1969-11-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs-Mr. Francis.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among representatives of the parties with regard to an order to reconstitute the order of reference for the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs with regard to the subject matter of tobacco advertising. If the House is prepared to give unanimous consent I would present a motion on this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister leave to present this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) I move:
That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be empowered to study the subject matter of tobacco advertising;
That the orders for second reading of Bills C-34, C-69, and C-70 be discharged, and the subject matter thereof be referred to the committee;
And that the evidence adduced by the committee in its study of the subject matter of Bills C-39, C-45, C-53, C-134, C-137, and C-147 in the first session of the twenty-eighth Parliament be referred to the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might announce the business projected for next
week. The business on Monday will be order No. 5, second reading and reference to the standing committee of Bill C-3, to amend the Criminal Code. This is the hate literature bill. Tuesday will be an opposition day under the supply procedures. The business on Wednesday will be order No. 29, second reading of Bill C-152, to amend the National Parks Act. The business on Thursday will be order No. 28, Bill C-144, to provide for the management of the water resources of Canada, the Canada water bill. Friday will be another opposition day pursuant to the supply procedures.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)



PROPOSED TARIFF PREFERENCES FOR EXPORTS FROM DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Hon. C. M. Drury (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in my capacity as Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs I wish to advise the House that there is a growing realization that to bridge the gap that separates the rich and poor countries the export earnings of the latter must increase substantially. One of the means that could facilitate achieving this objective is to provide the exports of these countries preferential access to world markets. I wish to inform this House of recent progress that has been made toward the elaboration of a scheme of tariff preferences that could achieve this purpose.
At the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in New Delhi last year there was unanimous agreement to attempt to establish a system of special tariff reductions that the industrialized countries would offer the developing countries. Since then, we have been approaching the proposed system in two stages, initially, discussion within the OECD among prospective donor countries and, subsequently, discussion within UNCTAD between prospective donors and beneficiaries. We are about to move to the second stage.
The Secretary General of the OECD is today transmitting to the Secretary General of UNCTAD a report which summarizes the results of the extensive meetings that prospective donor countries have held during the past year. Attached to this report are the
818	COMMONS
Proposed Tariffs for Exports provisional proposals that the various governments which are prepared to consider extending preferences, that is, all developed countries of western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand and Japan, exchanged within the OECD in order to indicate the nature of the tariff preferences they were prepared to consider granting to developing countries.
Although the Canadian proposal that is being transmitted to UNCTAD, along with those of other donors, is no more than indicative hon. members will wish to be aware of its substance. In essence we have told our partners within the OECD, and now within the UNCTAD, that we are prepared to consider reducing the Canadian tariff on imports from developing countries of most manufactured and semi-manufactured goods either by one-third off the post-Kennedy round mostfavoured-nation rate, or to the level of the present British preferential rate, whichever is lower. In addition, we would consider certain tariff reductions for imports from developing countries of a selected list of agricultural products that are of particular interest to developing countries. We envisage extending these preferential rates to imports from those developing countries that are entitled to MFN or British preferential treatment.
In order to assure that the scheme will not be disruptive to the Canadian economy, we have made it clear that we would not extend these reduced rates to products which we judge to be sensitive and for which we have negotiated or are asking for a quantitative restraint on exports to Canada from any country. Moreover, we, like other prospective donors, would insist on a safeguards procedure which would permit donors to alter at any time the nature of the preferences they are offering, to withhold the grant of a preference from the beginning or to withdraw a preferential rate which had been in effect.
We are confident that our indicative proposal contains the elements which will provide substantial new opportunities for developing country exporters. We would assure developing countries a preference of at least one-third off the MFN rate. However, since the present British preferential rate is in many instances less than two-thirds of the MFN rate, for those items we would be offering a preference considerably in excess of one-third of the MFN rate. In fact, for an extensive number of items we would be offering to remove the duty entirely on imports from developing countries. It will be realized

DEBATES	November 14, 1969
that our purpose in offering to harmonize the proposed new preferences with our present British preferential rate is to equalize the treatment accorded by Canada to exports from all developing countries.
There is a great variety in the various indicative proposals of our OECD partners. Some of our OECD partners have said they are willing to offer a greater tariff reduction than we are proposing. However, unlike several other donor countries the linear cut in our tariff for imports from developing countries that we are proposing is not qualified by restrictions on the quantities to be imported, nor is it our intention to exclude whole sectors of trade from the scheme.
We wish to stress that our proposal is tentative and subject to revision following further discussion abroad and in Canada. One of the basic principles of the proposed scheme, accepted by all the industrialized countries that have stated a willingness to participate in it, is that the burden will be shared equitably amongst all donors. We have not yet completed our assessment of the various indicative proposals of our OECD partners. The details of the United States and Japanese proposals only became known to us last week. It is possible that the system of tariff preferences we hope in due course to put before the House for consideration and approval will differ from that which I just outlined.
However, in spite of the tentative nature of this proposal we believed that members would wish to be aware of its substance and the state of play of the efforts to elaborate an international scheme of tariff preferences for the exports of developing countries.
When the OECD document I referred to earlier in this statement becomes available in Ottawa I would be pleased to make it available for tabling.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I am glad to note, Mr. Speaker, that the government is consistent when it describes its proposals as being indicative and hypothetical. This is an apt description of most of its proposals.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the word "hypothetical" was not used by me.


Gerald William Baldwin: I can only say, in response to that non-question of privilege, that if the minister did not like the word he should not have used it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I did not.
November 14, 1969	COMMONS


Gerald William Baldwin: I followed very closely what the minister had to say. I usually listen to what he has to say, but I was handed this document just as I came into the House so today I did so with even greater interest.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Obviously not.


Gerald William Baldwin: What the minister is saying, in a timid way, amounts to this: We must do something; we are not sure what we shall do, but if we do it we reserve the right to take back what we have given at any time.
I can understand the minister's position. This is a difficult and complex situation dealing, as it does, with a variety of tariff rates and structures. But in connection with questions of this kind, Canada has surely indicated in the past that it is dedicated to the principle of enlightened self-interest. A few years ago it was estimated that between $10 billion and $15 billion would be required in supplementation of the gifts already being made to these emerging countries if they were to be in a position to set up a capital structure upon which to base an entry into the world's trading markets.
I am glad to see that the government is interested to the extent of enlightened selfinterest. We take the position that we should do all we can, consistent with our obligations to our own people in Canada and to our other international commitments, to ensure that the countries to which the hon. gentleman referred do develop to a point at which they will be beyond the type of violence in evidence in developing countries in so many parts of the world, in the hope that in due course they will become Canada's partners in trade and on the international scene. A further and more definite examination of what the government is suggesting will have to await the disclosure of more specific proposals.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I noticed that the minister, when reading the statement, dropped the word "hypothetical", but whether that changes the nature of the statement is another matter. Everyone who has studied international aid has recognized for many years that trade is one of the most important problems that developing countries have to face. This is repeated and emphasized in the recent report of the international committee of which the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson was chairman. Therefore, without any reservation I greet not only the government statement but also the statement that work is progressing on the part of the
DEBATES	819
Proposed Tariffs for Exports Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to deal with this problem in some effective way.
I have but three comments to make. It is characteristic of the relationship between the developed and the developing countries and of the paternalistic attitude that we in the developed countries take that in all of the discussions that are taking place it is the developed countries that decide what they are going to present to the poor developing countries. We take unto ourselves the right unilaterally to withdraw, to withhold or to change any tariff arrangements that are made, and in all of these discussions the developing countries are treated like mendicants sitting at our feet as we hand out some largesse. This approach is evident throughout the statement that the minister made, and I object in the strongest possible language to this attitude that is taken by the rich countries of the world.
The developing countries have a right to participate in these discussions, to discuss with the donor countries what they would like to have done and to have some influence on the decisions that the donor countries make, instead of this club of the rich deciding what the poor are going to get, with the poor people given no opportunity to participate. It is particularly reprehensible to me that this attitude should come from a government that talks so much about participatory democracy at home. I suggest the same holds true on the international plan as it does within any one of our societies.
My second point is that not only are tariff reductions and preferential tariffs important to trade with the developing countries but equally important are the prices of some of the primary products that these countries may be able to export. The fact is that the rich countries of the world have taken the usual selfish advantage of the market situation and have depressed the price of many of these primary products to the level where their export would not do the developing countries much good.
Finally, I urge the minister that the House be given more information when he or the Secretary of State for External Affairs next makes a statement on this subject. I ask that we be told what products are being discussed, the countries that are involved and what general range of tariff reductions is being considered so that, instead of a general blurb such as the minister was handed by some officer to
820	COMMONS
Proposed Tariffs for Exports present to this House, Members of Parliament will have information that has some content and meaning.


Mr. Real Caoueile (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, before I speak on the subject with which the minister dealt this morning, I would like to draw his attention to the most important fact that, in the opinion of the government, our federal institutions must be bilingual. I thank the minister for having relayed to me the text of his statement, but it was in English, and I would rather have had it in French. At any rate, I think that the departments should make sure that we are forwarded the French and English texts of the statements made by the ministers.
To come back to the matter discussed by the minister, namely the aid that developed countries can give to developing countries, I would like to recall some of the things he said in his statement, and I quote:

-we are prepared to consider reducing the Canadian tariff on imports from developing countries of most manufactured and semi-manufactured goods either by one-third off the post-Kennedy round ... or to the level of the present British preferential rate-

And later on, he said that we will import from developing countries.

-a selected list of agricultural products that are of particular interest to developing countries.

Of course, we support the government when it decides to help developing countries. But the minister should consider the situation and realize that, at the very moment when we are preparing to help developing countries, the government adopts legislation aimed at curtailing domestic assistance as much as possible, and this is a paradox.
In fact, we could help those countries while ensuring the normal growth of our own economy. For instance, we should examine the factors which prompt us to cut down our economic activities while we help developing countries by importing their products. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) said earlier that the rich decide what the poor have to take, to accept from us, that the decision rests with us, all of which is not so very democratic, etc.

DEBATES	November 14, 1969
There I disagree with the hon. member for York South because it is clear that the prices of agricultural products and manufactured and semi-manifactured goods we import from those countries are much lower than those prevailing here in Canada. If we import them duty-free, we will be competing with our own economy, which is not logical.
I believe that in the circumstances it is not a matter of deciding what products developing countries should be forced to take from us. As a matter of fact, as the minister himself has said, we are ready to import goods from those countries if this is likely to help them. Nevertheless, I maintain my point, that in so doing we should beware of hampering our own economic development and we must see to improving our production and bringing our costs down through increased production.
We should not neglect our own economy while devising a foreign policy that would bring about unemployment and would confront our producers with rather unfair competition.
I suggest we should wait for the minister to draw up a list of farm products and manufactured or semi-manufactured goods to be purchased from those countries.
In any case, the statement holds that assistance should be extended to developing countries, and we agree to that as long as it is not at the expense of our own economic development.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might obtain the floor for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development intends to make a statement on motions regarding self-government or proposed selfgovernment for the north, about which he is reported to have made some public statements outside the House?
[DOT] (11:30 a.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member has raised this matter on a point of order, but of course it is not regular to do so in the form of a question asked at this time. That should be reserved for the question period. The question having been asked, however, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.
November 14, 1969


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to make a statement to the House, but I am prepared to submit copies of the two speeches I made in Yellowknife and Whitehorse for the information of the House.
I think, however, that copies of these speeches have already been distributed to all hon. members.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member might raise the matter during the question period.


