1969-12-03

PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding a newspaper report yesterday in the Toronto Telegram based on an interview between Mr. Douglas Fisher, a part-time columnist, and Marc Lalonde, a full-time public servant. The subject matter of the interview was the operation of the Company of Young Canadians.
I believe this point involves the privileges of members of this House and, more specifically, the workings of the committee of the House which is studying this very subject matter. At one time it was requested that the list of witnesses include the said Marc Lalonde and that he appear before the committee in his capacity at that time as ViceChairman of the Provisional Council of the Company of Young Canadians. He happened also to be in the Prime Minister's office then. Some members thought his evidence would not be too relevant, and as the result of a motion that was passed, with some division of opinion, his name was struck off the list of witnesses and the said Marc Lalonde did not appear before the committee.
After a quick perusal of the article of which I gave you notice, Mr. Speaker, I find it sets out in very clear detail, in the question and answer form followed by Mr. Fisher and Mr. Lalonde, a number of comments on specific points which relate directly to the subject matter the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts has been studying. These comments also relate to the report of that committee which is at present being drafted and has been leaked to the press piecemeal yesterday and today, and perhaps again tomorrow.
It is very clear in the latter part of the article that Mr. Lalonde made certain statements which are in conflict wi.h a good deal of the evidence presented to the committee. In view of the fact that this committee of the House is supposed to bring forward a report on Friday based on the facts, it is only proper and reasonable that the said Marc Lalonde, having conversed with this newspaper columnist, should appear before the committee in order that it may clarify the implica ions in his remarks. The committee is supposed to make judgments and decisions based on the facts.
Perhaps questions of privilege are abused. I do not point to any particular rule that justifies my remarks today, but I think it is passing strange that a part-time journalist should get together with a full-time public servant to discuss a subject matter which a committee is currently considering. For that reason and that reason alone I feel there is an elementary question of privilege.
Because of our rules and because the committee is now sitting in camera writing its report, perhaps Your Honour, as the number one Commoner and the man to whom I appeal, has very little discretion in this matter unless I propose a motion to refer it to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. This whole affair seems to me to be a travesty on our committee system. Surely this is true when a man of the public eminence and authority that some people ascribe to Mr. Lalonde makes comments of this nature. I am not saying he had anything to do with the committee's decision not to call him. He may well have wanted to appear before the committee, and it may well be that he might have added relevant facts. But surely he should not discuss this matter for the purpose of a newspaper article at the very time the committee is writing its report.
Quite frankly, I am not sure whether I should move a motion to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am not sure when the committee's report is likely to be tabled in the House, but I understand it may be tabled on Friday. In any event, we find ourselves in an impossible position.
December 3, 1969

Company of Young Canadians
I wanted to bring this matter to Your Honour's attention. I know you cannot request Mr. Lalonde to attend the committee, but that is what should be done because this public servant is closely associated with Privy Council matters and is also very actively involved in other matters. For this reason I suggest he should not converse with columnists about subject matters being considered by committees of the House. Had this happened a week ago I am sure the committee might have reversed itself and asked him to appear and give evidence about the financial control he alleges was exerted.
I have almost concluded my remarks, Mr. Speaker. I fail to understand how progress can be made by exercising leadership, if the leadership is removed as suggested by the article. Such public discussion of a subject matter being considered by a committee of the House is almost tantamount to a travesty of the workings of that committee.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some doubt whether it is advisable for the Prime Minister or any member of the House to discuss the question further. I should point out right away that I do not wish to be unfair to any member and certainly not to the Prime Minister if it is felt that the matter should be discussed further. In my view, however, the matter submitted to the House by the hon. member of Annapolis Valley is more in the form of a grievance than in the form of a formal question of privilege, particularly due to the fact that there is no motion before the House. The hon. member has sensed the procedural difficulty and because of this has judged it perhaps better not to pursue the matter further. I would have to agree with the action he has taken, and if hon. members feel with me that this is the right thing to do the matter will not be pursued further.



ANNOUNCEMENT BY MEMBER FOR SPADINA OF DECISION TO SIT AS INDEPENDENT

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I have come to the conclusion that I cannot continue my support of the government and, having resigned from this group, would ask that I be seated across the floor with the opposition as an independent member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: An appropriate seat will be found for the hon. member who has joined the ranks of the independent.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Tolmie.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing reports appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I thought it might be helpful to hon. members if I made a statement concerning the business of the House for the period between now and the Christmas adjournment.
We have proposed that the House should rise for the Christmas adjournment on Friday, December 19. On this basis there would remain 13 sitting days for public business, including today. Two of these days are opposition days. Since they must be dealt with before December 10 it is our intention to call the opposition days on Monday and Tuesday of next week, December 8 and 9.
It is important that the following bills be finally disposed of before the adjournment because of the urgency of time in each particular case: Bill C-2 with regard to the Judges Act, which is urgent because of the necessity to add to the bench as soon as possible; Bill C-7 with regard to the Canadian National Railways, which is the annual financing bill of Canadian National Railways; Bill C-8, in respect of the Children of War dead (Education Assistance) Act; Bill C-139 in respect of the Income Tax Act; Bill C-155 in respect of the Excise Tax Act; Bill C-157 with regard to provisional payments for unthreshed grain; Bill S-8 in respect of loan companies and Bill S-9 in respect of trust companies. By way of explanation I should indicate that since the latter two bills expand the power of financial institutions to lend
December 3, 1969

money for housing purposes it would be desirable to have them passed as soon as possible so that the institutions in question may expand their loans for housing.
In addition to these urgent matters it would be desirable that the following second reading debates or motions to refer should be completed so that the committees may plan their work for January: the tax white paper reference, second reading of Bill C-144, the Canada water act, second reading of Bill C-4 with regard to the Canada Corporations Act, and second reading of Bill C-12 with regard to the international development research centre.
If the urgent bills are not dealt with by December 19, then of course we will have to take another look at the timing of the House sittings and the House may have to continue sitting beyond that date.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


An hon. Member:: Blackmail again.
Another hon. Member: Here we go again.


Mr. Crouse:: Mac the knife.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to our work in the immediate future, this afternoon we would like to complete second reading of the CNR bill, which has now been under debate for three days, so that it may go to the committee as soon as possible. We then propose to follow it with the two tax bills later today and tomorrow.
On Friday, as was previously announced, we intend to call first the bill amending the Children of War Dead (Education Assistance) Act, to be followed by the bill to provide for provisional payments for unthreshed grain. As I indicated already, next Monday and Tuesday will be opposition days, but since it has not been possible to work out an effective timetable for all the remaining business it will not be possible to state a timetable beyond Tuesday of next week.


Mr. Yewchuk:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to bring up a matter of national urgency at this time. If there are 25 members on the other side of the House who wish to join us, we have a lot of room for them.


An hon. Member:: They are mostly Tories over there anyway.
Questions



SYNTHETIC DETERGENTS


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimall-Saanich) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-165, respecting the contents of synthetic detergents.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, some 30 per cent of water pollution in Canada is caused by the phosphate content of detergents. The pollution of Lake Erie is a classic case of what happens if we let this detergent pollution continue. The purpose of the bill is to insist that all detergents marketed in Canada will have less than 2 per cent of phosphates. I might add that this can be done without loss of the cleaning power of the detergents or extra expense to the housewife.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

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

Mr. Skoberg: 1 Did the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority have a competitive tender regarding the eight-mile Welland Canal bypass?
2.	If so, who were the holders and what were their respective bids?
3.	Was Simard Beaudry Inc. of Montreal awarded the contract as the lowest bidder?
4.	Did Simard Beaudry Inc. of Montreal refuse to undertake the contract after its low tender bid was accepted?
5.	Is the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority contemplating legal action against Simard Beaudry Inc.?
6.	If not, for what reasons?


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority invited competitive tenders for a number of projects for the realignment of the Welland Canal between Port Robinson and Ramey's Bend. Amongst these was an invitation to tender for the construction of a road/rail tunnel at Townline Road, Welland, Ontario.
2.	The following bids were received for this tunnel:
Questions

December 3, 1963
Using BBR System of Pre-Stressing
Simard-Beaudry Inc.	$26,607,941
The Foundation Co. of Canada	35,222,501
Peter Kiewit Sons Co. of Canada Ltd. 35,150,597 C. A. Pitts Const. (Ont.) Ltd., McNamara Corp. Ltd. and Atlas Construction Co. Ltd. (joint venture)	36,292,466
Using Alternative System of Pre-Stressing $26,339,621 34,897,440 34,929,597
36,142,466
3.	No.
4.	No. In the customary pre-award examination of tenders, it was established that Simard-Beaudry had made an error in their bid price for common excavation. The engineers of the Authority and of the consultants were satisfied that the Company had made a legitimate error in the calculation of the excavation price and therefore they did not deem it advisable to accept the tender which was obviously inadequate and which would not permit completion of the work as required. None of the other tenders was accepted. A case for the forfeiture of the bid bonds did not arise since the tenders were refused.
5.	No.
6.	Since the Authority did not accept the tender, there are no grounds for legal action.


FOREIGN AID COMMITMENT
Mr. Lewis: 1.	When does the Government of Canada expect to reach the commitment to increase Canada's foreign aid to the dollar equivalent of one percent of the Gross National Product?
2.	Does the Government of Canada have a specific time table to reach this foreign aid commitment and, if so, will this plan be tabled in Parliament?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Government is reviewing Canadian policy in the field of development assistance. The review covers the level of development assistance.
2.	Parliament will be informed of the results of this review.


DR. JOHN ROBBINS-PUBLIC SERVICE POSITIONS
Mr. Diefenbaker: What position and in what departments in the Civil Service or the Public Service did Dr. John Robbins, the Ambassador Designate to the Vatican, hold or occupy during the period from the beginning of 1945 and up to and including the year 1960?


Mitchell William Sharp: Dr. Robbins was on the
staff of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics from 1930 to 1952 when he left the Public Service to join the Grolier Society. At the time of his resignation he was Director of the Education and Information Divisions of DBS.


STUDY OF FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF BROKERAGE AND INVESTMENT FIRMS
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	Does the Department of Finance know who is to head the study into the effects of foreign ownership of brokerage and investment houses sponsored by the Investment Dealers Association of Canada and the Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal and Canadian stock exchanges?
2.	If so, what is the name of the individual?
3.	Is this individual a senior vice-president and director of Imperial Oil Co. Ltd.?
4.	Is Imperial Oil Co. Ltd. of Canada owned by Standard Oil Co. of the United States?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minisier of Finance):: 1,	2, 3 and 4. This is not a matter within the administrative responsibility of the Government of Canada.


PRESCRIPTION INDEX OF CONSUMER PRICE INDEX
Mr. Sallsman: 1.	At the time Royal Assent was given to Bill C-102, what was the prescription index of the consumer price index for Canada and the major cities of Canada according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
2.	For each of the next three months, what was the prescription index of the consumer price index for Canada and the major cities of Canada, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?
3.	What was the percentage change of the prescription index from the time of Royal Assent to Bill C-102 and the last of the third month, according to the Dominion Bureau of Statistics?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minisier of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1, 2 and 3. The following table shows the components which reflect the retail price movement of prescriptions in
December 3, 1969

the Consumer Price Index for Canada and for specific cities. Prescription prices used in the context of the Consumer Price Index are normally collected by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics on a quarterly basis, in February, May, August and November, with the index for this item remaining unchanged in the intervening months. The percentage changes in the prescription indexes from May 1969 to August 1969, which are identical to the changes in these indexes from the time of Royal Assent to Bill C-102 (June 27, 1969) to September 1969, is shown in the right-hand column of the table.
Table of Consumer Price Indexes for Canada and Cities
Prescriptions
Percentage
May 1969 Aug. 1969 Change
	Index 1961=100		May to Aug. 1969
Canada	95.7	95.6	-0.1%St. John's, Nfld.	112.9	111.7	-1.1%Halifax	102.7	103.1	+ 0.4%Saint John	106.3	106.7	+ 0.4%Montreal	94.3	94.4	+ 0.1%Ottawa	90.1	89.7	-0.4%Toronto	91.7	90.9	-0.9%
Questions
Winnipeg	91.7	93.2	+ 1.6%Regina	96.1	95.8	-0.3%Saskatoon	103.3	101.1	-2.1%Calgary	98.6	98.8	+ 0.2%Edmonton	107.9	107.2	-0.6%Vancouver	93.4	94.3	+ 1.0%


PRINTING OF STUDIES, WHITE PAPERS AND REPORTS
Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Is there a special branch of the government printing bureau for printing task force studies, white papers and Royal Commission Reports?
2.	If so, what is its manpower and is it fully staffed?
3 Can any approximate measure be given of the capabilities of this group in terms of output?
4.	How many pages are in each and how many man-hours were required for the printing and binding of the following: (a) Report of the Royal Commission on Security (Public Version) (b) Report of the Woods Task Force on Labour Relations (c) Report of the Woods Task Force on Veterans' Affairs (d) Report of the Task Force on Sports (e) The White Paper on Veterans' Affairs (f) The White Paper on Indian Policy (g) The Task Force on Housing and Urban Development?
5.	What was the elapsed time required for printing of each of the above? (i.e. How many days was the document in the printer's hands?)


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	5.
Pages	Man-Hours	Number of Days*	Eng. Fr.	Eng.	Fr.	Eng.	Fr.(a) Report/Royal Commission on	10Security (Public Version)	170 194	284	250	11	(b) Report/Woods Task Force on	Labour Relations	274 296	740	663	47	42(c) Report/Woods Task Force on	Veterans' Affairs	1320 1506	401	234	27	25(d) Report/Task Force on	Sports	120 132	484	432	35	22(e) White Paper on Veterans'	Bilingual	Bilingual	Bilingual	Affairs	44	142	20	(f) White Paper on Indian Policy	Bilingual	Bilingual	Bilingual	36	203	17	(g) Task Force on Housing and	Urban Development	96 108	230	263	8	8
* The number of days represent the total time elapsed from the receipt of the first copy by the Canadian Government Printing Bureau to the final day of printing. The figures include the number of days required for transmission of proofs, editing by the customer department and return to the Bureau.

December 3, 1969
Questions


ELECTRIFICATION OF RIDEAU CANAL LOCKS
Mr. Mather: 1.	Does the Department of Transport intend to proceed with the electrification of the locks along the Rideau Canal System?
2.	If so, has any study been undertaken with regard to the above subject, and if so, who were the people involved in the preparation of this study?
3.	Is there an official plan regarding the lock electrification program, and if so, what are main details?
4.	What is the expected total cost of the lock electrification for the Rideau Canal System?
5.	What are the planned expenditures for each of the coming fiscal years regarding this program?
6.	What are the main reasons for proceeding with the electrification of these locks?
7.	Is the Department giving favourable consideration to a re-evaluation of this program in view of the important historical and scenic factors?
8.	Has a cost-benefit analysis been undertaken of the above program under the Treasury Board's Planning Programming Budgeting System, and if not, why not?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. In the
course of reconstructing lock number 36 at Newboro and lock number 13 at Black Rapids, the Department of Transport has installed electrically-activated hydraulic lock machinery. The Department proposes to take no further initiatives of this sort until such time as these improvements have been thoroughly evaluated.
2.	Departmental officials have been making a continuing study of lock rehabilitation, reconstruction and operating procedures with assistance from the National Capital Commission and the National and Historic Parks Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and in consultation with the Government of Ontario and other interested parties.
3.	The Department's plan contemplates that a particular lock should be reconstructed at such time as the lock is deemed to have reached imminent failure. The two locks referred to hereover were reconstructed on this basis. If experience warrants and if such a course of action seems justified, electrically-activated hydraulic lock machinery will be installed in other locks when reconstruction becomes necessary.
4.	It is postulated that 30 locks will require reconstruction at some time in the next 30 years. Estimated cost is $500,000 per lock,

of which $25,000 would be earmarked for electrically-activated hydraulic lock machinery (were same to be installed).
5.	No expenditures in this category are planned for the fiscal years 1969-70 and 197071.
6.	Existing "man-powered" lock machinery does not meet federal and provincial safety standards. Modifications to correct deficiencies would alter the general appearance and the essential character of much of this machinery. In the light of safety requirements, experience to date (at Black Rapids, in particular) suggests that the historical and scenic values inherent in the Rideau Canal System will be protected and enhanced if electrically-activated hydraulic lock machinery is properly designed and put in place and operated with due regard for aesthetic considerations.
7.	The Department is most intent upon protecting and enhancing what the Department recognizes as being a unique national asset and will continue to consult and to receive representations from all those who have an interest in the Rideau Canal System: meanwhile, Departmental studies continue.
8.	All canal structures have been rebuilt once or twice. The rehabilitation and recon-siruction program is a part of the Department's normal operating and maintenance program. No cost-benefit analysis of the Rideau Canal System has been undertaken.


POLICY RESPECTING SUPERSONIC AIRCRAFT
Mr. Skoberg: Will the Government of Canada consider issuing a policy statement now that no supersonic transport aircraftaircraft (SST) will be permitted to fly overland in Canada?
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport)': No. The
conditions under which a supersonic transport aircraft would be permitted to operate over Canada would depend entirely upon whether the aircraft in service conditions could comply with Section 515 (2) of the Air Regulations which provides as follows:
No aircraft shall be flown in such a manner as to create a shock wave the effect of which is to create or likely to create a hazard to other aircraft or to persons or property on the ground.


BILLS OF LADING
Mr. Mather: Is consideration being given to the simplified new United States bill of lading form and the saving of time and expense through more efficient shipping documentation?
December 3. 1969


Gérard Loiselle: Yes. The Government is assisting in the work of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization on the simplification of shipping documents. In addition, shipping industry associations in Canada are considering the problem, including standardized bills of lading, and the Government has offered technical assistance.


