can also assure him, if he will look back over the expenditures of the last few years, that Montreal by a considerable amount has received higher expenditures than Toronto, and has not done too badly.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.

March 25, 1968


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a supplementary question to the minister. When he says that in 1970, there will be strips to accommodate giant aircraft, does he mean to say that new strips will be built for the giant aircraft and supersonic planes such as the Concorde, for instance, which will start operating in 1971? Is anything planned in Montreal for supersonic planes? The Concorde, as we know, is expected by 1971 or thereabouts. At that time, will there be landing strips to accommodate those aircraft?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The supersonic aircraft will not be available that soon; they will come into service several years later. The jumbo jets will be available in 1970 and we shall be in a position to handle them at that time.


David Lewis: I want to raise for a minute or two a matter that has been drawn to my attention. I do not know how much time the minister has devoted to it, considering his other activities. I have been visited by some air traffic controllers who have been very critical because they allege that the second volume of Judge Robinson's report has been sitting on somebody's shelf. That is the information they gave me.
Hon. members will recall that a couple of years go, or longer ago than that, the threat of an air traffic controllers strike was obviated by the appointment of Judge Robinson as special commissioner to inquire into complaints. The judge produced the first report which dealt with salaries, and a satisfactory conclusion was arrived at between the Department of Transport and the air traffic controllers.
Some months ago a second volume came down; I have not read it thoroughly but I have read through it. It makes a number of suggestions to improve the working conditions of air traffic controllers, and other related matters. My latest information, which is not very old, from the air traffic controllers association is that the department has done little to implement Judge Robinson's recommendations. I should like to hear whether the minister has readily at his figertips information about what has been done and what is proposed to be done to meet the apparently perfectly reasonable request of the air traffic controllers, that the second volume of Judge Robinson's report be implemented, or fully discussed with them.
Supply-Transport
They have another complaint. There are about 125 air traffic controller assistants who have always worked with the air traffic controllers. In the reclassification which has been taking place over the last couple of years in preparation for collective bargaining, someone decided that these assistants should be classified as clerks. They are in the clerical group for the purposes of collective bargaining, and no longer in the air traffic control group, despite the fact that they work with the air traffic controllers in the same area and provide the controllers with assistance in terms of information and the processing of information.
These people feel they are now completely at a dead end, instead of having opportunities for promotion and for getting into the air traffic control business as their experience grows. I feel the item before us should not go through without these two legitimate complaints being drawn to the attention of the minister. The collective bargaining legislation which parliament passed for the public service itself sets the collective bargaining units for the initial bargaining exercise; it is only at the end of the first agreement that changes in the units can take place.
What will undoubtedly happen is this: Two or three years from now when the agreement relating to this group terminates, somebody will come before the staff relations board and ask for a change in this bargaining unit. In the meantime, certain habits will have been interrupted in one direction and will have jelled in another direction. This seems to me an example of stupid labour relations. The application of some criteria which I do not understand-it may be my fault-has resulted in a most illogical situation as far as these assistants are concerned.
I am totally at a loss to understand why the minister and the department have done so little to implement Judge Robinson's recommendations concerning labour conditions and related matters. If the minister has any information on this subject I invite him to pass it on to us.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I cannot recall exactly what the situation is, but I do know that a large number of the recommendations in that report have been implemented or are in the process of implementation. Others which require more substantial expenditure will be worked into the program as this becomes possible. Our budget is tight and this prevents our doing some of the things we want

March 25. 1968
Supply-Transport
to do. In the meantime we are living under a restriction and, while we appreciate the necessity for that restriction, at the same time we know there is a responsibility not to delay any longer than is absolutely required some of the recommendations we would like to see implemented.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