Mr. Nesbiit:: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday afternoon, as reported at page 768 of Hansard, the Prime Minister gave every indication to the House that the minister would today, when he had returned to the House, make some comments on his recent visit to the Yukon. The Prime Minister said this in reply to a question by the hon. member for Skeena who has just spoken. It seems very strange to me and to many hon. members that the minister would not make a statement so that members of the opposition would have a proper opportunity to comment, which we will not have during the question period.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, on the same question, I must take issue with the statement just made. I was asked yesterday whether I would convey a request to the minister. I said I would be very glad to convey that request. I discussed the matter with the minister and he told me what his position would be. I think it is a reasonable position. I do not think the hon. member is justified in alleging that I would ask the minister to make a statement.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated that the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege and I doubt whether there is a point of order. In normal circumstances the hon. member would wait until the end of the question period, at which time he would ask whether the minister proposed to ask leave to return to motions for the purpose of making a statement. I think that would be the regular way to bring up the matter.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the refusal of the minister and the government to reply to a legitimate request for information, might I ask the unanimous consent of the House to table later this day a document relating to our policy on self-government for the Northwest Territories, which is a little more valuable than the one we read about?


Gerald William Baldwin: Is it under your own hand, Frank?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce based on reports that early changes are expected in the Canada-U.S. automotive trade pact. Will the minister make a statement in the House as soon as possible and advise of the government's position with regard to any changes in the pact and whether it is the intention of the government to object to including in the new pact complete free trade in automobiles between the two countries?


An hon. Member:: Nobody home.
Another hon. Member: Where is the government of this country?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I am prepared to answer for him. I regret to say I was not paying the attention I should have to the hon. member's question. I would ask him to reread it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to assist the wandering minister. Will the minister make a statement in the House as soon as possible and advise of the government's position with regard to any changes in the Canada-U.S. automotive trade pact and whether it is the intention of the government to object to including in the renewed pact complete free trade in automobiles between the two countries? I said that my question is based on reports that early changes are expected in this agreement.
November 14, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On November 12 and 13 there were consultations in Washington regarding the auto pact. These are now concluded. In these discussions the United States' position in essence was that the time had now come to move to a rather freer trade position than had been the case up to the present. The Canadian position was that while great progress had been made under the automobile agreement in the establishment of an efficient and expanded Canadian automobile industry we could not feel assured yet that in the complete absence of any safeguards the progress could be continued. The discussions themselves came to no conclusion other than a statement of the positions. They will be renewed, we hope, in the new year.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder whether the minister, on behalf of the government, can answer whether the government will undertake that no further protection will be given to the manufacturers without some basic assurance from them that the price differential will be eliminated?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think I can assure the House that no further protection beyond that already accorded will be granted to the motor car manufacturers in the absence of the kind of assurances the hon. gentleman mentioned.



VIOLENT DISTURBANCES


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's deserved reputation in the past as a defender of civil liberties and in view of the fact that the first use of the Montreal bylaw was to ban a proposed peaceful march in connection with the moratorium against the war in Viet Nam is the government considering appropriate ways in which the validity of the bylaw may be challenged in the courts or referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for an opinion on its validity as provided in the Supreme Court Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice and I have discussed this matter on at least two occasions. His department is looking into procedures and precedents whereby the federal government might challenge on its own a municipal bylaw. It is my understanding that this is not a customary procedure, but nevertheless we are in the process of searching for


precedents. Of course the bylaw can always be challenged by any individual and if a constitutional issue is involved the Attorney General would, of course, be free to exercise his usual right of being present at the proceedings and pleading the constitutionality or otherwise of that bylaw.


David Lewis: In view of the Prime Minister's important proposal to include in the constitution of Canada certain fundamental rights which clearly, in my submission, are breached by this bylaw, would the Prime Minister not consider it appropriate for him as the leader of the country to state his distaste for this kind of bylaw in the hope that the city council of Montreal would not use it in the way it has been used?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether the question as asked is in the proper form. I believe the hon. member is asking whether the Prime Minister would consider it appropriate to do something or other. A question asked in those terms is not acceptable.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I rephrase it without repeating the first part. Would the Prime Minister consider favourably expressing his distaste for this bylaw in view of the circumstances I have suggested?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you might allow me to answer the first part of the question relating to the proposal that the federal government has put forward for a bill of rights to be entrenched in the constitution. I would agree with the hon. member that perhaps the country should now be more aware than ever of the need for wholehearted support by all parties and all provinces for the federal proposal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The matter is again on the agenda for the December federal-provincial conference on the constitution. I repeat that I hope we will have the support of all parties in making a further advance with this idea.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that freedom of speech comes exclusively within the authority of the federal parliament and that there is a bill of rights providing for freedom of speech and no constitutional amendment is required in order to establish that right-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
November 14, 1969


John George Diefenbaker: -what stand does the Prime Minister take regarding this very clear ease of the invasion of the right of free speech and free assembly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member may recall that the courts had occasion to look at the Canadian Bill of Rights which was introduced into Parliament and passed under the leadership of the right hon. member and that this bill has been judged in a specific case not to apply to municipal bylaws concerning certain cases of the right to assembly.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what case that is. I have read all the cases and there is no case in which the Bill of Rights was determined not to have power over freedom of speech. The Prime Minister cannot get away with that here. This is just plain evasion.



NATIONAL SECURITY


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Right Honourable Prime Minister.
In my opinion individual freedom should not encroach upon the freedom of others. Therefore, would the Prime Minister tell me whether he has held, say, since yesterday, consultations with Mr. Saulnier of Montreal, who said he had every reason to believe that the central government would soon launch an inquiry on subversive activities. Is the Prime Minister in a position to say, today, whether such an inquiry will take place, because I think it is high time that revolutionaries be prevented from infringing upon other people's freedom in Quebec?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I understood well the question, my answer will be no. I did not meet Mr. Saulnier yesterday. Nevertheless I had a talk with him about ten days ago. Afterwards a short statement was released to the press, indicating that we had discussed certain matters, but not that the federal government was about to launch an inquiry, as suggested by the hon. member.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Since a parliamentary committee was established to inquire into the activities of the Company of Young Canadians, following the statements made by the chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, does the Prime Minister intend to have Mr. Saulnier appear before the committee to substantiate his charges?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that the committee itself should deal with this matter.


Mr. Forlin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lot-biniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I should like to rephrase the hon. member's question-


Mr. Speaker:: There is no point of order. The hon. member cannot rephrase a question by raising a point of order.
I will recognize the hon. member in few moments and he may then ask another question.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancas-ter):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. What action does the government plan to take with respect to the outrageous proposal of a 10 per cent increase in trucking costs in Ontario, Quebec and across the country?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As an
experienced parliamentarian I am sure the hon. member recognizes that the question as asked is not in order. Perhaps he can formulate it in other words.


Thomas Miller Bell: In the absence of the Minister of Transport, who should be here today, will the Prime Minister get his pal, the dictator of transportation, Mr. Pickersgill, on the telephone and tell him to hold back this increase?


Mr. Speaker:: May I say to the hon. member that his second question is not a procedural improvement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to
824	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry the Prime Minister in connection with the revelations that have been made in the last two days over CBC television regarding the hideous increase in inhumanity in Biafra and the potential starvation that faces tens of thousands of children. Would the Prime Minister make a special eifort, in view of the vast amount of wheat and flour we have on hand, to bring succour to those youngsters who, in the name of humanity, call upon people everywhere to preserve their lives?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman should know that the difficulty with the relief flights is based on the fact that the Biafran authorities do not permit daylight flights, that they are using the night flights of relief supplies in order to screen shipments of arms. The Biafran authorities apparently have followed a course directed at making sure that they receive arms rather than food or other medical supplies for the starving people through the air space controlled by them. In these circumstances we can only continue to make our appeals, such as those made by the Red Cross and which I believe the opposition should also make, to Colonel Ojukwu to be a little more humane and to think of the starving people to whom the right hon. gentleman properly made reference.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is at present in that general area, would it be possible for him to divert a little from the accustomed track and make direct representations in the name of Canada? It would not take him much out of the way because he is close by.


David Lewis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he considers that his extremely partisan and narrow statement a minute ago is fair to the leaders of Biafra, and is there not something that should also be said about Nigeria's interference with these flights?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André-Gilles Fortin: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but the hon. member for Shefford will put the question.

DEBATES	November 14, 1969


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether a recommendation was made by the federal government to the chairman of the committee investigating the Company of Young Canadians to the effect that the chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, Mr. Lucien Saulnier, should not be asked to appear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the bashful and uncommunicative Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Would the minister give immediate consideration to instituting at least some of the major recommendations of the Carruthers Commission made in 1966 with respect to procedures leading to selfgovernment in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories? To date these recommendations appear to have been almost completely ignored.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should seek information before asking questions.
Up to now, we have implemented 19 of the recommendations of the Carruthers Commission. Besides, we have partially implemented five other such recommendations and only 4 have not been followed up by the government.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When I put my question to the minister perhaps he did not quite hear all of it. I asked him about the major recommendations of the Carruthers Commission.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question but I might preface it by saying that I have never known the minister to be so shy and bashful, just uncommunicative sometimes.
November 14, 19G9


Gerald William Baldwin: In the House.


Frank Howard: Would the minister be prepared to use his authority or good offices to effect a meeting between the elected members of the territorial council of the Northwest Territories and the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the hope that by such a meeting something worth while might be accomplished in the field of northern development?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have had myself the opportunity to meet, after my speeches, the council members of the two territories, and I discussed the whole problem with them.
Of course I said that the government feels that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are not ready to accede at this time to the status of provinces and that if we were to give them executive powers within the territories, we would in fact be creating provinces, which is not desirable at present, because the population is small and the income from provincial taxes would be too low.