COST OF PUBLICATION OF &quot;TRANSPORT CANADA&quot;
Mr. Mather: 1.	What is the cost of publication of the Department of Transport staff magazine "Transport Canada" including the personnel involved, material, production and distribution?
2.	How many copies of the magazine are printed?


Gérard Loiselle: 1. Cost of the publication, including the salary of the one person (editor) involved nearly full-time in its publication, is approximately $30,000. Produced by the Government Printing Bureau; outside of normal Government distribution in
(a)	The Right Honourable Pierre E. Trudeau
(b)	The Honourable Jean-Jacques Bertrand
(c)	The Honourable Jean Lesage
(d)	Mr. Rene Levesque
(e)	Mr. Raymond Lemieux
(f)	Mr. Michel Chartrand
(g)	Mr. Jean Drapeau
(h)	Mr. Real Caouette


HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
Mr. Winch: 1.	What are the names of the twenty-one parttime Harbour Commissioners appointed by the government?
2.	What honoraria, fees or salaries are paid to each?


Gérard Loiselle: 1 and 2.
The following are the Harbour Commissioners appointed by the government and their annual honoraria: J. A. Goyer, Belleville Harbour Commissioners, $900 as Chairman; D. P. Burley, Belleville Harbour Commissioners,
Questions
Ottawa, the magazine is distributed by express and mail.
2. 17,250 of each issue are produced.


PARTICIPATION BY CERTAIN PERSONS IN CBC FRENCH NETWORK PROGRAMS
Mr. Portelance: Between June 1, 1969 and October 24, 1969, how many times have the following been heard on the French radio and television network of the CBC (a) The Right Honourable Pierre E. Trudeau (b) The Honourable Jean-Jacques Bertrand (c) The Honourable Jean Lesage (d) Mr. Rene Levesque (e) Mr. Raymond Lemieux (f) Mr. Michel Chartrand (g) Mr. Jean Drapeau (h) Mr. Real Caouette.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the following figures are for radio and television public affairs or special programming between June 1 and October 24, 1969, but that those indicated for news programs are for a one-month period only, September 24 to October 24, 1969, since no earlier record of individual news appearances was available.
No. of	No. of
Appearances in Public	Appearances
Affairs or Special	in
Programs	News Programs
6	13
7	20
1	5
5	12
3	6
3	2
1	1
2	5
$600; W. A. D. Selby,	Oshawa Harbour Commission $800; J. D. McNish, Toronto Harbour Commissioners, Expenses only; H. T. O'Neill, Toronto Harbour Commissioners, Expenses only; E. D. Hickey, Hamilton Harbour Commissioners, $4,000; J. A. Lanza, Hamilton Harbour Commissioners, $4,000; C. Gress, Windsor Harbour Commission, $1,200 as Chairman; A. J. Quenneville, Windsor Harbour Commission, $800; F. H. Black, Lake-head Harbour Commission, $1,400; J. C. Perry, Lakehead Harbour Commission, $1,400; H. H. Styffe, Lakehead Harbour Commission, $1,400; F. H. Jackson, Fraser River Harbour Commission, $2,100 as Chairman; C. T. Brown,

December 3, 1969
Questions
Fraser River Harbour Commission, $1,400; F. H. Coulthard, Fraser River Harbour Commission, $1,400; J. S. Alsbury, North Fraser Harbour Commissioners, $2,500 as Chairman; J. A. Lindsay, North Fraser Harbour Commissioners, $35 per meeting with annual maximum of $1,200; E. Riordan, North Fraser Harbour Commissioners, $35 per meeting with annual maximum of $1,200; D. Robinson, Nanaimo Harbour Commission, $1,500 as Chairman; C. D. Madill, Nanaimo Harbour Commission, $1,000; D. O'Brien, Port Alberni Harbour Commissioners, $1,500 as Chairman; L. K. Jordan, Port Alberni Harbour Commissioners, $1,000.


CONDITIONS ON SMALL COASTAL TUGS
Mr. Maiher: Have representations been received from the Western Branch, Canadian Merchant Service Guild, protesting alleged primitive living conditions on small coastal tugs and citing the fact that 21 lives have been lost in the past five years due to operating conditions?


Gérard Loiselle: Yes. Such representations have been received by a group of officials of the Departments of Transport and Labour who had already commenced a joint study of living and working conditions on tugs.


EXPULSION OF FRANK SHEER FROM CAMEROON
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton: West):
1.	Was a Canadian citizen, Frank Sheer, resident of Ottawa, recently expelled from Cameroon by the authorities of that country and under what circumstances?
2.	What assistance, leading to release from arrest and confinement, was provided by the Canadian Charge d'Affaires, Marc Perron, at Yaounde?
3.	What protests were made to the Cameroonian Government by Canadian authorities concerning the abusive police treatment received by Mr. Sheer and what was the answer?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Yes. Canadian citizen, Frank Sheer, a resident of Ottawa, on an assignment for International Color Film in Cologne, was expelled from Cameroon by the authorities of that country on November 1, 1969 following the expiry of his visa. Mr. Sheer was detained on October 27 near Ba-menda, West Cameroon, taken to Buea on October 28 and transferred by Federal Security Forces to Yaounde on October 31. Cameroonian authorities held him for interrogation on grounds of engaging in suspicious activities.

Although the region where Mr. Sheer was detained was a long way from the border between Cameroon and Nigeria, the Cameroonian Security Forces' suspicions appear to have been aroused as a result of Mr. Sheer travelling in that region carrying photographic equipment and wearing a bush jacket and haversack similar to those used by Cameroonian soldiers.
2.	Mr. Sheer's detention was brought to the attention of the Canadian Embassy by the British Vice-Consul at Buea as soon as he was aware of the situation. The Canadian Charge d'Affaires, succeeded in obtaining Mr. Sheer's release from detention and in arranging for him to stay in a hotel overnight in Yaounde prior to his departure from the country on November 1.
3.	In his conversation with the Canadian Charge d'Affaires, Mr. Sheer made no reference to physical abuse at the hands of Cameroonian police authorities.
The Canadian Charge d'Affaires in Yaounde has, however made representations to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs regarding their security forces' refusal to permit Mr. Sheer to contact a Canadian representative and their failure to inform the Canadian Embassy of the detention of Mr. Sheer.


REGIONAL INCENTIVES GRANT, ATLANTIC BREWING COMPANY
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Was an application for a Regional Incentives Grant submitted to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion by the Atlantic Brewing Company of Stephenville, Newfoundland and, if so, on what date?
2.	Was this grant approved and, if so, on what date?
3.	What was the financial condition of the firm on receipt of the grant?
4.	What is the financial position at the present time?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes, April 4, 1968.
2.	Yes. May 29, 1969.
3.	The company was in a break-even position afier the first year of operation. The shareholders met the equity requirements of the legislation.
4.	Operations have ceased as a result of subsequent losses.


ADVERTISING RESPECTING FILING OF TAX RETURNS
Mr. Matte: 1. What amount did the government spend on advertising to encourage Canadians to file their
December 3, 1969

1967 and 1968 tax returns before the closing date?
2.	What amount does the government intend to spend for this purpose in connection with the 1969 returns?
3.	Of these amounts how much was or will be paid to (a) private firms (b) the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. The Department of National Revenue, Taxation, did not have an advertising program designed to encourage Canadians to file tax returns on time during 1967 or 1968. Whatever advertising was done was directed to filing correct returns through the use of the guide provided and available information through the district taxation offices.
2.	The same policy will prevail in connection with 1969 returns.
3.	Not applicable.


SALARY, BANK OF CANADA GOVERNOR
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the salary of the Governor of the Bank of Canada in 1967?
2.	What is the salary in 1969?
3.	Does he receive any emolument from the International Monetary Fund and, if so, is it tax-free?


Edgar John Benson: 1 and 2. The salary of the Governor of the Bank of Canada was $50,000 per year from 1953 to 1968 and has been $75,000 per year since January 1, 1969.
3. No.


PROPERTY EXPROPRIATION OVERLOOKING LEBRETON FLATS
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the purpose of the expropriation of the property next to 100 Bronson overlooking Le-breton Flats?
2.	What was the cost of acquiring this property?


Abram Ernest Epp: As far as the National Capital Commission in concerned: 1. The property was expropriated by the National Capital Commission February 19, 1965, to assure that future development on the site would be compatible with the then Government plans for locating the National Defence Headquarters on LeBreton Flats.
2. $807,176.50.


SUBSIDIES TO MILK PRODUCERS, CARDIGAN RIDING
Mr. McQuaid: 1. During the last fiscal year, how many milk producers in the Constituency of Cardigan were in receipt of subsidies payable by the Canadian Dairy Commission?
Questions
2.	What was the total amount of the subsidy paid during the above period?
3.	How many producers in the above Constituency had deductions made from their subsidy payments because of the fact that their production exceeded their assigned quotas?
4.	What was the total amount lost to the producers because of these deductions?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. Records of dairy subsidy payments are maintained only on a national and provincial basis. The provincial figures are not broken down by constituency or other geographic boundaries.
2.	See above.
3.	See above.
4.	See above.


JAIL FACILITIES, P.E.I.
Mr. McQuaid: 1.	Since January 1, 1968, was there a request from the Government of Prince Edward Island of the Government of Canada for financial assistance in the improvement of jail facilities in that Province and, if so, what was the nature of the reply?
2.	Would the Government of Canada favourably consider a proposal to establish, at its own expense, a jail farm in this Province or would it be prepared to give substantial financial assistance tc the establishment of such a farm?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: 1. No request has been received by the Solicitor General since January 1, 1968 for direct financial assistance in the improvement of jail facilities in the Province of Prince Edward Island, however, a request has been received by the Solicitor General from the Attorney General of that Province to finance a study of the Province's correctional programs. In response, the Province was asked to define in specific terms the breadth of the study proposed so that the methods and personnel needed for such a study might be determined and the financial implications assessed. A reply is being awaited.
2. Answered by 1.


REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON HEALTH SERVICES' COSTS
Mr. Soulham: Following the Federal-Provincial Conference of Health Ministers being held in Ottawa November 25th and 26th, will the Report of the Committee on Costs of Health Services be made available to Members of Parliament for study?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: This report was tabled in the House of Commons on November 25th, 1969.
Finance

December 3, 1969!


Mr. Louis Roland Comeau (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the government has announced three weeks ago its policy concerning question No. 306. I have asked earlier the Parliamentary Secretary if the question could be allowed to stand, because an answer has already been provided through the press. I am wondering why it is impossible to get an answer in the House.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: An answer has already been requested, Mr. Speaker, and as far as I know it will be given shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26 FINANCE INCREASE IN BANK PROFITS
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the tremendous increase in profits reported yesterday by all of Canada's chartered banks, and the need to consider imposing regulations to limit interest rates and other service charges.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo has proposed to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 in the circumstances to which he has just referred. The purpose of the proposed motion is to give this House an opportunity to debate the need to consider imposing regulations to limit interest rates and other service charges.
I must bring to the attention of hon. members that the House itself, by an order adopted October 30, empowered the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to consider the present level of interest rates. Thus the very problem raised by the hon. member is specifically before a standing committee by order of the House. This would seem to indicate that this is the type of situation that, in spite of the circumstances explained by the hon. member, ought not to be the subject of an emergency debate

under Standing Order 26. In the circumstances I have to rule that the motion cannot be put to the House at this time.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell), to move the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the statement by the President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada on behalf of 140,000 public employees citing deteriorating relations between the staff unions and Treasury Board on a number of important issues, but most especially the absence of meaningful bargaining on the government's part and the "incredibly slow pace" of current negotiations.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River sent me notice of his proposed motion in accordance with Standing Order 26, section (2). Since receiving the hon. member's notice I have had an opportunity to consider the subject matter of the topic which he proposes to raise on a motion to adjourn the House. As has often been said by the Chair in this session and as is repeated in the Standing Order, the question to be determined by the Chair is not the importance of the subject matter but rather the urgency of debate. Perhaps it might be helpful once again to quote the Standing Order and particularly subsection (16)(a) which reads as follows:
The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration.
There is no doubt in my mind that the relationship between the government and its employees is a matter of particular importance, but I cannot bring myself to feel that the continuing process of bargaining and negotiating is of such immediate urgency as to require the setting aside of the ordinary public business which the House will consider today. In the circumstances the motion proposed by the hon. member should not be put to the House.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the notices of motions for the pro-
December 3, 1SS9

Motions for Papers
duction of papers Nos. 35, 51, 81, 267, 269, 273, gregoire lake reserves-transfer 274, 275, 276, 277 and 278 are acceptable to	OF land for road
the government.	Motion No. 273-Mr. Rose:


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the notices of motions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


POTENTIAL PRICE INCREASES IN 1970 CARS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 35
Mr. Broadbenl:: That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canadian automobile manufacturers regarding any potential price increases in 1970 model cars.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the survey undertaken by the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding the sewage treatment of 19 major Canadian cities prepared for proposals under the Canada Water Act.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 81-Mr. Rose:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, aide-memoires, etc., between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States regarding the nuclear bomb explosion in the Aleutian Islands.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 267-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an Order of the House do issue for a complete copy as of November 4, 1969, of the loose-leaf book entitled "Organization of the Government of Canada".
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 269-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the October 1969 Order-in-Council regarding the authorization of Canadian National Railways to guarantee 25.5% of a $1.5 million bank loan to Computer Sciences (Canada) Limited.
Motion agreed to.
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the October 1969 Order-in-Council regarding the transfer to the Province of Alberta a portion of Gregoire Lake Indian Reserves 176 and 176A in the said Province for road purposes.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 274-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the October 1969 Order-in-Council regarding the consenting to the exercising of statutory powers by the Corporation of the District of North Cowichan of Duncan, in the Province of British Columbia, re a portion of Cowichan Indian Reserve No. 1 in the said Province.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 275-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the October 1969 Order-in-Council regarding the consenting to the exercising of statutory powers by Canadian Utilities Limited re easement for a power line transmission over part of Kehiwin Indian Reserve Number 123 in the Province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 276-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the October 1969 Order-in-Council regarding the acceptance of the surrender of 13 acres of Luksee-toissum Indian Reserve No. 9 in the Province of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 277-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the October 1969 Order-in-Council transferring to the Province of British Columbia a portion of the Cowichan Indian Reserve Number 1 in the said Province for road purposes.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
December 3, 1969
Motions for Papers

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 278-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the October 1969 Order-in-Council regarding the expropriation by British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority re the whole of Finlay Forks Indian Reserve No. 1. British Columbia.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions Nos. 49, 58 and 86 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations as to confidential documents and to consent given by the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations and conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that the notices of motions he has enumerated shall be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 49-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the letter from the Government of Canada to students employed by the Government of Canada during the summer months advising them that their employment was prematurely terminated.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 58-Mr. Thomson (Batileford-
Kindersley):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all consultant reports and studies done for the National Capital Commission.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 86-Mr. Brewin:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence, plans, reports, studies and other documents relating to a proposed or projected airport in or near the Toronto Island or the East end of the City of Toronto, and in particular, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, correspondence between the Department of Transport and any of its representatives and the Toronto Harbour Commissioners, representatives of the Government of Ontario, of the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, of the City of Toronto, and further in particular any reports showing the proposed site of the proposed airport, studies as to noise pollution, traffic studies, and studies as to accessibility and parking accommodation.
Motion agreed to.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions Nos. 9, 31, 44, 93, 131, 138, 150, 206 and 207?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND CAUSEWAY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 9-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report by C. B. Haver of Montreal for Northumberland Consultants Limited regarding a review of the cost-benefit evaluation by Stanford Research Institute for a Prince Edward Island causeway as mentioned in answer to question number 1,832 reported in Hansard July 21, 1969 on page 11374.
Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, this motion refers to a review and cost-benefit study undertaken in respect of the studies on the Northumberland Passage. Being a review it was strictly an internal document, privileged, and therefore I would ask if the hon. member would please withdraw his motion.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the premise put forward by the minister. In the light of that I suggest we take a vote.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


WOODS TASK FORCE REPORT PROPOSALS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 31-Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg
North Centre):
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the Government of Canada and the Governments of each of the provinces regarding the implementation of the proposals in the Report of the Woods Task Force on Labour Relations.
Mr. Jim McNulty (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, we have explained to the hon. member that any correspondence covered by his motion related only to the arrangements for a meeting. Since it would hardly seem worth while to correspond again with the provinces for their permission to table this correspondence, perhaps the hon. member would withdraw his motion.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this assurance has already been given to me and in light thereof I am happy to withdraw this motion. It is too bad there was not something there to get.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
December 3, 1969


CANADIAN EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING AGENCY
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 44-Mr. Rose:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the task force report regarding the Canadian Educational Broadcasting Agency, referred to by the Secretary of State on October 24, 1968, as reported in Hansard on page 1968.
Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the motion relates to the production of the final report of the task force on educational broadcasting. This paper does not exist.
As mentioned in my statement of October 24, 1968, on educational television made in the House, the mandate of the task force was to advise the government on educational television and more particularly, on the details of the proposed legislation and on the methods of financing the agency that was then suggested, to ascertain provincial requirements and priorities for the provision of facilities and to advise on the most practical means of satisfying provincial require-' ments.
The task force has fulfilled its mandate; no final report was expected of the task force. Most of the aspects of the work described above, particularly in relation to the proposed legislation, the methods of financing the agency and the means of satisfying the most urgent provincial requirements-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I take the liberty of reminding the minister that he is not allowed to make a statement which should normally be made on motions. The minister should indicate to the House as briefly as possible why the motion is accepted or turned down.


