1968-11-13

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the right hon. member for Prince Albert raised a question of privilege about the return made in relation to question No. 275. He was seeking the full addresses of those to whom certain payments had been made by the Company of Young Canadians. At that time I undertook to make inquiries. I can now report that later today a supplement to the return already made will be tabled.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Thank you.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-128, to prevent the sniffing of glue or other dangerous substances.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Explain.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable those seeking to assist juveniles who have become habituated to sniffing glue, nail polish remover or other similar dangerous substances, to undergo psychiatric treatment and to obtain protective care.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



AERONAUTICS ACT


Hon. James Richardson (for the Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill S-14, to amend the Aeronautics Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
29180-169}



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Fortin: What was the total unemployment figure in the federal constituency of Lotbiniere in 1962-63-64-6566-67-68?


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration as follows: There are no unemployment figures for areas of this size. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics produces unemployment statistics for Canada and the provinces only. The size of the labour force survey sample does not allow for the production of figures in any greater geographical detail.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Southam: 1.	How many post offices will be constructed in the Province of Saskatchewan during 1968?
2.	Will the 1968 construction program include new post offices at Torquay, Saskatchewan and Glen Ewen, Saskatchewan?
3.	What is the location of other towns, villages and cities in Saskatchewan where new post offices will be constructed in 1968?
4.	How many new post office premises are to be provided in each of the other nine provinces of Canada in the year 1968?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Twenty-five.
2.	Only at Torquay, Saskatchewan.
3.	Construction will commence in 1968 at the following locations: Crown Construction: Allan; Cudworth; Dubuc; Esterhazy; Insinger; Mistatim; Prudhomme; Quinton; Torquay; Willow Bunch; Windthorst. Build to lease: Burstall; Cadillac; Creelman; Creighton; Dom-remy; Frontier; Imperial; Lanigan; Loreburn;

November 13, 1968
Questions
Lucky Lake; Paynton; Spy Hill; Stockholm;
Tugaske.
4.	Province	Total
Newfoundland	19
Prince Edward Island	1
Nova Scotia	20
New Brunswick	11
Quebec	132
Ontario	12
Manitoba	9
Alberta	13
British Columbia	15


REFORESTATION PROGRAM, QUEBEC
Mr. Laprise: 1.	Is there an agreement between the federal government and the Government of Quebec in regard to a reforestation program?
2.	If so (a) when is this program to begin (b) in what region of Quebec is it to take place (c) what will be the cost of this program?


Yves Forest: I am
informed by the Departments of Fisheries and Forestry and Rural Development as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.


RURAL MAIL ROUTES
Mr. Schreyer: 1.	What is the number of postal delivery rural routes in Canada?
2.	How many, if any, are in excess of 30 miles in
length?
3. Are tenders called in every case where a rural route delivery service is established or renewed?
4 If not in how many cases have contracts for the rural 'route delivery of mail been given by other means of selection and what were the other means of selection?


Hon. Eric W. Kierans (Posimaster General):: 1. 5561.
2. 2068.
3.	No. Tenders are called when new services are" established. Where rural route service is renewed, tenders are not called.
4.	The present policy is: (a) tenders are called for all new services; (b) tenders are also called when a contract, transferred during the contract period to another person, expires; (c) if a contractor dies, or asks to be released from his contract, it may be transferred to another person for the balance of the contract period. At the end of that time, -tenders will be called rather than the contract being renewed; (d) contracts for rural mail
IMr. Laing (Vancouver South).]
delivery service may be renewed, with the same contractor, for a further five-year period, if the service has been satisfactory and the amount of the contract does not exceed $10,000 per annum.
Information as to the number of contracts which have been renewed or transferred is not readily available and a great deal of work would be entailed in obtaining it.


RECOMMENDATIONS OF REPORT ON POSTAL SERVICES
Mr. Anderson: Of the recommendations of the Montpetit Report on postal services (a) how many have been implemented (b) how many have the Post Office Department and the unions agreed not to implement (c) how many and which ones have been rejected (i) by the Unions (ii) by the Post Office Department, and (d) how many remain to be considered?


Eric William Kierans: The report of the royal commission on working conditions in the Post Office Department contained 282 recommendations, all of which have been considered and discussed with the unions. The action on these recommendations has been as follows: 1. Implemented (a) in whole, 152;	(b) in part, 53. 2. Rejected
jointly by department and unions, 4.	3.
Rejected by department, 4. 4. Relating to action exclusively within the jurisdiction of the unions, 13. 5. Set aside for negotiation at the time of collective bargaining, 22*. 6. Decision reserved, for further consideration by both parties, 34**.
NOTE:	* Fourteen of the 22 subjects in
item 5 were subjects of negotiation at the time of bargaining with the Council of Postal Unions. The remaining 8 concern employees outside the jurisdiction of the Council of Postal Unions.
** The 34 recommendations on which decision was reserved include 21 which have been covered in the list of demands submitted by the Council of Postal Unions and which have been the subject of negotiation. They cover a percentage of part time staff to be used in relation to full time staff, sharing of overtime, protective clothing, definition of preferred assignments, scheduling and rotation of annual leave, industrial first aid, nursing and doctors' care, transportation for employees and financial protection for wicket employees.
November 13, 1968

The other 13 deal with the definition of peak periods and emergency situations, composition of rating boards, rotation of shifts, development of appraisal and performance review program, fringe benefit study by the unions, letter carrier occupational diseases, alphabetical mail sorting systems and removal of snow around relay boxes. The department has set forth its position on these items and has invited the unions to make such further comment as they feel necessary.
At the time of the agreement with the Council of Postal Unions, it was separately agreed by management and union representatives that Mr. Justice Montpetit should be asked to review the recommendations in his report which deal with environmental and physical working conditions. He agreed to do so and the review is under way. Its results will be communicated to him by both parties and may be the subject of further discussion between the parties.


PUBLIC WORKS, TEMISCAMINGUE CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Caoueile: Which works undertaken by the Department of Public Works are in progress at present in the constituency of Temiscamingue?


Arthur Laing: Noranda-Federal Building: Replacement of windows; Installation of humidification system; Replacement of roof section; Interior and exterior painting of building. Rouyn-Federal Buildings; Post Office Building: Conversion of boilers to gas burners; Interior painting of boiler room; Addition to lunchroom for postal employees. Unemployment Insurance Commission and Income Tax Building: Replacement of windows; Repairs to boilers; Exterior painting; Interior painting -first floor.


LABELS USED IN CATTLE TESTING
Mr. Howard (Skeena): 1.	Since January 1, 1965 has the Department of Agriculture used any label or sticker relating to the testing of cattle for brucellosis containing, in addition to an identifying number, the words "Canada Agriculture Health of Animals Branch-Do not remove"?
2.	In which countries were such labels printed and what amount of money was paid, and to whom for such printing?
3.	In which country was the last order or batch of these labels printed?
Questions
4.	In which country will the next order of Batch of these labels be printed?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Defence Produciion):: In so far as the Departments of Agriculture and Defence Production are concerned: 1. Yes.
2.	In addition to the cost of printing, there are other costs such as cutting of the tags to size, making them up into pads, packaging and delivering them to various destinations. Therefore, the contract expenditures shown below are the full costs of the tags delivered to various destinations in Canada.
Since January 1, 1965, the Department of Defence Production made the following purchases of these tags on behalf of the Department of Agriculture: (a) March 1965, Ket-chum Manufacturing Sales Ltd., Ottawa, $7,998.00, tags printed in U.S.A.; (b) April
1966,	Kimball Systems Ltd., Toronto, $15,704.28, tags printed in Canada; (c) October
1967,	Ketchum Manufacturing Sales Ltd., Ottawa, $9,598.80, tags printed in U.S.A.; (d) August 1968, Data Factors Limited, Rexdale, $11,036.00, tags printed in Canada.
3.	In Canada.
4.	The next order will be printed in Canada provided the cost is fair and reasonable.


CITIZENSHIP COURT JUDGES
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Judges are there in Citizenship Courts in Canada, and (a) what is the remuneration paid them (b) what are the qualifications for appointment?
2.	What are the locations of the Courts and how often do they sit?
3.	Are there any vacancies to be filled at the present time?
4.	Are any new appointments contemplated at the present time?


Hon. Gerard Pellelier (Secretary of State):: In so far as the Secretary of State Department is concerned: 1. The governor in council may at any time appoint a person to act as a court in Canada for the purposes of the Citizenship Act. A person so appointed is not a judge. There are at present 45 such appointees, of whom 33 serve in areas remote from other citizenship facilities without regular remuneration or significant administrative support. These latter hear applications and present certificates on an irregular, occasional basis taking the small fee prescribed by law in return for the services rendered. Another 13 appointees are now operating full time as courts in 12 different locations across

November 13, 1968
Questions
the country, (a) Only persons appointed to operate as a court on a full time basis are paid a salary and the remuneration is $17,000 per annum for the presiding officers in Toronto and Montreal, $16,000 per annum for presiding officers elsewhere, and $11,500 per annum for the assistant to the presiding officer in Toronto, (b) There are no statutory qualifications for appointment.
2.	Courts operating on a full time basis are normally located in Halifax, Moncton, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Hamilton, Sudbury, London, Winnipeg, Regina, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver. Remote area courts operating on an occasional basis are located in the outlying areas of the Northwest Territories, Yukon Territory, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. Courts generally sit as often as circumstances necessitate.
3.	There is at present no person appointed to operate full time as a court in Vancouver.
4.	The appointment of a person to operate full time as a court in Vancouver is contemplated at the present time.


DISTRIBUTION OF NICKEL COINS
Mr. Howard (Slieena): From the time that the 1968 Sfty cent and one dollar coins were distributed, what has been, by date, the number of each such pieces of coinage distributed through the banking system and what is the name and address of each bank to whom such a distribution was made?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: The number of one dollar and fifty cent nickel coins distributed, by date, through the
banking system, is	as follows: (number of $1	pieces) 50 centsAugust 1, 1968	266,000	1,164,0002	4,000	16,00015	60,000	-16	-	20,000October 7	-	862,0009	-	720,00010	-	240,00011	380,000	78,00015	282,000	42,00021	919,000	218,00025	55,000	-29	56,000	-
Distributed through main offices of banks at the following points: (subsequent distribution to other branches is handled by the banks themselves).

Vancouver:	Bank of Canada; Bank of
Montreal; The Bank of Nova Scotia; The Royal Bank of Canada; The Mercantile Bank of Canada; The Toronto-Dominion Bank; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; Bank of British Columbia.
Calgary: Bank of Canada; Bank of Montreal; The Bank of Nova Scotia; The Royal Bank of Canada; The Mercantile Bank of Canada; The Toronto-Dominion Bank; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
Regina: Bank of Canada; Bank of Montreal; The Bank of Nova Scotia; The Royal Bank of Canada; The Toronto-Dominion Bank; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
Winnipeg: Bank of Canada; Bank of Montreal; The Bank of Nova Scotia; Banque Canadienne Nationale; The Royal Bank of Canada; The Mercantile Bank of Canada; The Toronto-Dominion Bank; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
Toronto: Bank of Canada; Bank of Montreal; The Bank of Nova Scotia; Banque Canadienne Nationale; La Banque Provinciale du Canada; The Royal Bank of Canada; The Mercantile Bank of Canada; The Toronto-Dominion Bank; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
Ottawa: Bank of Canada; Bank of Montreal; The Bank of Nova Scotia; Banque Canadienne Nationale; The Provincial Bank of Canada; The Royal Bank of Canada; The Toronto-Dominion Bank; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
Montreal: Bank of Canada; Bank of Montreal; The Bank of Nova Scotia; Banque Canadienne Nationale; The Montreal City & District Savings Bank; The Provincial Bank of Canada; The Royal Bank of Canada; The Mercantile Bank of Canada; The Toronto-Dominion Bank; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
Saint John: Bank of Canada; Bank of Montreal; The Bank of Nova Scotia; The Provincial Bank of Canada; The Royal Bank of Canada; The Toronto-Dominion Bank; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
Halifax: Bank of Canada; Bank of Montreal; The Bank of Nova Scotia; The Royal Bank of Canada; The Mercantile Bank of Canada; The Toronto-Dominion Bank; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
St. John's, Nfld.: Bank of Montreal; The Bank of Nova Scotia; The Royal Bank of Canada; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.
November 13, 1968

Charlottetown, P.E.I.: Bank of Montreal; The Royal Bank of Canada; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce.


GYROTRON AT EXPO-COST AND REVENUE
Mr. Mazankowski: What was the total cost of the Gyrotron at Expo '67 and what was the total revenue from it?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition reports that: The total capital cost of the Gyrotron, including engineering, construction, inspection and testing but excluding operating costs was $2,944,670.08 and the total revenue from its operation, after deduction of the amusement tax, was $1,943,682.29.


CHARGES TO EXPO FOR MONTREAL MAGAZINE
Mr. Mazankowski: What was Expo '67 charged by the City of Montreal for the magazine "City of Montreal-Magazine Montreal" 1964, 1965, 1966 and 1967?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition reports a total cost of $250,000.


OPERATION OF HOVERCRAFT, EXPO '67
Mr. Mazankowski: What was (a) the cost (b) the operating cost (c) the total revenue from the operation of the Hovercraft at Expo '67?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition reports that: Parts (a) and (b) cannot be answered since the Hovercraft system was based on a concession agreement. This system was not the property of the corporation, (c) The total revenue for the operation of the Hovercraft system to the corporation was $65,560.98.


COST OF PRODUCING HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES
Mr. Mather: What is the production cost to the Queen's Printer for a volume of the debates of the House of Commons in (a) English (b) French?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: (a) The production cost to the Canadian Government Printing Bureau
Questions
for one bound volume of the debates of the House of Commons for the 27th parliament in English was: $9.26; (b) The production cost to the Canadian Government Printing Bureau for one bound volume of the debates of the House of Commons for the 27th parliament in French was: $23.37.
Note: Bound editions of the House of Commons debates in either English or French were published in sets consisting of seven volumes.


DUTCH ELM DISEASE, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Flemming: Has the government had its attention drawn to the serious ravages of the Dutch Elm Disease in New Brunswick and especially in the vicinity of Woodstock, and (a) if so, has the government, through the appropriate department or agency, any plans for assisting the Government of New Brunswick and/or any municipality in that Province in any attempts they may make to deal with the disease (b) if not, will the government cause inquiry to be made relative to the effects of the disease and any steps which may be taken to minimize them?


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries):: The Dutch elm disease situation in New Brunswick is under the close surveillance of the federal government's forest research laboratory in Fredericton. This laboratory is assisting the province and the various municipalities directly by conducting detailed surveys to detect trees suspected of being diseased, providing laboratory diagnostic services needed for positive identification of the presence of the causal fungus, informing municipalities and private owners of the presence of diseased trees and providing advice on control measures.


BANK ACCOUNTS FOR EXPO
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What banks and financial institutions received the accounts of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition?
2.	Which of these banks or institutions were designated by the Minister of Finance, as stated in section 13 of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act?
3.	Under what authority were nondesignated banks and not chartered institutions recipients of accounts for the 1967 World Exhibition?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition reports the following: 1. Bank of Montreal; Banque Canadienne Nationale; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce; Caisse Populaire Desjardins de l'Expo 67.

November 13, 1968
Questions
2.	Bank of Montreal; Banque Canadienne Nationale.
3.	Under the authority of Section 9 of the Canadian Corporation for the 1967 World Exhibition Act, with the approval of the Privy Councils of Canada (P.C. 1966-23) and Quebec (C.P. 2054).


PETITCODIAC RIVER CAUSEWAY
Mr. Thomas (Moncton): 1.	Were the final plans and specifications of the Petiteodiac River Causeway approved by the Government of Canada?
2.	Was any guarantee given to the City of Moncton that such Causeway would not interfere with the sewage disposal system of that City?
3.	Was the matter of the sewage disposal system of the City of Moncton taken into consideration when the study was carried out and, if so, what was the result?


Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: 1. Yes.
2.	Not by the government of Canada.
3.	Yes. Provision has been made by the province for conduction of sewage through the causeway from that portion of the city which is located upstream of the causeway.


IMPROVED TELEVISION FACILITIES, NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Carter: Does the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have any plans to provide additional or improved T.V. transmitting facilities to the people of the southern Shore section of the Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland and, if so, when will the necessary work be carried out?


Gérard Pelletier: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: Plans have been made to establish a television rebroadcasting station to serve the southern part of the Avalon peninsula which has been without adequate television service. The corporation has not yet established a firm timetable for the project since this is subject to availability and allocation of funds, but it is hoped that an application can be filed with the Canadian Radio-Television Commission in 1969.


SALE OF M.V. &quot;SKEENA&quot;
Mr. Duranfe: 1.	What amount did the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation receive for the M.V. Skeena?
2.	By what concern or individual was it purchased?

3.	Was the highest bid accepted and, if not, what was the highest bid?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In so far as the Crown
Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned:
1.	$38,000.
2.	Under its priority rights, the Department of Public Works.
3.	The corporation advertised the M.V. Skeena for sale, and prior to the closing date of receipt of offers, the Department of Public Works confirmed its interest in acquiring the vessel. The corporation, therefore, under its priority procedures, negotiated with the Department of Public Works for acquisition of the M.V. Skeena.


COMMUNITY PASTURE ON INDIAN RESERVES, SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Burfon: 1.	Is there a community pasture project currently being developed on the Muskowekwan and Gordon Indian Reserves?
2.	What government agencies are involved in the development of the project and what is the responsibility of each?
3.	What is the acreage being planned for development on each of these two Reserves?
4.	What tenders have been issued for development of this project?
5.	What is the name and amount of all tenders submitted for each contract?
6.	What contracts have been awarded to date?
7.	What provisions do these contracts make for the employment of Indians?
8.	Will the community pastures be for the sole use of Indian people?
9.	What assistance is being provided to Indian people to enable them to make use of the community pastures?
10.	What is the estimated total cost of the project?
11.	What is the estimated carrying capacity of the pastures?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes. There is one pasture proposed for each reserve.
2.	Prairie farm rehabilitation administration and Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
3.	Gordon reserve, 9600 acres. Muskowekwan reserve, 7040 acres.
4.	Tenders are to be called the week of November 11-16 for clearing approximately
5,000	acres.
5.	See No. 4.
6.	See No. 4.
November 13, 1968

7.	During the construction stage every effort will be made to employ Indian people. Also, under section H of the agreement, it is understood that Indians will have first opportunity for employment and training in the pasture and its operation.
8.	No, but Indians given first claim to use of pasture. Indians do not now have sufficient cattle to fully stock the pastures.
9.	Band members already have cattle which can be placed in pasture when completed. Through rotating herd program and revolving fund loans, Indian people are being encouraged to increase their cattle herds.
10.	$260,000.
11.	When fenced and before improvements, about 1200 head. Potential estimate 3000 head after improvements and grass grown, etc.


FRED PROJECTS, NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Coales: Of the thirty-three projects carried out in the Province of New Brunswick under the FRED Agreement what will be the estimated final cost of each project, what will be the financial responsibility of the federal government and what will be the financial responsibility of the Government of the Province of New Brunswick in each instance?


Russell Clayton Honey: A project cannot be declared "carried out" or complete nor can its estimated cost be given (due to fiscal funding and changing circumstances) until the term of the FRED agreement (10 years) has almost run its course.
Under a FRED agreement, projects are recommended to the treasury boards of both the federal and provincial governments by the joint advisory board, which is composed of senior federal and provincial officials. This advisory board has no authority to fund or implement a project but no project can be considered by either Treasury Board unless it has been recommended by the advisory board.
Funding of a project is done on a yearly basis by both governments. A project may continue for the life of the FRED agreement (up to 10 years) or may remain dormant for some years until reactivated on recommendation of the board. Funds allocated during a fiscal year may be adjusted between or among projects under a program within an agreement by mutual agreement of the federal and provincial FRED co-ordinators, but funds may not be moved from one program to another without FRED Board recommendation and approval by both treasury boards.
Questions


FRED PROJECTS, QUEBEC
Mr. Coates: Of the four projects carried out in the Province of Quebec under the FRED Agreement, what is the estimated final cost of each project and what is the percentage of cost that would be the responsibility of the federal government in each instance and what is the percentage cost to the Government of the Province of Quebec in each instance?


Russell Clayton Honey: See answer to question No. 567.


DAIRY PRODUCERS
Mr. Clermont: How many dairy producers were listed, in 1966 and 1967, in (a) Canada (b) Quebec (c) Ontario, as producing the following dairy products (i) raw milk (ii) industrial milk (iii) cream?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: The numbers of industrial milk and cream producers listed with the Canadian Dairy Commission are as follows. The data requested for raw milk shippers is not available from federal records.
Industrial milk Cream
1966	1967	1966	1967(a)	Canada	68,577	65,189	103,527	88,894(b)	Quebec	41,761	40,618	16,572	12,053(c)	Ontario	22,206	20,066	15,455	12,954


MILK PRODUCTION
Mr. Clermont: What was, for the years 1966 and 1967, the average production in (a) Canada (b) Quebec (c) Ontario, of the producers of the following products (i) raw milk (ii) industrial milk (iii) cream?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The average marketings by industrial milk and cream shippers listed with the Canadian Dairy Commission are as follows, in terms of pounds of milk testing 3.5 per cent butter-fat. The data requested for raw milk shippers is not available from federal records.
Industrial milk Cream
1966	1967	1966	1967(a)	Canada	97,000	107,000	31,000	30,700(b)	Quebec	83,000	93,500	39,200	39,400(c)	Ontario	127,500	139,000	44,400	45,000


FEDERAL MILK SUBSIDIES
Mr. Clermont: 1. During the fiscal years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68, how many producers of industrial milk

November 13, 1968
Questions
and cream received subsidies from the federal government in (a) Canada (b) Quebec, and (c) the County of Papineau in Quebec?
2.	What was the total amount of subsidies paid during each of the fiscal years mentioned in part 1 in (a) Canada (b) Quebec, and (c) the County of Papineau in Quebec?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1.	Number of producers of manufacturing milk and cream receiving direct subsidy payments from the federal government


1965-66	1966-67	1967-68Canada	140,630	165,061	143,766Quebec	49,607	53,342	48,0152.	Direct producer subsidies received by manufacturing milk and cream shippers- 1965-66	1966-67	1967-68Canada	$19,210,000	$70,350,000	$93,100,000Quebec	7,546,000	31,560,000	41,200,000
Information respecting the number of producers receiving subsidy and the amount of subsidy paid is not available by county.


JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS OF FEDERAL BODIES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	What federal bodies exercise judicial functions?
2.	Has the government considered, is it considering or will it consider the possibility of having a uniform procedure for such bodies and, if so, will any report on this matter be laid before the House?
3.	Does the government intend to reform the federal judicial system?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1.	Without attempting to be exhaustive or controversial, the ordinary courts such as the Exchequer Court of Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and the Territorial Courts exercise judicial functions. In addition, other bodies such as the Tax Appeal Board, the Tariff Board and the Immigration Appeal Board also exercise judicial functions, if by that term it is meant that the bodies are empowered by law to determine legal rights and obligations in accordance with predetermined principles of law.
2.	A uniform procedure code for judicial bodies has received and will receive further consideration but there is no present intention to lay any report on such a matter before the House of Commons.
3.	Reforms in the federal judicial system are in contemplation.


HERCULES AIRCRAFT
Mr. Brewin: 1.	What are the landing capabilities of the Hercules Aircraft (a) according to the Department of National Defence, and (b) according to the manufacturer, Lockheed Aircraft Limited?
2.	Is the Hercules a forward support plane, and as such is it basically designed to land on (a) bare ground (b) raw dirt, or (c) sand?
3.	How much clear space does it require to land?
4.	What training do the Canadian Armed Services personnel have in regard to landing Hercules on
(a)	prepared airstrips (b) unprepared terrain such as an unobstructed field (c) highways, asphalt, gravel base (d) snow covered area?
5.	(a) Specifically, what training had the pilots and crews of the Hercules recently made available for the flying of supplies into Nigeria and Biafra
(b)	have the pilots and crews of the Hercules been given concentrated training to meet the stated capability of the aircraft?
6.	Has the use of the Hercules made available for the Nigerian and Biafran area been delayed by
(a)	difficulties in landing or lack of adequate airstrips or landing facilities (b) by lack of complete or adequate training in landing?
7.	Have the operations of the Canadian Hercules or other aircraft in relation to the flight of supplies into Nigeria or Biafra been obstructed by failure to provide facilities for reconnaissance or otherwise and who has been responsible for such failures, if any?


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) and
(b)	Many factors such as fuel load, number of passengers, freight, runway conditions, temperature, etc., enter into determining the landing capability of the Hercules aircraft. Operating instructions published by the U.S.A.F. and based upon manufacturers' data are used by the Canadian Forces.
2.	(a), (b) and (c) Because of its flexibility the Hercules aircraft is used by the Canadian Forces both as a strategic transport and as a tactical support aircraft. It has the capability of landing on unprepared surfaces such as clay, sand or sod, providing the soil bearing strength is sufficient to support the aircraft.
3.	The landing field length requirements vary with all-up weight of the aircraft, the surface temperature, the surface wind and the altitude of the airport. At a landing weight of
140,000	lbs, at sea level at standard day temperature of fifteen degrees centigrade zero wind zero gradient and dry surface, the normal landing distance over a 50 ft. obstacle is 4,200 feet.
4.	(a), (b), (c) and (d) Hercules pilots in the Canadian Forces are thoroughly trained to fully exploit the landing capabilities of the aircraft on prepared, semi-prepared and snow
November 13, 1968

covered surfaces within the aircraft's design limitations. Asphalt highways which conform to the minimum length, width and weight bearing requirements can be equated to landing on prepared surfaces.
5.	(a) and (b) The crews assigned to the task of flying Hercules aircraft had previously gained from several hundred to several thousand hours of experience on other types of flying duties before being selected for Hercules operations. These personnel were then given courses on the Hercules aircraft during which they received approximately 230 hours of experience on that type of aircraft. In addition, Hercules pilots are employed as co-pilots for a considerable period of time, thus gaining approximately a thousand hours of Hercules experience before being upgraded to an aircraft captain. These personnel have been employed on flying operations in all parts of the world. This employment includes participation in Arctic operations where only gravel airstrips are normally available and in Africa and Asia. The particular Hercules pilots dispatched to Biafra collectively have an average of approximately 8,000 hours of total flying experience. They are considered, therefore, to possess the maximum possible qualifications.
6.	(a) Yes; (b) No.
7.	Yes. The international committee of the Red Cross experienced difficulty in obtaining overflight clearances both for operations and airfield surveys.


MILITIA UNITS IN READY RESERVE
Mr. Robinson: 1.	(a) What militia units are components of the Ready Reserve (b) what are the tasks of the units in the Ready Reserve (c) how many officers and men are required by each unit to carry out the task allotted (d) how many units are presently capable of performing their allotted task (e) when are all militia of the Ready Reserve expected to be able to perform their allotted task?
2.	What is the efficiency rating of all militia units in the Ready Reserve?
3.	What was the efficiency rating of all units that attended summer camp in 1967 and 1968?
4.	Would the Ready Reserve at the present time be professionally competent to back up the Regular Force?
5.	Is it the intention to (a) train, and (b) equip, the Ready Reserve to regular force standards?
6.	What is the overall state of the Ready Reserve?


David Walter Groos: Attention is directed to Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 3, dated March 12, 1968, of the 29180-1701
Questions
standing committee on national defence, dealing with the reserve components of the Canadian Forces. Insofar as "ready reserve" is concerned, its purpose is to produce in an emergency, trained specialist individuals of all components for regular force establishments.
1.	(a) The ready reserve is not composed of militia units, per se, but of individual officers and men; (b) Units are not tasked to the ready reserve; individuals are earmarked to fill various regular force establishment positions in an emergency; (c) See (a) above; (d) See (b) above; (e) No time limit can be specified; it varies with the individual positions to be filled.
2.	Not applicable, see 1 (a).
3.	The current allocation of tasks given to the militia has been in force for less than a year and as yet efficiency ratings have not been established.
4.	No, further training is required.
5.	(a) Yes; (b) not applicable.
6.	The strength and composition of the ready reserve will vary from year to year according to the needs of the regular force. The long term aim is to provide individuals with a standard of training in a variety of trades so as to provide a viable back-up to the regular force. Under these circumstances it is not possible to accurately assess the over-all state of the ready reserve.


REPORT OF TASK FORCE ON LABOUR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS
Mr. Robinson: When will the federal government's task force on labour management relations be making its report public?


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The task force on labour relations has indicated its report will be presented to the government by the end of 1968. At that time, the government will consider tabling the report in the House of Commons and releasing its contents to the public.


TENDERS FOR POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, VILLE BELAIR, QUE.
Mr. Godin: Prior to the construction of the Post Office at Ville Belair, Quebec, how many tenders were received, what company was awarded the contract, and at what price?

November 13, 1968
Orders for Returns


Arthur Laing: Seven tenders were received. A contract at $28,700 was awarded to Arthur Simoneau, Charny, second low bidder, when the lowest bidder withdrew.


CUSTOMS EXAMINATION, COLLECTION AND LIABILITY
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	Is the government giving any consideration to changing its approach to the growing problems of customs examination, collection and liability?
2.	Is it giving any consideration to switching its primary approach from the merchandise itself to the importer, so as to permit a straight line transaction that will allow cargo to move from its point of origin to the premises of the importer?


Eric William Kierans: 1. Departmental officials continually assess changing trends in transportation and marketing practices to ensure that customs examination and release procedures are revised, consistent with the law, to facilitate expeditious delivery to the importer.
2. Recently established procedures include a pre-audit of entry documents by customs appraisers which, provided the officer is satisfied that adequate controls exist and that there is an accurate description of the shipment, permits delivery to be made without any undue delay. These procedures combined with a provision whereby the goods may be released under security posted by the importer or his agent allows for the delivery of imported goods prior to the payment of duty and tax. The present system is considered to approach, as nearly as possible under existing legislation, a straight line transaction.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	(a) In the Public Service of Canada, including Crown agencies and boards, how many persons occupy the rank of (i) deputy minister (ii) associate deputy minister (iii) assistant deputy minister or their respective equivalents or discharge the functions of such rank nomenclatures (b) what are the salary ranges for each group?
2.	In the Public Service of Canada, including Crown agencies and boards, how many persons by individually named departments or agencies

discharge the functions of executive assistants etc. (as in question of Mar. 5-1968) ?
3.	(a) Since July 1, 1967, to what departments, Crown agencies or boards have there been named persons to discharge the functions of assistant deputy minister or its equivalent (b) how many of such appointments are to positions created since July 1, 1967 (c) do any such appointments require approval by the Governor-in-Council?
Return tabled.


EXPENDITURES ON INDIAN RESERVE IMPROVEMENT
Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How much was spent between April 1, 1967 and April 30, 1968 on the program to improve the physical conditions on Indian Reserves?
2.	How much of this sum was spent on (a) houses (b) roads (c) electrification (d) water supply (e) sewage systems?
3.	Where was each project in part 2 located and how much money was expended on each project?
Return tabled.


BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Fortin: 1.	For each of the years 1966 and 1967, what was the total number of meeting days of the Boards of Directors of Proprietary Crown Corporations?
2.	With regard to the Board of Directors of each of the Proprietary Crown Corporations (a) how many members are there (b) how many are full-time members (c) how many are part-time members (d) in each case, how much are they paid?
Return tabled.


DESTINATIONS OF IMMIGRANTS
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	For each of the years 1957-68, what was the total number of immigrants who settled in Prince Edward Island and from what countries did such immigrants come?
2.	Since 1966, has the Government of Prince Edward Island made any representations to the Canadian Department of Immigration with a view to assisting the arrival of farm immigrants and, if so, what was the date of such representation?
3.	In the same ten year period as in Part 1, what was the total number of farm immigrants landed in (a) the Maritime Provinces (b) Ontario
(c)	the three Prairie Provinces?
Return tabled.