David Lewis: What about the assistants?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not know the answer on that, but I would be glad to look into it.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Chairman, from time to time the minister has been talking about economy, and we have heard a lot about the amount of the stipend being paid to the new chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission. What is the salary of the minister's immediate predecessor who is now the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It think it was stated at the time, and reported in the press, to be $40,000.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Does the minister not deem this new position, conveniently created by the former Liberal member for Bonavista-Twillingate, an act of gross extravagance in view of the poor financial position of the government and of the country in general? I believe this salary is only $5,000 less than that of the Prime Minister, and it is far more than that of the Minister of Transport. Is the chairman of the transport commission more productive, more important or more vital to Canada and its economy than the Prime Minister or the Minister of Transport? Is he more important or productive to Canadian transport than the Minister of Transport? His salary is much larger. At a time when we should practise economy, I think this is a most extravagant appointment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, I think the Prime Minister pointed out at the time that the president of the Canadian Transport Commission is very well qualified for that job. He, more than any other man, was familiar with the act that had been passed, and understands the transportation field. Therefore I believe it was a good appointment. On the question of relative salaries, my hon. friend will of course appreciate that there are many people who work for the government of Canada directly or indirectly who receive more remuneration than the minister and the Prime Minister. This is not a new state of affairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(Mr. Hellyer.]
40c. Grants, contributions, subsidies and other payments as detailed in the Estimates, $1.
Item agreed to.
E-National Harbours Board-
75c. Payment to the National Harbours Board to be applied in payment of the deficit (exclusive of interest on advances authorized by Parliament and depreciation on capital structures) expected to be incurred in the calendar year 1967 in the operation of the Jacques Cartier Bridge, Montreal Harbour, $53,000.
[ Translation]
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word about item 75c. It concerns the National Harbours Board, therefore, the harbour of Montreal and, perhaps to a lesser degree, that of Quebec.
Oviously something is wrong in that har-hour. Something is radically wrong there. Conflicts remain unsettled between dockers and shippers. There is talk of inordinate theft, pilfering, in the area of the Montreal harbour. There is talk of violence, of blackmailing, of usurious rates in the port of Montreal. Several commissions were appointed to look into the whole matter, on labour relations. Several investigations were carried out and there are increasing complaints to the effect that the port of Montreal is in utter confusion.
The Minister of Transport is aware of the problem. The Montreal harbour board, headed by the president of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, Mr. Saulnier, came to meet him. There is a serious uneasiness which may jeopardize irremediably the port of Montreal, its future and those who depend on it. When one appreciates that the port of Montreal is a great asset to the economy of the area, one cannot refrain from saying something.
As I know, the minister wants to conclude consideration of his estimates tonight and is anxious to go campaigning; so, I would not want to take any time to outline the problem to him. I know he must be aware of it as well as I am; consequently I will merely put the following question to him: Has his department taken a decision with regard to placing the port of Montreal under a single authority?
At the present time, the National Harbours Board, which has the responsibility of several ports in Canada, has control over many harbours. No decisions are made; everything is higgledy-piggledy. It seems more and more obvious that the only solution would be a single authority for Montreal's harbour. So, I would like the minister to tell me, without going into details, what are his intentions and
March 25, 1968