Gérard Pelletier: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the task force had not been asked to report, but to carry out a certain program.
I would therefore ask the hon. member if he would be good enough to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, since the document apparently does not exist I agree not to request it.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.
Motions for Papers PETITION BY CERTAIN MEMBERS RESPECTING ARCTIC SEAS
Motion No. 93-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the petition given to the Prime Minister by twenty-five members of the House of Commons asking that Canada declare the Arctic seas as Canadian territorial waters.


Mr. J. E. Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, no petition as described in the motion has been received by the Prime Minister. Perhaps, therefore, the hon. member may wish to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances I will agree.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


POTASH SHIPMENTS, SASKATCHEWAN TO UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 131-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan concerning trade and prices of potash shipped from Saskatchewan to the United States.
Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce wishes to inform the hon. member that while there have been considerable consultations between the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the government of Saskatchewan on this issue, there is no written correspondence on file. In view of this, the minister would ask the member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the motion be dropped?


Mr. Burton:: I agree, Mr. Speaker.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


SALE OF POTASH TO UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 138-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence for the period January 1, 1968 to September 30, 1969, between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States regarding the sale of potash to the United States.
Mr. Yves Fores! (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):	Mr. Speaker, the only correspondence that the
'	'4 [DOT]
[Stage Direction]
December 3, 1969
Motions for Papers
government of Canada has had with the United States government refers to the procedures followed by the United States authorities in their anti-dumping investigation of Canadian potash exports. This exchange is continuing and in these circumstances the production of papers for the period in question would not be in the public interest. In view of this, I hope that the hon. member will withdraw his motion.
John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I cannot agree to this request. I ask that a vote be taken on this motion.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. ARCTIC WATERS MAP
Motion No. 150-Mr. Harding:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a map showing Arctic waters claimed by Canada.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, no map has yet been published showing the extent of Canadian territorial waters in the Arctic.
Consequently, I invite the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a vote be taken.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


U.S. POLICY ON VIET NAM-CANADIAN MEMORANDUM INDICATING DISAPPROVAL
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 206-Mr. Broadbent:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the memorandum submitted by the Government of Canada to the Government of the United States indicating disapproval of President Nixon's recent statement of United States policy on Viet Nam as being unlikely to lead to peace in Viet Nam, as mentioned by the Prime Minister and reported in Hansard November 6, 1969, pages 591 to 592.
Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister never indicated that a memorandum had been submitted to the American authorities and, as 
a matter of fact, such a memorandum does not exist.
The Prime Minister discussed the question of Viet Nam with President Nixon, when he visited Washington last April. Furthermore, the Secretary of State for External Affairs also discussed the matter with the American Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers, on that same occasion, and on various other occasions.
Considering that such a memorandum does not exist, I suggest to the hon. member that he withdraw his motion.


John Edward Broadbent: That is a reasonable
request to which I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES-NATIVE PEOPLE EMPLOYED IN MINING
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 207-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the survey undertaken by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development showing the number of native people employed in mining in the Northwest Territories as referred to by the Minister of Indian Affairs in his address in Yellowknife on November 10, 1969.
Mr. Russell C. Honey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, when the mining firms provided the information requested by the hon. member in this motion, they did so on the understanding that the department would not make it public. It would be a breach of faith on the part of the government to release this information and I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I
should like to raise a point of order about this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary was kind enough to send me a copy of his proposed remarks. The statement says that when the mining firms provided this information they did so on a confidential basis and therefore it would be a breach of faith to disclose how many native Indian people are working in the mining industry in the territories. The fact of the matter is that the minister on November 10 was able to take what is obviously confidential information and exploit it publicly and politically. Such being the case, I think the information must be provided.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December 3. 1969	COMMONS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is
not a point of order. The hon. member does not agree with the reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary. His recourse is either to ask for a vote or suggest that the matter be transferred for debate.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, if the government wants to transfer the matter and hide it that way, that is its business.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Transfer for
debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, since reference has previously been made to this matter, I wonder if I may ask the President of the Privy Council whether I may soon expect a decision on notice of motion for the production of papers No. 30, having to do with a report on the subject of conflict of interest legislation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. After what happened last night I wonder whether he forgot to introduce himself to the House this afternoon. Perhaps there is an Acting Minister to represent the President of the Treasury Board today. Is there an Acting Minister to represent the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker?


An hon. Member:: Please stand up.
Another hon. Member: Put the question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask someone on the other side of the House whether, in view of the serious allegation by Mr. Claude Edwards that some members of the government have made thinly veiled 21545-271
DEBATES	1545
Inquiries of the Ministry threats of economic blackmail, with hints that any increases in salary negotiated at the bargaining table will have to be paid for in lay-offs and redundancies, an appropriate spokesman for the government is prepared to repudiate this statement and deny that such a situation exists or whether, on the other hand, this is the inevitable consequence of the payroll freeze that has been adopted by the government with respect to most departments?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition knows that a question normally should be asked in another form. It should be asked directly instead of taking the form of seeking a confirmation or denial of a statement. Subject to this condition and reservation, the question is acceptable to the Chair.


An hon. Member:: Who is answering?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, the subject dealt with in the question of the Leader of the Opposition is so manifestly exclusively the responsibility of the President of the Treasury Board that I am quite certain he and members of the House would want the President of the Treasury Board to make the reply. I shall draw this question to his attention on his return.


An hon. Member:: Pretty smooth!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister of Public Works is directing this matter to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board, will he also call to the attention of the minister the charge that the whole pay system in the Public Service is in a state of chaos and ask the minister to make a full statement to the House and give assurances of what measures, if any, are being taken to correct this situation?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I shall draw the attention of the minister to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: May I direct my supplementary question to the' Prime Minister. In these negotiations have the secretary to the President of the Privy Council, the secretary to the President of the Treasury Board and his other representatives been instructed as to the maximum percentage of increase which Will be granted? If so, what is that percentage? : : '1	;	.	..u
December 3. 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I know of no such instructions given by either the secretary or by the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Are we to understand from the Prime Minister that the guideline of a 6 per cent or 7 per cent increase in wages for government employees is not now in effect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Nor has it ever been, Mr. Speaker.



DELAY IN ISSUING RETROACTIVE PAY CHEQUES

Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister say whether the lengthy delay in honouring the retroactive pay commitments to civil servants is because the minister is holding the funds in order to keep the cash position of the treasury solvent?


Edgar John Benson: would like to say that such is not the case. With the tremendous success of the Canada Savings Bonds campaign, our cash balances are good.


Gerald William Baldwin: Why don't you pay your bills then?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the scathing indictment of Mr. Edwards regarding the government's attitude toward its own pensioners, can the Prime Minister give the House a date when the decision will be made with regard to this matter? I ask this in view of the evasive answers and the procrastination we have received from the President of the Treasury Board.



FINANCE


Max Saltsman: I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. In view of the excessive profits now reported by all banks, will the minister inform the House whether it is his intention to make a statement indicating this country's disapproval of the failure of the banks to practice restraint in this inflationary period?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, all I have seen, like my hon.
friend, is the report in this morning's Globe 
and Mail. I am studying it. I will comment on it after I have had a chance to compare the preliminary figures with the actual figures that are available to the Inspector General of Banks.


Max Saltsman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to understand from the minister's reply that after studying the report in the paper he will make a statement on the banks' position?


Edgar John Benson: I will certainly consider the matter, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Minister of Finance tell us whether the profits of the Bank of Canada, our most eminent financial institution, are presently comparable to those of the chartered banks?


Edgar John Benson: It is a pretty good operation, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary Norih):: My question is to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the banks have shown large profits, is the minister prepared to discuss with the presidents of the various chartered banks the lowering of interest rates in regard to those programs basically guaranteed by the government, such as farm improvement loans, house improvement loans and various other loans?


Edgar John Benson: I suggest that the hon. member should attend the standing committee that is studying interest rates so that he may put his great knowledge before that committee and enable them to come back to the House with reports and suggestions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Before I ask my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I might just make this reply-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member wants to make a reply, he will have to do so on another occasion. He may ask a supplementary question.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I will reshape my thoughts and rephrase my question. I ask the Minister of Finance, through Your Honour, if he thinks
December 3. 1969

that the present rates of interest of 8J per cent to 10 per cent being charged on certain loans are fair in light of the profits of the banks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I think interest rates are too damn high.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question and answer are out of order.



COMPANY OF YOUNG CANADIANS


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to the Secretary of State.
Since it is generally admitted that the Company of Young Canadians is infested with separatists and people in revolt, does the minister intend to take action in order to prevent the wasting of public funds by putting an end to this extravagance throughout Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, to answer that part of the intervention which is a question, I must say that the parliamentary committee studying the problem to which, I think, the hon. member is referring, is to submit its report Friday.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.
Is the secretary of State aware that the Company of Young Canadians is doing television programs in Rouyn-Noranda-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon.
member's question is not in order.



ABANDONMENT OF PROJECT

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
In view of the announcement made this morning by the director of the Company of Young Canadians, Mr. Vidal, to the effect that he might have to decide whether he should withdraw his financial support and the cooperation of his members to St. Henri's workers' committee, does the Secretary of State know about this decision? Has he been consulted and can he tell us whether other projects will also be discontinued soon?


Gérard Pelletier: No, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION



EASTERN QUEBEC-NEGOTIATION OF NEW FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT

Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he tell the House whether or not he has received an invitation from Mr. Marcel Masse, of the province of Quebec, to take part in a summit meeting with all the members of parliament from the Lower Saint Lawrence area, the Gaspe Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of negotiating a new federal-provincial agreement on the economic development of Eastern Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the interesting suggestion he is now bringing forth could fortunately be considered at the time of adjournment.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: May I direct
a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker? Did the government give approval to the remarks prepared for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and delivered last night by his Parliamentary Secretary at Sault Ste. Marie? If so, does the Prime Minister consider that this sort of partisan speech will assist progress at the constitutional conference next week?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me the question as asked is argumentative. I do not think it is acceptable.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Has he any report to make to the House regarding the unfortunate tragic incident on board the aircraft carrier Bonaventure? I might take this opportunity to express the sympathy of all members to the next of kin of the victims.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much having to inform the
December 3, 19S9

Inquiries of, the Ministry House that four members of the crew of the aircraft carrier Bonaventure died early this morning after they were overcome by aviation gas fumes on board the ship. The four men were carrying out fuel tank venting operations when they were overcome about 4.40 am. this morning, Atlantic standard time. The names of those killed will be announced after their next of kin have been informed. The removal of aviation gas fumes from these tanks is standard operating procedure. A board of inquiry has been ordered. I join the hon. member in his expression of sympathy to the next of kin.



POSSIBLE BRITISH ENTRY INTO ECM- SAFEGUARDING OF CANADIAN INTERESTS

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. On Monday I asked the Prime Minister what attitude the Canadian government was adopting with regard to Britain's potential entry into the European Common Market. The Prime Minister indicated that he was making this his responsibility. I wonder if he is in a position to tell the House whether he will be making a statement on motions and, if so, when?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am afraid the hon. member misunderstood my answer, Mr. Speaker. When this question was asked on Monday I remarked that the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce would be answering questions the next day, which was yesterday. I do not know if the hon. member was here yesterday or if he forgot his question, but if he will look at Hansard I believe this is what he will see. My answer is the same. The department will be answering questions tomorrow.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With the greatest respect, the Prime Minister said that he was making this matter his responsibility; at least, I interpreted him in that way. I apologize if I am wrong; I will question the appropriate minister.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


In view of the serious charges by members of the Canadian Consumers Council that the council has spent a year in almost total idleness, is torn by bitter internal dissension and is gagged by the chairman, will the minister investigate these charges and inform the House of his findings?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago I wrote to the members of the council and asked each of them individually for his views on the role and structure of the council. I now have those views. I also informed the council some time ago that I would be meeting with them to discuss whether there should be any change in the role or structure of the council.
I have read the report to which the hon. member refers and from reading the report all I can say is that one can only have some sympathy for the chairman in view of the divergent views which were expressed.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the particular charge that nothing meaningful has been done to look into ways to help low income consumers, will the minister now consider appointing representatives from the low income consumers to the council?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I asked the council more than a year ago in my first speech to the council to examine questions and problems relating to the low income consumer. They have not yet reported to me on that subject. As I said a moment ago, I have asked the members of the council to give me their views whether there should be a change in the role or structure of the council, and I will be weighing those views to determine whether some changes should be made.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-iings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to address to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made last night by the man Who has been appointed by the government to control the increase in the cost of living, the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission, that Canada has done worse than the United States in controlling inflation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of the hon. member
December 3, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
that it is irregular and contrary to long established practice during the question period to ask questions in the form now used by the hon. member. A question has to be asked directly. It should not include statements or declarations made outside the House.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I quite agree with Your Honour. We would prefer to proceed immediately to our questions, but the members of this government have to be filled in before we can ask them. My question is: Is it now the intention of the government to study very carefully the methods being employed by the United States to control inflation so that the methods being used by Canada can be improved as much as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the part of the question which was bootlegged in, I can see the context. It is obvious that Mr. Young was talking about Canada and the United States but not about the Canadian government. The Canadian government, I submit, has done considerably better than the United States government in controlling inflation. However, in Canada there are also provincial governments and the private sector of the economy, as well as the international flow of economics, which also cause inflation. But as far as the federal government is concerned we have done beautifully.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's answer I would simply ask him this: Does he ever get a stiff neck from keeping his head in the sand for so much of the time?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Following the recent report of the European Human Rights Commission, which stated that the government of Greece is currently practising, as a normal administrative procedure, the torture of prisoners in their jails, has the Canadian government issued any kind of protest to this fellow member of NATO?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen this report of the commission but I will consult the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obligations of NATO countries, and in light of this report, will the government consider taking action within NATO to ensure that these practices cease or, in the alternative, that Greece no longer remains a member of NATO?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to clarify a question I put to the Prime Minister. Once he checks into the report of torture in Greek prisons, is it the intention of the Prime Minister, if the report is confirmed, to file a protest with the Greek government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The intention I expressed was to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


NATO-EMPHASIS ON NUCLEAR RETALIATORY ROLE-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister regarding NATO and reports that NATO intends to emphasize its nuclear retaliatory role. Does this indication of intention affect the decision of the government of Canada to drop its nuclear role?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. We announced that our nuclear role would be phased out and that remains our decision.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government of Canada involved in the current discussion within NATO which evidently has as its goal the upgrading of the nuclear capability of the alliance in Europe?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check whether we are currently involved in this discussion. I do know that there is a committee of NATO, composed of a group of NATO countries, some of which have nuclear capability and others not, which has discussed the strategy of NATO in the nuclear area, but I do not think that Canada is at present a member of that committee.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question. Is the government of Canada prepared to participate in discussions relating to NATO's nuclear role?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are not a
member of that committee, but if we were
December 3, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry admitted to membership on the committee we would naturally put forward our point of view. Our point of view is the one stated in the House, namely, that as far as Canada is concerned we have decided that we should phase out our nuclear role in NATO.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the federal-provincial conference commences next Monday, would the Prime Minister consider holding a briefing session for all Members of Parliament on the position of the federal government, similar to the one held in regard to the white paper on taxation?


Some hon. Members:: Ho, ho, ho!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Don't worry; we already know it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I informed the House that I would table the government position tomorrow. We would be prepared to have this position explained to any Members of Parliament who are interested, though I observe that the ndp does not appear to be interested. We would be prepared to have officials brief any member of any party who wants to understand the government position before starting to cry "ho, ho, ho".


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I might point out that the "ho, ho, ho" came about because a meeting has already been arranged and announced. That was the reason for the exclamation.
May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, one of which he took notice a week ago today. I asked the minister whether he had made representations to the premiers of the various provinces in regard to whether they would be willing to introduce enabling legislation to give the Prices and Incomes Commission concurrent power to deal with unjus.tified price increases?


An hon. Member:: Here comes Santa Claus.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I promised the hon. member, I did look into this question. I have had no direct correspondence requesting this kind of permission. As the Prime Minister has indicated, there is to be a further federal-provincial meeting early next year at which this general question will be discussed. I should also like to inform the hon. member that the ministers of finance and provincial treasurers are intending to meet following the constitutional conference next week, and this question will undoubtedly come up in our discussions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that the minister's answer was about what was going to happen in the future and inasmuch as he has been complaining for a year that he does not have the necessary power, may I ask the minister why no appeals have been made to the provinces to introduce concurrent legislation granting power to deal with rising living costs?


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, could the minister indicate how high, in his opinion, the cost of living will be permitted to go before it becomes so unacceptable as to warrant some action being taken by the government?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


BROADCASTING
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask a supplementary question but it was not really a supplementary question and would have been ruled out. Therefore, I ask it directly of the Secretary of State. Will he indicate whether in fact there was an agreed definition of educational television, as reported in the press today, between the government and the various provinces? Is it the minister's intention to make a statement in the House or in a press release outside the House, and was this definition unanimous?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the definition has been unanimously approved by the provinces and the federal government. I have not yet con-
December 3. 1969	COMMONS
sidered whether this question would be of sufficient interest to the House to justify a statement on motions, but I am quite willing to consider this possibility.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on whether it is important enough for the House, but educational television is important for the country. Does the definition now open the way for various provincial bodies to use the CBC as an agent for educational television?