LANGUAGE QUALIFICATIONS, BUREAU OF STATISTICS EMPLOYEES
Mr. Laiulippe: 1. How many employees are there in each category and grade, in the Bureau of Statistics?
November 13, 1968

2.	Of this number, how many are Frenchspeaking?
3.	How many employees are there earning $12,000 or more and, of this number, how many in each category or class are French-speaking?
4.	During 1967, how many appointments, reclassifications and promotions were made and, of these, how many involved French-speaking employees?
5.	How many employees are there at the head of section level or above and, of these, how many are French -speaking ?
6.	How much was spent in the provision of courses in English and French for these employees and, how many employees took courses in (a) French in 1967 (b) English in 1967?
Return tabled.



MOTION FOR PAPERS

Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be kind enough to call notice of motion No. 19?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.

SIGHTING OF UNIDENTIFIED OBJECT IN 1967 Motion No. 19-Mr. Mather:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all letters, reports, studies or other data in respect to an exchange by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Royal Canadian Air Force, the Department of National Health and Welfare, the Geological Survey of Canada and the National Research Council of Canada regarding the sighting in 1967 by Mr. Steve Michalak of an unidentified flying object.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the National Research Council that on an informal basis they have been soliciting correspondence from individuals throughout Canada on these particular sightings. They have asked that this kind of correspondence not be made the subject of a return in this house. I wonder whether in the circumstances the hon. member would be agreeable to withdrawing his notice of motion.


Mr. Barry Malher (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I would like the motion transferred for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate, pursuant to standing order 47.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRADE



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO WORLD SALES PROSPECTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of fhe-Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but perhaps he will be here later in the afternoon. I would therefore ask the minister of trade and commerce, upon his return to the house, whether he has any good news for the country with regard to the sale of wheat.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In Latin America, or elsewhere in the world?


An hon. Member:: Anywhere.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say now is that the government is doing its utmost to put the Canadian Wheat Board in the best possible position to compete in the world.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, the acting minister of labour and the second acting minister of labour-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Stanley Howard Knowles: ___
may I direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement that has been made of increased efforts to check abuses with respect to the unemployment insurance fund, will similar efforts be made to protect the rights of those who qualify for unemployment insurance to have their benefits continue without overzealous officials applying the availability clause too severely?


Righi Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is now attending I.L.O. meetings in Geneva. I am happy to give to this house the assurance that is demanded by the hon. member.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to ask the Prime Minister a

November 13, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry question which is related to another one put to him a few minutes ago by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
Since many unemployment insurance claimants make false statements due to the fact they are not familiar enough with the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act, would the Prime Minister also ask the Minister of Labour if he intends to invite the Unemployment Insurance Commission to organize an education campaign throughout Canada so that the population will be informed about the Unemployment Insurance Act?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made his representations and I take it for granted that they have been noted.



PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. Having in mind the reported remarks of the Prime Minister the other day in Montreal to the effect that he hopes for a fairer basis for political campaign funds, my question is, can we hope for action at this session of parliament on the report of the committee on election expenses, appointed by the Prime Minister's predecessor in the last parliament?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier in the session, it is the government's hope to be able to deal with all aspects of electoral reform by a reference of the various matters to the standing committee on privileges and elections. The timetable of the committee is such that we hope this matter can perhaps be dealt with early in the new year.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasi-ings):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. On September 13, exactly two months ago, I asked the Prime Minister what the government intended to do in regard to adopting measures to reduce poverty in this country. On that day he answered me in these terms, that he felt
[Mr. Laprise.l
the government's best procedure would be to adopt measures to ensure that inflation is curtailed. My question is as follows. In view of the fact that in each of the two months that have elapsed since that time inflation has increased materially-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In view of that fact, does the government intend to introduce some new measures in the near future to correct the problem of poverty in this country?


Righi Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Well, Mr. Speaker, the measures in the budget are of course directed at curtailing inflation, and they have been debated at some length in the past few days. I am sorry we did not have the whole hearted agreement of the members of the opposition on this, but I am sure they will do their best in other ways to help us fight inflation.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that higher taxes greatly increase the cost of living it is obvious, is it not, that the government intends to do absolutely nothing to curtail something which the Prime Minister has agreed is a national disgrace.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether to direct the question to the Prime Minister or to the Solicitor General, but on October 28 I asked for information regarding Jerry Rubin's entry into Canada. The Solicitor General replied he would look into it. I would ask him in giving a report thereon whether he would say, in view of the Prime Minister's definition and delineation the other evening of the serious menace facing Canada in the prospect of civil anarchy and revolution in the United States, what steps are being taken by the government to prevent such people as Rubin and Stokely Carmichael and other revolutionary riffraff of that kind from coming into Canada and, having done so, thereafter ridiculing the Canadian government for its failure to keep them out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
November 13, 1968


Righi Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, of course our immigration laws are aimed at preventing the entry into Canada of those who would come here with criminal intent, but it is not our view there can be any danger of uprising or strife as a consequence of a free discussion of ideas. It is the cause of unrest which we try to correct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Then I would ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that both Rubin and Carmichael said there should be bloodshed in Canada to change the government, whether in his view that is not against the law when it is uttered by those coming into this country?


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question. In view of the Prime Minister's reply to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, can the Prime Minister tell us if steps were not taken to keep out a minister of the Rhodesian government when he came here to make a speech a short while ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: supplementary question. Would the same principle be applied to a representative of the Rhodesian government who wished to come to Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is
hypothetical.


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask a supplemen-;ary question of the Prime Minister. He has referred in glowing terms to freedom of speech, and I should like to ask him whether he regards the statement made by Stokely Carmichael, "Get out your guns, get all you can and use them", as free speech in Canada of the type we ought to encourage?


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the right hon. gentleman, who has a distinguished record as a lawyer, would ask me to interpret the laws of seditious libel. In my opinion this has not been the case, and I know of no charge of seditious libel having been brought against Mr. Carmichael.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question which I can ask in plain English. Does the Prime Minister feel that those who would overthrow the government of Canada by force should be welcomed in Canada and allowed to speak
Inquiries of the Ministry here? Can he answer that in straightforward language?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Frontenac.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister refused to answer the right hon. member for Prince Albert because he was being asked to interpret the law. I am not asking him to interpret a certain aspect of the law, I am asking him in plain, straightforward, ordinary English whether people who would overthrow this government by force are welcomed here. Would he answer that question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now that the question has been asked in plain, ordinary English, I will ask the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration to answer it in plain, ordinary French.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Forestry and Rural Development):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the policy of the Department of Immigration in this regard is known. I myself explained it in this house and I believe it had also been applied previously. When someone comes here, especially when he is sponsored by a well known organization in Canada, if he only comes to start a public debate and exchange ideas, without any pronounced intention of organizing a revolution or stirring up trouble, then, in the name of the freedom of speech, we allow him across our border.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Would the minister explain how the intentions of the one who goes to the department should be interpreted? Who makes the decisions in this regard?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we do not know the intentions of those who come to Canada.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of

November 13, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry Transport but, in his absence, I shall direct it to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us how far negotiations have progressed as to the transfer of the Winnipeg maintenance base for jet aircraft?


Righi Hon.   P.-E. Trudeau@Prime Minister: I understand that this concerns the Department of Transport, Mr. Speaker.


Bernard Dumont: In the absence of the Minister of Transport, I direct my question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the acting
minister is here.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, actually there is nothing that can be added to the statement made by the Minister of Transport in the house recently.


Bernard Dumont: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Could the $10 million annual deficit for the maintenance of the Winnipeg base be used instead for the Lauzon workers?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio. Will he accept a word of approval rather than criticism, such as he gets from his side of the house, for his efforts to persuade the government to keep its promise to Winnipeg, and will he continue his efforts?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe North.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The
minister was half way up and I believe the minister would like to reply, and I would like an answer.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the alarming statement made a few days ago by the United States National 
Academy of Sciences to the effect that 6 per cent of the drugs now being sold are clinically ineffective and will likely have to be withdrawn from the market, can the minister advise the house whether similar studies have been or are being done in Canada?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows there are studies of this kind going on in Canada, and the food and drug directorate is aware of them. I will advise the hon. member later on this week in the house, as to the further particulars of these studies.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouih-Halifax East):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is checking with the food and drug directorate I wonder if he would determine whether in these studies- because there is a difference here-a close look has been taken at those drugs which are completely ineffective as opposed to the percentage of drugs that are just not up to acceptable clinical levels.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether, following his discussions with the provinces, he feels he is any nearer the realization of the proposed national securities commission and any legislation to bring such a commission forward?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at the meeting which was held almost two weeks ago I think there was a very co-operative and friendly atmosphere among the federal and provincial officials. I believe considerable progress was made by both levels of government in understanding the problems of each other and the need for action at the national level.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell the house whether his officials are following the apparent speculation in so-called junior securities, and whether this is causing him concern in relation to his conception of a national securities commission?
November 13, 1988


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my officials are aware of the situation and of all developments in the market. All these considerations are taken into account in our belief that there should be some form of national administration.



PROVISION OF BOX CARS TO INCREASE DELIVERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who answers for the wheat board. I wonder whether the minister or anyone on his behalf has taken up the problem of spotting box cars at country elevators so the farmers can deliver more than just their initial quotas?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. The report I had this morning from the wheat board was that the railways are co-operating fully with the Canadian Wheat Board in respect of box cars that are required to move grain from country stations to terminal positions. This matter is the subject of daily discussions between the board and the railways throughout the crop year. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no reason to believe that the situation as it is now is abnormal, and as I say I checked with the wheat board this morning.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that on Thursday last he indicated to the house that the terminals are drying grain on a five-day basis only because of shortage of grain at the terminals, would he take up this question with the railways?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I might add to my answer that a few weeks ago there was some slack in the use of drying facilities, because owing to weather conditions shipments were not being made. However, this situation has been improving since then and my answer applied to the situation of today, not of two or three weeks ago.


Stanley James Korchinski: Then may I ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he will take up this problem. Are the terminals drying on a seven day basis?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the inland terminals will be drying on a seven day basis,
Inquiries of the Ministry 24 hours a day, as soon as sufficient quantities of grain in those terminals warrant that kind of operation.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Hugh John Flemming (Carlelon-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Is the minister able to advise the house of any change in the regulations concerning lobster fishing in the bay of Fundy, since the season commences in a day or two?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, the regulations have been amended and the fishermen will be able to leave shore tomorrow morning at 8 a.m. instead of 10 a.m., as previously announced.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON MARKETING POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and at the same time welcome him back from his holiday down south. I wonder when the minister will be prepared to make the statement he promised about three weeks ago, on the marketing of another staple product of the Canadian economy, Atlantic fish. As I said, three weeks ago the minister indicated he was prepared to make a statement, not on the selling of the fish but on the selling of it for a just price.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, before I left I had a conversation with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis). He has now advised me that the house committee on fisheries and forestry is meeting and has had pretty exhaustive discussions on this subject. The committee hearings are going on right now. The hon. member's questions would be raised there.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to differ with the minister's statement. I should still welcome a comment on what is being done by the department, since I am not at all satisfied with the present situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

November 13, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. James A. McGrath (SI. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is similar to the one asked some time ago by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan). What initiatives is the government taking to offset the serious decline in Canadian frozen fish sales on the United States market? That decline is having a disastrous effect on the economy of the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member agrees that since his question is of rather wide scope it ought to be answered by way of a statement on motions.


John Howard Lundrigan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member would have to ask a different question, because I have suggested that the answer to the previous question might be given by way of a statement on motions.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I directed a similar question to the minister three weeks ago. At that time the minister undertook to make a statement to the house the next day regarding the serious decline in the sale of frozen fish on the United States market. As I say, the statement was to be made the next day. That was over three weeks ago. This situation has become so serious and so urgent that I submit we are entitled to demand some sort of statement of policy from the government to ascertain what the government is doing about this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a representation in favour of the minister making a statement on motions. That is precisely what I was suggesting. If the information is to be given it ought to be given on motions and not during the question period.



NATIONAL REVENUE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Revenue-who has an excellent reason for not being in the house this afternoon, since he has to undergo a very serious surgical operation, and I take this

opportunity to wish him a prompt recovery- however, in his absence, I shall put it to his parliamentary secretary.
In view of the substantial quantity of spirits seized during the week-end at Ville Vanier, a suburb of Quebec City, can the Parliamentary Secretary to the hon. Minister of National Revenue tell us whether the officials of the department have made an investigation in order to establish whether the production of alcoholic beverages or spirits of the Melchers distillery is in all respects consistent with the excise duties of the department? Is an investigation being carried out and have the duties been paid?


Mr. Speaker:: I have the impression that the question, as asked, is rather general in character and I suggest to the hon. member that this question should be placed on the order paper.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: At ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker. [English]



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will he tell the house how soon the various items of agricultural legislation passed by this house some time ago, the benefits of which are desperately needed by the farmers, will become law?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the legislation dealing with cash advances has been passed in the other place. I am advised further that Bill C-110 passed through the committee of the Senate yesterday. I am further advised that we can expect royal assent tomorrow to some if not all of these bills.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since some of this legislation has to do with interest rates, may we know when the interest rate is to be determined with the banks with respect to the farm improvement loans legislation?


Edgar John Benson: 

VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister received representations from the president of the Royal Canadian Legion for Nova Scotia regarding cutbacks in services available to veterans at Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax. If so, what action is he taking on the basis of those representations?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not as yet, to my knowledge, received those representations.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I understand he is planning a second trip to Manitoba, to look over Indian health services. Is the minister planning to visit the community townsite of Churchill on this visit?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I visited the hospital at Churchill and I hope to go there again on my return visit.


Robert Simpson: A related question, Mr. Speaker. It has to do with Indian health services and is further to the question the minister took as notice last Wednesday. Will the minister tell the house if his department is circulating among drug stores in British Columbia lists of Indians receiving welfare and entitled, therefore, to free drugs?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that the department makes provision for the issuance of drugs by licensed pharmacists to medically indigent Indians. The initiation of medicare introduced a new element to this plan, including the freedom of choice of pharmacists. Since drugs are not covered under the British Columbia scheme, and because of the mobility of large numbers of the Indian population in that province, it has become necessary to provide druggists with lists of people who are to be issued drugs free of charge, on the understanding that we will assume the costs of such drugs.
Inquiries of the Ministry
The lists used are based on the Indian affairs branch list of people who are indigent. The lists are supplemented by our medical personnel, who add people who may not be on the first list but who are nevertheless considered indigent for medical purposes. We are presently studying means, in my department, of substituting a card system for the present system.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are recipients of the old age pension being included on lists that are circulated among drug stores?


John Carr Munro: Old age recipients may be included if they are considered indigent, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say how often these lists are revised?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder
whether that supplementary question is in order.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Some ten days ago a question arose with regard to the publication in La Presse of certain portions of the yet unreleased report of the royal commission on bilingualism and bieulturalism. Mr. Jean-Louis Gagnon, co-chairman of the commission, said the excerpts were authentic. He, of course, had a former connection with La Presse. Since the Prime Minister suggested he was distressed, has there been an investigation? Has theft been ascertained? If not, has anything been done to ascertain how this information leaked out in such a complete and authentic manner?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as indicated when the question was asked earlier in the session, an investigation was started. I have no report on it as yet. When I have one I will be prepared to answer the question.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister has no report he can easily get one by placing a telephone call. He could call Mr. Gagnon, who might be helpful in that connection.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

November 13, 1968
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AID



NIGERIA-REPORTED ABANDONMENT OF SUPPLIES TO MILITARY FORCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Having regard to the government's insistence that the Red Cross is the most useful channel of humanitarian relief in Nigeria, would the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs investigate charges that the Red Cross is abandoning food, medical supplies and vehicles to military fighting forces in the region?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: I am not sure it would be appropriate for the Canadian government to investigate the Red Cross, but I will see whether inquiries can be made regarding this.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Louis-Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport; in his absence I will direct it to the Minister without Portfolio. Is the federal government engaged in any co-operative negotiations with the provincial government, Lion Ferry, or any United States interests with respect to establishing the proposed Yarmouth-New England ferry?