Frank Howard: Either as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, or in any event to obtain the floor, may I say that is not what I asked the minister and he knows it. He is distorting the facts of the situation by continuing-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Brandon-Souris has a supplementary.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My supplementary question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the strong protest from the elected council of the Yukon arising from the minister's announcement and in the interests of peace, order and good government in Canada, would the minister now assure the House that the reasonable resolutions of the Yukon council requesting greater responsibility and autonomy in that territory will be given priority over the recommendations of the bureaucracy?
Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I went myself to the Yukon. I met the council members there and I invited them to dinner. When we parted, they said that even though we sincerely disagreed on some points, we could still be very good friends and we parted amicably.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the minister a supplementary question. Would he agree that his statement in Yellowknife indicates that the great white father from Ottawa has once more struck a blow for the continued colonial status of the territories?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr.   Gaelan-J. Serre@Nickel Belt: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but because of the urgency of the matter I shall direct it to the Prime Minister. Due to the fact that the prolonged strike at the International Nickel Company in Sudbury could be settled today, since the union membership is voting on whether to accept or reject the proposed new contract which could result in a substantial increase in wages for the workers, would the Prime Minister advise the House what action the government contemplates to prevent a similar increase in the prices of nickel and copper, which would have a serious effect on the cost of living not only in that area but across the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the department will be answering questions on Monday, but in the meantime I shall ensure that the question is brought to the attention of the minister.


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Prime Minister has read of the whopping increase that the city of Hamilton council has given itself retroactive to January 1, 1969. I wonder whether the Prime Minister could make a comment on whether this is in keeping with responsible people exercising restraint in a time of inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think the hon. member's question is in order.
November 14, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY



STATUS OF WATERS BETWEEN ST. PIERRE-MIQUELON AND CANADA

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, Mr. Speaker. Have the minister or members of his department held any talks with French officials concerning the status of the waters lying between St. Pierre and Miquelon and Canada? If so, will fishing activities be permitted in this area within the traditional three-mile limit or will the 12-mile limit apply?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, my department has not been in direct contact with French officials in regard to this matter but the Department of External Affairs has been actively concerned with the subject.



PESTICIDES


Mr. H. W. Danforth (Keni-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the real public concern, can the government indicate what plans it has, following the ban on general use of DDT in Canada, for the safe disposal of stocks on hand?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, but I know there is some concern in the industry and even more widespread than that, in the public interest, as to what disposal will be made of these products. I should like to obtain advice from my department as a result of their conversations with the industry and then make a report to the House.


Harold Warren Danforth: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the government giving consideration to the payment of compensation to holders of large stocks of this material in view of the fact that it was assembled under licence from the government?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I shall take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SECRETARIAT

Mr. John Burfon (Regina Easi):: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government

to establish a grains secretariat and is it expected that such a step will put an end to the reported intense wrangling between government departments on matters of grain policy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the story which appeared in the Globe and Mail this morning is, of course, merely speculation, without foundation in fact.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I directed my question to the Prime Minister in view of the fact that the subject involves at least three ministers and three government agencies. However, I am happy to hear answers from the Minister of Agriculture as well. But my supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is to the Prime Minister. In view of the analysis of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool that the past crop year was one of the most difficult ever experienced in the history of agriculture in Saskatchewan and in view of reported fears of a worse crisis-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to caution hon. members that again we are running out of time. It seems to me that the question period is being taken up more by statements than by questions. I suggest that perhaps hon. members should make an effort to reduce the length of questions. The purpose of the question period is to seek information, not to give information to the House.


John Stratford Burton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I
shall certainly abide by your ruling. My question to the Prime Minister is whether he would consider placing all matters affecting grain and grain policy under the jurisdiction of one minister?


Gerald William Baldwin: He could not handle it.


John Stratford Burton: A further supplementary
question-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret having to suggest to the hon. member that perhaps we should go on to another subject at this time.



BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS REQUEST THAT MR. SAULNIER APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE

David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister. It seems that the parliamentary committee responsible for inquiring
November 14, 1969	COMMONS
into the activities of the Company of Young Canadians refuses to call in Mr. Saulnier as a witness whereas many committee members would like to hear him, not for the purpose of putting him on trial, but in order to find out more details-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member like to put his question?


David Réal Caouette: Willingly, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Prime Minister suggest to the committee to take the necessary steps which will enable members sitting on this committee to hear Mr. Saulnier's testimony?


Mr. Speaker:: I must suggest to the hon. member, or rather remind him, that this is a question which must be examined by the committee. It is not normal to discuss in the House the proceedings of a committee which is sitting at the present time.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Could the Prime Minister or the government extend the terms of reference of this committee to enable it to call in the witnesses whom the members wish to hear?



PROPOSED DRILLING IN GULF OF GEORGIA- RIGHTS OF PERMIT HOLDERS

Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to allow the Minister of Finance to display some of the knowledge acquired in his recent immersion course in the petroleum industry. However, I shall direct this question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the opinion expressed in Vancouver on Wednesday by the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry that drilling for gas and oil in the Gulf of Georgia ought not to be permitted, could the minister advise the House whether there has been any change in the policy of his department which would alter the rights that holders of permits from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources have heretofore enjoyed?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Is he con-
DEBATES	827
Inquiries of the Ministry sidering bringing in legislation before the Christmas recess to set up a salt fish development corporation so that this important marketing agency can be operative in the next season?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would agree that this legislation should have a high priority.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, or perhaps it ought to be a point of order. On a number of occasions I have tried to elicit this information from the minister. A few days ago in St.. John's the minister said that this legislation would not be brought in until the spring. I submit the minister's answer is completely misleading. I asked whether he would consider bringing in the legislation before the Christmas recess so that we would not have to wait until the spring. In the statement made in St. John's the minister said the legislation would be brought in at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: I have almost concluded, Mr. Speaker. Could this legislation not be brought in soon so that this important marketing agency could be operative by next spring?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Will he make a statement in the House outlining the government's policy vis-a-vis a salt fish development corporation? At the same time will he tell the House when the government expects to introduce this legislation?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do this at the earliest opportunity.
[Translation1



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration being absent, I should like to direct to the Prime Minister an urgent question of national interest.
Considering the alarmingly high level of unemployment now prevailing in the province of Quebec, to wit 135,000 unemployed out of 330,000 in the whole country, could the Prime Minister tell us what immediate action his government intends to take to eliminate that evil which might well get worse this winter?
November 14, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: I already pointed out to hon. members that such questions call for information usually passed on to the House by a minister through a statement on motions.
I suggest the hon. member might ask his question by following that procedure.


Georges-J. Valade: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to make a statement on motions concerning a very serious situation in Canada, especially in Quebec, or does the government intend to do nothing about it?
lEnglishi


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Prime Minister, if he makes this statement, indicate if the government has any weapon other than unemployment to deal with the question of inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical.



WHEAT-ARGENTINE CROP SHORTAGE-ACTION TO SUPPLY MARKETS

['Mr. Speaker, there has been no specific request.\n830\tCOMMONS\nProvision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada EXTERNAL AFFAIRS']
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to have been directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In his absence may I direct it to the acting minister. In view of the report that the wheat crop in the Argentine this year is 17 per cent short of requirements, what steps if any is the government taking to fill any market vacuum in this area or to supply wheat to any of the regular or potential wheat customers of the Argentine?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Canadian Wheat Board and the minister of the responsible department attempt to maximize sales of Canadian wheat all the time.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the hon. gentleman inform the House when he will be setting up the grain sales agency that has been strongly advocated by western farmers for the past several years?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, when and if such an agency is set up, and if the federal government is involved in it, an announcement will be made in due course.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: wonder if we have a government at all.


Frank Howard: I don't wonder. I know we have not.



Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Following the issuance of permits for seismic testing for oil in the Strait of Georgia by the government of British Columbia, has the minister made any public statement on this subject subsequent to the announcement made by the Parliamentary Secretary on November 6 in the House? If so, under what auspices was the statement made? Also, did it expand or differ in any way from the position taken by the parliamentary secretary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should think that the question as asked would be a good question for the Order Paper. The hon. member is asking whether statements were made by a minister subsequent to a certain date. I doubt very much whether that question would qualify as one to be asked during the oral question period.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I was not asking the minister to repeat any statement that was made. I should like to know, and I think there is urgent need for the information, whether the minister's statement if he made one, and there is some indication that he did, was on all fours with the position stated in the House by his Parliamentary Secretary. That is the gist of my question, and I hope you will permit an answer to be given.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Rod Thomson (Baiileford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Will he please stop fiddling with grains policy while the prairie farmer burns?


FINANCE
Mr. Bernard Dumont (Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance tell
November 14, 1969	COMMONS
the house if the $1,731,000 in assistance granted to the West Indian universities are an interest-free loan or a gift from the government?


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, this question could well be placed on the order paper.


RESEARCH
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Subsequent to the announcement by NASA about the curtailment of their research program at Fort Churchill, was there any further consultation between federal government authorities or NRC authorities and NASA in an effort to have NASA reconsider this decision?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, endeavours have not been made because they are not regarded as likely to be productive in having NASA reconsider its decision not to participate in administration and operating costs on an annual basis at Churchill. However, the National Research Council, and other departments of government, have been endeavouring to persuade NASA of the advantages of conducting individual experiments on their own account at Churchill.


Robert Simpson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is consideration being given to increasing financial grants to NRC so as to allow that body to make a significant contribution financially, with NASA, as in the past?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure that I understand the significance of the question. NASA will, we hope, in future be conducting experiments either at its own expense or on a shared-cost basis with Canada at Fort Churchill. The nature of these will be determined by budgetary considerations and scientific needs. I am afraid I cannot be more specific than that.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a further supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board in order to remove the impression left by the minister that he did not understand my first supplementary. In view of the fact it appears quite evident that the initial approach by NRC to NASA seeking a greater financial contribution to the program than they had hitherto been making sparked off NASA's decision-
DEBATES	829
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member his supplementary is a form of participation in debate. I do not think it is acceptable.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. According to the report prepared by the Ontario Food Council, the processing mark-up on beef is now 2 cents more than it was previous to the beef price rise last spring. Formerly it was 17 cents and now it is 19 cents. My question is: Is the minister contemplating any action to ensure that beef producers get their fair share of the consumer beef dollar?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions we have expressed our concern and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has also expressed his concern over the difference between the price to the producer and the final retail price.


HOUSING
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Just over a week ago I asked the minister a question relating to building societies. At that time he did not have the answer to my question. Since he has now had an opportunity to meet representatives from the province of Ontario, I wonder if he would care to make a statement about the government's intentions in this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should think that the statement ought to be made on motions, unless the minister has a short answer.


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can answer the question very briefly. I met Mr. Randall, told him to submit further details to the government through the minister in charge of housing and said that we would, of course, consider any specific proposals he might bring forward.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to infer that the minister is bending a sympathetic ear to the request of the province?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, there has been no specific request.
830	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



WASHINGTON DEMONSTRATION-CANCELLATION BY MURRAY HILL OF ARRANGEMENTS TO SUPPLY BUSES

["Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.\nDEBATES\tNovember 14, 1969"]
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister following my question of yesterday. Is he in a position to say anything further about the circumstances under which Murray Hill Limousine Service Limited cancelled certain arrangements it had made to supply buses for trips from points in the United States to Washington?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The question was conveyed to departments and I understand inquiries are still being made. I have received no information yet by way of reply.
[DOT] (12:20 p.m.)