Gérard Pelletier: The possibility already existed, but an agreement would greatly facilitate the arrangements the provinces themselves have asked us to make to ensure educational television broadcasting.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Transport has had the benefit of two days of what I have been informed were very fruitful discussions with his provincial counterparts, will he tell the House when we may expect the implementation of Part III of the National Transportation Act?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have just concluded very fruitful discussions with the provinces during which it was noted that the federal intention was to declare Part III when negotiations are completed, perhaps within a matter of a few weeks. Perhaps this will take place in January or February.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Right Hon. Prime Minister has had an opportunity to meet personally with the members of the Yukon council, can he inform the House whether the government has been persuaded to accept some of the reasonable recommendations in respect of greater self-government for this body?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the meetings which took place
DEBATES	1551
Inquiries of the Ministry yesterday were the occasion of a good exchange by members of the Council and the government members present. I think I can say there was general agreement by the council in respect of the position taken by the minister, except on two points. We have already agreed to accept the Council's recommendations for change on one of the two points, and we have said we will consider the other point.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister indicate at this stage whether there will be a similar change in plans for the Northwest Territories?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There have been no representations by the Northwest Territories on this particular statement by the minister, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, I do not know what particular things they would want us to change.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am speaking of representations by members of the Northwest Territories Council.


PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that having to wait for the government to produce the white paper on social security is resulting in considerable delay in increasing the amount of the old age security pension, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare whether the government will consider granting an interim increase in those pensions as a way of saying Merry Christmas to our retired people?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, there is acceleration in benefits in accordance with the cost of living index for old age pensioners.


Some hon. Members:: Ho, ho, ho!


John Carr Munro: The hon. member is further aware that under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government shares equally with the provinces any increased benefits payable to people in need.


Stanley Howard Knowles: will not comment on the $1.58 increase, Mr. Speaker. Is the government going to do anything at all at this session for our retired people-anything at all?
December 3, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry
HARBOURS	not to say anything specific because I will not
really know the answer until the negotiations Roberts bank, B.C. federal government gpg completed. I hope some time today.


RIGHT OF ACCESS
Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the federal government's right of access to the superport at Roberts Bank expires at the end of this month, and in view of the fact that several millions of dollars have been spent on the project, will the Minister of Transport advise the House whether permanent access to the port has been acquired by the federal government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the first two premises are not entirely correct. In respect of the third, the main part of the question, negotiations are still proceeding with the Government of British Columbia.


TRANSPORT
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has evolved a system satisfactory to the government of Prince Edward Island which will guarantee continuous operation of ferry service to that province at times when it might otherwise be interrupted by labour difficulties?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, while I am not at all certain at the moment whether negotiations proceeding today have reached an amicable solution, the indication is that they are headed in that direction and when a solution is found it will be one meeting the requirements set out by the hon. member.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could specifically assure us that the removal of the MV Confederation from the home port of Borden will not take place or be disadvantageous to the number of employees presently engaged on that ship?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: At the moment, Mr. Speaker, this is a matter entirely for the negotiations to which I referred. I repeat that I believe these negotiations are going satisfactorily and that the result will be somewhat close to what the hon. member has requested. I would prefer


OFFICIAL LANGUAGES
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinlhe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State.
Is he in a position today to announce the name of the Commissioner of Languages?


Gérard Pelletier: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


SHIPPING
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. This is his busy day, I guess. In view of the fact that another five lives were lost in the most recent marine disaster a few miles off the coast of Sydney, will the minister now give consideration to the stationing of a permanent search and rescue vessel in Sydney harbour?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Considerably before this unfortunate accident occurred I had asked for, and indeed it is under way, a study of how we might improve search and rescue facilities. There was a new ship launched a few days ago Which is to be employed in this service. No ultimate decision has been reached as to where she will be stationed. If Sydney turns out to be the spot where she can do the most good that certainly will be it, but we do not know yet which is the best way of dealing with the matter.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Devco has been given further burdens in respect of financing, will the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion now take immediate action to set up the co-ordinating committee agreed to over two years ago?
December 3, 1969


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the setting up of these co-ordinating committees had been anticipated even prior to the creation of Devco. Neither the province nor ourselves have felt the need so far of establishing that advisory committee. We will do so as soon as we deem it necessary.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to
ask a supplementary question without making an observation. The minister suggests there is no need for a committee, yet outsiders are being hired by Devco replacing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: -those who the minister indicated the other day were laid off. Will the minister now indicate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Speak up.


Mr. Speaker:: I am very grateful to hon. members for their assistance, but I suggest we might give the hon. member an opportunity to ask his question.


Donald MacInnis: Will the minister now take steps to discourage the hiring of these outsiders brought in to replace displaced Devco workers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that Devco is an independent crown corporation whose management therefore must be carried out independently of the government. My only responsibility is to report to the House on steps taken by this company as I am not empowered to do the hiring for Devco.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister why, when speaking the other day of the freeze, he tied in the Crown companies with the Public Service and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: supplementary, Mr. Speaker-
21545-28S
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We will shortly be running out of time. However, the hon. member might put his supplementary.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, could the minister advise whether he has yet found a chairman for the board who would be qualified to straighten out some of the problems which are arising?


Jean Marchand: We are making
progress.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he intends to proceed with the establishment of a parliamentary committee to consider the question of price stability, which I understood was to be part of the program followed by the government? I ask this question particularly in view of the apparent failure of his other anti-inflationary measures. Does the minister propose to have this committee established and, if so, at an early date?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I do not of course accept the premise of the hon. member's question. It is rather disappointing that he tries from time to time to pour scorn on the Prices and Incomes Commission.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have not tried to yet.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In so far as the question is concerned, I thought I would be able to count on a more co-operative and more helpful attitude from the Leader of the Opposition.


George Harris Hees: Just answer the question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The answer is yes.


PATENTS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I should like to ask the minister whether he can indicate to the House if he is investigating the very serious and important matter of the apparent collusion of members of the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association in not applying

1554	COMMONS
Inquiries, of the Ministry for drug licences under the revised Patent Act passed last session,-.and could he make a report to the House later this week?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the report that obviously prompted the question. If the hon. member
has information which he thinks I should have, I wish he would give it to me immediately. Pursuant to the amendments to the Patent Act made last session, we have received some 50 applications for compulsory licences. Those 50 applications are being processed by the Commissioner of Patents. If the hon. member has some information in respect of collusion, I would certainly like to have it.


TRANSPORT
Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Has the Canadian Transport Commission received an application from the Great Northern Railway Company and the Kootenay Elk Railway Company for permission to build lines into the United States and back into Canada at the Pacific coast for the purpose of carrying coal to the Pacific coast via the United States?


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


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As a result of a number of statements which have been made I should like to ask him whether there was at any time any suggestion on his part or on the part of the government that some of the money paid to the premier of the province of Ontario for medicare be diverted to make up for the withdrawal of federal funds from the health resources fund.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to

DEBATES	December 3, 1969
the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the province of Ontario will be having municipal representation at the coming federal-provincial conference, can the Prime Minister now state that it is government policy to have at future federal-provincial conferences municipal representation as requested by the provinces?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether the hon. member's question refers to the immediately forthcoming conference. If not, I would think the question should be placed on the Order Paper or a statement made in due course.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might rephrase the question. In view of the fact it has been stated that the province of Ontario will have municipal representation at the coming federal-provincial conference, can the Prime Minister now state whether it is the policy of the federal government to welcome and accept municipal representation at federal-provincial conferences.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member he is asking for a policy statement which is not immediately urgent.


SCIENCE SERVICES
Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I have a question for the Prime Minister. In the light of the report to be released by the United Nations Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development are the minister and the government actively considering the establishment of the position of minister of science?


Mr. Speaker:: This is the type of question which could well be placed on the Order Paper.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Can the minister say whether the government will instruct
December 3, 19G9	COMMONS
the Prices and Incomes Commission to examine, as requested by the Saskatchewan Farmers Union, the inflationary profits made by the farm equipment manufacturers?


Stanley Ronald Basford: There is a report which my colleague the Minister of Agriculture will be dealing with very shortly on the question of prices of farm machinery. I think it would be premature to decide to do anything until we see that report and analyse it.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Has he considered the anti-inflationary policy of the Minister of Finance in order to determine whether this includes the approval of unsolicited offers of personal loans by finance companies which urge people across the country to borrow money at high interest rates at this time of the year when there is a high degree of spending?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a question of privilege.


Donald MacInnis: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion just made a distinction between Crown corporations and the public service. I should like to refer to the minister's reply to me on November 26, 1969 when he had this to say as recorded at page 1273 of Hansard in the first column:
Mr. Speaker, there has been a freeze on hirings at Devco as well as in most government departments and Crown Corporations for over a year.
Today, the minister has tried to separate Crown corporations from the public service when last week he linked them together. I think the least we can expect is an honest answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that there is some measure of disorder in the House during statements made by hon. members. I would invite them not to forget what the rules and practice of the House are regarding exchanges across the floor.
DEBATES	1555
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada


GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, December 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray that Bill C-7, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st of January, 1969, to the 30th day of June, 1970, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, last night when the House rose I was discussing the problem of transportation and the thousands of cars that were travelling from the Georgian Bay area-I notice in Hansard it is shown as "Thunder Bay" when it should be "Georgian Bay"-to Toronto and the general Lake Ontario area to the west and the east. I pointed out that there would be roughly well over one million people going to work morning and night using motor cars which carry from one to four or five people, each of these cars spewing out poisonous gas from their exhausts.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
When one considers, as I stated last night, that this is the industrial heartland of Canada and that almost one third of the federal income tax comes from that area, one realizes that not only is it a very important area but also becoming a congested one. With the density of the population increasing, by the year 2,000, according to the statisticians and the information that we have received, the area will be almost solidly built-up from Lake Ontario to Georgian Bay.
I do not believe that we are looking at this matter in proper realistic fashion. As I said before, there are numerous railway lines and roads going out of Toronto. Paralleling one another there is highway 400, highway 27 and highway 11 going north, and going west there is highway 401 and several other highways. Again, paralleling those are the railway lines. All we have to do is to think for a minute of
December 3, 1969
1556	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada the problem which, according to some people, is the greatest problem confronting us today, namely the problem of pollution, particularly air pollution.
You will see hanging over our cities great clouds of air pollution-Toronto is a good example. Every one of the cars that travel along the roads contributes to the pollution. A great many of these cars are used by people who go to work in Metropolitan Toronto. Anyone who has had the experience of travelling in the rush hour in Toronto will know that it takes just about as long to get out to the city limits as it does to travel over the next 60 miles. There is a congestion of cars travelling at a snails pace, pouring out poisonous gases which form a cloud over our city.
I say that the government today is very lax in bringing out a Canada water act and not bringing forth a Canada air pollution act. All you have to do is to drive into those cities and look them over. You will find a great cloud handing over them because all the poisonous gases rise up and form an umbrella. Then, condensation takes place, a fog forms over the area and finally comes down. I say to the government that the railway companies are derelict when they allow the abandonment of railway service, thus forcing people to use their cars to a greater extent to go to and from work, causing more congestion on the roads. This is the age of automation and of motor car travel. Very shortly this area will become so polluted we will have to devise ways and means to get all these people to work so that not only the whole city but surrounding area will not be poisoned as it is now to the point where many respiratory diseases such as emphysema are on the increase. Air pollution also contributes to many other respiratory diseases and may play a significant role in others.
The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu) made a very moving speech on behalf of his constituents. As he pointed out, the railway officials have been derelict in not listening to the people who live in that area. The same thing is occurring in the area to which I have drawn the attention of the House. Not only does it include Toronto but also the Hamilton area, and I am surprised that some hon, members on the other side of the House have not spoken on this subject because it certainly concerns them also.
Members of the provincial: legislature are concerned about the matter, such as the member for Simcoe Centre and the member for Simcoe: East. I believe also that the hon.
[Mr. Rynard.l

member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Roberts) was one of those who took a train ride on the Go-Go Special which proved very conclusively that this train can be run at a profit. I am saying that railroad specialists have been hypocritical and the government has been derelict in allowing the railways to abandon railway lines, thus allowing the atmosphere to be polluted because more people are forced to use their cars to get to work. As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) indicated, this area may very well be the site of a new airport which will add to the pollution of the area and to traffic congestion. In addition, in the four summer months many tourists come to the area, bringing with them thousands and thousands of dollars to spend in Canada. They come in in their motor cars, further polluting the air and adding to traffic congestion and traffic accidents.
Surely, something can be done to provide better service for people in that area. For example, the Northland Railroad could be utilized for this purpose. I have here in my hand a document entitled "The Ride of the Go-Go Special; a Test Run for Commuter Service". The railways are saying that this service is not economical and they are dissuading people from using it. They do not provide good service on it and they do not invite us to use it, nor are they trying to make things comfortable for passengers. In fact, it is just the opposite. I want to say to the House that this particular service pays its way. A test run was made at the expense of private individuals to prove that it could be run efficiently and economically, that in this way air pollution could be cut down, and that in the long run it would save the government millions of dollars in expense besides giving a worthwhile service. I warn the government that sooner or later they will have to take steps to combat air pollution in this area. They already have to do it in London and in other congested areas.
The results of the test run are very interesting. The total gross profit from the run amounted to $892. At one time transportation was the right of the people. Here is a service that pays for itself. I say that if the federal government and the provincial government, if necessary, do not co-operate to control air pollution, and traffic congestion they will be derelict in their duty and the people should force them to take action.
I should like to conclude by saying that since this service has been tested at the expense of private individuals and not with
December 3, 1969

government funds, it is a proven method of transportation which people will use-if given the opportunity and proper service-and will be meeting and dealing effectively with the problems of tomorrow. You, Mr. Speaker, know that to drive a motor car costs about 15 cents a mile. These people can ride to work on the railroad for approximately three cents a mile. They will use such a service, and it will cut down on the pollution on which, sooner or later, the government must take action. It has already taken action by means of the Canada Water Act; the next thing will be a Canada air pollution act.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the powers that be in transportation had better take a long look at their methods of discontinuing passenger lines, and giving poorer and poorer service so that the public will not use the remaining lines. The people have a right to expect better than this. The government should immediately get busy before we have a huge problem that will cost us millions of dollars to solve.
Look at the water pollution that we have now. We are suffering millions of dollars of loss because of it. We do not know yet what our losses will be because of air pollution. I conclude by saying that the Department of Transport and the government had better get busy and examine their policy with respect to the closing of railway lines and the calling of services and the cutting of services.


Mr. Sieven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to belabour this debate on Bill C-7, but since the bill was first presented I have received a large number of letters and telegrams from people, particularly in Edmonton and the surrounding areas, who are going to be affected by the elimination of passenger service in Canada. At this time I would like to read into Hansard two press releases. The first is a press release from a meeting of the members of railway unions on the elimination of CNR trains Nos. 5 and 6, the "Panorama", held in Edmonton on November 14, 1969. I quote:
The elimination of Canadian National Railways trains No. 6 and No. 5, the "Panorama" has been the subject of a meeting held in Edmonton today attended by representatives and members of Railway Labour Unions and others concerned with a loss of important railway transportation service to communities, towns and cities across the country.
At a time when the matter of public transportation is being given intense scrutiny in order to determine the requirements of the travelling public
DEBATES	1557
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada an important service is to be dropped increasing the burden on remaining available transportation facilities which are in turn in the process of being considered for abandonment.
A large number of railway employees with up to ten or more years of service will be laid off increasing the number of unemployed in our city. As an example: the number of employees in Edmonton actually operating the trains to be eliminated numbers 40. Add to this all of those involved in other departments and the numbers are substantial.
All of the railway employees involved are members of a community who works to provide service to their community making them more than just employees and it is because of this fact that we met today to ask other members of the community to question the whole matter of transportation in order to determine what direction it is headed.
We urge our fellow citizens to write to their members of parliament, to ask questions of those whose responsibility it is to provide them with a decent way to go from one place to another and to request that investigation be continued by appropriate committees as to just what is happening to the public transportation dollar.
Subsidization of public services is an accepted fact. They must be maintained in the interest of the public good and well-being. Railway service is the only available means of transportation which a great number of Canadians can afford to use and it is incumbent upon the country to provide it.
We request those who use our railways to join us in protesting elimination of services in a haphazard manner. It is a loss to their way of life; it is a loss of our livelihood.
The second press release is titled, "Incredible Canadian." It is an article by an outstanding columnist on the Edmonton Journal, Art Evans. I quote:
-another "Incredible Canadian" is in the news.
I refer to the CPR's transcontinental "name train" which the company claims lost $19.6 million in 1968.
The figure may be accurate but it seems incredible in view of the tales one has heard about requests for space being turned down because none was available. These gave me the impression that The Canadian was doing a brisk business.
This impression was supported on several occasions last summer when I had an opportunity to watch The Canadian pass through Calgary. There were faces looking out from every window but perhaps they were only painted on to conceal the sad truth that, inside, the train was practically empty except for crew members. In fairness to the company I must admit that I was only a trackside watcher and did not actually walk through the coaches counting "real" passengers. And so it is entirely possible that my impression of The Canadian as a busy carrier was quite mistaken.
Still, if all those faces at the window were real and represented flesh-and-blood passengers, an operating loss of close to $20 million does seem somewhat on the high side. One is curious to know every detail of the costing formula applied.
December 3, 1969
1558	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
For example it would not be fair to charge against The Canadian the cigars smoked by William Van Horne during the building of the railway, or the refreshments (if any) served at the last spike ceremony in 1885. It is not suggested such charges are included in The Canadian's operating costs but official assurance on this point would be welcomed by the public.
Presumably, Canada's Transportation Commission will closely examine passenger loss figures submitted by the railways in applications to abandon certain services. What follows next should be determined by the commission's findings.
I have many other letters of protest here. One is from John L. Pickett, Secretary-Treasurer local 861 of the United Transportation Union. There is one from Mr. Ralph Dent, President, Brotherhood Railway Carmen of the United States and Canada. There is another from Mr. English, Executive Secretary of the Edmonton and District Labour Council I could read quite a few of these letters into the record, Mr. Speaker.
Obviously what is happening is that the government is hiding behind the CNR. The government should simply tell the CNR that it will not allow essential rail services to be cut. Instead, the government is washing its hands, taking the attitude that it is none of its business. What of the people of this country? What of the many hundreds, even thousands in western Canada, deprived of rail service because of the government's failure? We have had the same story from the government for too long. To hear this government, it has no control over anything.
A few days ago the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) appeared before a committee and said the government had no control over the Company of Young Canadians. The government has no control over the CBC. The only thing the government makes any effort to control is the press. It set up a committee to do that. As we heard today, the government has no control over Devco. The government has cut itself off from reality. Recently, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went out to the mountains and delivered himself of some observations on genetics of the future. He said humans would be produced in the same way as chickens are produced. I feel my hon. friend from Huron would be a greater expert than the Prime Minister in that respect.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This statement is not surprising since the Prime Minister views the taxpayers as so many chickens. His government has been plucking them like chickens for some time.