James Armstrong Richardson: I will take that question as notice.


Louis-Roland Comeau: As the new ship is reported to be a stern loader, will the federal government make the necessary facilities available at Yarmouth to accommodate it?



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: May I ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he can advise the house when the Canadian Wheat Board will authorize country elevator agents to begin issuing the full $6,000 cash advance?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As was intimated a few minutes ago by my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, the relevant bill should be
[Mr. Speaker.!
given royal assent on Thursday. The regulations are ready, but they need to be approved by the cabinet or by a committee of the cabinet. I hope this can be done on Friday. I will do my best to see that it is done.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J. Michael Forrestall: I should like to direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of his sympathetic reply yesterday when questioned about retroactive pay increases to national defence employees, may I ask whether the hon. gentleman has taken advantage of the opportunity to find some more appropriate answer to give these several thousand men as to whether they will get their pay before Christmas?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think I gave an undertaking yesterday to see that the process of payment is advanced as rapidly as possible. As the hon. gentleman probably knows, these pay increases have been the subject of collective bargaining, and certain procedural steps have to be taken before the necessary calculations can be made. This work is being done as quickly as possible, and I am hopeful that these efforts will have a happy outcome.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: My
question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board; it follows one I asked him a week ago. I should like to know whether he has been able to find out if the order in council approving an expenditure of more than $66 million for the C.B.C. building in Montreal has been approved by Treasury Board.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The answer is that Treasury Board has approved the construction of a new headquarters for the C.B.C in Montreal. In connection with the execution of this work, the department concerned forwards submissions from time to time covering the detailed aspects. There is no blanket approval given for total expenditure; it is done in detail.
November 13, 1968


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Are we to understand from the minister's answer that this project has escaped the heavy knife wielded by the Minister of Finance when assessing the priorities to be given all projects of this type in Canada?



PUBLIC BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works, who seems to be somewhat neglected in his new portfolio. Can the minister advise the house whether the Department of Trade and Commerce has moved, or is in the process of moving, from the trade and commerce building on Wellington Street? If so, to what building are they moving, and who will be occupying the old one?


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



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


George James McIlraith: the third reading of Bill No. C-124, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1968, to the 30th day of June, 1969, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and by Air Canada.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-Sl. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, though I was absent from the house during debate on the second reading of this bill I followed with interest the representations made by some of my colleagues with regard to the discontinuance of rail passenger service in Newfoundland and I hope the sincerity and logic of their statements made some impression on the minister responsible.
It becomes increasingly obvious day by day that the people of Newfoundland were made the victims of a railroading-a con game between the provincial government of Newfoundland, which for the first time in its history has remained silent despite the pleas of the vast majority of the people, the municipalities, the labour organizations and
Canadian National Railways other responsible bodies whose right to the normal standard of transportation services will be affected, and the then minister of transport, the transplanted Newfoundlander who was imported into the province for reasons of political expediency to represent one of the districts. This is the man described in Richard Gwyn's book as the minister who devised and piloted through the Commons the epochal National Transportation Act of 1967, creating a $40,000 pullman class job for himself in the process. He is also described by the same author as speaking before a Burns' night audience in Newfoundland with tears in his eyes, crying "You will never know how much I owe you." Brother, how hypocritical can you get? I will tell him what he owes Newfoundlanders, Mr. Speaker: he owes them his conscience.
The only reason the transport commission gave for discontinuing passenger service was the fact that the service was losing $918,000 a year. I say that if the service is losing money it is because of the inefficiency of the management, it is not the fault of the passengers. Whom do you blame in any business, Mr. Speaker, for neglect and lack of efficiency? You blame the boss. And where is he now? The former president of the C.N.R. has a new job as chairman of BRINCO. BRINCO is the only hope Newfoundland has of ever becoming solvent. Yet they put a man in as head of this organization who failed even to operate the railway in Newfoundland at a break-even point, let alone make a profit.
If the Canadian National Railways could not operate the rail passenger service efficiently, how can anyone with any sense of business logic say that the same company can efficiently operate a bus service? Nobody in Newfoundland objects to the introduction of the bus service. Every province has the two sei vices. But when the C.N.R. has demonstrated its lack of efficiency as the operator of a ran passenger service, why take the gamble of going into the bus business to the tune of $950,000 for a start?
Are there not enough bus companies of proven efficiency, already operating at a profit, which are able to take on the franchise for Newfoundland? Are they not the logical ones to take the risk, when it is so obvious that the C.N.R. will most likely operate this venture too at a loss? Why should the people of Canada be taxed still further in this connection? Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask every member sitting in this House of Commons, representatives of the ten provinces of
November 13, 1968

Canadian National Railways Canada, regardless of political affiliation, whether they would stand for such blatant disregard of their constituents.
Perhaps I should tell them that a Canadian National Official in Moncton, headquarters of the company's Atlantic region, had this to say as reported in the Financial Post of June 22: Train travel is well established here . .. passenger revenues increased 63 per cent between 1962 and 1967, even though the red, white and blue plan reduced over-all fare levels. The number of train passengers has increased steadily.
If I were to tell hon. members that there is one town in my constitutency, the town of Howley, which does not even have a connecting road to the highway-the inhabitants would have to swim a mile if they ever wanted to get out in case of need-would they stand for these conditions? Is this justice, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
Would the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), the Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, the premier of Newfoundland and the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) take another trip from Port aux Basques to St. John's, as we six Newfoundland members did and which they refused to do, and talk to the employees of the Newfoundland railway, listen to the statements they make about the deterioration in the maintenance of the passenger service and listen to them tell of the deterioration in the condition of the trains that has been allowed to happen in order to uphold the camouflaged reasons the commission gives for discontinuance of the service? Why is the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo so silent? When his own constituents came out to greet the six federal members from Newfoundland on our arrival at Port aux Basques he was not there. Why did the largest demonstration take place in his constituency to support our cause in protesting the discontinuance of the rail passenger service while we were on our trip across Newfoundland on the Newfoundland Bullet?
Since royal commissions and task forces are the vogue now, why not create a task force to investigate the relevance of our arguments and assess the advisability of this action? Let them look at the terms of confederation and decide whether this action by two or three individuals is justified. Let them decide with a sense of humanity and justice whether this discriminatory act can better serve the people of Newfoundland. But, Mr. Speaker, let this utter disregard for human beings rest on the


conscience of those responsible in the years to come.


Mr. Frank Moores (Bonavisia-Triniiy-Con-ception):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to speak about the operation of the Canadian National Railways, particularly as it has affected the province of Newfoundland. During the year 1966, as has been said in this house before, the national railways even with padded accounts lost some $918,000 in Newfoundland and at the same time lost some $35,900,000 in their total operation in Canada. It seems strange to me that at that time the rail passenger service in Newfoundland was abolished without any consideration given to abolishment of the same rail passenger service in the rest of Canada. The reason given in the case of Newfoundland was that the rail passenger service was losing money. Well, the fact is that rail passenger service loses money in every province in Canada. If a principle is to be applied, it should be applied in the total Canadian context. One could imagine what would happen if the rail passenger service were abolished in the province of Quebec or in the province of Ontario. I do not think the federal government would be allowed to get away with that.
The C.N.R. should change its name to the C.M.R. It is no longer a national service; it is the Canadian mainland railway. Newfoundland has been placed on the system's expendable list. Newfoundland passengers have been downgraded below livestock, the service has been reduced and the public is expected to conform to the utility rather than the utility trying to meet the needs of the public. With the C.N.R.'s attitude in Newfoundland, as the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) mentioned, we have
39-	seat buses plus one lavatory. Knowing the C.N.R.'s philosophy as it applies to Newfoundland I expect they will probably be billed as
40-	passenger buses.
First of all, it is not a matter which involves only the people who travel from St. John's to Port aux Basques. People now using the rail passenger service come from the more isolated areas not near the trans-Canada highway. They come from places such as Bonavista and must travel some 75 to 80 miles in order to get to the trans-Canada highway. How are these people to be serviced in the winter? The roads are nearly impassable in the summer and certainly will be closed for most of the winter season. Must these people suffer and be unable to travel because of the decision of one man in the
November 13, 1968

transport commission? This man, Mr. Pick-ersgill, was very friendly to Newfoundland over the years. He and the premier of Newfoundland were known as the original wheeler-dealers for Newfoundland. While the premier of Newfoundland was popularly considered the wheel when spending money in Newfoundland, Mr. Pickersgill was an intricate part of the wheel, in fact the hub, and a self-greasing hub at that.
This man, Mr. Pickersgill, who owes Newfoundland so much is the same man who through his political acumen created in his own fashion a job at $40,000 a year. One could also say, regarding Mr. Pickersgill's attitude, that not only was he self-appointed to that job but that his attitude toward Newfoundland has been that of someone who has been self-anointed. In the years when Mr. Pickersgill and Mr. Smallwood were in their heyday we must realize just how the operation worked. We had the king of the pork barrel in Ottawa, the man who made the pork barrel work, dipping in and taking out the big slices of pork and slinging them down a very carnivorous gullet, Mr. Smallwood at the other end, who devoured it at the expense of the Newfoundland people. One could say that certain Newfoundlanders go fat from overeating. The great majority are now at the point of starvation because of the attitude of a few.
We have been renowned in Newfoundland during the past years for all kinds of deals. We have had tax deals, promotional deals and cost plus deals. This is the type of government we have had at the expense of the people of Newfoundland. We have poverty in Newfoundland that people in this house would find it difficult to conceive and now, to top it all off, we have the railway deal. If all the roads to the stations other than those on the trans-Canada highway were brought up to standard and paved, then possibly we would be getting something in return for the abandonment of the rail passenger service. But are we to have something taken away and replaced by something better? No. We are to have just another example of the federal government taking something away from the have-not provinces with no respect or consideration for regional disparity and no respect for human decency.
It is high time this government abandoned its bits and pieces approach to the affairs of Newfoundland and adopted a comprehensive, long range program aimed at bringing the tenth province fully into confederation. Basic
Canadian National Railways to any such co-ordinated plan is transportation. A modern and widespread transportation network is essential in creating and maintaining the diversified industry necessary for the economic rehabilitation of Newfoundland. An efficient and effective transportation system is essential to the development and expansion of Newfoundland's great basic industries of fishing and forestry. In the circumstances that exist, only the C.N.R. is available for the creation of such a transportation system. It is one of the many minor tragedies of modern Newfoundland that this national, publicly owned system is being forced to operate within the narrow confines of private business and thus being compelled inevitably to give profit priority over people.
Perhaps the greatest tragedy is the poverty of spirit and absence of imagination on the part of this government that permits a great instrument for national development to atrophy while Newfoundland's real need goes unnoticed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this bill, C-124, includes among other things provision for loans and other arrangements to assist Air Canada in meeting its obligations. This is the third reading stage of the bill. It is not automatic that we debate all third readings but because of a development of the last day or two I feel I should take a few minutes of the time of the house to say something with regard to the obligations of Air Canada. What I have in mind was previewed in the question that I put to the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) on orders of the day this afternoon, namely, the promise of the Liberal government, when Mr. Pearson was prime minister, to the people of Winnipeg that the maintenance and overhaul base would stay there at least until 1973.
As some hon. members are aware-certainly the people of Winnipeg are very much aware of it today-one of the members on the other side, the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Rock), has been quoted as criticizing, in fact condemning, the Minister without Portfolio for his efforts to persuade the government of which he is a member to keep the base at Winnipeg. As I said, using a question as a means of saying it, I think the Minister without Portfolio should be commended rather than criticized for trying to persuade the government to keep its promise in this respect.
November 13, 1968

Canadian National Railways
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
As a matter oi fact, I want to say categorically that I believe the first thing which should be respected in this whole dispute or problem is the pledged word of the then prime minister of Canada. May I make it clear that the fact we have a different government and a different Prime Minister does not alter the situation. I point out that this is not just an assertion of mine. Indeed, when this matter was the subject of questioning on the floor of the house on Friday, November 1, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Helly-er) referred to the commitment made by the previous prime minister to the people of Winnipeg and made it very clear that the commitment still stands.
Lest anyone thinks I am paraphrasing I should like to read a bit from page 2298 of Hansard for Friday, November 1. We were on the orders of the day and after three or four other questions had been asked, indeed seven or eight other questions, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) put this supplementary question:
Would the minister give an assurance to the people of Winnipeg, as well as to the employees in question, that the pledge given by right hon. Lester Pearson, then Prime Minister of Canada, is going to be carried out?
The response to that question by the Minister of Transport reads as follows:
Yes, Mr. Speaker. That commitment which was given by the former prime minister, and which was subsequently reiterated by me in Winnipeg, still stands.
It could not be stated any more clearly than that. I suggest that all of the arguments about the surveys and the reports of the experts have to take second place to the pledged word or there is just no way in which we can carry on. I might add to this that I find it pretty hard to take for the hon. member for Lachine and others to act as though Winnipeg is trying to take something away from Montreal, something that somehow or other belongs to Montreal. No one who looks at this objectively could swallow that line. This is a base that belongs to Winnipeg. Winnipeg is where Air Canada started in the old T.C.A. days. It is the retention of something that belongs to the people of Winnipeg which we feel we are seeking when we ask the government to see to it that the base stays there.
I recognize the right and responsibility of the management of Air Canada to look at these things in economic terms and decide


what is best in the pure economic sense, but when it comes to national policy such as placing industry round the country and coping with employment and unemployment in different areas, I submit that the government has a particular responsibility. If that responsibility involves a subsidy, and I question this despite all the reports that some people have made to this effect, it is up to the government to give it.
As I say, I am not going to take the time to go into all of the arguments back and forth on this issue. I just want to say that when we who come from Winnipeg, and I believe I am speaking for all members from Winnipeg- even if I am speaking for them I hope some of the others will get up and say it too-say we cannot accept the idea that we are trying to take something away from somebody else we do so because we are trying to do no such thing. We want something which we believe is ours and which the then prime minister of Canada said would stay at Winnipeg and would not be taken away from us.
I suppose my question to the Minister without Portfolio on orders of the day was a bit rhetorical. Perhaps it implied its own answer.
I would be grateful if he would take the opportunity in this debate on third reading, as I would be grateful if other members from Winnipeg would say a few words, of rising and saying that he agrees with me. I should be grateful if the hon. member for Winnipeg South, who happens to be that Minister without Portfolio, would take this opportunity. He deserves to be commended rather than criticized by a fellow Liberal member for taking the stand he has taken, namely, that the pledge or promise of the government of Canada should be maintained. I hope that Liberal members and other members of the house might take the same position.
I know we have had this issue before us in the house on occasions without number over the past several years. It goes back over the regimes of two or three governments. Normally, as I say, one would not raise this on the third reading of this kind of a bill, but it is of tremendous concern to the employees of Air Canada in my city and to all the people of Winnipeg that certain things are now being said, and I felt that the situation should be outlined in this more correct light.
I again offer my commendation to the hon. member for Winnipeg South for trying to persuade the government to maintain its pledge. Again I repeat that the first consideration which should be respected in this whole
November 13, 1968