what are the decisions made by his department in that field.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, the question of control of harbours is one which is very complicated and which at the present moment is being studied. To the best of my knowledge there has been no fundamental look at this question for about 25 years. Three studies are being done which will be co-ordinated by our department. As my hon. friend knows, the present situation is one in which there are National Harbours Board ports, ports under the administration of the local commissions, and those operated by the department itself. Whether it is best to have three different solutions like this, or whether one would be better, or whether some different solution would be more appropriate, remains to be seen. In any event there is the feeling that one consideration might be a greater local participation in the management of harbours.
I have indicated to the Montreal port council-I believe that is the title-that we have commenced this study and that I hope it will not take more than three or four months to have a report available. I have indicated to them that as soon as it is available I would then be in a position to discuss with them further the question of local participation. In the meantime I do not want to take any steps which would prejudice the outcome of the study, because it is a fundamental one which could have repercussions or which could have application in other parts of the country as well. In the meantime I hope we can keep the port operating, improve its efficiency, and then as soon as the report is ready we will be prepared to discuss with the Montreal authorities any change in the organization which might be warranted.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
minister whether it is groups or special commissions which are presently carrying out investigations concerning the harbour of Montreal? He said three groups were making investigations. What are those groups?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes; the National Harbours
Board itself is doing one, the Canadian Transport Commission is doing one and the department is doing one. The three will be
Supply-Transport
co-ordinated by my deputy minister so that we can get the input from all three.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, numerous investigations have been conducted in the past eight or nine years.
About ten years ago, the Montreal harbour commission investigated thefts at the Jacques Cartier bridge. A little later, from 1961 to 1963, Justice Norris presided over an investigation of fraudulent practices and violence in the harbours of the great lakes, the St. Lawrence and Montreal.
In 1966, at the time of the strike in the St. Lawrence ports, Justice Lippe had recommended that such abuse be investigated. Not so very long ago, a Montreal lawyer, Mr. Deschenes, prepared, at the request of the Montreal port authorities, a report on possible thefts, pilfering and fraud in Montreal harbour.
All those commissions submitted reports. Reports have been prepared for the past eight years. It has been a well known fact for the past eight years.
[DOT] (10.50 p.m.)
Presently three other organizations: the National Harbours Board, the Board of Transport Commissioners and the Department of Transport are studying the matter, in order to come up with a report. The minister tells us: "Let us hope that in the meantime the harbour will keep on developing." But it is not developing. The situation has been worsening and is getting quite serious. Shipowners, unions members of the Montreal harbour council, owners of shipping companies are complaining. Moanings and groanings are heard from right, left and centre.
The situation is not improving in the Montreal harbour. There have been too many inquiries, too many studies. There were not enough results, even when reports were brought in. The Smith inquiry is still under way. It is not included in the three inquiries or commissions mentioned by the hon. Minister of Transport. Judge Smith is carrying on an investigation. But in the meantime, the port of Montreal is on the road to ruin; the situation is getting worse.
All are complaining about the same thing: the lack of authority in the port of Montreal. There is no authority to take decisions, to settle problems and find solutions.

March 25, 1968
Supply-Transport
The four inquiries made during the past eight years have all revealed-and that of Mr. Deschenes more clearly than the others-that a single authority is needed in the port of Montreal in place of the National Harbours Board.
Now, it is all very well for the minister to tell me that three commissions are investigating the conditions, but the fact is that four have already submitted reports. Yet, it does not satisfy me, because in the meantime, the situation is increasingly deteriorating in the port of Montreal.
I can give him examples and quote a large number of reports and speeches made by authoritative persons.
I know that the minister wants his estimates passed tonight. I shall therefore spare him all those examples, but I can mention numerous comments to the effect that the port of Montreal is racing to its downfall, among others, those of the chairman of the Montreal harbour board, Mr. Bacs, who feels, according to page 3 of La Pressd of Wednesday, February 28, 1968, that it is most urgent that an operational economic study be made of the port of Montreal, in order that its harbour facilities can take advantage of the opportunities, of the 20th century, and who recommends the application of the Picard and Deschenes reports. The Deschenes report is mentioned there, but we are merely told that the department is making other studies, even though some have been made already.
I wonder therefore whether the minister could tell us when the three commissions now conducting studies expect to present their reports. A year from now? In an editorial printed on page 4 of the February 13, 1968 issue of Le Devoir, Paul Sauriol said:
A year or two may elapse before we have a report on all those studies, and the problem requires an immediate solution.
Therefore I would ask the minister whether he has any idea when we may have the results of the studies now being made. When does he expect to be able to make concrete decisions. In other words, when will he learn the results of all those studies and when will he make a decision?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about different things although they all relate to the port. The studies to which my hon. friend referred relate to working conditions,
[Mr. G re go ire. 1
pilferage and so on. In the case of the latter, the National Harbours Board has already taken very forceful action to cope with the alleged theft, pilferage, blackmail and other things in the port vicinity. Some very excellent policemen have been hired and I believe the situation will be brought very much under control at once.
The reports to which I refer relate to the management of the port and the responsibility for it. It is this subject which has not been studied at all to my knowledge during the last 25 years. I hope to have information available within three months. It should be possible then to make a decision as quickly as the government is capable of making it, once the report has been received.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, at this late hour I want to condense what I have to say into one or two simple questions. One has to do with the production of papers regarding correspondence between the federal government and the government of British Columbia in connection with the Roberts Bank proposed port. I wonder if the minister can tell us whether it is likely to be tabled reasonably soon. In spite of what the minister said the other day on orders of the day, there are a good many conflicting reports with regard to what the government has actually offered. I will not ask the minister to go over that and to put it on the record, but if we had this correspondence I think it would set forth the minister's position very clearly and it would be helpful to the province of British Columbia, where his position has not been fully understood in some quarters.
The second question I wanted to ask is whether the minister could make available to hon. members, or at least to members from British Columbia, the program which he proposes to follow in Burrard inlet during the coming year. It would be useful to have this information. I do not expect the minister to outline it now, but if we could get that information from his department it would save time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So far as the first question is concerned, there is no reason for delay, but I would have to inquire into it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It may need clearing with the government of British Columbia.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: This may be the case concerning the government of British Columbia.
March 25, 1968