He said his party was a supermarket of ideas. At times it sounded more like a bargain basement.
These projected rail cuts have aroused a great deal of resentment in western Canada. I want to call the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to a statement made by D. N. Secord, Secretary-Treasurer of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. He is a union official and represents a great many of the people who will suffer if the CNR goes ahead with these cuts. He said, and I quote from the Ottawa Citizen of November 11:
It is folly even to consider such drastic cuts in train passenger runs at a time when our highways and airways are becoming dangerously overcrowded.
Surely, the government must be aware of this. I am one of those who, on occasion, has seen fit to register complaints about air service both east and west to and from Edmonton. Now, the CNR is going to make the situation worse by reducing rail service.
At times it is almost impossible to get accommodation either by rail or by air. Certainly, this is no time to be cutting out essential passenger service. As Mr. Secord pointed out, the CNR logged over 2,000,000 passenger miles last year. Surely, the Minister of Transport is aware that even a small part of this load would bog down the airlines completely. After all, he has his Newfoundland Bullet, why should he deprive western Canada of service?
For far too long the CNR and the CPR both have made these decisions in their own interests, rather than in the interests of the affected taxpayers. It is time the government stepped in and asserted its authority. The answer is, of course, that the CNR wants to reserve the railways for more profitable freight traffic because they feel passengers can be transported more cheaply by bus. Since the railways generally have a piece of the bus lines, they cannot lose.
As far as the public is concerned, the railways are still echoing Commodore Vanderbilt's remark: "The public be damned." He was a railway magnate, also. But times have changed, and the people in this country have some rights. They are not going to be deprived of essential services by high-handed railway decisions. Transportation and communication are two of the most essential services in a modern state. I point out to the minister that this steady cannibalization of rail services is going to end in disaster.
December 3, 1969

The elimination of essential lines serving a major metropolitan area like Edmonton is a slap in the face to one of Canada's major cities and a blow to development. When British Columbia came into the Dominion in 1871, one of the conditions was the establishment of essential rail services within ten years. Now, the CNR is attempting to whittle away at services at a time when growing population and shipping demands must be met.
The railways remain Canada's principal means of transportation and retain a crucial role in opening up new areas. An example was the 400-mile Pine Point Railway opened in 1964, opening up a rich new copper and zinc find for processing and distribution. The 230-mile Alberta Resources Railway is another example where public confidence in the country's future spurred the building of new facilities.
In 1966, the railways moved 41 per cent of Canada's freight, compared to 9.4 per cent moved by trucks. Surely, they are getting their share of freight haulage. The less lucrative passenger lines have been steadily removed. In 1966, for example, the railways moved only 3.9 per cent of passenger traffic, compared to 84 per cent moved by automobile, 5.3 per cent moved by bus and 6.5 per cent moved by air. When you look at the human factor, and this is something the railways seem to forget, you find that the railways employ 150,000 Canadians; they have a $1 billion payroll; they have revenues of $1| billion and they have expenses of $1.4 billion.
When you look at passenger and freight service in terms of volume, you find that in 1960 the railways carried 158 million tons; in 1968, they carried 224 million tons; in 1960, they carried 19 million passengers, and in 1968, they carried 22.5 million passengers. The picture, then, is a constant expansion on the freight hauling side and a moderate expansion in passengers. But even so, surely with 22.5 million passengers, that traffic cannot be a total loss. As far as can be seen from the figures, the railways are taking more and more out of the country and putting less and less back in.
One hundred years ago, they promised they would take Canadians for a ride-they are still taking Canadians for a ride! It is time the government stepped in and laid down the law to these autocratic power barons with singletrack minds. We have a railway Tsar in this country and the Minister of Transport is the Tsarovich, that is the son of a Tsar. The Tsar
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada is a former government minister, the former member for Bonavista-Twillingate, whose memory has been overshadowed by the achievements of the present member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan).
Why does not the government call on the chairman of the Transport Commission to exercise the enormous and autocratic powers they gave him? The time has come to enforce a square deal for Canadians-not a square wheel, such as we have been getting. I say to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, act now!


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I had really no intention of taking part in this debate until I heard the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski). I want to say to you and the members of the House that I agree almost completely with what he said.
I would just remind members of this House, in talking about the railway situation in Canada, that a hundred years ago there was a fellow by the name of Sir John A. Macdonald who united this Canada of ours by building not one, but two, railways from Halifax to Vancouver. He did not have the money to do this nor did he have the machinery, but he went ahead and did it just the same. Today, in my opinion, the leaders of our railways are tearing up those lines. Mr. Speaker, that is not the way I would develop Canada. I agree whole-heartedly that there are two sides to the question. I agree we cannot continually carry lines that lose money on a day to day basis. On the other hand, I think there is a half way measure that railway leaders should accept.
One of the things the leaders should accept is a deal made 100 years ago which has been renewed many times. This deal was a two way street with the government giving so much and the railways agreeing to give so much. I think the government-otherwise the people of Canada-have held up their end of the bargain but I am not at all sure that the Presidents of the Canadian National Railways and the Presidents of the Canadian Pacific Railway kept their end.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I know as an absolute fact that in many small areas in the province of Ontario certain documents were signed many years ago. When I say "many", I mean 40 or 50. In these documents the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways guaranteed service to particular towns or villages as long as the waters
1560	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada went down the creek, as long as the moon shone, or whatever it may be. In return the railways received several thousands of dollars from the municipalities concerned in order to have the railway lines go through. Now I say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Canadian National Railways or the Canadian Pacific Railway is going to stop this service they had better think about repaying some of that money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: We have their signatures right on the line. Governments can change, and policies can change but as far as the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways are concerned, documents signed 50 years ago should be good today. I do not think they are doing a very good job.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
A moment ago I said that some railway lines in Canada must be abandoned. Operations over them must cease, as we all agree. Many such lines have already been abandoned. Nevertheless, as representatives of the people of Canada we have the obligation of telling the government that the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific should abide by their obligations. The railways were a party to the contracts and we, members of Parliament who represent various constituencies in this country, are under the obligation of telling the government that our two major railways have not done at all badly. One, in particular, which is privately owned and works on a free enterprise basis, has not done at all badly. I say this in a kindly way because I appreciated the speech the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) made yesterday. I think he made an outstanding oration and put before us many outstanding facts which those of us who have not been here as long as others were glad to hear.
I think the government and the heads of the railway companies would do well to heed his observations.
May I say this in conclusion, Mr. Speaker. Our railways, the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, are under an obligation to carry out their side of the bargain and we, as members of the House of Commons, must insist that if we are to keep to our side of the bargain the railways must' fulfil theirs.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, this bill has now been the subject of extensive debate. I gather there has been some disposition on the part of certain mem-

DEBATES	December 3# 1969
bers of the government, and in particular the government house leader, to question the necessity and propriety of debating this matter to the extent that it has been debated. But, I think, to fail to recognize the need for this debate is to fail to recognize its significance.
I think that there are some significant aspects and implications which arise out of the debate that has taken place. I think, in the first place, that it of course demonstrated the very obvious factor of the importance of the transportation industry to Canada and the importance of the railway industry in particular. I think the second point of significance to be noted is that the contributions that have been made from all comers of this House indicate that in fact there is some considerable degree of discontent with the service that has been provided by the railways of this country, including the CNR company with which we are dealing today. I think the third point of significance that should be noted is, in fact, that there is an anomaly in our transportation structure and in the workings of the railway industry in Canada today which is borne out by the fact that we have two major railway companies supposedly competing with each other in some areas of operation, but each in fact is in the other's way thus making it every difficult to provide the type of efficient, economical service which is so necessary if we are to operate the Canadian economy on the best possible basis. Of course, I think this leads to the logical conclusion and to the point that has been made by this party in this House on more than one occasion, namely, the necessity to nationalize and bring into public ownership the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we are of course dealing with the operations and capital budget of Canadian National Railways. There is no need to go into the history of the Canadian National Railways at this time. The fact is that the railway was born when a reluctant government took over a number of bankrupt railway operations, bankruptcies which were the result of mistakes of government policy, in large measure, in the years prior to the 1920's. The government and Canadian National Railways have had to bear ever since the burden imposed as a result of errors of Canadian governments and Canadian public policy.
For many years when Canadian National Railways operated as a publicly owned enterprise there was something of an attitude of
December 3, 1969	COMMONS
disconsolate toleration towards it as a public enterprise. The railway was really something you could not do much about; you had to put up with it and operate it as best you could, while at the same time allowing ample scope for its competitor, the CPR, to have its own way in policy and operations. However, throughout the years it became apparent that as a result of the dedication of certain leaders in the Canadian National and the faithful service of many of its employees, the railway company was able to counteract some of the handicaps it worked under and some of the attitudes which were evident in government throughout the years. The result has been that over a period of years we have witnessed the development of a first-rate railway system in Canada.
I think the CNR rightly deserves the tribute of operating a first-rate railway system. It has proved beyond doubt that a publicly owned enterprise can be operated efficiently, in the public interest and to the benefit of the entire Canadian economy. This railway system was developed out of the salvage of the bankrupt systems to which I referred, in spite of the reluctance of governments throughout the years, in spite of debt loads which were foisted on the railway system and in spite of the political influence of the CPR. The CNR today is a first-rate railway system of which all Canadians can be proud. It has deficiencies, some of which I will deal with in a few minutes. But it is the leader in the transportation industry and transportation systems of this country and is in the forefront in technological developments involved in many areas of its operations. Its service has been generally good, although some questions could be asked about its rates, rate policy and freight rates in particular. Despite its freight rate policies throughout the years, its attitude has been one of providing service to people. For that it deserves tribute, and in that it stands sharply contrasted with its competitor, the Canadian Pacific Railway.
This contrast has been demonstrated most clearly in the CNR attitude towards passenger business. While there are some specific points of criticism that I could make regarding Canadian National Railway passenger operations, at the same time I think it can be said that the CNR has recognized that it is a publicly-owned railway system which has a responsibility to carry people as well as goods. In this, as I mentioned, it is sharply contrasted with the attitude of the CPR which now states that it wants to get out of
DEBATES	1561
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada the passenger business. We note, of course, the applications which have been made to the Canadian Transport Commission to discontinue most of the remaining few passenger operations in which the CPR is engaged. Of course, there are some members in this House who are quite suspicious of what the government is doing in this regard.
I might just mention here, Mr. Speaker, that I received, and I presume some hon. members received as well, a letter from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company recently. The letter in my hand was addressed to me at the House of Commons and in part reads as follows:
Considerable public attention has been focused on the move by Canada's major railways in seeking to be relieved of the burden of uneconomic
passenger-train services.
To explain this move, we have prepared the enclosed booklet which outlines in layman's terms the statutory process for examining the railway applications.
The letter tries to justify the application made by the CPR under the terms of the new Transportation Act. Mr. S. M. Gossage, VicePresident and Senior Executive Officer of the CPR at Montreal, was kind enough to enclose with the letter a little booklet which had been prepared by his company outlining why the CPR was making application to discontinue its passenger operations.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
It seems quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian Pacific Railway Company let the cat out of the bag when it sent this letter because, while it has some appearances of being a rather generous offer of doing whatever could be done to help those people who may be protesting the move made by that railway, it is pretty clear evidence that what the CPR is looking for is to get its fingers into the till of the Canadian public treasury. It wants to get the benefit of subsidies provided under the National Transportation Act for so-called uneconomic operations. A good many of us will be having quite a bit to say about that during the coming weeks as we examine the costing methods of the CPR and examine the discrepancies between the accounting methods of the CPR and those which have been established by the Canadian Transport Commission.
It is also rather ironic, Mr. Speaker, that we are now dealing with this application by the CPR to abandon virtually all of its passenger services when one considers some of the advertising by that railway. In particular, I draw Your Honour's attention to one CPR
1562	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada advertisement which I am sure every hon. member in this House has seen. I refer to the advertisement in which they feature, as the main part of their theme, the phrase, "Serving you in so many ways".
If the CPR gets its way, and if in fact these applications are granted, I think that theme will no longer be valid, if it ever did have validity. Certainly, the CPR will have to change a good deal of its advertising program if in fact these applications are granted by the Canadian Transport Commission.
We might also note the record of the CPR with regard to providing boxcars for grain. This is of particular interest to my constituents and, indeed, the whole province of Saskatchewan. Generally, the services provided by the CPR have been of a much poorer standard and quality than those provided by the CNR. Here again, I think the CNR is to be commended on at least some aspects of its attempts at programs to provide boxcars for the movement of grain to the elevators in western Canada. They have at least made an attempt to be of service to the people.
There is also a contrast between the approach of the CNR and CPR in dealing with the matter of branch line abandonment. If one goes back over the history of this particular matter, it can be seen from the time of the early 1960's that the CNR did take a responsible attitude in dealing with this question. One might disagree with some of their points, but nevertheless their attitude and approach had some degree of responsibility. They attempted to inform governments and people of what they were going to do and of their long range plans. This was in sharp contrast to the CPR which attempted to play all of its cards close to its chest and start the ball rolling to carry out a massive program of branch line abandonment in order to increase the profits that the CPR would receive.
I have already made reference to the recent applications by both the CNR and the other railway company to abandon passenger services. This, of course, comes within the scope of our consideration of this bill because it does, after all, deal with investments to be made by the railway companies in facilities and equipment.
I have noted the recent applications with respect to Regina in particular. At present the city of Regina is served by the main line of the CPR. There is one remaining passenger service to that city, namely The Canadian. On the other hand, the CNR passenger operation 
DEBATES	December 3, 1969
to Regina consists of a rail-liner connection with the CNR main line at Saskatoon. This is of considerable value for westbound passengers and passengers coming from the west who are able to travel on the CNR main line as far as Saskatoon. The schedules are then set up so that passengers may transfer to the rail-liner going to Regina. However, in a few minutes I intend to say something about the inadequacy of service for eastbound passengers who wish to use the CNR.
In looking at the various applications which were filed, particularly by the CNR, one notes that in fact the railways have not made an attempt to keep up with the needs of the times by introducing new modes and variations of service, for passengers when it became apparent that the old modes, which performed a very useful function at one time, were no longer adequate for the needs of people. One obvious example which comes to my mind is the Winnipeg-Churchill run of the CNR. According to schedules of the CNR, that railway still operates basically the same type of passenger train from Winnipeg to The Pas, and from there on to northern Manitoba points, as it has operated for years. The service has not varied very much. The service which is overnight, goes from Winnipeg through Dauphin, Kamsack, or Swan River, up to Hudson Bay and on to The Pas, and has been virtually the same for years. Of course, it is obvious that the CNR is losing money on this service. They claim that in 1968 their loss for this particular service, extending right up to Churchill, amounted to approximately $3.3 million. I am not in a position to quarrel with those figures. I believe they have some validity and they have to be taken into account by the railway in making its decisions regarding future operations.
Have the railways given adequate and serious consideration to alternatives in terms of services that might be provided? For instance, have they considered the possibility of making a main line connection from Melville north to Yorkton, Canora, Hudson Bay, then on to The Pas and thus having the connection to the north made with its main line train at Melville, Saskatchewan, a city in which I used to live. This city certainly has very adequate railway facilities and could act as a terminal point for this particular train service.
I am not suggesting that points such as Dauphin, Kamsack and Swan River should be left without train service. If my suggestion were accepted, it would certainly be much
December 3, 1969

easier to have a train operating out of Melville to northern points on the one hand and a rail-liner service provided to people living in the Dauphin, Swan River and Kamsack areas of Manitoba and Saskatchewan on the other hand. I have not heard whether the railways have given serious consideration to such a possibility.
I have certainly found in my own contacts with the railways that the CNR in particular has been quite prepared to innovate and develop new services when they have been shown that they have a good chance of success and that they are needed by the public. At the same time there has also been a reluctance, and a rather queer sort of reasoning on occasion, when turning down proposals for new services. I will give an example of that in a few minutes when dealing with passenger train service by the CNR to the city of Regina.
I have already made reference to the attitude of the CNR with respect to its branch line operations and its main line operations. In considering the question of passenger service, I find it rather difficult to understand why the CNR withdrew so many of its passenger train services on branch lines just prior to the introduction of its new fare plans and of its new passenger programs.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
In particular I should like to cite one example with which I am quite familiar. This is the CN line which runs from Winnipeg, through Dauphin, Kamsack, Humboldt, on to Saskatoon; and from there it would either take the route to Calgary or to North Bat-tleford and Edmonton. The line running through Dauphin, Kamsack and Humboldt is the old main line of the Canadian Northern Railway. For years passenger trains Nos. 9 and 10 operated on those lines. I have had many occasions to make use of this service, as have other members of my family. It was a very popular service. However, as time passed the extent to which it was used diminished as a result of the schedules that were in use, as well as for a number of other reasons including continually rising fares.
Then in 1962 or 1963 this service, which had been in operation for many years, finally came to an end and was withdrawn by the railway. Shortly after this operation was closed out, the company introduced its new fare plan, the red, white and blue plan. It seems to me that if this new plan had been
DEBATES	1563
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada put into operation at a time when services such as the one to which I have just referred were still in operation, one would have found that the movement away from the use of passenger train services on lines such as this would have been stemmed, and this would have contributed to the maintenance of the passenger train operations carried on by the railway.
I should like to deal very briefly with the specific situation faced by my own city of Regina. I have the honour of representing part of the city as well as some of the rural area surrounding it. As I have said previously, the city of Regina is served by the CPR main line. As the House knows, the CPR has served notice that it wishes to discontinue its sole remaining passenger train service to that city. I imagine the company will be able to cite figures to show that the service is not being used much by the people of Regina, and this may well be the case.
However, I think the company should also understand why the service is not used very much by the people of Regina. If one looks at the hours when the train arrives at and leaves Regina, one will see why the service is so inadequate. The No. 1 train, the Canadian, coming from the east, leaves Winnipeg at eleven o'clock in the evening and arrives at Regina at six o'clock in the morning. The time of arrival in that case is a reasonable one. But when it comes to the return trip from Regina going east, the Canadian leaves Regina at 2.05 in the morning. The first major city along the line, with apologies to Brandon and some other intermediate centres, is Winnipeg, where it arrives at 9.05 in the morning. I suggest that the hour of 2.05 in the morning is not going to entice people to use this particular service.
In 1965, when the CPR made application to the Board of Transport Commissioners, as it then was, to discontinue the operation of its second trans-continental train which passed through Regina, the Dominion, I had occasion to make a presentation to the board when it held hearings in the city of Regina. I listened to the evidence given at the hearing very closely, and at that time the CPR gave assurances that they planned to continue operating the Canadian for a long, long time. It seems that that long, long time is now coming to an end, if the latest CPR application means what it says.
I think this is a further illustration why this railway system, which operates in competition, at least to some degree, with the pub-