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 13, 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 day 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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, although I believe there are approximately ten minutes of my time left, I believe in my remarks last night I made the main points I wanted to express with regard to this country's transportation policy. Therefore, I will not launch into a further speech at this point. I just want to make one statement in order to urge something that I feel is very important.
We have before us legislation respecting the financing of the Canadian National Railways. We have this before us at a time when the Canadian National Railways and the

DEBATES	November 14, 1969
Canadian Pacific Railway have made applications to abandon most, if not all, of their passenger services. The point I want to make is related to a question I asked a few days ago, namely that the hearings before the Canadian Transport Commission on this issue should be public. This request has already been made by unions representing some of the employees who work for the railways. Surely we all agree that this issue is one that concerns the workers, communities and citizens of this country generally. I urge the government to use its good offices to see to it that the hearings on this very important question are held in public.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abilibi):: Mr. Speaker, we have to day before us another railway bill. This has become somewhat routine in the last few years since a similar bill has been introduced every session.
In fact, for several years now, the Canadian National Railways have been facing the same problems and every year, the government introduces almost similar bills which do not bring any answer to the problems facing this Crown Corporation.
Recently the CNR and the CPR have made representations in order to be granted permission to abandon a number of passenger services. The people of my area which I represent are particularly concerned with this application.
Among the services to be abandoned are those of the Abitibi and Lake St. John regions which are serviced by the CNR.
Among the other services which would fall victim to this measure are those between Montreal and Vancouver.
The justification for such applications lies in the losses incurred which are due to the fact that passengers are gradually discarding that means of transportation.
When we start considering how the CNR is run, we discover that there are far too many officials in this company and too few executives.
I have here before me an application which was made two or three years ago by agencies operating in the small northwestern town of Quebec where I live, I mean La Sarre. This application was made in the light of the fact that some other towns in this area such as Amos, Rouyn-Noranda, Val d'Or, Malartic and Senneterre enjoy free parcel delivery service, provided by the CNR, while La Sarre is
November 14. 1969	COMMONS
excluded. The people of La Sarre were entitled to the same service provided in other communities, since this is a profitable service.
Therefore, I made representations to the CNR in order to get the same service for La Sarre. Here is the answer I received in a letter from Quebec, dated April 16, 1968 and signed by Mr. L. M. Poitevin, director of the Quebec area. I quote:
In our answer dated September 26, 1967, we pointed out that according to a check of the volume of small shipments, there had been a fairly substantial decrease compared to the 1965 volume and also a decrease in comparison with 1966. We also said we wished to see the effect that the new rates coming into force at the beginning of September 1957 would have on volume. We added that a fairly substantial increase in shipments in La Sarre would be desirable in order to prove that the collecting and distributing service free of charge, but which would entail great expenditures, would still be profitable.
The ridiculous side of it all is that the CNR insist upon the patrons being sufficient in number before granting them services, while in private enterprise, it is quite the opposite. Good service is provided to people so that they will become customers.
While private enterprise gets good results through this method, public enterprise will not use it. It would like to be sure to have customers before offering them services. It is not surprising that the Canadian public, as much in Abitibi as elsewhere, should shun the services of the CNR which is thus pursuing a cheese-paring policy.
We find again the same situation in the passenger service on the line to Abitibi. To save money, the Montreal-Abitibi and Mont-real-Lac Saint-Jean services have been merged through a transfer point at Hervey-Jonction. Then, there is complete disregard for the people who want to go to Abitibi or to the Lac Saint-Jean and come back.
And when the travelling public uses other means of transportation the company claims a deficit or a lack of users to abandon the service.
I think that any petition aimed at abandoning a service is really an application for subsidies. I ask the government to consider carefully the CNR application.
The annual report of the CNR for 1968 is full of interesting comments and figures.
In Bill C-7, the minister asks for the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the CNR system in Canada and Air Canada.
DEBATES	831
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
If the CN shows a deficit in some of its services, would it not be appropriate to investigate a little its financing methods?
The report emphasizes the fact that the operating revenues-rail operations, hotels and telecommunications operations and so on for the year 1968-showed a surplus of $41.2 million but because of the way it is run the CN had to pay $70.4 million in interest for that same year which turned a $41 million surplus into a $29.2 million deficit.
When we, of the Ralliement creditiste, ask as we have been doing for a long time, that publicly-owned companies at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, be financed interest-free by the Bank of Canada, some government members find our contention ridiculous.
However, such an approach would make it possible for the Crown corporations to show operating surpluses, instead of constantly operating in the red as they do now, because of the orthodox way in which the government finances its own Crown corporations.
We know that when the government bought the bonds of the CNR-its own company-it did so with borrowed money. The CNR pays 4 per cent interest on the bonds bought by the government of Canada. The revenue from the recent sale of bonds-the amount mentioned in the bill is $82 million-will be used to redeem bonds that have reached maturity. What are we to think then of the publicity in the newspapers and over the radio-which costs thousands of dollars-according to which the government is offering the "best ever" bonds? Those bonds bear an interest of 8J. Money is borrowed from the public to grant a loan of $82 million to the C.N.R., at 4 per cent interest. Talk about a deal!
This is standard management practice: no wonder the government is always in the red.
On the last page of the CNR report, there is a complete list of statistics for the last 25 years which indicate that the CNR had profits for 6 years and losses for 19 due to the interest payments. Over the last 25 year-period, the CNR paid $1,240,990,000 in interest on its debt.
Mr. Speaker, we know that interest, through the federal government, was channelled back, not to the government, but to those who lend money to the government, which in turn lends it to the CNR.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that that procedure is not only ridiculous but criminal. Some find the Creditistes proposals ridiculous, but I claim that this orthodox way of financing public
November 14, 1969
832	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada services is criminal, because money is taken from the individuals and given to the various loan companies.
If the government financed the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways, Air Canada and the St. Lawrence Seaway-all three are in the same situation-through interest-free loans from the Bank of Canada, it would be possible to reduce passenger or freight rates or increase the wages of the employees of those companies. Thus, everyone would be satisfied, which is not the case today.
One provision of Bill C-7 provides for a sum of $19 million to be used for the construction of branch lines by the CNR Therefore, I would ask the Minister without portfolio who sponsors the bill, where the CNR intends to build branch lines.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I have been told that the CNR intends to build a branch line from Matagami to James Bay. I would like to ask the minister whether it is true and when the construction of that branch line is anticipated?
This is why I say that the bill should be referred to the committee, in order to be thoroughly studied.
The management of the Crown Corporations is not satisfactory and should be improved. I ask the government to take as soon as possible the necessary measures and not to introduce such bills every year-since that does not solve the problems of Crown Corporations-but a legislation to enable the Crown Corporations to serve the public in the best interests of the nation.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I must avail myself of this opportunity today to refer briefly to railway companies, and especially to the CN in the Sague-nay-Lac-Saint-Jean region.
I know that this bill deals with the annual financing of CN operations and that it is not necessarily the right time to discuss all the policies of this company.
As it was announced recently that passenger services were to be dropped in our region and in other parts of Canada, I must add my voice to that of my hon. friend, the member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise), since both our regions have already been affected by a recent decision of the CN.
The region of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, with its population of some 300,000 inhabitants, has only one railway service. In our
[Mr. Laprise.l

region, there is no competition between the CN and the CP. The CN cannot therefore claim that competition prevented it from making any profit in the past.
If now the CN sees fit to reduce its passenger service because it is no longer patronized to the same extent as before, it is the first to blame, because in the past 15 years, the service has been getting worse all the time.
At present, to travel from the Saguenay region to Montreal, a distance of 300 miles, one has to spend more than 12 hours in CN trains.
How can you expect the public to support such a service? In short, if there is any competition in the area, it is within the CN. The company is striving by every means to make its service as unattractive as possible, as though some genius in their administration were trying to plan the service in such a way that people will give it up as soon as possible.
Let us, for instance, look at the sleeping-car service. The train only has one sleeping-car. Can it be used? Hardly, because during the past three years, the price of single roomettes has increased from $5 to $10, a double roomette now costs $20', just to spend a few hours in a bed. Moreover passengers are jostled from side to side which makes it difficult to sleep, because the line is in such a poor condition. How then can the public be expected to make use of the CN passenger service?
Mr. Speaker, my area is served by Quebec-air and Air Canada. There are also bus services and we have good roads, but nevertheless, some people still travel by train and will do so as long as possible.
If this company treated its customers better, I am sure things would turn out differently. As a matter of fact, the experience has already been made. A few years ago, a Mr. Delagrave had been appointed vice president in charge of CN passenger service. He had taken it upon himself to increase the number of passengers travelling on the CN, and he actually achieved his goal. But in view of this man's achievement, the authorities make life impossible for him in order to force him to seek employment elsewhere. So he left the CN and now works for another company, because he realized that his policy was totally at variance with that of CN authorities who obviously wanted to do away with the passenger service.
We can only oppose the policy of the Canadian National Railways designed to curtail the passenger service. I do not object to
November 14, 1969