matter is the pledged word of the government which are those words of the present Minister of Transport, spoken by the former prime minister and subsequently reiterated by him in Winnipeg. He said on Friday, November 1, that the commitment still stands. We insist that it be kept.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the other side of the C.N.-A.C. credit card. Last week I asked the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson) as the acting minister of transport whether the government has any intention of allowing carriers other than Air Canada to increase their service in and out of Edmonton to compensate for the loss in service resulting from Air Canada's winter schedule. The minister made it clear that these decisions were under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission. He said they would be reviewed by that body.
Upon checking my facts again I asked the minister a few days ago if he would clarify the role of the commission regarding air line schedules. I make the point now that air line scheduling is the prerogative of the air line involved, not of the Canadian Transport Commission. However, the minister again told the house that the commission has responsibility for air line schedules and by this he implied that the commission has the authority to approve or disapprove of changes thereto. I am sure the minister did not deliberately mislead the house, but again I make the point that the air line decides on the amount of service given to a particular city, not the Canadian Transport Commission.
The minister said a few days ago that the commission will be reviewing Air Canada's winter schedule to Edmonton. As of this afternoon the commission had no such plans.
Air Canada is Canada's national air line. It is owned, financed and supported by the taxpayers of Canada. It reports to parliament through the Department of Transport, not through Mr. Pickersgill or his commission. If the minister is aware of facts that are not at my disposal I would appreciate it if he could clarify the role of the commission with regard to its involvement in air line schedule changes. It is my information that the commission does not have to approve such changes.
I should like to ask the minister whether he will in the near future make representations to the management of Air Canada to restore service in and out of Canada to its previous level. I need not point out that Edmonton is
Canadian National Railways the capital city of the province of Alberta and I have the honour to represent in this house a number of its citizens.
It appears to me that Edmonton is not going to get too far with Air Canada until we have some representation on the C.N.-A.C. board of directors. Since one of the members from southern Alberta has recently resigned from this board over the disagreement regarding the appointment of Mr. Seagrim, perhaps there may be some hope now for Edmonton representation. It is important that Alberta have proper representation, that appointments are not made as political rewards and that elderly persons are not added to this already ponderous board. We need some young blood to stimulate the old.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The treatment being accorded Edmonton by Air Canada is a disgrace. The Edmonton-Van-couver service has been reduced from 38 flights to 28 flights a week, and seating capacity from 4,200 to 2,900. Edmonton has only one direct dayline flight to Toronto. The Edmonton-Winnipeg service has been reduced from 42 flights a week in summer to 28 flights, and the seating capacity is down to 2,320 seats from 3,330. The government has shown no concern about protests from business, industry and the Alberta Aviation Council. The new winter schedule is a blow to the city of Edmonton and an insult by Air Canada and this government to the capital city of Alberta. If Air Canada cannot provide a reasonable service there is only one thing to do-let C.P.A. come in and do the run on a daily basis.
Again I say, Mr. Speaker, that we had the spectacle of the minister from Winnipeg hiding behind the coat-tails of the transportation commission and attempting to test the credulity of this house with the statement that the transport commission was responsible for setting the schedule. This is ridiculous. He knows as well as I do that the schedule is set by Air Canada, and he knows that Air Canada has cut back on the service to Edmonton residents deliberately and of its own volition. If people in Edmonton want to get any kind of service to the United States they are now forced to fly to Winnipeg first. Now we have the Minister without Portfolio making sure that Winnipeg is well taken care of, while Edmonton is being neglected. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who has the nominal responsibility in this regard, is so busy running round the country that he has no time to look after his own responsibilities
November 13, 1968

Canadian National Railways
The new winter schedule, which deprives Edmonton of service to which it is entitled on past performance, is causing harm to the city's economic expansion. At a time when air travel to and from Edmonton has been expanding at a rapid rate, Air Canada comes along and reduces the facilities. No reason has been given, because no reason can be given. I am asking the Minister without Portfolio and the Minister of Transport, when he returns, to put prejudice aside and reopen this question so that Edmonton will be given the service to which it is entitled. Failing that, the ministers can lend support to the granting of a daily flight plan to Canadian Pacific Airlines, who at least are willing to provide reasonable service if Air Canada is not.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in the debate on third reading of Bill C-124 I am very conscious of the fact that just a few days ago some of us spoke extensively on the resolution stage of the bill and asked a number of questions at the committee stage. I am very much aware of the fact that it is not usual, especially on a bill of this nature, to debate third reading. But the circumstances that prompt some of us to rise are also unusual. It is not every day that the government of this country condones a move on the part of two of its agencies, the Canadian Transport Commission and the C.N.R., to totally abandon rail passenger service in a whole province of this country. I submit that the circumstances are unusual, and consequently we feel obliged to make a few remarks on third reading of this bill.
I note again with regret, as have some of my colleagues, the absence from the house of the Minister of Defence Production (Mr. Jamieson), the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. He has at no time indicated an interest in this subject save for a few remarks during the course of his speech in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. At that time he tried, in a very inadequate way, to defend the action of the C.N.R. and the Canadian Transport Commission, and in effect implied that the government of which he is a member was prepared to stand behind this unjust decision.
I wonder where the Minister of Defence Production, who sits in this house as the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, would be if tomorrow Canadian National Railways decided they were going to abolish the coastal service in Newfoundland. The Minister of Defence Production knows better than anybody in this

house what the consequences of such a move would be for the people it is his responsibility to represent here. The Newfoundland coastal service is absolutely essential to the people of the south coast of the province, whom the Minister of Defence Production represents in this house. Yet this is the next step in what we consider to be the total abandonment of Canadian National Railways services in the province of Newfoundland. We consider that the rail abandonment is merely the first step in a program of complete abandonment: first, the passenger service, second the coastal service and third the freight service. Then the C.N.R. transportation services will be gone completely.
We reiterate the point we made in the house two weeks ago, that until this becomes national policy, until it becomes the policy of the government of Canada to allow Canadian National Railways to abandon their train services in all the other provinces of Canada, we will oppose it. My submission, which is inherent in this whole question, relates to the entire concept of public transportation. Public transportation made this country what it is. I believe it is a well known fact that before any segment of the public transportation system of this country can be abandoned the people who depend on that particular segment must show, and show conclusively, that they no longer need the service and in fact that they no longer want it.
In my humble submission the opposite is true of Newfoundland. When the transport commission opened its hearings in St. John's, briefs were presented to the commission in opposition to the C.N.R. application. I know of no brief that was presented which supported the application of Canadian National Railways. Since that time petitions have been circulated throughout the province of Newfoundland. These petitions contain hundreds and hundreds of names of people from all walks of life. As a matter of fact, since we on this side of the house rose to speak a few days ago my colleagues and myself have received telegrams, letters and communications from every segment of Newfoundland's population including, I might add, most of the labour unions in that province. This is why I note with regret the fact that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and his colleagues failed to rise and support us in this house. At the present time an appeal has been lodged against the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission
November 13, 1968
allowing Canadian National Railways to abandon its train services. That appeal was initiated, I believe, by the Newfoundland Federation of Labour, with whom the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleagues profess to have some sympathy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I wonder whether he realizes that the only reason we did not rise and speak of this issue was that we thought he and his colleagues were doing such an excellent job. We are right behind you. Keep it up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, that is the type of loaded question for which the hon. member is so well known. Nevertheless, we accept his implied support and hope he will give us some vocal support before this bill receives third reading. It is not my intention to take up the time of the house, but there is one very important point that I feel is germane to the debate and important in this whole question. It is that during the last federal election, when the six of us who sit on this side of the house stood for election in the province of Newfoundland one of the main planks in our platform was the retention and upgrading of the rail passenger service in Newfoundland. The people of my province proved conclusively by their votes-two-thirds of them supported our party and sent six members here to manifest that support-that they wanted to retain the rail passenger service in Newfoundland. It was in effect a plebiscite which said to the government of Canada, to the Canadian Transport Commission and to the Canadian National Railways:	we want to
keep our rail passenger service.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I further submit that the government of Canada has an obligation, in respect of this important segment of the public transportation system, to listen to the voice of the people. The people of Newfoundland have proved by their mandate on June 25, by their briefs submitted to the transport commission, by their letters and telegrams, and by their appeal now lodged with the transport commission, that they want to retain the rail transport system in Newfoundland. In fact, they not only want to retain it but they want it upgraded. They want a service equal to the service enjoyed by Canadians in other provinces of Canada.
Canadian National Railways
The point has been well made that in very few provinces of Canada where Canadian National Railways operates rail passenger services does it come anywhere near to operating in the black. As a matter of fact, I think it is fair to say most if not all of them, apart from some of the main interurban services, operate at a substantial loss.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I submit through you to the government of Canada that it has a solemn obligation to uphold the spirit of the terms of the union, in particular to uphold the spirit of term 29 and the letter of term 31 dealing with this important aspect. I serve notice now on the government through you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland intend to see to it that they get justice in this matter.


Mr. Roland Godin (Porlneuf):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of our consideration of Bill No. C-124, you will allow me, I hope, to point out certain deficiencies in the administration of the C.N.R.
We all know that, originally, the C.N.R. took special pains to provide services in areas lacking in adequate transport facilities. Unfortunately, the closing down of several stations proves that the main reason for the founding of this company is being completely ignored. Stations are closed down in the interest of a greater centralization. I am not against the closing down of stations which have no reason for being kept open, but only against the unjustified disappearance of economically viable stations. In view of the fact that in the province of Quebec and in Newfoundland there are still important villages which have no paved road linking them with other parts of the country, in my opinion these stations should be most definitely maintained.
The C.N.R. services in those localities are not only essential but they could also make money, in my opinion, since there is practically no competition.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to re-examine carefully the centralization plans of the C.N.R. In my opinion, too much centralization can lead to the operating deficits that we know, to say nothing of the displacement of a number of workers who are the real victims.
I would like to mention here the fate of telegraph operators in particular. Several of those agents are called upon to do all types of work, except that for which they were trained. Those station agents are displaced

November 13, 1968

Canadian National Railways without their many years of service being taken into account. Stations are closed down without taking into account the accidents which can happen following the lack of traffic experts.
Men trained for the maintenance of tracks are dismissed, and those who are kept by the company are transferred to the maintenance of extended sections, sometimes twice as long as what they are humanly able to look after. The great number of accidents which occurred recently are the result of this new centralization policy. In fact, if one goes back to the past, damages caused by the derailment which happened in December 1966 at Riviere-a-Pierre, when 25 cars ran off the line, amounted to $1.5 million.
A train went off the track in the county of Kamouraska and following an investigation and an examination of certain important parts of the cars, we were informed that there were not enough maintenance men. In fact, trains do not stop long enough to be checked.
Two trains ran into one another in Drum-mondville, and the cause of this accident is still unknown. A few days later, in Ontario, two trains collided on the same track; the cause of the accident is unknown to date.
Mr. Speaker, air companies sometimes lose airplanes which crash on mountains or fall in the sea. When he learns of such a loss no member of the house, no citizen is surprised.
But when one learns that the Canadian National lost a train between Quebec and Montreal, for instance, one is entitled to wonder.
Mr. Speaker, I once was on a train which got lost between Montreal and Ottawa during the 1967 winter. This Canadian National train which was going to Ottawa, was switched on a C.P.R. track. It ran for eight miles before being traced. There were 250 people abroad, among whom were several members of the house. For the information of those who would doubt my word, I suggest that they inquire further about this of a former official of the Post Office Department, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), who was with us on that day. He will be able to tell you that we arrived in Ottawa forty-five minutes late.


An hon. Member:: They never knew where they were going.


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to recall the danger to which we are exposed

when we board C.N.R. trains. Excessive centralization, curtailment of staff at the wrong places-


Mr. Ouellei:: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hon. member for Papineau wishes to direct a question to the hon. member for Portneuf.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member for Portneuf whether he is in the process of charging C.N.R. officials with an attempt to lead astray a group of creditiste members?


Roland Godin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that, at that time, we were not very many in this house, and that the hon. member is no doubt mistaken, even though once more he had a majority on board the train.
Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, the curtailment of the staff at the wrong places warrants an investigation, because in certain areas the staff has been reduced to the point where it is dangerous to travel on board C.N.R. trains.
And while the government, in order to promote the development of foreign countries, provides millions of dollars earmarked for road and railway construction, the Canadian people witness a decrease in services, under the pretence of economy. Less fortunate countries are developed by improving the railroads, but to develop Canada, to achieve a just society, services previously given are decreased.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, jobs as station agents in rural areas and in small towns are being done away with, and this constitutes a real problem. In fact, it is not realized that no money is saved because those positions are transformed into city jobs, in the large centres, for the whiteheaded boys. Recently I met a station master who still has his job, in spite of it all. He explained to me that, in the one day, he had had to render accounts to three inspectors.
In view of numerous deficits, notwithstanding successive presidents at the head of this company, in view of the patronage at the hiring level, in view-and I repeat it-of massive lay-offs, numerous accidents with loss of life, many differences in freight rates, and in special rates granted to companies that contribute to the election funds, there is serious reason for concern.
November 13, 1968
I wonder whether the minister would not take these problems into consideration and, if he is not in a position to give us an answer today-which I doubt, for he probably does not have all the data on hand-whether he might not order an inquiry to establish whether it might not be advisable to define the obligations of this crown corporation towards the public. I therefore ask the hon. minister to study this question and perhaps, when the estimates of his department come up for study, he can give an answer to the problems I have just pointed out.


Mr. Joseph Philippe Guay (Si. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to tell you first of all, as I am sure you are aware, that this is not my maiden speech. I am keeping that for a more appropriate moment. But I feel it is very important that I stand up today and support not the policy of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) but rather what he has said pertaining to the necessity for maintaining the Air Canada overhaul base in our province.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I believe, as many others have said, that it should be clearly understood and emphasized, even repeated many times if necessary, that we are not taking anything away from Montreal or Quebec when we request the minister to give consideration to retaining the base in Winnipeg. We are not taking anything away from them; rather, we are trying to hang on to something we have. We are just like a man falling into a pool; we are trying to hang on to something. We are hoping that someone will give us a handout rather than take from us something which maintains life in our area. It is therefore vital that consideration be given to retaining the maintenance base.
I think we are all aware that when the railways came into the west people said that was a lost cause. However, the money that was expended to establish the railways in the west was of benefit to all Canadians and certainly helped the development of western Canada. The same consideration should apply in the case of our keystone province. I believe all members should give consideration to this problem and studies should be undertaken to determine the potential of our keystone province in respect of the development of air travel.
Canadian National Railways
We are also conserned about the employees who have been with Air Canada since its inception. Many of these employees have worked for Air Canada for years in the hope they would be able to remain with their families in our province and in the greater Winnipeg area. Many of these employees would not be in a position to accept a transfer even if they desired to do so. It would be very difficult for them to move outside of our province.
There is another aspect of this problem that many of us are not considering when we are asking the government to retain the maintenance base in Winnipeg. I refer to the position of the suppliers. The employees of these suppliers are almost as numerous as the Air Canada employees and the removal of the base would have a terrific economic effect on the greater Winnipeg area. Today I should like to ask for the support of all those who are in favour of retaining the base in Winnipeg. While I am not going into all the details of our reasons for desiring that the base be maintained in western Canada, I want to emphasize that we are not taking anything away from anyone. We are only asking the government to leave with us what we have. In other words, we want the Air Canada base to remain in the greater Winnipeg area.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I should like to voice briefly my objection to certain remarks made earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) according to whom the Minister without Portfolio has been criticized by some of his colleagues in the Liberal party.
I must congratulate the Minister without Portfolio on the work he is doing and I must assure this house, and in particular the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that the minister is not being criticized in the least for the stands he has taken. On the contrary, several members of the province of Quebec and, in particular, of the Montreal area made representations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer) and to the Minister without Portfolio concerning the construction of the international airport in Montreal and the Air Canada maintenance base in Winnipeg.
In spite of the accusations made by a union leader of the Q.F.L. the members of the Montreal area, far from taking no interest in the matter, have followed it closely. They have been active in this field for some time now. They may have done so without fuss, without calling press conferences and making

November 13, 1968

Canadian National Railways statements as seems to be the habit of a certain union leader, but they have taken up the matter with the ministers concerned and with officials of the Transport Department. We hope that the decisions taken in the past by Air Canada directors concerning the Winnipeg maintenance base-and taken not for reasons of political patronage but for reasons of economy-will be maintained.
We appreciate the co-operation shown by the government and in particular by the Minister without Portfolio who, we have been told earlier, is being criticized. I must say that the minister is not criticized in the least. We believe that, in the next few months, a solution should be found that takes into account the recommendations of a commission of inquiry which could also find a solution to the Winnipeg problem.
Before I bring my remarks to a close, I should like to point out that on several occasions here the opposition criticized the Minister of Transport for being absent from the house. I should like to remind you that last year, in the month of October, the opposition presented a motion of non confidence against the government precisely because it believed there was no minister responsible for housing problems.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Although the government is dealing actively with these problems, although a minister is going around the country and looking determinately for a solution to the serious housing problems, the opposition is still not satisfied.
On the contrary, all the members of the house should pay tribute to the hon. minister and member for Trinity for his excellent work. In addition to the extremely important work he is doing in housing, he continues to assume his responsibilities in transportation, where he is ably assisted by the member for Winnipeg South and Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Richardson).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) wishes to put a question to the hon. member for Papineau.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I shall allude to the situation the member spoke of at the end of his speech, when he said that the Minister of Transport was not here often and that the opposition criticized him for it. Might the absence of the minister
[Mr. Ouellet.)
not be due at times to the reasons the member for Portneuf mentioned a while ago? Might it be that he gets lost aboard some train or other?