So far as the second question is concerned, I received a technical report today at which I have not had a chance to look, so I cannot advise my hon. friend. But I hope it will not be too long before I can give some information about Burrard inlet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
77c. Payment to the National Harbours Board to be applied in payment of the deficit (exclusive of interest on advances authorized by Parliament and depreciation on capital structures) expected to be incurred in the calendar year 1967 in the operation of the Saint John Harbour, New Brunswick, $240,000.
Item agreed to.
Atlantic Development Board-*
92c. Grant to the Government of Nova Scotia to assist in defraying the expenses of operating the former Dominion Steel and Coal Corporation Limited Steel Plant at Sydney, Nova Scotia, $2,000,000.
Item agreed to.
Canadian Transport Commission

65c. Steamship Subventions for Coastal Services as detailed in the Estimates, $1,768,690.
Mr, Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make on vote 65c. They have to do with the policy followed in the establishment of the rates of subvention paid for various services. These items which are now before us are the result of criteria which I assume are universally applied to all applications to the water transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. It has been suggested to me that in some ways the policy which has been followed in the past is not adequate to deal with the problem of ensuring that services provided under the subvention arrangements are undertaken by boats capable of providing the services required. It has been further suggested that in the various criteria which are used for establishing rates, proper consideration is not given to the question of depreciation and depletion, so that firms are in a position to maintain and replace vessels as required.
By way of illustrating my point I should like to make particular reference to the item which appears with regard to the service on the west coast of Vancouver island, of which I have some personal knowledge. Not too long ago the federal Department of Public Works established a new wharf at an expenditure of some $180,000. So far as I could determine, there was adequate consultation with the com-
Supply-Transport
pany operating into that wharf. After this new wharf was built and the new freight shed opened, this service paid one or two visits to the port and then the master of the vessel said he could no longer get his vessel in or out of that harbour. I made some inquiries, and then the maritime commission had one of its inspecting masters take a trip on the vessel. He confirmed the decision of the master that this vessel could not safely operate into or out of this port. To all intents and purposes, this $180,000 turned out to be a poor investment of federal funds.
[DOT] (11:00 p.m.)
There has been a change of ownership of this particular company since the decision was made to build that wharf, so I am not blaming the present manager for the situation. I did make some inquiries and looked at the registry of shipping. This vessel is one to which a person might refer, without being too disrespectful, as a really old tub with rather inadequate power or other modern facilities for guiding a vessel in close waters.
I raised the question informally as to why the company did not trade this vessel for a new, modern one which would be able to navigate in some of the tight situations prevailing on the western coast. I was informed that this was something the company would very much like to do, but the economics of the situation were such they could not see their way clear to do it. This is one example from which one might argue that the additional subventions proposed here are either too great or too little.
I wonder if the minister could tell us the proposition on which the policy for these subventions has been founded. If he is not able to do that tonight, perhaps he could give an undertaking to the committee that he will have this matter thoroughly reviewed. I could cite one or two other examples to illustrate that this same problem is being faced by other operators. They tell me they are living off their capital, and at the rate subventions are being paid, sooner or later they will have to give up the service because the boats they are operating will no longer be seaworthy and they will not have been able to set aside anything for replacement. Can the minister give any clarification of this situation as it exists?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but I would be glad to take note of my hon. friend's question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
The following items were agreed to:
110c. Notwithstanding any limitation that may be contained in section 265 of the Railway Act, to authorize payment of an amount not exceeding $30,447.70 from the Railway Grade Crossing Fund to be applied to the cost of a bridge reconstruction project authorized by Board Order No. 115089 of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, $1.
115c. Payments to the railway companies subject to paragraph No. 2 of Order No. 103860 dated February 23, 1961 of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, which paragraph authorized the railways to increase freight rates on export bulk grain moving from certain ports located on Georgian Bay, the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River to Montreal and ports east thereof on the St. Lawrence River and on the Canadian Atlantic Coast and which paragraph has been suspended by Order in Council, requiring the railways to continue in effect the rates which prevailed and were published on November 30, 1960, such payments to be the difference between those rates which were in effect on November 30, 1960 and compensatory rates as approved by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, $104,500.
120c. To provide payments to companies subject to order Number 96300, dated November 17, 1958 of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada in respect of the period April 1, 1966 to December 31, 1966, for the purpose of reimbursing the said companies for such diminution in their aggregate gross revenues during the said period as in the opinion of the said Board is attributable to such companies maintaining the rate level for freight traffic at an 8% increase instead of 17% as authorized by the said Order, $96,800.
General-
LU4c. Acquisition of Twin-Otter Aircraft for leasing to Leeward Islands Air Transport Services Limited, in accordance with an agreement entered into with the approval of the Governor in Council, at a rent that will reimburse the Crown for the cost of acquisition, and that will include an option to purchase the said aircraft, notwithstanding anything contained in the Surplus Crown Assets Act, $1,000.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, instead of speaking on the four or five previous items, I will sum up with the last one. I will restrict myself to two minutes.
It is often said that the dissatisfaction in the province of Quebec is justified. At the present time, the minister is making a tour of this country and of Quebec. Now, one of the fields where there is more reason for dissatisfaction is transportation. In many cases, it comes under the federal jurisdiction: airports, Montreal harbour, Trois-Rivieres harbour, Quebec harbour, the Canadian National Railways, Air Canada, the St. Lawrence river. It is a field that comes under the Department of
[Mr. Hellyer.j
March 25, 1968
Supply-Transport Transport and it is probably the one where there are more grounds for complaint.
Whether the minister remains Minister of Transport or becomes Prime Minister, I ask him to study in depth all the problems which exist in the field of transportation. Let him make no mistake about it: if he wants to please Quebec, he should talk about transportation, because it is in that field that there is most dissatisfaction. There is no improvement, no expansion, no winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. There are many other complaints. Anyone who takes the 11 o'clock train from Montreal to Ottawa never meets an employee who can speak French. There is no bilingualism between Ottawa and Montreal. I do not object to anyone who does not speak French, but he should not be put to work on a line where so many French Canadians travel. The minister should make an investigation about the C.N.R. line between Montreal and Ottawa, especially about the 11 o'clock train at night; he will see that there is not a single employee who speaks French. That is not very pleasant.
The situation has greatly improved as far as Air Canada is concerned, and I want to commend its directors. The European service, for instance, is much better. I used it recently to go to France, and I noticed that. I commend Air Canada in that regard.
But nothing is done by the Canadian National Railways. The minister should remember that this is probably one of the most important fields and one which causes the greatest dissatisfaction at the present time. It is up to him to find solutions.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
@Deputy Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Department of Transport.
Pursuant to special order made earlier this day, it being after eleven o'clock shall I rise, report certain resolutions, and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
It being ten minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
March 25, 1968	COMMONS DEBATES	8053
Supply-Transport
[The following items were passed in Committee department of forestry and rural development of Supply this day:]	23c, 35c 40c

[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 26, 1968