my hon. friend from Abitibi or any citizen of that part of western Quebec travelling aboard the train I am on, because I believe that is how one meets very interesting people. I am sure that the merger of services in our two areas is quite possible. However, I do not think it was necessary to lengthen the trip by an hour and a half, as is the case since both services were merged.
As far as the Lac-Saint-Jean people are concerned, we have to wait an hour and a half on the train. Such an arrangement simply indicates poor planning of the time table for the trains from Abitibi. There are no reasons for both trains, the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean line and the Abitibi line, not to arrive at the same time at Hervey-Jonction. It is a simple question of planning, but they have made it so that they shall not meet, in order that one or the other be forced to wait for an hour and a half.
In view of this, I personally object to the Canadian National Railways being granted the right to reduce or completely discontinue its services in the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean region and the Abitibi region as well.
I object to that for many reasons. Both our regions are designated areas under the government policy. They need additional assistance. If I understand the assistance policy scheme to designated areas, assistance is needed in the establishment of a substructure, in order that these regions may prove more attractive to industries interested in settling there.
Now, it is certainly not by reducing the services that exist now or by simply eliminating them as the Canadian National Railways intends to do that we are going to improve the substructure in the Saguenay-Lac-St-Jean and Abitibi regions which are designated areas, parts of which will be considered special. Then, why reduce service while other departments are trying through millions of dollars in subsidies to improve the situation and raise the employment level in these regions?
In addition to the passenger service, there is in the Saguenay, a transportation service for first class goods which must be delivered quickly. The elimination of this service will deprive certain enterprises in our region of these goods. They will have to find other ways of getting them at, of course, a higher cost.
I do not intend to delay further second reading of this bill so that it may be referred
DEBATES	833
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada to the Committee on Transport and Communications, but I join those who spoke before me in asking the government to pay close attention to the proceedings of the Canadian Transportation Commission to avoid that at this level of administration a unilateral decision be made, which would deprive Canadians of the services they are entitled to.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, it is almost one year ago that the last measure similar in nature and design to Bill C-7 was before the House. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) remarked last night, this bill rarely changes in form or concept. It is what could be termed an annual bill, a perfunctory measure which unfortunately in too many cases has received automatic and often swift passage through the House.
However, that does not apply this year-at least, I hope not. If my few words delay its passage a little, then I will feel I have succeeded; and I shall proceed to tell the House why I would not want the bill to go through without my having made some observations about it.
We had considerable discussion on this measure last year because at that time the people of my province were confronted with an accomplished fact, namely the abandonment by the Canadian National Railways of its rail passenger services in that province. I well recall saying at the time-my colleagues voiced similar sentiments-that there but for the grace of God go other provinces. Today, we see that other provinces are indeed going to lose all, or certainly part, of their railway passenger services. In this connection, I need only refer to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the very impressive remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), e (12:40 p.m.)
When the legislation goes to the committee, Mr. Speaker, I hope the members of the committee will exercise the right that is theirs to examine the reasons for the decisions that have been made, and to exercise that control over the operations of railways in this country, especially the operations of the Canadian National Railways, that should be ours but which in actual fact is not. During the Committee hearings I intend to press for those reasons underlying the applications now before the Canadian Transport Commission to abandon rail passenger service in certain
November 14, 1969
834	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada parts of the country. We are especially interested in my part of the country because we were the reluctant guinea pigs. They tried out this idea on us first. Perhaps the House might be interested in knowing what the position is in Newfoundland at the present time.
In accordance with the directives of the Canadian Transport Commission, the rolling stock of our rail passenger service is being held in reserve, supposedly to meet an emergency or to cope with adverse conditions brought on by weather or some other act of God which the bus services cannot handle. It is rather interesting that the old "Bullet" is not dead yet. During the recent Liberal leadership convention in Newfoundland, the Liberal party, which did so little to prevent this injustice to my province, suddenly discovered that the old "Bullet" still had one more useful function to perform. They dusted off the Pullman cars, took the boards off the windows, and used them to accommodate 200 or 300 delegates to that convention.
The premier himself, acting like the proletarian he likes to think he is, insisted that he should have an upper berth. I bet it is the first time he has had the privilege of sleeping in an upper berth, albeit a stationary one. Those who slept on the "Bullet" during the convention were boasting that they had slept on the "Bullet" with Joey. That is what became of our rail passenger service. It is being held in reserve for an act of God, and certainly the Liberal leadership convention should qualify. It could only be by Divine Providence that the Liberal party in Newfoundland finds itself in the mess it is today.
There are other aspects of the service about which we are concerned. We are concerned, for example, about the operation of the buses in Newfoundland. We want to be reassured that the bus service will be able to cope with weather conditions. We should like to know what complaints the railway is receiving from people who have to use this service. We want to know what their plans are to improve the service. We should like also to know what the intentions are regarding the coastal service in Newfoundland.
In my province, the CNR has the responsibility of providing mail and passenger service around the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador which is inaccessible by road or other modes of transportation. There are ominous signs that the railway company would like to discontinue this service as well; in fact, the wheels have already been set in motion. Two of the ships that were providing 

this service to the constituency represented by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) have been sold, with the result that today the people using the service, the only means by which one can travel along that south coast of Newfoundland, have to be piled in like cattle. There is no berth accommodation and there is no seating accommodation. Last summer I saw women and children literally sitting on the floor because the two vessels now are inadequate. The railway company knows this, as does the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission, yet nobody seems inclined to do anything about it. I serve notice on the CNR that I want answers to some of these questions.
I should like to know what the future is, if any, of the East Coast ferry service which was provided in accordance with the terms of union. It is now operating between eastern Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. There have been suggestions, indeed charges have been made, that this service is purposely being downgraded by the railway company. This complaint does not relate to the services offered, because this vessel provides excellent services. The service is being downgraded in respect of promotion and advertising. It seems to be the best kept secret in this country that there is a 10,000 ton vessel operating between Argentia, Newfoundland and Sydney, Nova Scotia, and that this vessel does in fact save at least 500 miles of driving. There is no evidence that this excellent service is promoted and there is no evidence of advertising. There have actually been cases of people applying in Sydney for passage over to Newfoundland who have been told the only way to get there was by crossing over from Sydney to Port-Aux-Basques and that there was no way of avoiding the long drive across Newfoundland. We should like to know why the railway company is not promoting or advertising this service.
More particularly, we should like to know why the rates are so high for this service. It costs $50 to put your car on this boat. By the time you pay for your own ticket, berth accommodation and meals it costs you about $100. Who can afford to use this service which is provided for tourists? No tourist is going to spend $100 when he knows he can save perhaps $50 by taking that long drive across Newfoundland. The railway company has made no move toward reducing the rates. I maintain the rates should be reduced by at least 25 per cent. There is very strong evidence that the company intends to remove this vessel from this service and place it in
November 14, 1969	COMMONS DEBATES
service elsewhere. We should like to know why this service is not promoted and why the railway company has not accepted recommendations from many people and organizations such as boards of trade, members of parliament and the travelling public to reduce the rates. A 25 per cent reduction would certainly have the effect of increasing the traffic and consequently would offset any loss of revenue. We want to know what the future of this service is and we want to be assured that this undertaking by the government of Canada, cemented as it is in the terms of union, will be carried out.
There is another matter of tremendous importance to Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces. It is so important and has such a tremendous effect on the cost of living and the inflationary trend that I am surprised it has not been alluded to by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Bas-ford). I refer to the lifting of the freeze on freight rates in the Atlantic provinces, in eastern Quebec or that area covered by the Maritime Freight Rates Act. I refer also to the consequential 11 per cent increase in rates announced the day after the freeze was lifted. Perhaps the record should note that this lifting of the freeze and the consequential increase in rates by the railway company-in other words this action on the part of the government-was contrary to the recommendations of the Atlantic premiers, contrary to the recommendations of the Maritime Transportation Commission, and contrary to the recommendations of boards of trade, shippers and almost everyone in the Atlantic provinces.
What did the Atlantic premiers have to say about this action in a statement released by the four premiers of the Atlantic provinces in March of this year? On page 23 of their statement, we read this:
[DOT] (12:50 p.m.)
The reasons for the establishment of the freeze in the first instance are just as valid today as when the National Transportation Act was passed by Parliament. The Atlantic Provinces recommend, therefore, that the Federal Government take the necessary steps either by legislation or by agreement to maintain the freeze on Atlantic Provinces rail rates until such time as the new regional transportation policy is effected.
Of course, they are referring to the long awaited, many times promised, new policy on Atlantic transportation. That is what the four premiers recommended just a few months ago, yet the decision of the government, effective in September, was completely contrary to their recommendations. How did the premiers
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada react when they learned that their recommendations to the federal government were totally and completely disregarded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), and by his colleagues in the federal government? Their reaction was one of dismay, incredulity and shock. I shall quote now from the Globe and Mail of September 26:
Premiers protest rate freeze
The Atlantic Premiers Conference meeting here yesterday termed the federal government's decision to lift the Atlantic Provinces freight rate freeze as being "in conflict with the underlying philosophy of the federal Government's announced policy toward the alleviation of regional disparity."
A strongly worded statement released at the end of the day-long meeting said the conference "vigorously protests the unilateral decision," which was made "without prior consultation with the governments of the Atlantic Provinces."
The story goes on to say that the premiers, to put it mildly, were surprised. They saw this action for what it was and were not hesitant in saying that this was a unilateral decision, without consultation with the Atlantic provinces, notwithstanding the fact that this government, the Minister of Transport and the other ministers from the Atlantic provinces knew full well the effect that a lifting of the freeze would have. They knew it would have a consequential effect in the form of a boost in the rates charged by the railways. These freight rate increases contribute greatly to the increased cost of living and the inflation which is already taking such a toll on the people who live in the regionally depressed areas of this country. What does the Evening Telegram say about it? In an editorial dated September 23 it termed this decision as a last straw. The lead editorial had this to say:
Just in case things weren't bad enough in Newfoundland's cost of living another jolt is on the way. The freight rate for goods moving to this province is to be increased by 11 per cent beginning today.
Now we are told the freeze was lifted and the railways were permitted to increase the rates because the subsidies under the MFRA would be applied to the trucking industry under the new legislation. That is fine except for the fact-and the Minister of Transport knows this better than anyone-that there is no trucking into Newfoundland because the truckers cannot afford to pay the exorbitant freight rates across the gulf or on the east coast ferry, rates which were set to prevent the trucking industry from providing competition for the railways. So, there is no truck transportation of any consequence going into Newfoundland such as in the other three
November 14, 1969
836	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada maritime provinces. Therefore, when the Minister of Transport tells the truckers to cut their freight rates, this has no meaning at all for us. It makes no difference whether they reduce their rates or increase them; we are still dependent to a very large extent on rail transportation.
In speaking of the trucking industry, my colleague the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) referred earlier today to the recently announced increase in trucking rates right across the country. This is the answer to the Minister of Transport from the trucking industry in the Atlantic provinces. He tells them the freeze has been taken off so that the railways will be happy. He tells them they have been given a subsidy to keep them happy, and then says to them that now they should play ball so that competition will be more properly distributed. He tells them to play ball with us and reduce the rates. Now, however, the rates are going up all across the country, and particularly in the Atlantic provinces because the truckers have their cake and can eat it too. They are receiving a subsidy under the Maritime Freight Rates Act and, in addition, are increasing their rates. The railways are happy because the freeze is lifted and they are permitted to raise their rates. Today, their rates are 11 per cent higher than they were before the freeze took place.
Every report I can find, and all the editorials by senior editors who have commented on this situation, contain the same opinion. Perhaps this opinion can best be summed up by reading a brief quotation from the Saint John Daily News of September 26:
All this must be intimately related to the problem ot regional economic disparity.
We have enough problems already in the Atlantic provinces. We also suffer the consequences of our geographical and regional disparity. These include the high cost of living, the excessively high unemployment and the continuing problem of excessively high freight rates. Now, we look to the government for some succour, for some relief. We look to the Minister of Transport who presents himself as the great spokesman for the Atlantic provinces. We look to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. MacEachen) and all the ministers from the Atlantic provinces. We look to the Minister without Portfolio and we look to the Prime Minister and his just society for some relief.