Mr. Loiselle:: What a crazy question.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, a question was put to me. I feel I have the right to answer it-


An hon. Member:: No, it is not worth it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The question is out of order.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member has just made a slightly foolish remark, in the style of those of the Ral-liement Creditiste representatives, those who get lost on trains-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


René Matte: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


André Ouellet: There is none-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please.


René Matte: My question might be funny, Mr. Speaker, and I agree quite candidly, but it jolly well completes the question that the hon. member had asked to the hon. member for Portneuf.


An hon. Member:: Stupid.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. There is no question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would the hon. member for Papineau accept my thanks for the comments he made about the situation at Winnipeg, and will he see that a copy of his remarks gets into the hands of the hon. member for Lachine to offset his criticism of the Minister without Portfolio?


André Ouellet: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I did not understand the hon. member's question very well, because another member of the Ralliement Creditiste was again filibustering and speaking while the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was asking me a question.
November 13, 1968


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question was in two parts. Would the hon. member accept my thanks for the things that he said about the situation in Winnipeg, and will he see that a copy of his remarks gets into the hands of hon. member for Lachine?


André Ouellet: I hope that the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Rock) will read my remarks in the official report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: So
do I.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I want to take but a few moments to outline to the house what I believe is a very shortsighted approach by the railways in connection with the relatively new potash industry in western Canada. By way of background, I want to inform the house as to the size of the industry at the moment and how large it is expected to become in years to come.
The potash industry, though relatively new, is rapidly overtaking the production of the entire world. The industry is centred in the province of Saskatchewan and has an adequate supply for something like 1,000 years. In other words, there is for the railways a potential market in the transport of potash. Although there are approximately only ten mines, by the year 1969 these will overtake Russia in production. By that year about 5.4 million tons of potash will be produced in Saskatchewan. Eight years from now world production will double from 16 million to 31 million tons. However, owing to overproduction in the last two years the industry is going through a very critical period. In the year 1971 the supply of potash will exceed the demand by 33 per cent.
Several factors have brought this situation about. As I have said, one is overproduction. In addition, new mines have been opened. There is a need, first of all, to educate countries on the use of fertilizers. Many countries lack the necessary resources. However, by 1977 supply and demand should level out.
I believe that the railway companies are, as it were, missing the boat in regard to transporting the products of this industry. As a result of the overproduction to which I have referred, mines have had to cut back on their production. They are operating at something like 20 per cent under capacity. Therefore
Canadian National Railways they are looking for economies, and one area they are exploring is that of transportation.
I might point out that it costs between $9 to $16 a ton to move the potash produced to the central markets of North America. It costs $9 a ton to transport it to Pacific ports, with an additional $29 a ton for ocean freight. However, these companies have been negotiating with United States railway companies, which have taken up the challenge that Canadian railway companies cannot seem to meet, and the Great Northern Railway has accepted the concept of unit train loading.
At the present time, I.M.C. mines at Ester-hazy are using trucks to transport their production of potash from the mine sites to Northgate in the United States where it is loaded on to United States unit trains for transportation to the Chicago-Minneapolis-St. Paul areas. It seems passing strange that railway companies operating in Canada, with rail beds laid and rolling stock available in an area of potential business for years to come, cannot see their way clear to transport the products of this industry, if not at a profit, at least at a rate sufficient to balance their books for the next few years until it does become profitable.
I do not see why any mining company should decide after a few years to revert to transporting its production by rail when it has been operating a fleet of trucks to move production to the United States border whence it is hauled by U.S. railway companies. Neither do I see why the U.S. railway companies should surrender the business, having operated their unit trains apparently at a profit. I understand that the potash industry is at present saving by this method something like $5 a ton, so surely there must have been room for a little leeway on the part of the railways.
I should like to refer to a very timely article that appeared in the Monetary Times for this month. Part of it reads as follows:
According to R. W. Puder, I.M.C. vice-president in charge of materials management at Skokie, 111., the decision to establish the truck operation was the direct result of the failure to negotiate satisfactory arrangements with Canadian railways which, he says, refuse to accept the unit train concept.
I have already indicated that Saskatchewan has 1,000 years' supply of potash. Apparently the trucking company transporting this potash is making a profit; otherwise I presume it would not do it. Also the U.S. railway companies must be making a profit or they would not be interested. Yet our own railway companies do not have the foresight to retain

2704	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways this business for the next seven or eight years if necessary until world production equals world demand, at which time they could make a profit. The Canadian railway companies are quite prepared to cut down railway service in various parts of Canada, abandon railway lines in other places and raise freight rates, but they are not prepared to seek new business that obviously has tremendous potential. This leads me to suspect there has been some shortsighted and very short range thinking on the part of the railways. They have never indicated what the explanation is.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In addition, what is to happen to the railway town of Melville? It has always been a railway town. The employees will have to move and find other jobs because the train service is to be abandoned. Present services will be dislocated and the potential for growth will be curtailed. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the railway companies do not wish to give the town any backing. They consider that in that area they have a captive market and they will not reduce freight rates from Churchill, even though the result may be that freight cars return empty. The railway companies do not seem to have been clear in their thinking since they obviously prefer then-cars to be loaded going one way and to return empty. That does not make sense.
I said I would be brief, and I do not want to detain the house any longer. Nevertheless we must have some explanation from the railways about the immediate losses of business being suffered as well as those business losses that will be suffered in the years to come. Railway revenues will drop. Every year the I.M.C. people will move out something like 1,200,000 tons, saving in the process $5 per ton. And this amount is to be moved at medium production levels. What is to happen later? We must hear an explanation from the railways as to their thinking on this matter and why they are giving this business to United States railway companies. Why can trucking companies make a profit when our railways cannot see their way clear to continue under present conditions?


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed not only at the support we have had within our own party, which is to be expected, but at the support we have had also from Liberal members of the house. I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) who spoke last Thursday or Friday, as well

DEBATES	November 13, 1968
as the remarks of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau).
To judge from the remarks of hon. members this afternoon, though matters such as this are seldom debated the present C.N.R. financing bill would have great difficulty in passing through the house if we had the full co-operation of all those who are interested. Quite a few of my friends in the Liberal party have expressed support for the maintenance of the Canadian National passenger service in Newfoundland. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said that Newfoundland has six Conservative members of parliament-


An hon. Member:: Six good Conservative members.


John Howard Lundrigan: -and that a major plank in their electoral platform was the maintenance and upgrading of the C.N.R. passenger service. The hon. member for St. John's East referred to the voice of the people, an interesting phrase. It is the key to the entire democratic system of the western world. The voice of the people ultimately makes itself heard through the representatives of the people in governments at various levels. Clearly the Canadian Transport Commission and its captain have not paid attention to the voice of the people. Still, that is characteristic of the present government.
The six Conservative members of parliament from Newfoundland were given a mandate or a vote of confidence, if you like, to make sure that our rail passenger services are continued and upgraded in quality. Not too many months ago we travelled across the island of Newfoundland in order to gather support for the continuance of our passenger service. Our people gave us tremendous support, and in almost every community it was the same story.
The Canadian Transport Commission or its subsidiary, the rail transport committee, held hearings in Newfoundland. After reading the report of the hearings I find it difficult to see on what the commission based its decision. Nobody agreed with the abandonment of our rail passenger service, and I want to remind the members of the commission of that fact. Almost everyone who appeared before the commission was totally in favour of maintaining our rail passenger service. In fact, on our tour of Newfoundland we saw many indications that the people supported the maintenance of this public service. That was the voice of the people speaking in support of that service.
November 13, 19S8

If Captain Jack Pickersgill of the commission were sitting opposite me this afternoon I might show him this petition which has appended to it 2,448 names. That fact deserves to be noticed. We have had telegrams from just about every union, every community and every organized group. We have heard from literally dozens of communities. On November 1 Conservative members of parliament spoke in support of maintaining our rail passenger service. On November 4 I received a petition from the transport commission employees union, and if I had time I would read the preamble. As I have said, 2,448 people from right across Newfoundland, from the communities that will be affected, put their names on that petition. They do not want rail passenger service to be abandoned. That is the kind of reaction we have had in Newfoundland.
Time does not permit me to speak of all the support we have had in Newfoundland. The people of Newfoundland know that the abandonment of their rail passenger service would have tragic consequences for their economy. We want our transport system to be upgraded and not abolished. I am not against Jack Pickersgill earning $40,000 a year. I do not mind when a man tries to build himself up through the winter and make a living for his family.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am not against most of his commissioners, the autocrats and bureaucrats making $24,000 a year and up. I am not against people making a good living; I think people ought to make a good living. After all, are we not living in the new just society? I hear no applause from the right hon. leader of the rump.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Howard Lundrigan: But I am against having our passenger service abolished merely to justify the existence of another bureaucratic body. That is what it amounts to. It is costing the government $1 million a year to keep the Canadian Transport Commission in funds; it is also costing it $1 million a year to provide rail passenger service in Newfoundland. Clearly, by removing the rail service the government can afford to maintain the commission.
I serve notice to the captain of that commission and his $24,000 a year men that they should take heed of the words uttered by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Canadian National Railways Diefenbaker) some time ago, that it is a long road that does not have any ash cans.
o (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take up the time of the house and I do not rise, like my friends from Newfoundland, to bury a dead horse. I would rather revive certain projects which are dear to the people of Madawaska and to the congenial people of the Victoria riding which I represent.
I intend to speak only for a few minutes on the passenger-train service which has been provided to us since the spring of 1967 by the Canadian National between Moncton, Ed-mundston and Montreal. It is important to mention here that this passenger train which was made available to the people living along that railway line was cancelled from another line linking Moncton to Montreal through Campbellton, the Matapedia Valley, Riviere-du-Loup, and Quebec.
Nevertheless, this other railway line is already provided with a passenger service, so that we now have on both sides of the province trains going to Montreal, Halifax or Sydney, Nova Scotia.
But, since the Canadian National saw fit to grant passenger services to the people living in Madawaska, Victoria, Carleton and York counties, I think it would be equally important for the C.N. authorities to consider providing such a service at more suitable hours. Otherwise, there is no reason at all for ensuring that service since it is not suitable at present.
The train leaving Edmundston at 11.35 p.m. arrives in Montreal at 7.30 a.m. the following morning, Edmundston time, according to the winter schedule. Nevertheless, the return train to Moncton leaves Montreal station at about 4.15 p.m. and arrives in Edmundston in the middle of the night, at about 2.15 a.m. What is most annoying is that as the train pulls in, the engines have to refuel, which means that passengers often have to wait for more than 10 minutes before being able to get off. In the matter of bad publicity, I think that beats it all. The train should be able to refuel while allowing at the same time the passengers to get off. That is the point I wanted to make.
Something baffles me. Last winter or last year-1 am not sure about the date as I have no prepared text-when the Quebec Air Company came before the Transport Commission
2706	COMMONS
Canadian National Railways in Bathurst, the Canadian National opposed the request from Quebec Air to establish a service between Quebec, Edmundston, Bathurst and Gaspe. They said "We just granted a passenger rail service to the Edmundston people and now they want an air service"-as if it were a sin to ask for an additional transport service.
If the Canadian National Railway really wishes to give a good service to people in my area, in Madawaska, Carleton and York counties, let them change the departure hour of the train that travels from Montreal to my area. Instead of leaving the station in the middle of the afternoon, it should leave about 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening, so that the passengers, instead of reaching their destination in the middle of the night, may sleep on board, because we do sometimes get some shut-eye, so as to get to Edmundston around 8 a.m.
That service would be of great help to everyone.
On the other hand, if the C.N.R. keeps objecting, as it has to the application of Quebec-Air, in Bathurst, to set up an air service at the request of the cities, villages and chambers of commerce of the area, it should think seriously about improving its service between Edmundston, Montreal and Halifax.
That is what I had to say, Mr. Speaker, and I wanted very much to say it because those are things which must be clearly understood.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to say a few words about the position of Air Canada in relation to my home city of Winnipeg I am mindful of the fact that I have spoken on this subject on a number of occasions in sessions of former parliaments. I have made my position clear and I think there is no need for the people of Winnipeg to wonder about the stand I take. At the same time, we do have a new government, a new Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and a new Minister of Transport (Mr. Helly-er), and I believe I should put on record once again the views which I and, I think, the people of Winnipeg and Manitoba hold regardless of their political opinions, with regard to this situation.
If I were to suggest I am making this speech unmindful of the fact that this is a situation which vitally affects the interests of the people of my city, hon. members would undoubtedly question my objectivity. Of course one of the reasons I rise today is that

DEBATES	November 13, 1968
this issue affects the city from which I come. But the position I take today is, I suggest, the same as the position I take whenever any question arises affecting the welfare of any part of Canada.
I do not believe we want to see in this country a wealthy Montreal, a wealthy Toronto, and second class citizens elsewhere.
I have always believed that one of the most important functions of any federal government is to do whatever it can, after considering all the implications, to improve the productivity and the living standards of people in all regions of Canada. It is with this in mind that I have always supported proposals by Liberal and Conservative governments for the expenditure of large sums of money under ARDA programs. I recognize the importance of improving the economic wellbeing of the rural population. This is why I supported a proposal to set up a heavy water plant on Cape Breton Island despite arguments that there were other areas in this country where the plant could have been built much more cheaply. But I understand, as do other hon. members, the difficult situation which the people of Cape Breton Island have to face.
It is for this reason that the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), speaking on November 1, endorsed the representations made by Newfoundland members of parliament opposing the proposal of the C.N.R. to abandon passenger rail service in that province. I wish to associate myself with those representations. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has already done so. If Canada is to be one country, surely a whole province, and not a small one by any means, cannot be left without rail passenger service. I suggest that under the agreement by which Newfoundland came into confederation there is a moral, if not a legal, obligation on the part of any government of Canada to see that at least a minimum railway passenger service is maintained in the province of Newfoundland.
o (4:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: As I said, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say something about the problems of Air Canada and its overhaul base. Let me say that I am not one of those who think, as apparently the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Rock) does, that a choice must be made between Montreal and Winnipeg. That possibility disappeared many years ago. However,
November 13, 1968
I believe the record should be kept straight. Air Canada, or Trans-Canada Air Lines as it was known for 30 or more years, had its headquarters, most of its departments, its planning staff and auditing staff located in the city of Winnipeg. I do not intend to put the whole sad story on the record step by step. But beginning in 1948 there were indications that the former Trans-Canada Air Lines was beginning to move departments from Winnipeg to Montreal.
In 1948 my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), asked the then minister of trade and commerce, Mr. C. D. Howe, for assurance that the headquarters and main departments of T.C.A. would not be moved from Winnipeg. He was given the most categorical assurance that this would not happen. These assurances were confirmed several months later by the then president of Trans-Canada Air Lines. From that date to today, however, there has been a gradual movement of Air Canada departments and personnel from Winnipeg to Montreal.
As I said on an earlier occasion and repeat today that decision to move, which must have been planned pretty carefully by the management of Air Canada, was never communicated to any minister of transport in the past 20 years until just a few years ago when the then president of Air Canada made a statement to the effect that the whole operation would terminate. When that happened there was, of course, consternation among the people of the city of Winnipeg. Representations were made by the widest group of organizations I have ever seen come together on any one question. These included the government of Manitoba, the city of Winnipeg, the muncipalities around Winnipeg, the chambers of commerce, the boards of trade, the trade unions and the farm organizations. They all made representations to the then government.
What happened at that time? The then prime minister, Mr. Pearson, made the categorical statement that the base would continue its operations at the city of Winnipeg at least until 1973. When the minister of transport, the present Solicitor General (Mr. Mcllraith), was in Winnipeg in 1963 he was asked whether the government had been given a firm guarantee that the base would continue its operations in Winnipeg until 1973. He said:
It is a firm fact that the base will be kept open for the next decade.
COMMONS DEBATES	2707
Canadian National Railways Despite those assurances there has been a constant whittling away of the staff at the base in Winnipeg. When this matter was debated on November 1 the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier), in speaking along the same lines I am speaking today, gave the number of employees at the overhaul base in Winnipeg as 700. When we were discussing this question in 1963 and 1964 the number of employees was in the neighbourhood of 1,000 or more. So there has been a reduction in the past few years of approximately 30 per cent despite the fact that the then prime minister, minister of transport and subsequent ministers of transport on behalf of the government gave the most categorical assurances that the base would be maintained at Winnipeg at least until 1973.
I would be foolish if I were to attempt to reverse the process by proposing that all the overhaul facilities be moved to Winnipeg, although I think that if the government which was in office at the time when the first decision on the part of Air Canada was made to move part of the overhaul base to Montreal had been told what the company had in mind the decision would have been countermanded. But, Mr. Speaker, we cannot get that kind of change. I should like to suggest that if we in this chamber believe in the economic welfare of people in all parts of Canada then we will realize that it is not too late yet. Recently we had a report from the Minister of Transport which indicated that the airport of Dorval in the city of Montreal and the airport at Malton which services the city of Toronto are much too small and that in the next 10 years they will either have to be doubled in size or new airports will have to be built to service the Toronto and Montreal areas.
I understand that the Air Canada facilities at Dorval are already too small, that the personnel there are working long hours and that there is a program of subcontracting a substantial part of the overhaul work. This is the situation at a time when at the overhaul base m Winnipeg there are substantial facilities and employees with long service who have lived all their lives in the city of Winnipeg. These employees are being forced to move to Montreal. They are being blackmailed because in effect they are given notice that when the overhaul base in Winnipeg is closed, as it will be by 1973 at the latest or earlier if Air Canada continues its policy of ignoring government direction, they will lose the opportunity of continuing to work for Air Canada if they do not move.
November 13, 1968