December 3, 1969
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada licly owned railway system, cannot be relied on to provide the type of service that is required by the people of Canada. Its latest application is just one more piece of evidence to support the stand that I and my colleagues have taken for many years, namely that the Canadian Pacific and its associated companies should be put under public ownership.
In regard to CNR connections to Saskatoon, the schedules are designed to offer services that connect with the mainline trains. When the schedules for the fall and winter of 196970 were recently published, I wrote to the president of the Canadian National Railways to inform him of my views concerning the introduction of these schedules at the end of October. I wrote to Mr. N. J. MacMillan, president of the CNR, under date October 27 in regard to this matter, and in my letter I said:
I must say that I was very disappointed at the inadequacy of service provided to Regina. The only passenger train connection with the CN mainline is through the rail liner service between Regina and Saskatoon. I note that the rail liner schedules have been developed to coincide with transcontinental train arrivals and departures from Saskatoon. The result is an atrocious service so far as Regina is concerned.
I think it is totally unacceptable that the only rail liner service from Regina to Saskatoon and Prince Albert should be a train that leaves Regina at 6.00 o'clock in the morning in order to make a connection with the westbound supercontinental shortly after 9.00 a.m. The second train from Regina to Saskatoon leaves Regina at 7.50 in the evening and arrives in Saskatoon at 10.55 in time to meet the eastbound Panorama shortly after 11.00 o'clock. The rail liner then arrives in Prince Albert at
I.	45 a.m.
On the return trip, I note that one rail liner leaves Prince Albert at 6.55 a.m., meets transcontinental trains in Saskatoon shortly after 9.00 a.m., and arrives in Regina at 1.00 p.m. The second train leaves Prince Albert at 8.45 p.m., meets transcontinental trains in Saskatoon near
II.	00 p.m., and arrives in Regina at 2.30 a.m.
I recognize that some of these schedules have to be developed in conjunction with transcontinental train time tables, and thus there are some limitations. However, it seems to me that one solution to the problem of making adequate connections with Regina has not been fully explored. This would involve a train connection between Regina and Melville with a possibility of tie-ins with other points. Would it not be possible to have trains that would carry a sleeper for transfer at Melville which could provide much better service that would be well patronized and which would be much easier than trying to make every rail liner schedule between Regina and Saskatoon fit the transcontinental time tables?
Then, I suggested to the president of the CNR that I would be interested in having his views on this subject, and that I would

be quite prepared to explore the possibilities of this type of service with his officials.
Subsequently, I received a reply from the president of the CNR. After thanking me for my letter, he wrote:
Concerning the through sleeping car operation via Melville, please be assured that this has been studied thoroughly but would not be viable due to insufficient traffic. During August 1969 an average of less than five passengers daily were ticketed from Regina to eastern Canada. The cost to CN of operating a 2 or 3-car train between Melville-Regina would be very high compared to the revenue gained, even with a substantial increase in traffic. A less expensive Railiner operation on this route would not be practical because of the night operation necessary to connect with Trains 1-2, Super Continental, at Melville.
He then went on to indicate there would be some operating problems, and finally he gave me some information about the number of passengers that originated at Regina, classified on the basis of destination area. He indicated that 44 per cent of the passengers from Regina had as their destination local stations between Regina and Saskatoon, Prince Albert and Saskatoon, or Prince Albert and connections beyond.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
At the same time 42 per cent of the passengers originating at Regina had as their destination connections with western Canada; that is, points on the CNR main line or adjacent to it from Saskatoon on west. However, passengers to eastern Canada, including Winnipeg, amounted to only 14 per cent of the passengers originating at Regina. This figure applied to the month of August, 1969. There are just a couple of comments I would like to make in that respect.
First of all, it seems to me that the President of the CNR has proven by the statistics he presented to me the need for improved service from Regina to eastern Canadian points. I suggest to him and those responsible that the reason there is such a small proportion of people who commence their travels to eastern Canada by rail at Regina is the poor service provided by the CNR to the east. I suggest that if in fact there were a better type of service to the east we would find a very substantial increase in the volume of that classification of traffic.
On the other hand, the President of the CNR also pointed out problems involved in operating a train between Regina and Melville, a run of some 90 miles or more by rail. He suggested a two or three car train would be quite expensive and that a rail-liner oper-
December 3, 1969
ation would not work very well because it would make connections at Melville during the night time hours, which would pose some rather obvious difficulties, as I understood his letter. It seems to me this is an example of the type of lack of imagination one sees on the part of the railways from time to time, to which I made reference earlier.
It seems to me it should be quite within the scope of the imagination of CNR officials to devise a plan whereby, if in fact it is not economic to operate a two or three car train between Regina and Melville as the president points out, it would be possible to operate a rail-liner service from Regina to Melville and perhaps points beyond, then provide for sleeping car service originating at Melville. The passengers could transfer at Melville at some reasonable hour in the evening to the sleeper that would be stationed there.
I suggest this service would be quite heavily patronized by people not only from Regina but also people living along the line at intermediate points and customers from Melville, Yorkton and portions of eastern Saskatchewan. It seems to me this is a rather obvious step that should be taken by the railway if in fact it is going to follow through with its policy of attempting to exploit all worthwhile possibilities of improving passenger traffic in various parts of Canada.
Thus, we see many examples of lousy timetables, which are responsible for the small amount of passenger patronage of the railway lines. I think the example I have cited in respect of the service between Regina and Saskatoon should be quite adequate to illustrate this. Certainly, the hours that these trains operate will not attract as many people as might possibly want to travel by rail. I have also cited the situation in respect of those people who wish to use CN services for travel to eastern Canada.
I also noted in the list of applications submitted by the CNR and CPR a number of other passenger runs they are proposing to abandon. I do not intend to discuss each one of them because I am not personally familiar with many. I did note one particular example which I think should be drawn to the attention of this House. Both the CNR and the CPR applied for abandonment of their Calgary-Edmonton runs. It seems to me that this is complete nonsense. Both railways claim a substantial loss on their operations between Calgary and Edmonton. I fail to understand why this need be the case. Possibly one alter-
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada native which should be examined is the provision of a joint service between Calgary and Edmonton. This might possibly deal with the deficit problems which both railways allege they face.
Still more attention needs to be paid, in terms of passenger train service, to the provision of adequate service to a number of small points along the main line of the CNR. I could cite a number of examples in my own constituency. The Canadian National Railways main line crosses my constituency in the northern part, and there are a number of communities located along that main line within the boundaries of my constituency. There are also a number of urban areas there, each one with approximately 500 people. I refer specifically to the communities of Kelliher, Lestock and Punnichy. There are a number of other nearby communities. In addition, there is the rural population which makes use of these communities.
For some time now there has been no provision in the Canadian National Railways schedules for passenger stops along these lines. It seems to me this is one matter which should be looked into. I recognize some of the problems in making frequent stops along any particular line, but when revenue business is available, certainly in the long run it would be to the benefit of the railways to ensure the provision of an adequate level of service to these communities as well as to the larger centres across Canada. Thus, I think it is important that we consider the future of passenger train business. I certainly urge the Canadian National Railways to continue its operations on the basis which it has in terms of following the principle of providing service for travelling people as well as for the transportation of goods. The CNR is in a very good position to show up the CPR and its complete lack of regard for the needs of people.
At the time the Canadian Transport Commission hears the applications of the Canadian Railway companies, I hope and trust it will pay adequate attention to the applications made by the railways, the CPR in particular, and the accounting and costing procedures used in reporting some of the deficits cited in their applications and public reports. It is important that we do not just assume the attitude of one who picks up the tab whenever the railways report they are not making a profit on some of their passenger operations. It is important that we look at their accounting methods and the figures they submit to

December 3, 1969
1566	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada the Transport Commission very closely in order to make certain we are in fact not simply picking up that tab when there is no justification for doing so.
Another matter of interest and concern to the city of Regina is air service. This of course also comes within the scope of this bill. Regina is served by Air Canada operations, and a good many of their services are excellent and commendable. There have been .complaints from time to time about the inadequacy of services to eastern Canada. Over the past year and a half I have had the opportunity, as a result of facilities made available to members of Parliament, to make use of Air Canada services in travelling between Ottawa and my constituency. I have done so in looking after the needs of my constituents and carrying out my duties as a member of Parliament.
Very often I have found that Air Canada service is quite good. I have one complaint, and that is that there is no direct service between Regina and eastern Canadian points.
I made representations about this matter when I made my first speech in the House of Commons on September 23, 1968.
Subsequently I wrote to the former Minister of Transport and Air Canada, drawing to their attention the representations I had made in respect of direct air connections between Regina and eastern Canada. I received a very nice reply from the Acting President of Air Canada in which he informed me that it was the intention of Air Canada to introduce a new direct air connection between Regina and Eastern Canada in the spring of 1969. He hoped that I would have the patience to wait until this new service could be inaugurated.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
Well, I did have the patience to wait and the new service was introduced. It was used by many people. The occupancy rate was very high during the summer season of 1969. But to the surprise of everyone in the city of Regina who was interested in the matter, and to my surprise, when the fall schedule of Air Canada was published it was found they had eliminated this direct connection between Regina and Toronto. A great deal of protest was made about the matter. Then Air Canada, for the first time, informed the people who made inquiries that their plan was to introduce this new service initially for the summer season only and that it would be introduced again in the spring of 1970. They
(Mr. Burton.]

said that it would continue from then on a year around basis. Certainly, I believe it would have been rather more satisfactory had Air Canada taken the people who made inquiries into their confidence earlier and told them of the plan of operation they had in mind.
There is another matter to which I should like to make brief reference. Although it is related to the provision of adequate air services in Regina I recognize that it does not come directly within the scope of this bill. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will be indulgent with me in this regard. Currently, there are negotiations under way between the city of Regina and the federal Department of Transport for the purchase of some property at the Regina airport which is still owned by the city of Regina and in which the Department of Transport has expressed an interest. I understand that negotiations are under way and I hope an agreement may be reached which will be satisfactory to the city of Regina, the people of Regina and the federal government in this regard.
I could go on to mention the many aspects of freight rates which are of interest to the people of western Canada. I could also mention some other aspects of the provision of freight services by our railway companies. However, there is only one particular point I should like to make at this time. It has to do with railways and the potash business. When the potash industry first developed in Saskatchewan it seemed logical and obvious to most people that the way to move the potash to markets would be by the railways. As a consequence, the railways extended their facilities. There was co-operation and there were negotiations between the railway companies-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


John Stratford Burton: I could finish in just a couple more minutes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Does the House give unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: There is not unanimous consent.


Louis-Roland Comeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take too long, but I felt I should say something about this
December 3. 1969

bill. I was impressed by the comments made by several members, particularly the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) who last evening made a plea on behalf of his constituency and talked about the people who want to protect their towns.
As we all know, Bill C-7 is supposed to provide funds for the financing of the CNR and Air Canada. Possibly it is because of my inexperience, but as a new member I wonder why such a bill is necessary. I am doubtful that it should be necessary for the CNR and Air Canada to come to the House of Commons with a bill requesting money that has already been spent. The reason for this is beyond me, but I will tag along with this procedure for another couple of years.
As members of parliament representing Canadians I think we must clamp down very seriously on the activities of the various modes of transportation. It certainly is high time we took a close look at the policies in respect of railways and transportation in general. There is no doubt that in certain parts of Canada, particularly in the east and in the west, transportation is vital and must be improved. It is difficult for me to believe that the only solution the railway companies can come up with is abandonment of service or restriction of service. The other day in a French newspaper I read how Japan had introduced rapid transportation services. I read also that France was introducing a new service to provide fast and efficient transportation for the public. In a growing country like Canada, apparently the only solution we have is abandonment of the whole passenger service because it does not pay. This is the reason I am very reluctant to give approval to this bill, although I imagine I will have to do so.
Every day we read in the press that more and more people are becoming afraid to drive on the highways. The number of fatalities on the highway is increasing. The figures are even greater than the casualty figures of the armed forces. I am convinced that if a proper service were provided the people definitely would use it. The trend today is for people to commute from the city to the fringe areas. They travel back and forth every day, some for short distances and some for longer distances. Some people travel on the week-ends while others do so on a day to day basis. In many instances, the railways do not provide any adequate service for the people. The trend today for people to work in the cities is
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada fine, because this is the only place they can find work; but they live outside the cities. These people do not wish to spend an hour travelling back and forth a couple of miles a day in their cars. Surely, we should be able to devise a much better and modem way of transportation. Of course, it is necessary that the schedules be such that they are suitable for the commuters. It is not good enough to have a train which departs at two o'clock in the afternoon and expect that train to accommodate the working class. This isi what is happening in some areas.
In Nova Scotia, for example, a train which travels from Halifax to Yarmouth leaves some time around noon. How can it be expected that the people will use this type of service? I am convinced that the Canadian people would patronize a good system. I believe the railways must come up with something new and that the Canadian Transport Commission must exercise its responsibilities in this regard. The Minister of Transport and members of this House, I suggest, also have a responsibility to see that a good, modern, efficient service is provided. We live in the year 1969. Men are going to the moon. Certainly modern technology could provide the means for a fast efficient service.
I might mention the ferry system operated by the Canadian National Railways and by the Canadian Pacific Railway between provinces like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and even between Nova Scotia and the state of Maine. Will these be cancelled also? This question is of concern to the people in my area. As we move into the 70's it is not good enough to accept the present railway system of transportation or the standards under which it is being operated. I am convinced that a proper handling of the railway company's finances and of the service would eradicate the deficits and make a system much more attractive to the public.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I read with interest the speech of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) concerning the Ocean Limited. Several members, not only members of the opposition but members on both sides of the House, made such pleas on behalf of their constituents. They spoke about saving their little towns which depend on railway service the railway companies propose to abandon. We hear talk about saving little towns in Canada, a country
December 3, 1969
1568	COMMONS DEBATES
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada full of opportunities and of potential, whereas in the cities where people concentrate there are so many problems that in a few years' time people will want to go back to living in these little towns.
I will repeat whait I have said before on several occasions, that some of these policies, including the transportation policy, are forcing people to move into cities and to group together because these policies affect mainly the rural parts of Canada, and here I do not refer only to the Atlantic area.
The bill also deals with Air Canada. Recently, the minister spoke about replacing this service by regional carriers. The people of my constituency have protested against this, and rightly so. The service provided by Air Canada from Yarmouth, for example, connects the United States with other parts of Canada, and it is absolutely essential that it be continued. Similarly, there is a proposal to remove the passenger service between Yarmouth and Halifax, a distance of some 225 miles. Yet, on the other hand, we will be putting into service next year two new ferries joining New Brunswick to Nova Scotia and another one travelling between Portland, Maine and Yarmouth, making a total of three ferries joining that part of Nova Scotia with the rest of Canada and with the United States. So, on the one hand we are proposing to remove rail service and on the other we provide ferry service.
As has been mentioned before, transportation will certainly not guarantee economic expansion in certain parts of the country, but the lack of transportation will certainly retard economic expansion. Certain people say that transportation will not bring us salvation, but the lack of it will certainly retard it. Let the minister draw up a policy and let him take action. For years we have been hearing about a transportation policy for the Atlantic area, but it has never been drawn up. Many things have changed since then. We were told that the freight rates would not be changed until a policy was devised. Rates have been changed and all kinds of other action has been taken, but a policy has not yet been devised.
I do not want to take any more of the time of the House, but I do want to draw the attention of hon. members to certain matters with regard to my constituency. The bill before us is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I do not see the purpose of doing this.

What else can the committee do with this bill but accept or reject it? It certainly cannot formulate policies in so far as transportation is concerned because the government does not usually accept the reports of standing committees, particularly of the Committee on Transport and Communications.
I should like to say in conclusion that we have to come up with a better solution than the abandonment of rail service. I wish to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) in particular to take a look at this matter. He has control over all departments in so far as regional disparities are concerned. I ask him to convince the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) that action must be taken now and that it is essential that the government come up with something better than the abandonment of railway service, of postal services as well as of various other services.