What do we get? We get a unilateral decision made by this government without consultation with either the Atlantic provinces, the Maritime Transportation Commission or anybody. They unilaterally break faith with the people of the Atlantic provinces by announcing a lifting of the freeze and by permitting the railways to increase their rates by 11 per cent, thereby adding to the already unbearable burden the people of the Atlantic provinces must carry because of the consequences of excessively high transportation rates.
May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock I now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment for lunch I was outlining to the House the disastrous effects on the economy and on the people of the Atlantic provinces of the government's decision to lift the freeze on freight rates and the consequential 11 per cent increase in the freight rates by the railways. During my remarks I referred to the brief entitled "The Basic Elements of an Atlantic Provinces Transportation Policy" which was presented in March to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) by the four premiers of the Atlantic provinces, in which certain specific recommendations were made to which the government arbitrarily refused to adhere. I referred to the government's attitude toward this brief and the reaction of the four premiers following the lifting of the freeze and the increase in the rates.
Now, I would like to refer to the reaction of the Maritime Transportation Commission and I should like to quote the Canadian Press dispatch of September 23, part of which reads as follows:
Craig Dickson, chairman of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, said in Moncton August 22 that shippers throughout the Atlantic provinces will face rail freight increases of between 9 and 18 per cent.
Mr. Dickson said the federal government should not have lifted the freeze until a comprehensive regional transportation policy for the Atlantic area had been implemented.
November 14, 1969

This is the reaction of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission, which is very similar to the recommendations of the four Atlantic premiers and similar indeed to all the recommendations and briefs of various groups in the Atlantic regions, such as boards of trade and chambers of commerce, with regard to the lifting of the freeze and the increase in the rates.
The board of trade in my own province of Newfoundland reacted very adversely. As a matter of fact, they suggested that the government had broken faith. I should like to quote from the dispatch in the St. John's Daily News of October 8, 1969, part of which reads as follows:
The executive of the Newfoundland Board of Trade, A. G. Ayre said the Board was given to understand that the ''freeze" would remain in effect until March 23 of next year-
That is 1970.
-unless a more suitable rate formula for this area was forthcoming.
Mr. Ayre pointed out that the Board of Trade is still waiting replies to its request to the Federal Minister of Transport, Hon. Don Jamieson. Apart from seeking information as to what action was taken to retain the freight rate ''freeze," the reason for its removal was also requested.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Feelings in the Atlantic provinces on this matter are unanimous. These feelings are shared by responsible bodies in the Atlantic provinces, including the premiers and therefore the government of the four provinces, the Atlantic Transportation Commission, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, boards of trade, chambers of commerce, interested citizens and members of parliament with, of course, the notable exceptions of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Mac-Eachen). The feeling is unanimous, yet the government elects to ignore it.
We were given to believe, and it was reasonable for us to expect, that with the appointment of the former minister of Transport, Mr. Pickersgill, as Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission and with the appointment of the member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) as his successor as Minister of Transport, that at long last the importance of our plight would be understood. Arrangements must be made to hold the line on freight rates in the Atlantic region until the government announces its long-awaited and much heralded promise of a policy on Atlantic transportation.
837
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
The freeze has been lifted and the rates have been increased. Since Mr. Pickersgill became Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, Newfoundland has lost its rail passenger service and is losing its coastal service. The maritime provinces are going to lose their rail passenger service into St. John's if the CPR has its way. The Minister of Transport, who is the new spokesman in the cabinet for the Atlantic provinces, instead of having some feeling and understanding of the problem, goes contrary to every responsible position taken by the governments of the four Atlantic provinces, and the Transportation Commission as well as all other interested bodies in the area. It seems evident, Mr. Speaker, that the Atlantic area of Canada would be much better off today if somebody other than Mr. Pickersgill were Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission and if somebody other than the member for Burin-Burgeo were Minister of Transport.
I like the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that perhaps this House should refuse to vote this money until there is some pronouncement from the government respecting the future of rail passenger service in this country and, in particular, the transportation policy for the Atlantic provinces. I, for one, would be prepared to exercise that right under the proper circumstances or at least reduce the vote to $1. Perhaps then Canadian National Railways would not approach this House every year with their usual cavalier attitude, and perhaps the government would not take it for granted that the House would, in the usual perfunctory way, approve and pass the bill. Mr. Speaker, if the opportunity is given me I shall, at an appropriate time, move to refuse the grant.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: forward positions, ready for sale. We should have in forward positions flax, requisite grades of grain, and so on. Last spring the committee, while on a tour of agriculture in western Canada, stopped at a grain terminal in Vancouver. Please remember, Mr. Speaker, this was after the winter during which we had so much trouble in agriculture. What did we find? We found that even in April the terminal was short of a particular variety of grain for which there was a demand. This is intolerable, especially when there are still so many varieties of grain for sale on the prairies. I hope the minister applies himself to solving this problem. I hope that activities in this area will be better managed and coordinated than they are today.
May I now comment on the subject of rail line abandonment? There are several lines which may be abandoned in my area. In particular, I am thinking of one area where there is a main railway line along one side of a river and on the other side a branch line. The authorities are proposing to abandon the branch line. Whoever built the branch line in the first place showed poor judgment-but that was not your fault, Mr. Speaker, nor mine. The question is, what are we to do about this? I suggest that instead of paying subsidies forever to the railway to enable them to run branch lines, the more practical approach would be for us to build a bridge across the river at a point where the bridge could best serve those who would be hurt most by the removal of the branch line. Then the branch line could be removed without anyone being hurt too much. Instead of paying subsidies to the railways to operate branch lines, I suggest the federal government might consider providing alternative methods of transportation. In the example I cited just now, a new bridge might provide a good way out of an awkward situation.
In other circumstances, perhaps a federal grant for a grid road system would solve the problem created by the abandonment of a branch line. Instead of continuing subsidies, perhaps the government might consider granting provincial authorities funds for the building of highways. Construction of highways would permit grain to be moved and the branch line would no longer be needed. Some of these alternatives would be acceptable in solving the problems created by rail line abandonment. Nevertheless, before significant numbers of branch lines are abandoned, I think an over-all plan should be worked out so that we can determine which lines will remain useful in the long run and which ones 21362-54J
DEBATES	839
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada ought to be abandoned. I do not think the authorities should merely come to us and say, "Your branch line is to be abandoned." I would not agree to anything like that unless specific alternative means of transportation could be introduced to take the place of the branch line. As I said, the government ought to look at some of the alternatives open to it and do a little horse-trading. It could say, "We will help the railway remove this particular line, but we will offer you something specific in exchange for the abandoned line." That help might take the form of assistance to municipalities or provincial governments in the building of roads; or, the railway itself might be assisted in some way.
I have cited a number of areas in the transportation field that need particular attention. Now, I should like to deal briefly with something else that relates to box cars and grain handling. This morning's Globe and Mail referred to arguments between two departments of the government. In case anyone argues that the article in my hand is not related in any way to the question of railways, may I make the humble suggestion that it is. If the two departments of government mentioned cannot evolve an over-all policy for shipping grain, how on earth are we to expect the railways to evolve a consistent, organized and ideal method of moving it? The article in question refers to the Department of Industry and the Department of Agriculture, and reads in part:
Rivalry between the grains divisions of these two departments has retarded development of an overall grains policy-
I suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) or the Minister without Portfolio might lean on their colleagues to ensure that something specific is done towards solving this awkward problem facing western Canada. I do not know whether either minister is aware of how awkward the problem of handling prairie grain is, but I am sure they are both interested in making sure that the government operates efficiently and in an organized way. I am sure both ministers will consider the matter in this light.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, this legislation for the financing of the Canadian National immediately raises the question of a railway company's behaviour and how that squares with its obligation to the public. The implications of the recent request by both of Canada's major railways for wholesale abandonment of passenger service across the country are of tremendous
November 14, 1969
840	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada national importance. They expose the very core of one of the greatest challenges our modern society faces, the challenge of providing transportation that is swift, economical and adequate.
At this time, I am more interested in the implications for the province of Manitoba arising from specific requests for abandonment of passenger services by both railroads-requests which, if granted, could deal a heavy social and economic blow to central and northern Manitoba. We have the Canadian Pacific Railway's request to abandon all passenger service, including the transcontinental service. Winnipeg is a vital point on the route. I am more particularly concerned about the Canadian National's request to suspend passenger service on the Winnipeg-Dau-phin-The Pas-Gillam-Churchill run and on the Wabowden-Gillam-Churchill line. I agree that it is unfair and unrealistic for us to compel a system such as the Canadian National to operate at a deficit of more than $3 million a year, which is the loss claimed on the Winnipeg-Churchill service. The Canadian National, after all, is a publicly owned system that came into existence in the public interest after an amalgamation of a group of bankrupt railway companies. It is true that it has been a charge on the public purse ever since, and has received assistance from the public purse.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
But the Canadian National Railway is in a very different position from the privately owned Canadian Pacific Railway which received many great concessions from the people of Canada that enabled it to make tremendous profits over the years in lines of endeavour other than railway passenger service. For this reason, I believe the two groups of applications must be considered entirely separate. In my opinion, the CNR is using its applications to abandon passenger service on 13 runs across the country more as a signal for help than with the serious intent of dropping service.
The CPR, on the other hand, obviously wants out of the whole passenger carrying chore because it is no longer profitable. This railway wants the public that gave it the concessions which led to tremendous corporate development and handsome profits over the years to now allow it to get out of the obligations that were the reason for the concessions in the first place. These concessions included $25 million in cash before the turn of the century, plus 25 million acres of


land. It was these concessions, given in return for a transcontinental rail line, that permitted the CPR to build hotels, get into land deals, mining and smelting and airlines, not to mention the very lucrative freight haulage business.
There is an excellent editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune of November 11 that deals with specific concessions given the CPR by Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg. In the matter of real property taxes, the CPR was given a perpetual exemption. Lawyers and management for the CPR have always argued that this original bargain should be kept. They are meticulous in making what payments they choose to make as an act of grace, not as a legal obligation. The CPR part of the bargain that led to these generous tax concessions was to supply rail service. What is sauce of the goose must be sauce for the gander. If the CPR expects the Canadian people and their various governments to abide strictly by the original bargain, then surely the CPR should be willing to abide by it.
Both railways have over the years been subsidized for losses incurred in supplying what are deemed to be necessary public services. This system is in the process of change, but the principle is still recognized and will be continued. In the light of this principle and the original bargain struck, I think the barefaced proposal of the CPR to pull out of all passenger service is farcical and insulting.
To return to my immediate concern which is Manitoba, and particularly the social and economic life of central and northern Manitoba, I believe the CNR should not be allowed to simply drop all passenger service to places such as Thompson, The Pas and Churchill, not to mention Dauphin and other centres. Although advances have been made in bus and air travel, the fact remains that there are many people who still prefer rail travel or, indeed, cannot use any other mode. They may not exist in sufficient numbers to make the service economically sound, but that is not a valid excuse for dropping that service. It is a necessary public service and should be regarded as such. If money is needed to sustain it, this should be forthcoming from the public purse. I have often suspected that to strengthen the economic argument the railways, the CPR at least, have deliberately discouraged passengers through poor and awkward service. This sort of thing is really not good enough when we consider the vital
November 14, 1969