Canadian National Railways With the development of the DC-9, a relatively short range aircraft which cannot be used in overseas flights as can the DC-8, it would seem pretty obvious to me that it is not at all impossible or impractical to have an overhaul base at Montreal which would service large aircraft such as the DC-8's and, I suppose, the subsonic and supersonic planes that will be purchased. At the same time, the Winnipeg base, instead of merely overhauling the Viscounts, could have the kind of permanent facilities which would be capable of servicing the DC-9's.
It is no secret that Winnipeg has not shared in the rapid growth and expansion of cities such as Montreal, Toronto and to a lesser extent Vancouver. There are good economic reasons for this. I would not want to urge the government to do the impossible. If Winnipeg does not have the economic base for population growth to the same extent as Montreal or Toronto then Winnipeg will have to face the fact that it will continue to be one of the smaller cities of Canada. Winnipeg does not have the basic industry which exists in the Montreal and Toronto-Hamilton areas. It is an area which does not have high skilled and high paid jobs such as exist in central Canadian cities.
society. I also hope that the reports to the effect that the Minister without Portfolio is doing his job both as a minister and as a member from Winnipeg in trying to assure that this base will continue to operate in Winnipeg are true.
Before we conclude this debate I hope the minister will take the opportunity to rise in his seat and tell us what is happening in respect of the investigations the government is making as well as in respect of the negotiations by the government of Canada and the government of the province of Manitoba with Air Canada and other interested parties. In fact it is my hope that, if not today, in the not too distant future we can obtain a statement from the minister or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hellyer), who is not here very often, that will allay the doubts and fears in the minds of the people of Winnipeg that next year or the year after this base will be completely closed. It is my hope that we will receive a statement from the appropriate minister allaying these fears and giving us the kind of assurance that seemed to be implied in the statement of the former prime minister. He seemed to suggest that not only would the present employees have jobs but more jobs would be available with Air Canada in the city of Winnipeg in years to come.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The loss of a thousand highly paid jobs for skilled employees to the city of Winnipeg would be a tremendously serious blow. The Conservative government of Manitoba, with which I have had differences of opinion in the past and will continue to have, should be commended for the progressive campaigning it has carried on over the years to bring industry to the province and specifically to Winnipeg. I think the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Richardson), with his experience in industrial and commercial enterprise, will agree with me. The province has tried to develop resources and utilize manpower in the province, but what it has been able to do is relatively small. The government has certainly not been able to bring to Winnipeg that kind of industry which employs a thousand or more employees, as Air Canada has done for 20 or more years. The loss of this base to Winnipeg will be a very serious blow to the city, the province and its people.
It is my hope that government of Canada will continue to keep in mind the pledge of the former prime minister and that slogan which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has used so often. I refer to the just


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It
being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely-


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the feelings of the house are in this regard but hon. members might be disposed to hearing the last guns fired in this war we have just heard declared. This would only take about five minutes. I would hope that could be allowed in order that we might see whether we can give third reading to the bill. There is one more speaker on this side whose remarks I am sure can be made within the five minutes. Hopefully the house might be agreeable to that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we would agree to suspending private members' hour today for this purpose, but let there be no misunderstanding. The hon. member mentioned is not the last speaker. We are quite prepared to give up the hour at this time for this purpose but we do not want any misunderstanding.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, as far as the Ralliement Creditiste is concerned, we are quite willing to co-operate with the house to complete the study of that bill. However, two or three hon. members want to be heard and I doubt that we can finish that study tonight.
Therefore, I think that we should follow the rules of the house, adjourn the debate, go on to the private members' hour, and take up the debate again tomorrow.
DEBATES	2709
Historic Sites and Monuments Board [English]


Mr. Roberts:: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to forgo private members' hour today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock we will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motion, public bills.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS BOARD


John (Moody) Roberts: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of transferring the authority over the Historic Sites and Monuments Board to the Secretary of State and of expanding the responsibility of this board from concern for buildings and monuments of unique historical interest to general assistance in the preservation of towns, villages and landmarks of artistic, cultural or historical interest.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this motion is relatively simple and straightforward in both form and content. The first part of the motion suggests that the responsibility for the Historic Sites and Monuments Board should be transferred to the office of the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier). The corollary of that transfer would be the transfer of the national historic sites service, which is in effect the civil service arm of that board. I think this would be a desirable phenomenon in any case. Its goals are really part of the general cultural policy which the government should be pursuing. Since the National Museum of Canada is now the responsibility of the Secretary of State, it would seem to make more sense to have the Historic Sites and Monuments Board in the same place.
I would, however, prefer to spend most of my time today speaking about the second part of the motion which suggests an expansion, in effect, of the terms of reference of the board. It is my suggestion that the board not be limited as it now is both in regard to funds and function. The terms of reference of the board are not sufficiently broad, and it could be doing a much more valuable job in relation to the preservation and encouragement of the maintenance of parts of our historic and cultural heritage.
My argument is that the present activities of the board are restricted by its initial concept and also perhaps by the approach of those who govern the board, which I believe
November 13, 1968

Historic Sites and Monuments Board is one of historical conservancy. It is interesting that the members of the board are almost, but not entirely, archivists or professors of history. There are on the board no architects, no urban planners, nobody concerned with the history of architecture, no landscape architects. Indeed, the orientation of the board and its origin I think can be clearly seen in a document provided to me by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board. This document indicates that in spite of the changes that have taken place since the board was established in 1919, the fundamental concept of the board has not changed. It is a federal body whose appointed members have the collective duty of advising the minister on what sites, events, persons, buildings and objects are of national historical importance. I emphasize the words "national historical importance."
The board's terms of reference are keyed to historical geography, since the Historic Sites and Monuments Act refers to "historic places." If one looks at the Historic Sites and Monuments Act one finds there are continual references to the historic aspect of the board's function. The minister may, by means of plaques or other signs or in any other suitable manner, mark or otherwise commemorate historic places. He may make agreements with any persons for marking or commemorating historic places and for the care and preservation of any places so marked or commemorated. The minister may establish historic museums. He can acquire, on behalf of Her Majesty in the right of Canada, any historic places or lands for historic museums. One sees that the emphasis is entirely on the historical aspect. If you look at the criteria which the board uses in assessing a project you see that such things are considered as:
The site or structure shall be closely associated or Identified with events that have shaped Canadian history in a prominent way-
Another criterion is:
The site or structure shall have been prominently associated with the life of a great Canadian or an important movement in Canadian history-
Another criterion is that the structure shall embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type exceptionally valuable for the study of a style or method of construction or its period or be a noteable example of the work of an early master builder, designer or architect. An important consideration of the board in assessing projects is that the potential for illustrating Canadian history shall be high. In other words, there has been

what I would call an archival orientation, an emphasis upon the museum or historical function.
What have been the results of this policy? Since 1919 the Historic Sites and Monuments Board has noted 600 sites as being of national historic importance. It has established 31 major national historic parks, and it has preserved over 30 buildings-in almost 50 years of activity. I suggest this is certainly the result of insufficient funds but it is also a result of the restricted interpretation placed upon the words "national historic importance."
If we consider what other countries are doing in this regard we cannot but come to the conclusion that we are lagging behind. In the United Kingdom, for instance, the Historic Buildings Council is supporting 1,200 historic buildings at a cost of something like $20 million. The National Trust in Great Britain is responsible for 190 historic buildings and owns 400,000 acres of land. Indeed, the National Trust is, next to the government of Great Britain, the largest landowner in the country.
I would like to consider what the French are doing in this regard, because they have developed some very imaginative ideas in this area. They are supporting 10,000 classified monuments in France and have elaborated a whole system of financial assistance for the preservation of these monuments. The French government is prepared to provide 50 per cent of the total cost of renovating and maintaining historic monuments. It is supporting about 15,000 monuments and historic buildings listed in the supplementary inventory, and the state can meet up to 40 per cent of the cost of any repairs or maintenance considered necessary.
The French have a policy of encouraging by fiscal measures the owners of properties classified or listed as historic monuments by means of deducting from income tax a proportion of the expenses of repairing and maintaining these buildings. Very imaginatively they have developed a monthly television program called "Masterpieces in Peril" which informs the public not only of the dangers threatening certain monuments forming part of the national heritage but also of the efforts of voluntary rescue workers. They have also established a prize of $30,000 which is distributed each year to persons who have been instrumental in saving or working to save a monument.
Those are European examples and one might suggest that in France and England
November 13, 1968

there are more historic buildings and places of cultural interest which require to be preserved. But if you look at the United States, a country which we sometimes hear is lagging in cultural and spiritual matters, you find that since 1966 they have been spending over $10 million a year on projects designed to preserve the 17th, 18th and 19th century heritage of that country. Their earlier efforts which were limited, as we are now in Canada, to projects of national significance were found in 1966 to be unsatisfactory.
For instance, in respect of historic sites legislation in the United States it was said that earlier efforts to preserve historic sites had been limited for the most part to projects of national significance acquired and administered by the national trust with donated funds. On the state and local levels, where historic lands and buildings were increasingly endangered by the bulldozer, interest and activity in preservation varied widely. Because of this, in 1966 the Congress of the United States passed an act which was intended to foster interest in saving landmarks of both local and national significance. I emphasize, not simply national but also local significance.
As I have said, they are now spending something like $10 million a year on these projects. The Americans are doing some very imaginative things under their program in connection with the housing and urban development act. They conduct surveys of historic places; they prepare local and state plans for preservation programs; they plan specific preservation activities in urban renewal projects; they acquire, protect and enhance historic buildings and sites, as we do; they carry out special demonstration projects to develop and study significant preservation methods for the guidance of other communities.
This is one of the more interesting things they do. They acquire restorable buildings and resell them to private parties who agree to rehabilitate and maintain them according to the requirements of the urban renewal plan. These buildings are restored and refurbished, then sold to private parties who agree to rehabilitate and maintain them under the urban renewal plan.
In addition, the federal government of the United States makes grants available to assist in planning. For communities of under 50,000 population, the American government has even more extensive programs which are designed not simply to maintain buildings of unique or historic interest but buildings
Historic Sites and Monuments Board
worthy of preservation because of their beauty or interest.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
In the United States over 200 of these projects are now under way. It seems to me that in comparison with what other countries are doing the Canadian record of 30 buildings being supported by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board is really a pretty sorry accomplishment. We are lagging behind. I suspect that one of the reasons we are lagging behind is that the board, because of its terms of reference and the fact that it is now within the present department, is not sufficiently concerned with the preservation and maintenance of our cultural heritage. I do not see why the activities of this board should be limited to monuments of a national or historic significance. There are many buildings of local or regional interest which are well worthy of being preserved. I think we should be leading the provinces in this area and not simply following in their footsteps. It should be the federal government which should be concerned, much more that it has been, for instance, with the maintenance, preservation and restoration of the port area in Montreal. How many fine buildings have been lost by delay there? There are many areas in this country-the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake is one-where a great deal of help could be provided to maintain the legacy of our past.
It seems to me we should be investigating more actively the possibility of using tax credits for these purposes. We should be doing more to publicize the fine buildings we have. We should be doing more to encourage interest in them by tourists and travellers in Canada. I suggest that museums and institutions such as Upper Canada Village are fine, but I do not think we should adopt an archival approach to this problem.
We should try to maintain the tradition and the grace of some of the eighteenth and nineteenth century buildings which exist in this country. I think we should keep alive what was good in the past not simply because it is of unique or museum value but because it is good. The roots of heaven are to be found here on earth, but the roots of the present are to be found in the past. Many of the buildings in the Maritimes, Ontario and Quebec preserve a living tradition and living values which have gone into the make-up of what we are as Canadians today. I suggest we should preserve these buildings, and we should be more active in preserving them not simply for their historical significance but because they are part of the values which are
November 13, 19G8