Richard Russell Southam: I want to take a few moments this afternoon to join my colleagues in this House in discussing Bill C-7, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada. I have been very interested in the remarks of many speakers who have taken part in the debate. They impressed on me the importance of the whole subject matter dealt with in the bill. Several days ago, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) opened up in a non partisan manner a broad spectrum of problems facing transportation in Canada at present. These problems are likely to continue to face us in the future. A number of years ago I had the privilege of being a member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. During that time we brought forth the bill setting up the Canadian Transport Commission. It was interesting at that time to listen to the discussions that took place with respect to the costing formula.
Although this matter has not been referred to recently, it continues to be one of the basic issues facing the commission in arriving at a decision with respect to applications for rail line abandonment. All this goes back to the MacPherson Royal Commission in the latter part of the 1950's when the Hon. M. N. MacPherson of Regina, who was recognized as one of the foremost authorities on transportation in Canada, brought in a very forthright report. During the discussions of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications
December 3, 1969	COMMONS
we discovered a thread of discontent running through all the evidence with respect to the transportation costing formula. The committee found that they could not accept the costing formula of the railway companies, and consequently an independent costing committee was set up made up of a group of experts on railway costing. It was a committee similar in type to the one working for the inter-state commerce commission in the United States. Nevertheless they brought in an independent report on the cost of railroading in Canada, and it so greatly differed from the costing formula used by the railroads that we were led to believe we would have to take another look at this, which we did. As a result the figures submitted by the railroads at that time were thrown out, and a compromise was adopted by your committee in arriving at certain costs.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
It was also laid down in the new act setting up the Canadian Transport Commission that there should be a group of experts within the commission whose job would be to decide on a costing formula that would be satisfactory both to the people of Canada and the railroads. It worries me to some extent to find that presently the CPR has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada against the costing formula that has been adopted and is presently under consideration for use by the Canadian Transport Commission.
Here again we find another confrontation between the people of Canada, represented by the Canadian Transport Commission, and the railroads. They are disagreeing on what should be a proper costing formula. Therefore, we cannot arrive at any proper decision regarding the present host of applications for railway line abandonment. We cannot reach such a decision until we get agreement on the costing formula. This was the reason that last week I felt it necessary to suggest to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) that the government of Canada be represented by the best legal talent available before the Supreme Court of Canada in its hearings on the CPR appeal.
I am naturally concerned, like other hon. members, about the host of applications presently being made for rail line abandonment. As mentioned by many hon. members, transportation is the sinew of our economy, and the various modes of transportation, air, rail, automotive and bus are all interlocked. Rela-
DEBATES	1569
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada tively speaking we have a good system, but we have problems where there is overlapping of the various services.
During the Transport Committee hearings several years ago when it reviewed the Mac-Pherson Royal Commission report, great emphasis was placed on rail line rationalization. In areas where two competing lines, the CNR and the CPR, were running in close proximity to each other, it was said that efforts should be made to get them together to eliminate some of the duplication, with the result that everybody would benefit, the taxpayers as well as the railroads, and yet satisfactory service would be maintained. Here is an area in which we as a Parliament must support the Canadian Transport Commission.
The CPR presently has applications before the Commission to abandon a number of lines which they claim involve a loss of $30 million. Going back to my remarks of a few moments ago, we cannot accept this figure of $30 million until we first arrive at a costing formula acceptable to all parties concerned. I would be inclined to take with a grain of salt the CPR statement that it has lost $30 million on passenger service.
It is a well known fact that the CPR has already eliminated many passenger trains over great areas of our country. I just cannot countenance its now making an application to abandon The Canadian, the main passenger train running across the populated areas of southern Canada. It is preposterous even to consider it. The original act of Parliament passed in the latter part of the nineteenth century gave the CPR a franchise to build a railroad, and in return it agreed to provide transportation for people and goods in perpetuity. There was no question then that at some future date it could abandon rail passenger service on its main line.
For this it received $25 million from the government of Canada. At that time that was a major fortune. It was also allocated thousands upon thousands of acres of land lying adjacent to its track running across Canada. Now, we realize that this land, with its mineral resources, has been so profitable to the railway that it has set up a subsidiary company known as Canadian Pacific Investments to handle its profits from the land and to manage its other activities and industrial developments.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, The Canadian played a major part in centennial year in
December 3, 1969
1570	COMMONS DEBATES
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada transporting thousands of people to Expo in Montreal. Many of them were visitors from the United States who travelled across Canada by train. In fact at that time the railroad agreed to bring back the old Dominion and place it in service once more. I believe it was called The Expo Special, and was necessary to meet the demand of the public for transportation. On looking at railway passenger statistics since 1967, I do not see that there has been much of a deterioration in the number of passengers carried by the main line trains.
We must look ahead to the day when our expanding population will make it mandatory for us to provide good transportation in areas that are presently not too well developed, so that instead of abandoning lines we should be doing our best to retain them. We must also take into consideration the new concept of a central Canada corridor, which is designed to stimulate industrial development all across the country.
Earlier this afternoon the hon. member for Simcoe East (Mr. Rynard) mentioned the problem of air pollution. So far as the movement of passengers is concerned, motor cars now represent about 83 per cent of the total traffic in this country. As the hon. member stated, the motor car is creating a major problem in large urban centres and, as a consequence, we must look to other means of transportation, including electric railways, to move people from one point to another in urban areas.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I was very interested in the address given last night by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), and particularly in the plea that he made for the community of Nakina. It reminded me of the rail line abandonment in my own area of Saskatchewan back about 1958 or 1959, when an application was made to abandon what was known as the Reston-Wolseley branch line. It was one of the first branch lines in western Canada to be abandoned. The concern that was expressed by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) last night was concern that could be expressed by dozens of members in this House if all those applications for abandonment now under consideration should be accepted by the Canadian Board of Transport Commissioners. All along these lines are communities almost wholly dependent on rail transportation. If the line is taken out it will 
be only a matter of a year or two before the residents have to pull up stakes, dispose of businesses at great cost to themselves and the communities, and move further afield to try again to make a livelihood. There have been examples already of communities almost drying up entirely.
This raises a twofold problem, Mr. Speaker, for the community and the people affected. The people have to leave the area and invariably they try to go to some of the larger and more populated areas, thus emphasizing and accentuating the problem of urbanization. In Toronto we have our urban problems and are wracking our brains to try to solve them. I do not think that moving from the rural areas to the urban areas is the answer. We must look also at the sociological problem that becomes apparent when we speak of abandoning railway lines in rural areas.
I could go on at length but I felt I had to make these few remarks and add my voice of protest against this present rash of applications for rail line abandonment. We should take the advice of other members who have spoken and look at this whole serious situation before it gets out of hand.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 now before us proves that the CNR is running true to form and that experts in deficits are still on its payroll.
Whether services are discontinued, stations closed, employees laid off, trains cancelled or the turbo-train moves forward or backward, there is always a deficit.
In my opinion, this is a ridiculous situation, a colossal joke, since a bill like this one is introduced each year. Before giving a blank cheque to the Canadian National Railways by passing this bill, I would like, as suggested by previous speakers, to see a little analysis of that Crown Corporation made.
Let us recall first the economic recession of the years 1929 to 1939, a quiet period when economic stagnation brought about limited railway traffic. And yet, at that time, the CNR, administered by wise and able men, managed to buy deficit-making railway companies facing bankruptcy.
During the war that followed, this company rendered tremendous services. An unexpected growth in traffic led to the construction of railway cars and other equipment. In order to meet the demand from government and industry, all available trains were operating around the clock.
December 3, 1969

The hiring of staff rose with the demand for services and, when demand was at its peak, the number of CNR employees went up to 140,000, with a corresponding increase in the number of supervisors. Senior officials and assistants galore were hired and that was the war effort.
At war's end, the situation returned to normal. Automation and the use of computers
and similar equipment then gained popularity. There was therefore a surplus staff and necessarily lay-offs.
And strange as it may seem, as this has become a habit with the CNR, it is the laborers who paid the bill. Indeed they were the only ones affected by the lay-offs.
However, those who remained at their jobs were exploited by the unions which took advantage of the Rand principle of compulsory check-off to raise union dues. This principle unfortunately produced nothing worth while but was an instrument by which the workers lost control over their unions.
To impose a new tax, the Canadian parliament must decide through his 264 members. But as regards the collecting of union dues by and for the benefit of, international unions, it is sufficient for a few union leaders to decide and advise the railways.
Here I should like to read part of a letter dated July 11, 1969, sent by the Transportation-Communication Employees Union, Systems Division No. 1, 156 St. Denis Street, St. Lambert. I quote:
Considering the financial commitments of your Systems Division, the central committee had to increase the members' dues as of July 1, 1969. The increase amounts to $1.00 per month ... Therefore, the next pay deduction in July 1969 will be $7.00.
This letter bears the signatures of the Systems' general chairman, Mr. F. M. Sheahan, the union's general chairman, Mr. Soucy, and the general secretary-treasury, Mr. Hlady.
In the circumstances, the employee has nothing to say when money is taken from him; moreover, for some time, he has been in the dark as to why he pays, even though his dues are deducted from his wages.
Regarding the bill and the moneys requested for the operation of the CNR, I pointed out that one reason for its deficits was patronage within its administration.
Despite the reduction in the number of workers and the amounts shown in the company's annual report at the salary item, nothing ever changes. Those who stay vote themselves salary increases year after year.
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
It is evident that they are still there.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The supervisors who have no workers to
look after become inspectors. In other words, the boys from well to do families are always protected, and even if the number of employees has fallen from 140,000 to less than 80,000, the bureaucrats are still there, spreading confusion and tapping the company's revenues.
In some areas, inspectors are more numerous than workers and treat them harshly.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is serious, because the Canadian National Railways management is bad. As a matter of fact, management and labour relations have never been as poor as they are now, and the employees that are imposed upon loathe the company. Untold millions of dollars are lost due to scores of accidents that occur every year.
All train conductors, station masters and permanent-way masters got their jobs after 20 or 25 years of service, having proved their competence, while the same cannot be said of the technocrats. Who are they, anyway? Where do they come from? What is their role inside the company? How many are there and above all, how much do they cost us? We are not sure of their number and we are even less sure of what they cost us. And as matter of fact, at page 8329 of the House of Commons' Debates of October 5, 1966, there is the answer to a question that I had put on the order paper, and I quote:
Salaries of CNR Employees
How many employees of the Canadian National Railways earn an annual salary of (a) $4,000 to $6,000 (b) $6,000 to $8,000 (c) $8,000 to $10,000 (d) $10,000 to $15,000 (e) $15,000 to $25,000 (f) over $25,000?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Byrne) answered at that time:
The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: It has not been considered in the best interest of the company to disclose data on employees' earnings in the manner requested.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps it is not in the interest of the company to publish reports but the figures could be made available for the public which must pay the piper. If it is against the public interest to make them known in the manner requested, could the minister sponsoring the bill find a way to get in touch with this corporation?
December 3, 1369
1572	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
Anyway, I repeat my question today, hoping the minister will be able to say how many inspectors receive-I do not say earn -$25,000 or more in a year? If the minister who is presenting the bill cannot answer now, there should be an inquiry and if the results show that 50 per cent of those middle echelon officials are useless, they should be dismissed because we want a healthy administration.
I would like to point out something else concerning the present administration: its deficits. I would like to give you an example to explain the situation and show why the minister before granting loans should ask the management to review its administrative procedures.
If the minister believes that, under a Liberal government during the past seven years, our country has enjoyed prosperity, it is not normal that a company like the CNR operating in a just and thriving society should each year ask the government to make up its deficit.
This is what I am driving at. At the present time, salaries and operating costs are increasing, but lower rates are requested. Preferential prices and special rates are granted big oil and logging firms. Plants belonging to trusts throughout Canada are given preferential treatment in this regard. The most recent illustration of that I witnessed last summer and it struck me in a peculiar way. I refer to rates set by the CNR in 1957 for transportation between two areas in Quebec.
As against a rate set at 20 cents per cwt in 1957, the same company was being offered the same services at 24 cents per cwt during the 1969 summer months.
I have here a letter from a transportation firm in the Portneuf constituency, addressed to Mr. Lord Fortier, of the Canadian Transport Commission in Ottawa, and I quote:
Sir,
Further to our recent meeting at the Trucking Association Convention in Montreal, we dealt with the illegal competition from the CNR that all highway transportation companies have to put up with.
As far as we are. concerned, we began moving sulphite from Lac Saint-Jean, to Saint-Raymond, in 1957, at which time the CNR rate was 29 cents per cwt.
Two years later, when we were very well equipped for such an operation, the CNR came up with a proposed rate of 22 cents.
This year again, namely 12 years later, while transportation rates have doubled since then, they still come up with a rate of 24 cents-


-per cwt.
It is precisely because the Canadian National Railways lower their rates when their operating costs increase that they show deficits in their operations.
Then the board says to the government: We are showing a deficit. Help us or guarantee some of our loans.
A few trains will be temporarily taken out of service. In the Saturday, November 29 issue of the paper Le cheminot canadien, one can read the following:
We have learned from reliable sources in Ottawa that the CNR wil soon ask for permission to abandon their transcanadian services as well as the passenger trains on the Montreal-Toronto, and Ot-tawa-Montreal runs as well as the Ocean Limited between Halifax and Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, in the "Recommendation" of the bill now under study, one can read the following:
-to authorize Her Majesty to make loans to the Canadian National Railway Company and Air Canada to meet deficiencies in operating revenues to June 30th, 1970, any such loans to be repaid from revenues of the railway company and Air Canada or, if revenues prove insufficient, by subsequent deficit appropriation by Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I have been sitting in the House for four years, and I know that the CNR has been showing deficits since then. What you have just heard means that the CNR is being urged once more to show another deficit.
I think that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) asked the management of the Canadian National Railways to change their methods, they would no longer have to borrow money to cover their operating costs.
I would also like to deal, at this stage, with the financing of this Crown corporation. By passing this bill, we authorize the CNR to make expenditures of about $201,700,000. Clause 3(2) authorizes the CNR to borrow money. Clause 5 says that the government undertakes to guarantee the loans.
I think that if this Crown corporation must pay each year $70 million in interests on its debt, it is obvious that the government has already guaranteed too many loans. I wonder what will be the rate next time. Will the next loan be granted at the same conditions than those set by Canada for foreign countries, namely J per cent, or 1 per cent interest? Will Canada be obliged then to guarantee a loan secured from private enterprise at a 9 or 10 per cent interest rate? According to clause 3, these are capital expenditures. In fact, the CNR is authorized, and I quote:
December 3, 1969

-to make capital expenditures... in the following estimated amounts for the purpose of capital investment :
Railroad property Branch lines Equipment Telecommunications Hotels

In my opinion, a Crown corporation would benefit from its being financed by another Crown corporation, and I wonder what reason motivated this bill before us now. Why should the financing of a Crown corporation be provided for by a bill of this kind? Could the Bank of Canada not provided these funds and accept federal government securities in exchange for investments?
Today, when the Bank of Canada buys bonds, it buys them from private enterprise. Why should it not be entitled to do so in the case of Crown corporations? If the Bank of Canada can buy bonds from a public concern, why should it be entitled to make profits at its expense? All I can assume is that the Bank of Canada is financing the CNR in the same way that it finances the railways in underdeveloped countries, at the nominal cost of 14, J or 1 per cent.
The fact that it is possible abroad leads to believe that it should be even easier in respect of public concerns.
I will conclude by emphasizing three main points, which summarize my remarks. First of all, we should have an inquiry made by fair-minded people, in order to eliminate unnecessary personnel.
I do not think that having an inquiry made into the personnel situation every 35 years would be asking too much. It is high time, I believe, that we should try to see where we stand so that we can dismiss useless employees and keep the others. I would therefore suggest that the MacPherson Commission report be reconsidered and that the CNR be ' asked to stop harassing the railway workers by laying-off those who are doing a useful job. The many accidents which have occurred in the past few years demonstrate that some of these lay-offs were ill-timed. Indeed, those whose job is unquestionably useful are entitled to security.
Since the CNR has legally plundered the pension fund of its workers, I suggest it would be norihal to refund as soon as possible those who having contributed to it and now retired, are entitled to expect some protec-
DEBATES	1573
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada tion. Considering the fact that the military, firemen and policemen are entitled to their pension after 20 or 25 years of service, setting up an optional pension plan to accommodate the CNR employees who wish to retire before they die would be indicated.
The Canadian National Railways should take operating costs into account when setting its rates, they should not be reduced in favour of trusts.
Its financial administration should be revised and this is possible for, if we refer to page 2529 of Hansard for September 26, 1967, we can read what the then Minister of Revenue had to say when he introduced a bill similar to the one we are now studying, and I quote:
In the case of the C.N.R., the financing can be done in either one of two ways. The government can borrow the money directly from sources including the Bank of Canada, which would take up a big part of the loan, with the chartered banks taking up a substantial part also, and then advance the money to the C.N.R. Alternatively, the C.N.R. may borrow directly with a government guarantee but it would have to pay a higher interest rate if it did. It can be done in either manner.
Mr. Speaker, the financing can be done in .either one of two ways, according to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). So, if it can be done economically, that method should be chosen, and the advice of our friends should be disregarded; in other words, if the Bank of Canada can lend us some money, let us borrow it from it.
If we want an honest administration, if we are not public thieves, let us prove it by avoiding third parties, even though they may be our friends. I say again, let us deal with the Bank of Canada, since the Minister of Finance has stated that we may do so.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-7 because it gives me an opportunity to get a few grievances off my chest regarding the treatment that some parts of Canada, such as the Atlantic provinces and in particular Newfoundland, are receiving from Canadian National and Air Canada for whom this bill authorizes the provision of moneys to meet capital expenditures.
I hesitate raising the matter of rail passenger service in Newfoundland again because I
December 3, 1969
1574	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Know most hon. members heard enough about it last year. However, I feel it is important to raise a few of the skeletons which resulted from of the discontinuance of this service, and to emphasize the objection of Newfoundland members to the use of our province as a scapegoat in a plan to reduce passenger service all across Canada. I feel that we can now say with authority, we told you so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jack Marshall: I was happy to read in Hansard that the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), who represents some 60,000 citizens in his riding, has taken issue with the CNR for requesting large sums of money under this act and yet continuing to downgrade services in his part of the country. If the hon. member is asked to approve the bill, he wants a reasonable service for his district in return. I admire the hon. member taking issue with his own party and assure him of my support. Even though we in Newfoundland are treated like second-class citizens, there is no reason why we should not object to this discriminatory action against the people in parts of New Brunswick and, indeed, in all of Canada.
I will now refer to the new Canadian Transport Commission rules for passenger services as reported by David Crane in the Globe and Mail dated September 23:
-when the Canadian Transport Commission paved the way for rationalization and reduction of passenger rail service in Canada by specifying minimum service frequency and the services that qualify as passenger services-
Under this CTC order passed September 22, just three months after the discontinuance of Newfoundland's passenger service, the regulatory body has the authority to require the continuance of passenger service it deems essential in the public interest. The Canadian Transport Commission may now order the railways to continue uneconomical service, but once it has designated the services that must continue, it will be able to provide a subsidy covering 80 per cent of the loss.
In plain and simple words, Mr. Speaker, if any railway applied to the CTC for discontinuance of service, it could be ordered to maintain the service, but to reduce the frequency of that service. If that railway continued to lose money and applied again for discontinuance, an 80 per cent subsidy could be granted after October 1. What I would like