importance of transportation to national development and to meeting some of the tremendous problems of our modern urbanized and far-flung society.
In my opinion, the Canadian Transport Commission cannot possibly consent to these applications in their present form and still pretend to be protecting the public interest. I would rather see the CTC admit that there is little likelihood of necessary passenger service ever being economically profitable and start examining the problem, not negatively by allowing cancellations, but positively by looking for ways to make them economically sound. If both railways realized that they were in the passenger carrying business to stay, they might assist in positive research.
I have in mind such things as pioneering more modern, smaller passenger units. This has been done to a limited extent in the Toronto and Montreal areas where commuter business is the only paying passenger business the railways have. There are the Montreal commuter runs, the Rapido between Toronto and Montreal and the provincial government's commuter trains in and around metro Toronto. Something of this spirit should be carried into provincial, interprovincial and transcontinental travel.
In Britain, the government and British Railways are spending some $30 million in developing a high-speed, modern passenger train. When we consider that it takes an estimated $20 million to develop a new automobile and approximately $32 million to build a mile or so of elevated expressway, surely this amount of money spent on development and use of existing rail lines might well be a better investment of public money. We are going to have to transport more and more people every year, not fewer. We are going to have to pour more and more public money into providing assistance to provinces and communities to help to meet this problem of passenger transportation. It might be wise to look at what facilities already exist and what use may be made of them by adaption and improvement before we pour out money to construct new facilities that too often only add to the tangle, and complicate and aggravate the problem.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like simply to make the strongest protest, first, against the blanket proposal of the CPR to abandon all passenger service and, second, against the application of the CNR to isolate central and northern Manitoba from the mainstream of provincial and national life by dropping passenger service on the Winnipeg-
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Churchill line and its subsidiaries. Financing the CNR is an annual necessity, but it should be done with a clear restatement of the company's obligation to the Canadian public.


Mr. Lome Nysirom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to make a few comments on the bill before us. Before doing so, I wish to endorse the comments made generally by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson) when he was talking about the Canadian Pacific Railway.
At the outset, I wish to say I am quite disturbed by the recent activities of the CPR in attempting to drop as much passenger service as possible. We must look back to 1881 when the Canadian Pacific Railway Act was passed in this House. In that Act, we find many of the concessions that were given to the company at that time. Among these concessions were $25 million in money, which I remind hon. members was worth much more then than now. They were given a huge parcel of land and certain mineral concessions as well. In return for these, Canadian Pacific promised the people of Canada they would provide passenger service on an everlasting basis. We must ensure that this company continues to keep that promise to the people of Canada.
I am somewhat disturbed by recent indications that the Canadian National Railways wants to abandon some of its passenger services as well. The citizens all across Canada will need these services for many years to come.
The bill before us is similar to bills which have been presented to this House for many years to finance the operations of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. Instead of just presenting this bill every year, Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the government talk about transportation policy, a policy which needs to be changed and needs to be flexible in our vast and ever-changing world.
There is one difference in the bill presented this year. If I understand correctly, the CNR is no longer handling money for Air Canada. I ask the minister, when he makes his remarks later this afternoon, to clarify this point. What does this actually mean? Why is the CNR no longer the middle man for Air Canada? Does this mean that Air Canada is going to be moving more and more toward decreasing public control of its operations? We have noticed suggestions to this effect in the press already.
November 14, 1969

Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the Financial Post of November 1, 1969. The headline reads, "Air Canada Wants to Win Confidence of Investors". I quote:
The exact shape of Air Canada's corporate financial future remains to be thrashed out between the airline and the government.
But in the meantime, as Air Canada's chairman and chief executive officer Yves Pratt puts it, Canada's largest airline is moving steadily toward becoming more profit-oriented.
The target is to get the company's earning picture up to the point where investors and lending institutions would consider it an attractive investment proposition. And that, it is generally held, means a return on investment of perhaps 10 per cent. Last year, a good one for Air Canada with a profit of $8.2 million turned up a return of 6.3 per cent.
e (2:40 p.m.)
When the minister replies I should like him to clarify this portion of the bill, because I think it is most important. The railways talk about getting out of their obligation to provide passenger service, and one of the reasons they give is that it is a losing proposition. Air Canada is making a profit. Let us make sure it continues to be publicly owned and that it is not sold to private interests.
At this point, I should like to quote from another article which I believe helps to emphasize the point I am trying to make. This is taken from the Gazette, of April 2, 1969, and the headline reads: "Air Canada Doubles Profit, Raises Rate of Return."
Air Canada had a net income of $8,184,000 in 1968, the sixth year in which it has shown a profit and double that reported in 1967, Transport Minister Paul Hellyer announced Tuesday.
The Crown-owned airline will need more than $300,000,000 in outside financing, however, to buy new equipment and property in the next five years, it was stated in the company's report tabled by Mr. Hellyer in the Commons.
The 1968 profit was the 15th for the airline in the last 18 years. It represented a return on investment of 6.3 per cent-up from 5.2 per cent the previous year.
A profit of $3,547,000 was reported during Canada's centennial year.
It is obvious that the airline is more than paying its way.
I should like to make one or two further brief comments before I close. First of all, I believe we must look at the transport situation generally and outline some of the basic objectives we wish to achieve. Above all, transportation in this country ought to be regarded as a service at all times. It must be run with social awareness and responsibility; it must be responsive to the needs of people

in whatever part of Canada they live, whether the maritimes or on the prairies or in some industrial city. In addition, the transport system must be run as cheaply as possible, and in terms not of making a profit but of providing a service to the country. It must be highly efficient, and this means schedules which allow people to move as fast and as cheaply as possible.
One might ask how it would be possible to provide such a system in this country. First, it should, in my view, be publicly owned by the people of this country because only in this way would it be possible to draft a detailed and realistic plan for transportation in Canada. In the case of a publicly owned system, we could have some say as to the manner in which it should be set up, the rates which are charged, and so on. I believe that under public ownership the operation would be more efficient. Arrangements could be made for flights to smaller communities on a more regular basis, and schedules would correspond to the needs of the people much more closely than they do at present.
I wish to say a few words, now, about regional carriers; perhaps the minister could comment on this aspect when he replies. Let me say at the outset that I should like to see the regional carriers integrated as closely as possible with Air Canada and the domestic nation wide airline already in existence. If this were done, greater service to our people would result and I hope it is the intention of the government to encourage action on these lines. Regional carriers should be approved only when it is absolutely necessary to do so; if Air Canada can fly into the areas concerned it should provide the service there.
In conclusion, let me say this: to me, it appears the government is seeking to decrease public ownership in the transportation field by using the back door, and I would ask the minister to comment on this aspect of the legislation before us when he replies.


Thomas Miller Bell: I wish to take the opportunity offered by this debate to put on record a few remarks about transportation matters in general, though I shall address myself in particular, of course, to the bill for second reading and reference to the committee with which we are now dealing.
Last night the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) dealt very ably with the overall transportation picture. He dealt, also, with this request for increased funds for Air Canada, and I was pleased to note that he
November 14, 1969

made extensive reference to the efforts which have lately been made to make the corporation independent of the government. As we know, there is provision here for a method by which the corporation can obtain its own funds through the issuance of bonds. Many of us on this side have advocated for years, both in the House and in committee, that the company should be given an opportunity to stand on its own two feet, separate from the government, and compete with CPA and the other airlines of the world.
We believe this is a good corporation. We believe there are some disadvantages in its being tied to the government, and we hope that the measure of independence for which provision is made in these proposals will be expended further and that the day will come when Air Canada can become a separately-owned company with stock available to the public in some way.
A few months ago there was considerable talk about various reports which were to be made to the government. I recall that the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson) was commissioned to deal with some sort of study concerning the question of Air Canada financing and the possibility of making the company a separate entity. I hope the minister, when he replies, will tell us about these reports: are they available, and what exactly did they say about Air Canada and its future? I am referring to the report which the Minister of Supply and Services was dealing with and to another interdepartmental report involving financing-I think the committee included among its members some people from financial circles in Montreal and Toronto. It is important that we should know exactly what the government has in mind when we are being asked once again for money for Air Canada.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) dealt extensively with the subject of transportation during his speech last night. It was a good review. I do not agree with his philosophy about public ownership, but as an old Conservative I am beginning to wonder just where the Canadian Pacific Railway fits into this picture nowadays. I have said before in this House, and I say again, that it is difficult to know where the responsibility of the Canadian Pacific Railway to maintain passenger services begins and ends. According to recent information from press releases we gather that applications are being made in the proper form by both the Canadian Pacific and the
DEBATES	843
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Canadian National railway companies to abandon 31 passenger routes across the country. I do not know how sincere these applications are intended to be. It has been suggested in my home city of Saint John, and I am sure the thought has arisen elsewhere, that these may be applications put forward merely in the hope that an 80 per cent subsidy will be made available for allocation by the Transport Commission, as was mentioned last night by the hon. member for Crowfoot. On the other hand, I should like to know whether the two major railways seriously intend to do away with passenger service.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
The last time such an application was made extensive hearings were held, and I thought it was then understood that within the foreseeable future, say 10 to 20 years, there would be no further applications made for passenger service discontinuance. The present proposal threatens a port city such as Saint John, dependent as it is on transportation. There is only one Canadian Pacific service to Saint John, from Montreal; the CN provides the other passenger link to Saint John from Moncton. Discontinuance of both these services is now being requested.
If the railways are serious about this, then it is a serious matter and something must be done about it. As I recall the recent legislation, provision is made for the Canadian Transport Commission to hold public hearings into such matters, and I for one make the request now that the transport commission be told to hold full hearings into the proposed application. I do not think this is a mandatory provision; nevertheless, I contend there should be full public hearings into the application to which I have referred in view of the serious economic cutbacks that would have to be made not only in Saint John but in the entire maritime region.
I am not simply talking about the abandonment of one extra railway fine, Mr. Speaker; I am referring to something that is the lifeblood of the entire maritime community, the two remaining railway links between Saint John and the outside world which are now threatened with abandonment.
Reference was also made last night to the previous hearings held by our transportation committee. Two or three years ago the committee travelled west to conduct extensive hearings into the need for the service offered by "The Dominion". On this committee were members who were very interested in transportation matters. The committee's enquiry
November 14, 1969
844	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada was also the forerunner of other committee studies. None of the recommendations made by this committee were pre-empted by the government, as has been the case with many other hearings recently. I give the government credit that they held back their decision until the committee were given a full opportunity to look into the future in the west of "The Dominion".
After considerable study the committee made some recommendations, one of which was that the service be continued. I think one of the reasons was that Expo '67 was approaching, but in any event the committee did not take a hard line. Although the CNR and CPR were offering another service in the area, the committee felt there was still a need for a transportation connection between various communities, though a full transcontinental connection of this nature was not required.
To a certain extent the railways took note of our recommendations. Railway representatives appeared before the committee and made a good impression. As we now begin to consider this new application during the next few months, I hope an opportunity will be given to the transportation committee to investigate fully, and that the government will not "jump the gun" by announcing its decision prematurely.
The Canadian Transport Commission also has a responsibility in such matters, though I am not quite sure where they fit into the picture. We all know the connection the present chairman of the transport commission has with this government. I do not know whether there is contact between the two, and I am not saying that there should not be; but I think practically everyone in Canada knows that the present chairman of the commission has been a supporter of the government for a long while.
I would think that the commission has some responsibility with regard to future policy. This morning I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the recent increase in trucking rates in Ontario and Quebec. As I understand it, the truckers rate association has just approved increases that might total as much as 10 per cent in both provinces, and application is going to be made to the respective provincial boards for authority to make these increases. I should like to know where the Canadian Transport Commission fits in, and what action this government is taking. Is the