Historic Sites and Monuments Board embodied in the Canadian character. We should preserve them not simply because they are unique but because they are good and beautiful.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I want to support the hon. member who has introduced this motion. Like him I feel it is high time that parliament and the government gave more attention to the preservation of Canada's historic past. I am pleased that a member on the government side of the house has brought forward this motion at this time because there has not been too much enthusiasm from that quarter in supporting similar motions that we in this party have proposed from time to time in respect of this matter. The Historic Sites and Monuments Board has, as part of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, had a rather chequered career. I was responsible for it during the period when I was in charge of that department, and I was aware then that there had been serious neglect in bringing into focus the historic sites which are identified with Canada's pathway to nationhood.
I was fortunate to have the opportunity of being responsible for this board when we were planning our centennial year. As a result there was an upsurge of interest in the subject of preserving and perpetuating Canadian history, and plans went forward to have a major historic commemoration and restoration with the idea of perpetuating living examples of Canadian history in our historic sites. A major project in each province was contemplated. Of course the maritimes were emphasized because that is where a good deal of Canadian history had its beginning. It was during that period that plans went forward for Louisbourg. A project which will be completed shortly at Signal Hill was moved forward into the development stage. Plans were in progress for Citadel Hill in Halifax and right across the country even to the farthermost northern recesses of Canada in commemoration of Dawson City as a historic complex.
I find it interesting that the hon. member has broadened the concept in the resolution to include the preservation of towns, villages and landmarks of artistic, cultural or historical interest. I think the Dawson City complex was the first attempt on the part of Canada to commemorate a whole community which represented one of the high watermarks in the development of the Northwest Territories as it was known in those days. It has been

universally recognized through the poetry of Robert Service and the writings of Jack London and is one of the best known historic sites in any part of Canada.
Unfortunately the program that was started in preparation for the centennial has not been expanded beyond that point. I think we were perhaps sidetracked into other activities that became associated with our centennial celebrations. We concentrated on Expo, a major feature of our centennial which represented a huge investment, with the result that the program recommended by the advisory committee in the early planning stages of the centennial celebrations was sidetracked from the fundamental purpose of making 1967 a year when we would have major breakthroughs in the preservation and restoration of our historic past. Unfortunately, even the project for a national museum which would be of a standard befitting a country such as Canada was sidetracked for such projects as the national centre for the performing arts which has been under discussion in this house from time to time. The funds that could have been used for historic preservation and commemoration were drained off into these other projects.
I am hoping there will be general support for the hon. member's resolution because it puts back into proper focus the cultural and historic activity of our country which has been neglected far too long. Of course it also has other features. We often talk about the demands for spiritual and cultural pursuits in this age of growing leisure. When we think of that aspect of the modern society in Canada we immediately move into the whole area of the development not only of historic parks and monuments but also of recreational and national parks. Again this is an area in which the government has been moving very slowly or hardly at all in recent years.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
We have heard some talk in recent days that we will be moving forward to establish national parks in the days that lie ahead. However, there has been no change in this situation since 1963. It is not enough for the house to approve a resolution recommending that the functions of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board be transferred from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the department of the Secretary of State. This is an interesting change in the physical location of this particular function at the Ottawa level, but the problem is much more inclusive than that.
November 13, 19S8	COMMONS
I should like to suggest that not only Ottawa has responsibility in these matters. Our provinces are deeply involved in historic restoration and preservation. Indeed, many of the provinces have been much more active than Ottawa in this regard. Of course, some of the large urban centres have been active in preserving historic buildings within their borders. In so far as the provinces are concerned, I merely mention such major restorations and commemorations as the pioneer village and old Fort Henry in Ontario and Barkerville in British Columbia, which is a complete restoration of one of the gold rush cities along the gold rush trail. In Manitoba we have Fort Garry, and Lower Fort Garry is being developed as an animated historic site.
I have already mentioned Louisbourg, the largest project of this kind which is going forward in the province of Nova Scotia.
Although there is no mention of this in the resolution, I think it is only right to point out now that we might revitalize or even revive the federal-provincial parks committee which was set up back in the sixties in order to bring about a joint program under the auspices of Ottawa and the provincial governments so that Canada as a nation might move forward to do precisely what the hon. member has suggested this afternoon, to accelerate the program of preserving our historic sites.
There is one more subject that I feel should be mentioned at this time. If we are going to co-ordinate our museums, our historic sites and our historic parks program under the department of the Secretary of State for the sake of greater efficiency and, we trust, greater enthusiasm on the part of the government for its responsibilities in these matters, I think we might also give attention to bringing under the aegis of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board the activities of the National Battlefields Commission which operates as a separate entity in the province of Quebec. The sole responsibility of this commission is to preserve, protect and develop the battlefields in and around Quebec city which are associated with Canada's early history. It seems to me that there is absolutely no difference at all in the functions of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board and the activities of the National Battlefields Commission which has this one isolated and exclusive responsibility.
With these comments, Mr. Speaker, I support the resolution. This does not necessarily mean we are going to resolve the problem the hon. member has in mind. The mere shifting
DEBATES	2713
Historic Sites and Monuments Board of this activity from one portfolio to another might mean a change, as I have indicated, in the physical location, but unless the government becomes more deeply involved in its responsibilities in this regard than it has since 1963, unless it revitalizes the program that was going forward in the early sixties, we are not going to achieve the results that I believe a great many members of this house would like to achieve. In addition to the sentiments in the resolution, therefore, I would urge the government to move forward on the basis of the program that was outlined in the early days of centennial planning, to reactivate the federal-provincial parks committee which has been dormant in recent years, and to attempt to co-ordinate all the activities in the field of historic site commemoration along with general park development with provincial bodies as well as civic authorities. This is the day and age of leisure, which is a trite expression. The government has a responsibility to see to it that Canadians in every part of Canada have park facilities of all kinds so that they may, as the hon. member has suggested, be able to enjoy their spiritual and cultural heritage.


Mr. Guy LeBlanc (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about that notice of motion which deals with one of the most interesting problems for the Canadian people.
I reluctantly express an opinion contrary to that of my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts). I am reluctant also because my position is the opposite to that of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) who was, before I had the honour of being a member of this house, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who is responsible for this matter relating to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
If we consider the problem according to a most current and logical theory, we will be inclined to say that it is logical, that the responsibility for the National Sites and Monuments Board rests with the Secretary of State.
We may appear at first sight to be considering only the cultural, social and intellectual aspect of this problem of development of historic sites, the preservation of historic buildings, and the classification of historic events
November 13, 1968

Historic Sites and Monuments Board during which prominent persons in our history became famous.
However, when a method gives good results, it is not logical to put it away and waste energy which we may need in other fields.
It is obvious that, according to our principles, we are in favour of change and development. However, we must consider that development so as to obtain the most immediate results. This is why I think the mover of this motion has forgotten the role which is now played by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada, not taking into consideration the environment in which it acts and the principles on which its recommendations are based.
I presume that the department, advised by the board, must also consider extensive projects as well as the available funds and the opportunities of finding specialized personnel in that field to carry out those projects.
For this reason, I am of the opinion that this board should remain under the department, as is the case at present. We should obviously, in keeping with the present policy of the government, tend towards improving government administration. But we can do that not by thinking immediately of making all sorts of changes but rather by stabilizing the structures we already have, in order to allow the board better to fulfil its terms of reference.
I think it is worthwhile to glance rapidly at the present status of this board and at the present policy of the government which actually has been in existence for many years. From what we know, the terms of reference of this board are very important indeed.
The Historic Sites and Monuments Board advises-and that is its main function-the minister responsible for the elaboration and implementation of a national development program with regard to historic sites on any subject of a historic nature.
It was said earlier, if I am not mistaken, that today the Board does not have enough architects, and engineers among its members.
I feel that at times several architects or engineers would be useful to the Board but since its responsibility is to advise the minister on national programs dealing with matters of a historic character and since it is made up of distinguished historians and of at least one archivist, those specialists can make appropriate and useful recommendations to the minister and then the architects, the engineers and the town planners can start implementing the program.

If we refer to our legislation, we can see that the National Parks Act gives the minister the responsibility I mentioned a few moments ago, that is the responsibility for the elaboration and implementation of a national development program with regard to historic sites or anything of a historic nature. The act gives that responsibility to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I cannot say or I cannot imagine why, at that time, the legislators did not give that responsibility to the Secretary of State, but I suppose that they then had serious reasons to give it to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
This responsibility was specified in 1953. When it was passed, the Historic Sites and Monuments Act provided the statutory base for the operation of the board and defined its role as an advisory one. This role is very well defined in section 5. In a booklet published by the National and Historic Parks Branch under the title "National Historic Sites Policy", we find this section 5 on page 2, which reads as follows:
The Board may receive and consider recommendations respecting the marking or commemoration of historic places, the establishment of historic museums and the administration, preservation and maintenance of historic places and historic museums, and shall advise the minister in carrying out his powers under this act.
It is fitting to recall that the board itself was established in 1919 and from that date until the act was passed in 1953, operated under order in council authority. It is interesting to see the results which the board achieved.
Since its establishment, more than 600 sites have been designated as being of national historic significance and 31 historic sites and parks of prime national interest have been opened to the public.
Furthermore, steps were taken to preserve more than 30 buildings designated as being of a national historic significance.
The board usually meets twice a year. That means that other bodies carry out the projects. At every meeting, the board reviews proposals or recommendations made by individuals or representatives of historical societies, provincial or municipal governments, organizations interested in historic persons, sites or events, to appraise the merits of every proposal according to its national rather than regional or local significance.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Research reports on subjects to be studied are prepared under the auspices of the research division of the Historic Sites Service
November 13, 1968

of Canada. The recommendations of the Board are then submitted to the ministers for their approval, in accordance with our legislation.
The Board is composed of fourteen members, twelve of whom represent the ten provinces. There are two representatives from Quebec, two from Ontario, and one for each of the eight other provinces. There is also the federal archivist and an official of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The provincial representatives are appointed by ministerial decree and chosen on the basis of their ability as historians and archivists. Because the Board acts as an autonomous jury, it must take care to give the best possible advice. As the responsibilities of the Board have increased in the last few years, it has decided to establish special committees to increase the results of its research. Those committees dealt particularly with criteria for the selection of special subjects. It has established for example a committee which would particularly deal with fur-trading and primitive sites of Indian tribes.
With the passing years, the Board has felt necessary to determine a certain policy to help it to play its role. In March 1968, it tabled in the house a report on the policy of the historic national sites giving an outline of the criteria regulating the selection of those sites. It was, as it were, the synthesis of the policy adopted by the members of the Commission over the years, and it may be useful to mention again its achievements.
I think that I should stress the complexity of the work and of the present mandate not only of the Commission, which is not the only one to act in this field since it has but an advisory role, but also the related services which carry out these projects after planning them.
These are the criterions of the Commission and the various committees it sets up occasionally, and I quote:
It is a policy that national history sites shall be located within the geographical boundaries of Canada.
Secondly,
(i)	The site or structure shall be closely associated or identified with events that have shaped Canadian history in a prominent way, or illustrate effectively the broad cultural, social, political, economic or military patterns of Canadian history;
or
(ii)	The site or structure shall have been prominently associated with the life of a great Canadian personage;
2715
Historic Sites and Monuments Board or
(iii)	The site or structure shall have been prominently associated with an important movement in Canadian history;
or
(iv)	The site or structure shall shed light on or illustrate effectively the culture of a prehistoric people, or shall be associated with important archaeological discoveries which have affected ideas and concepts to a major degree;
or
(v)	The structure shall embody the distinguishing characteristics of an architectural type exceptionally valuable for the study of a styie or method of construction or its period or be a notable example of the work of an early master builder, designer or architect.
If the site or structure has religious importance, in order to be eligible it shall also be significant in other fields of Canadian history and shall be no longer in active use by a religious order or congregation.
The potential for illustrating Canadian history shall be high-that is the site or structure shall be such that it will be possible for the visitor to gain an understanding of the history with which it is associated.
The site shall possess integrity; that is, it shall be known to be what it is represented to be, and shall include the original site. A further important consideration would be the extent of original materials and workmanship remaining.
I am trying to prove that considering the carrying out of our projects, up to now, as well as the criteria which must be applied with regard to the terms of reference of the Board and to the service which must be provided, and in the light of the minister's responsibility-which was conferred upon him under the act-as well as of the co-operation which must exist among various organizations, not only the federal government, but also provincial and municipal authorities, before making drastic changes, the resulting costs should be borne in mind, at a time when the government is trying to balance its budget. When considering the co-operation among the experts and various agencies of the government, we bear in mind the costly duplication which would impede the progress and success of our projects.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, in the rather forlorn hope that this resolution will not be talked out I intend to speak for only a few minutes. The resolution seems to contain two main proposals: first, that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board be transferred from the department of Indian affairs to the Secretary of State and, second, that its responsibilities be expanded from merely looking after monuments to looking
2716	COMMONS
Historic Sites and Monuments Board after larger items of historical interest such as towns, villages, landmarks and so on. I believe that both proposals are in line with our cultural development as a nation.
Twenty or 30 years ago the department of Indian affairs was looked on much as we look upon an attic. If we had something to preserve we put it in the attic under the care of the department of Indian affairs. Once in a while we took it out and looked at it. Such was the case with our national museum a few years ago.
I believe that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board ought to be transferred to the Secretary of State who looks after cultural affairs. With regard to the other proposal that we enlarge our concern in this matter to preserving our historic towns, villages and landmarks, this also is in line with the cultural development of Canada and is to be commended.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I had the honour to be a member of the centennial committee in British Columbia and I can say that some of the provinces are ahead of the federal government in preserving little towns as living monuments. It is not enough to set up monuments to the dead. We have to recreate the life of earlier communities such as Barkerville, once the largest community north of San Francisco, which was restored by the government of British Columbia so successfully that it attracts thousands of visitors from the United States and elsewhere every year.
It has been well said that if we lose our memories, either as individuals or as a nation there is not really very much left. It is important that we keep our memories as persons, as families and as a country. In this age we are singularly able to do something about this in Canada because of advanced photographic and tape-recording techniques and the greater amount of leisure time which can be devoted to a review of what ought to be preserved. I shall confine myself to these remarks. I rose to support the motion, Mr. Speaker, and I hope it will come to a vote.


Mr. H. Gordon Barrett (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak in favour of this motion. Aside from a general interest in the historical aspects of this country I have a direct interest since Lincoln riding which I represent contains the historic town of Niagara-on-the-Lake.

DEBATES	November 13, 1968
I know that the provincial and federal governments have done a great deal to preserve historic places and monuments but there is a great deal still left to be done. If responsibility in this area were transferred to the department of the Secretary of State the situation in this regard would, I feel, be greatly improved.
I am sure all hon. members are aware of the part played by Laura Secord in the war of 1812-1814. The tragedy is that the home she visited has been lost as the result of neglect on somebody's part. I hope that in the future homes of this sort can be restored and maintained by enabling people to live in them as an alternative to leaving them unoccupied.
I have suggested that departmental responsibility for this work be assigned to the Secretary of State. This seems logical, especially if one considers that the riding I represent is situated in the most southerly part of Ontario where so many great events in Canadian history have occurred but responsibility for preserving and commemorating the memory of the past lies with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. To my mind, this is strange. If the change I am proposing can be made I feel it would be helpful in preserving and in some cases restoring all those things which belong to Canadians as a whole. The department of the Secretary of State has in the past been charged with maintaining and correlating records of everything we want to remember, and it is the logical place for the activities we are now considering.
These are a few short words only on a subject which is both interesting and vital. I hope that in some ways the objective in the mind of the mover of this motion can become an actuality. I attach great importance to this, believing that parts of our country with a special claim to fame should become, in a sense, the property of the people of Canada as a whole rather than just a section. The sponsor of the motion indicated that it was desired to maintain certain towns which at the moment are of regional interest. I feel that the idea could be broadened in its scope. Nevertheless I hope the motion succeeds in its objective, if not today then at some time in the future.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, allow me to bring forth the viewpoint of a representative of the province of Quebec.
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of transferring the authority over the Historic Sites and Monuments Board to the Secretary of State-
November 13, 1968
-up to that point, I have no objection.
-and of expanding the responsibility of this Board from concern for buildings and monuments of unique historical interest to general assistance in the preservation of towns, villages and landmarks of artistic, cultural or historical interest.
I object to the last part, Mr. Speaker because all this already exists in Quebec; and if there is a field in which Quebecers are entitled to be jealous of their concern about historic and artistic matters, it is that very field which is their own business.
And to see what can happen when the federal government has too much to say in these matters, one has only to think of the unfortunate situation that exists now. In the city of Quebec, the population of which is 98 per cent French-Canadian, there is a park of the battle-fields which falls within the jurisdiction of that board, and there are monuments, such as the Wolfe monument. There is nothing very pleasant for Quebecers in saluting the author of the defeat they would have liked to forget.
Of course, I do not approve those who decided to remove the monument in 1963, nor do I approve those who removed commemorative plaques.
Mr. Speaker, those incidents struck me in a very special way since I was accused of having stolen the said commemorative plaques which commemorated the arrival of the first British sovereign to set foot in America.
Of course, although I was accused of having stolen them, I had neither the compe-
Business of the House fence, nor perhaps the courage to do so; but I am not saying I would not have done it, had I had-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to advise the house concerning the business for tomorrow. The first order of business will be the continuation of Item No. 24, third reading of Bill No. C-124 dealing with the C.N.R. financing. That would be followed by the resolution preceding amendment of the Customs Tariff, pursuant to the budget. The third order of business would be No. 7, second reading of Bill No. C-112, to amend the Farm Machinery Syndicates Credit Act.
I might also advise the house that I will not be in the chamber during the question period tomorrow, but my colleague the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) will respond at that time with regard to the order of business for the coming week.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock the house stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2.30.


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


Thursday, November 14, 1968