to know, Mr. Speaker, is whether this CTC order was prepared suddenly, desperately and on the spur of the moment. Am I supposed to believe that the President of the CNR was not aware of this order prior to July 1? Can anyone here tell me that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) was not aware of this CTC order prior to July 1? Can anyone tell me that the Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, the Jesse James of the Transport Commission, did not know it when he kept shrugging and bouncing while giving evasive and camouflaged answers during his appearance before the transport committee last year?
We hear quite a bit about pollution these days, Mr. Speaker, but we should also be considering the possibility of collusion. Let us take a look at and analyse for a moment the alternative bus service that the experts put into effect in Newfoundland and which they are proclaiming has increased passenger traffic, along with their new Rapido service. But they have forgotten a few facts along the way which were not taken into consideration.
First, they proclaimed from the housetops that all CNR employees who were involved in the train service would be absorbed in other jobs at no loss of income. Yet I have many examples of railwaymen with 15, 20 and 25 years of service who have been reduced to a lower classification and whose salaries have been drastically reduced. Is this the fair treatment they proclaimed? They shouted about the superservice they would give the people of Newfoundland with this new bus service.
I can quote from many letters which I received, Mr. Speaker. An example of the new bus service involves the case of a man, a woman and a baby who got on the bus. At a station along the way the man got off the bus to get the baby some milk. When he got back on the bus there was no seat for him, so he had to stand for the remainder of the trip, a hundred miles. This is the type of service that is being offered.
Another example involves a group of 15 school girls who were on a bus and had to get off along the way because other people had reservations so there were no seats for them. Another couple who had to get to a particular place because of an emergency had to travel 40 miles by taxi behind the bus before somebody got off and there were seats available for them. What about the stretcher cases that have to travel right across Newfoundland? Where do they go?
December 3, 1969	COMMONS
There was one other proclamation about the wonderful connecting service we were going to get in Newfoundland after a trial period. I have one petition signed by over 500 residents of six communities in the St. George's part of my riding, with a suggested route schedule attached, because they were left out of the main stream of decent service. This petition was sent to me on September 25. We all know the answer a member of Parliament receives when he gets in touch with the proper department of government. Out come the study gimmicks again. The department stated they were making a review of all our schedules and that my request would be taken into consideration. Two months later, I received an answer stating that they were sorry but it was not their intention to extend the bus service at the present time. This was a month after the decision had been made.
They had two years to study a bus service. It was decided that Newfoundland would lose its rail passenger service in any event, but they did not have the foresight to properly study a bus service to replace it. But how could they be expected to, Mr. Speaker, when they could not operate a train service in Newfoundland? It was the only one. They had a monopoly on passenger service and they could not make it pay. The Railway hierarchy have experts too, Mr. Speaker, and they have all the fancy phrases which are so in vogue these days. The railways have their research and development branches, industrial development and international consulting divisions. They have their land bridge concepts and systems activities. They have systems called "TRACS", their ACI's and CIP's. What I suggest is that their top echelons take advice such as that give by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at Harrison Hot Springs, and do a little genetic engineering.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
In a speech reported in today's Globe and Mail to the Canadian Association of Movers, Mr. Pickersgill stated that before the CNR or CPR are allowed to discontinue passenger services there will be full public hearings. He said the public interest aspects of every application for passenger service abandonment would be fully investigated by the commission. I suggest they might as well save their breath, their time and money, because the decisions have already been made.
I warn the members who will be affected by the 31 services that are due for abandon-21545-29
DEBATES	1575
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada ment to get moving right now if they want to resist. If they require any advice about railroading, let them ask some of their Newfoundland colleagues. They at least have the Canadian Transport Commission order on which to base their arguments, something of which we did not have the benefit.
An interested constituent of mine wrote to me as follows:
I was quite concerned recently to read that the Canadian Pacific Railway have applied to abandon all passenger service except some commuting service at the same time Canadian National are planning to cut back on their passenger service including that in the maritimes. I realize that I may be a voice crying in the wilderness but as you know from our previous correspondence I am convinced that on the basis of social benefit from tax dollars the railway is by far a lower cost method of transportation for both passengers and freight than to continue to increase our highway system. The travelling public have gotten in the habit of preferring the independence of their own cars and small trucking firms or even individuals prefer the independence of being able to operate on the highways.
The fact, however, remains that both these methods are more costly than the rail transportation if rail transportation is kept modern and efficient. It will just cost the Canadian taxpayers several times more to let traffic of both kinds to drop off on their rail lines and force millions of dollars into new highway programs. Japan has led the way for many years in this regard stimulated by the fact that they did not have enough land to permit highway systems. However, in their case it has turned out to be much better for their economy as well as saving the land. In the United States where land is becoming a premium they are now reverting in the heavily travelled area i.e. Portland, Maine to Richmond, Virginia to belatedly improve their rail service. Just because we have lots of land here in Canada, let's not make the mistake of losing our rail service and then having to go back to rebuilding it 20 years hence.
This is a concern that has been expressed by people across Canada.
May I also ask the Minister of Transport to consider the improvement of regional services both in the province of Newfoundland and in other maritime provinces? I should also like to hear something of the proposed improvement to facilities at the airport at Deer Lake used by Eastern Provincial Airways.
I conclude by reminding the government that it is duty bound, in accordance with its responsibility to the people of Canada, to fulfil their pledge of equal rights for all Canadians regardless in which part of the country they live. These rights include the right to rail passenger services. Even though these services have been denied Newfoundlanders, I suggest this does not give the gov-
December 3, 1969
1576	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada ernment or the CTC the right to deny them to the rest of Canada.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, about a year ago the House passed the Canadian Transport Commission Act, and the House was pleased at that time to have a minister who knew as much as he did about the subject to pilot the legislation through the House. I remember the many complaints that were made about the transportation problems in Canada, and I recall his ability to answer each member and to indicate how the problems would be solved by the passage of the legislation.
For several days I have sat here listening to what might be called grievances raised by individual members, all of them interested in railway problems in general, which seem to have increased in severity rather than decreased. The same can be said with regard to Air Canada.
This legislation seeks to refinance the operations both of the CNR and Air Canada. In my opinion, we should vote against the legislation. I do not think we should be involved in the refinancing of the CNR. The government should be forced to do something to improve the financial status of the company. Most people in Canada think of the CNR as a crown corporation. I contend it is more a crown debt, certainly not a corporation of any description. We owe the CNR just as much money as they owe the country. The long term debt of the company in 1967 was $1,840,712,000; it had grown in 1968 to $1,919 million odd. If this legislation is passed, the long term debt of the CNR will pass the $2 billion mark.
If I had $2 billion, I doubt whether I would buy the CNR. I do not think there is an agency in Canada that would be interested in the CNR at the price of $2 billion, particularly when one considers that its operating expenses for one year amount to approximately $1 billion. Normally I do not agree with Social Credit theory. That party contends that this kind of debt can be wiped out. The premier of British Columbia found that the huge debt of the PGE, like the rolling stone that gathers no moss, was gathering no interest, and so he wiped out the debt. In other words, he took money out of one pocket and put it in another. We will never pay off perpetual bonds. Indeed, some of them are valued in pounds sterling, which goes back to the days when we were a colony.
It seems to me that if the members of this House believe that the Canadian National Railways is a crown corporation, then they 

should do something to reduce the debt. The debt is actually a paper one, and as such should be written off. Certainly, it will not be paid off. Perhaps we will have to pay something to the owners of the former Grand Trunk Railway, though I would think they have already been paid off.
Just to show how stupid some people are- and only people in the revenue branch could be this stupid-last year the net income before interest on debt of the CNR was $41 million. It made a net profit of $29 million. The interest paid on the debt last year amounted to $70,450,968. I should like to know to whom this money was paid and for what purpose. I assume that these figures are part of the national debt. We have budgeted for about $6 billion and we are carrying $2 billion of debt for one corporation. It is all right to say we have to pay this to run the CNR, as I believe we do, but how stupid can we get as members of Parliament? We continue to approve of this kind of financing. This situation is getting worse every year. The government says it wants to do something about inflation. This is a heck of a good place to start by doing something about this deficit amounting to $70 million last year. This amounts to a transfer from one place to another, but it really serves no purpose.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
Perhaps this deficit does serve a purpose by allowing the Canadian Pacific to set its rates. When the CNR is losing money it is allowed by the CPR to set rates. Since the rates are set on the basis of losing money, a greater subsidy is required. This situation reminds me of a time not long ago when I went in to a local, rather high-priced restaurant. I talked to several people I knew who were there having dinner and found I was the only one there paying for his meal. Everybody else was on an expense account. This meant I was paying for my meal and at least half the cost of another meal. We allow certain people to deduct their expenses from income tax. Not only was I paying for an extra half a meal, I was paying more than the meal I had was worth. If everybody had been paying for his own meal I would have paid $3.50 instead of $7.
Before I conclude my remarks I intend to propose an amendment to kill this bill. The House will then have to make some decision about it. Let me make it very clear that I do not oppose the CNR as a Crown corporation. This railway is a necessity in Canada and it will be for a number of years to come. We
December 3, 1969

will have to look at it in realistic terms. We as members of Parliament, should have some say about what the railways carry, where they go and for what purpose. We should make these decisions. I do not suggest we should start running the railroads or that members should say whether filet mignon should be served instead of ham steaks on the dining car, but we should have some say as to whether there should be a dining car and where the train should go. It is all right for officials of the railway to come before the committee and bring reasons for changes, but in the final analysis we should make certain decisions. If Mr. Pickersgill does not sit down and do this work, we should get rid of him and get somebody else.
We, as Canadians, have a need for a railway service and in my opinion we are going to have it, even though we cannot afford the type of operation we now support. This bill is a disgrace to parliamentarians. There is not a half a dozen people in this chamber who understands this refinancing bill. I am sure most hon. members do not understand how this railway is financed. I am sure half the people who drew up this bill do not understand the reason for the debt items.
We are still talking about dropping railways service in some areas. If the CNR wants to drop its service from North Bay to Toronto it should put a price on that line rather than just drop it. There are two lines from North Bay to Toronto. Let the officials put a price on one of them. If that price is the same as it was two years ago, $3 million, I am sure the Ontario Northland Railway would buy it. There is a private individual in the city of Barrie who might buy it at that price. This line should not be dropped but sold to someone who wants to operate it. I personally would like to see the Ontario Northland Railway run into Toronto on its own line rather than buying rights from the CNR. This situation may be true in other areas as well. Perhaps the grain farmers or the pools would decide to run their own trains if they owned trackage. Let somebody else get into this field if the operating railways do not want to provide this service.
I do not have much time but I should like to have a look at certain figures. They are very hard to find in these audited statements, so you may well have to look them up for yourself. In any event, if you check the figures for 1967 and compare them with the figures for 1968 and 1969, you will find that revenues rose extensively in respect of the
21545-29 j
DEBATES	1577
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada CNR. You will find that passengers per mile increased rapidly and that service in terms of miles operated per passenger was considerably greater than it has been for a number of years.
Why did this increase happen all of a sudden? I suggest it did not happen all of a sudden. Because of the action of this Parliament in deciding these trains were going to be operated during our Centennial year with more up to date equipment, with sleepers and dining facilities, the number of passengers per train increased. It even reached the point where you had to have a reservation for a seat, let alone sleeping accommodation. When we made that effort, things improved greatly.
Most members of Parliament interested in transportation should take a close look at the refinancing of the Canadian National Railways. They will then find out whether this situation can continue or whether we should get rid of this debt. We are talking about $2 billion, and I think everyone will agree that there must be a program to retire that debt. If it cannot be retired, we should write it off.
How are we going to recover any money from the city of Montreal or the province of Quebec in respect of the cost of Expo? Nobody was interested, and we wrote off this amount. I suggest we are going to be faced with the same situation in respect of the CNR. I am sure there is no one alive with whom we made an original arrangement regarding the CNR to whom we owe this money. We are now being asked to accept this kind of financing in respect of Air Canada. If we accept this bill we will create havoc there as well.
There is a great deal of concern in the country about passenger service on the railways and on our airlines. This, to some extent, is the result of recent policy statements by the Government. We are raising and spending vast amounts of money for new airports. Air Canada will have to purchase new types of aircraft at great expense. Air Canada should be allowed to operate on long term financing in order to purchase new equipment. It should be placed in a position where it can depreciate its equipment and purchase new equipment when required, otherwise Air Canada will soon face a similar debt to that now facing the CNR.
The people in my area are very concerned about the air policy of this Government. We have been told in northern Ontario we are going to have a regional air carrier. It was suggested that Nordair, Montreal, would be
December 3, 1969
1578	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada that carrier, but Nordair has not got the type of equipment needed to operate in that area. This company cannot replace the Viscounts Air Canada has been supplying or duplicate the service provided by Air Canada. I suggest this is the case for a number of reasons. I really do not care whether or not Air Canada flies into northern Ontario. However, I do believe that whoever operates that service should be connected with Air Canada because when it is necessary to make connections with the national or international carriers, this becomes impossible if the feeder line comes in at a time when accommodation is not available or when there is no interrelated passenger service. In northern Ontario we have been very happy with the service of Air Canada. I am sure, however, that it could extend its services considerably beyond what they are. But I think it is true that Air Canada is strapped in respect of finances. If it becomes involved in jumbo jets it will be hard pressed to operate Viscounts on short runs and to operate smaller than Viscount aircraft into some of the more remote areas of northern Ontario and northern Quebec.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) mentioned the fact that there are problems in Kapuskasing, Hearst, Moosonee and that whole area. Obviously, areas of this type must be served by a feeder company, but that feeder company must come under Air Canada scheduling and accounting practices. They should be interrelated. If we have a feeder type of service and Air Canada says they will leave it up to the feeder airlines, then it seems to me the feeder service will put their aircraft on the lucrative flights. Originally, we established companies such as the Ontario Northland Railway and Air Canada to serve the people. It was not necessary for them to make money. Money could not be made by Air Canada or by our rail carriers. Therefore, the government had to put up money and establish the system as a Crown corporation. Where are all the people who previously believed in the development of Canada? Where are the people who said they would be interested in services?
I have heard members in all parts of the House stand up and say they were concerned about the type of service provided the people in their areas. I have heard the old adage that there are ways to get around this lack of service. One can go by car or bus around Newfoundland, but steering must be quite an experience on some of those roads.


George James McIlraith: That is a gentle way to put it.


William Arnold Peters: It is almost as bad in northern Ontario. There have been suggestions that we turn from rail transportation to transportation by bus and move from major air line services into feeder services. Such a move means that services become totally unsatisfactory. I think this is becoming apparent to everyone.
Much has been said about the financing of the Canadian National Railways. Perhaps it is unfortunate that we should say we are opposed to this bill, because it is a normal bill. The minister stands up and gives the silly assurance, which I have heard so many times in this House, that the bill is in its normal form and meets all normal criteria. This is all very well, but this has been the situation for many years and it is one that is totally unacceptable. It must be totally unacceptable to most members who have thought about that we are going to pay $70 million on a $2 billion debt of a railway which has a profit of only $41 million. It seems to me that this is bad financing. The farmers in western Canada are complaining that they have large debts, a small amount of money and therefore are not making ends meet. Everybody is sympathetic with them. The president of the Canadian National Railways cannot do anything about this matter. All he can do is ask for more money.
Because of the time I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That the word "now" be deleted and that the words "this day six months hence" be added at the end of the motion.
I realize that this is a negative amendment, but it is the only type of amendment available to us. We do not have the right to reduce the amount of financing or the $2 billion debt of the Canadian National Railways. If this amendment should be accepted, then I believe the government would spend the Christmas holidays finding a new way to finance the Canadian National Railways and I am sure would come up with a way to get rid of this $2 billion paper debt.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the Chair. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday, December 4, 1969