government approaching the transport commission on this matter? In view of the inflationary nature of these increases I would think the board certainly has some responsibility in this connection.
Legislation was recently passed in the maritimes to give trucking companies some of the benefits conferred upon the railways under maritimes rates legislation. It was thought that the truckers would then be able to compete with the railways, and that the maritimes would be better off as a result. This seemed to make sense. But if the news I heard this morning is correct, it means that the maritimes will now be faced with a further increase in trucking costs. It seems the minute we give the truckers authority to compete with the railways, they apply for increases in their own rates. When is the price spiral going to end? This sort of thing does not make sense to me.
Although the Canadian Pacific Railway is going to apply for discontinuance of the only passenger service from Montreal to Saint John, it is ironic that at this very moment a new passenger station costing $500,000 is under construction in Saint John. When questioned about this the CPR officials were straightforward, and I give them credit for that. They said they did not know whether discontinuance would be granted, so they had to go ahead and build the new passenger terminal anyway. Perhaps they are really hoping for a subsidy if they continue to provide service, and they will then use this new passenger terminal.
I have been unable to determine exactly where the responsibilities of the CPR begin and end. I do not complain about the CPR as much as I used to because they are making a $20 million investment for the Bay of Fundy at the moment. Nevertheless, I should like to know whether a subsidy is going to be paid, for which provision is made, I think, in the regulations of the transport commission.
As I have said, the Canadian Transport Commission must take its full responsibility in these applications and conduct public hearings. A study is presently being conducted in the maritimes, and there have been numerous studies of sundry transportation matters.
e (3:00 p.m.)
We have had dozens of studies covering all field of transportation. We had a study last year when the government wanted us to accept temporary legislation in this area. The Atlantic region transport study committee was set up to deal with all future problems of
November 14, 1969

transportation in the Atlantic region. We thought this was a good idea even though we knew it would result in a postponement of a solution to the major problem. That committee has had one meeting of not much importance. The members thought they should allocate selective assistance and they used many high-sounding words, some of which we have heard for a long time. In the meantime the increases have continued.
We had the surcharge increase in September, which has been mentioned in this House, and there is the possible increase in respect of Ontario and Quebec to which I referred a moment ago. We must face the fact that this increase may spread to the Maritimes. Still the studies continue. How do they all fit into the entire picture? I suggest very sincerely that we must know once and for all what the story is from the standpoint of Maritimes transportation.
We have been giving blanket approval each year of this type of legislation and have referred these matters to the appropriate committee. This is a desirable thing and there will be no effort on my part to hold up this legislation. The minister said it is similar to legislation passed in other years. I suppose that should satisfy us, but in view of the continuing increases and the indefiniteness of the transportation picture, particularly in the Maritimes, I take the opportunity to ask these questions with the hope that the minister will answer them.
We should have a statement in respect of the Air Canada picture and how it will be related to the many reports we have received. What are the possibilities of Air Canada becoming a privately-owned company? I am not talking about bond financing, as I realize that question has been dealt with, but what are the possibilities that Air Canada might become a privately-owned company with common stock available to the public?
I hope there will be an undertaking by the government about action to be taken in respect of increased transportation rates throughout the country. What does the government think about this situation? Is it going to take some action? I asked the minister the other day whether he would make a statement on wrapping up the complete problem in the Maritime provinces. I realize this legislation is usually handled by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), but I think we have in the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) a minister from the Maritimes who should be sincerely interested in transportation. God
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada only knows, transportation is our major problem. The minister comes from a province which is begging for consideration in respect of transportation. We have faith in him and will go along with his suggestions provided he keeps us up to date on what is happening.
The transport committee should have an opportunity to study the foreboding transportation problems which exist today, as evidenced by rate increases and the startling news of rail service discontinuance. That is a good committee of this House which has done excellent work in the past under the direction of good chairmen and with interested members. I hope it will be given full authority to deal with these matters. It should go into them intensively, travelling across the country by air, rail and ship to find out at first hand what the people require.
There is still a crying need for our elder citizens and people who do not like to travel by air, to have available other passenger services of their choice. The government has a responsibility through the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport, as well as others on the treasury benches, to forget about the costs involved and to see that service is given to the public. We have all heard about effective demand, wherever that phrase came from. Another phrase I do not like is "if it is viable". These phrases do not mean anything to me. In any event, the people of this country should have an opportunity to travel by rail and meet each other. We gave the CPR land in order that this country could be developed. What is the situation now? Is the CPR going to give us this land back and get out of its obligations? Somebody has to tell us how these things fit into the over-all picture. After we pass this legislation and send the matter to the committee, one of the challenges we should accept as members is that of finding out what is happening in respect of the over-all transportation situation in Canada.
Like other members, I often take constituents on tours through the House of Commons. Many hon. members take their guests to the memorial chamber, into the Senate, and so on. I always stop in the railway committee room and point out that this is one of the great rooms of this House of Commons. I tell them that in the old days it was here that the hearings took place when we were building the railways and developing Canada. I inform them that these meetings were exciting and often heated, but that this is where we decided how to lay out the railroads in order that
November 14, 1969
846	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada this country might grow and bring us together. It is apparent that we are now trying to undo this good work. Regardless of my personal feelings, I think the transport committee should be put to work again in the railway committee room in order that we may find out where we are going with transportation and how we can get out of this mess.


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to comment briefly on Bill C-7, authorizing the provision of moneys to meet the CNR's and Air Canada's deficits.
It may seem strange for a representative of a district which is not on the CNR line to take the floor this afternoon but first of all I want to say that I do so in the interest of the people of my constituency and in the light of the gigantic developments now under way there.
[DOT] (3:10 p.m.)
This matter of transportation on the North Shore and of railroad connections has often been brought up in this House and in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Not so long ago, the committee members paid a visit to my constituency. They were able to see the tremendous developments taking place in my riding, but were also quite disappointed with the lack of direct communication lines with other areas. There are a road and a number of harbors. We have access to the ocean through deep water ports, but we have no railway link with the rest of the continent.
I do not see why the CN, instead of thinking of abandoning some branch lines, should not try instead to improve, in certain areas, the quality of the service and especially to look into development opportunities in a riding such as mine.
When the committee visited the North Shore in September, the question of using ferryboats to travel between the North and the South Shores of the St. Lawrence was brought up.
In the small industrial town of Baie-Comeau, work is nearing completion on the construction of a fourth paper mill worth some $54 million. When this mill begins operations, production of newsprint will exceed
600,000	tons per year.
The management of this firm does not see why it should be necessary to look into


the possibility of establishing a ferry service between the South Shore and the North Shore so that this production may be brought to the large urban centres, to the American cities, by the regular CN railway lines.
On November 5, 1969, some representatives of the Quebec North Shore Paper Co. at Baie-Comeau handed me a brief entitled "Transportation needs on the North Shore of the Lower St. Lawrence". It reads as follows:
The availability of cheaper means of transportation is, today as in the past, an important factor of industrial development and expansion. Water transportation is now available year round in the Lower St. Lawrence region. But other and cheaper means of transportation-by water or by land-remain non-existent during the long winter months to move goods between localities on the North Shore and other points in Canada and North America.
This problem could be solved by establishing a train ferry service between Baie-Comeau and an economic railhead, and other points in Canada and North America.
In support of this proposal and on the assumption that composite shipments now carried on boats could be moved by rail, we respectfully ask you to consider the following facts.
In 1967, the shipping of composite shipments alone from Montreal and Quebec City to industrial communities on the North Shore amounted to 159,000 tons, which could be sent from Montreal and Quebec City by rail and then transferred to a train ferry as far as the North Shore. Bulk goods from Montreal and Quebec City to various points on the North Shore are generally forwarded by boat.
The combined volume of composite shipments from three ports on the North Shore to Quebec City and Montreal reached 14,000 tons in 1967. If to that westward traflc were added the 90,000 tons of newsprint which must now be shipped westward each year from Baie-Comeau through the St. Lawrence Seaway, it would create a balanced traflc of more than 100,000 composite cargo tons in both directions between localities on the North Shore and other western points.
We are presently studying the economic advantages of shipping our newsprint for places west of Baie-Comeau by rail-using train ferry operating all year round-in comparison with our present transportation system through the Seaway during the navigation season. Although the studies are not yet completed, we feel we should let you know the conclusions, since the possible establishment of a train ferry service would undoubtedly help you in your assessment of the transportation needs in the whole lower St. Lawrence area.
More than twenty years ago, one could still accept that the North Shore of the St. Lawrence had been forgotten in the construction of a system connecting the main centres essential to the development of Canada. Over the last two decades, however, the North Shore has become one of the regions of Canada which, per capita, contribute the most to the gross national product and this why it is no longer possible to ignore our area. In fact,
November 14, 1989

the North Shore is an "island" without any rail connection east of the Saguenay River. This "insularity" is still emphasized by the St. Lawrence River which prevents the establishment of any rail connection with South Shore railways.
Considering that during the winter months, Canadian and North American markets remain inaccessible to the North Shore by more economical means of transportation, we suggest that the committee might consider the possibility of including the North Shore among the "select territories" under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act (17-18 Elizabeth II Chap. 52).
That is what was said in a brief I received recently. I do not raise this question for the first time. I think that we should give some attention to the problem. Once again, CN authorities might consider the potential development on the North Shore. When reference is made to rail service and connections between the North and the South Shores, the CN system serving the Maritimes is also involved. Instead of abandoning services, as is so often said, I do not see why the CNR management could not consider the possibility of buying the railroad connecting Mont-Joli with Matane, a distance of 40 miles, and add it to its system. A ferry service could then be operated from Matane to Baie-Comeau for the shipment of newsprint produced in the mill at Baie-Comeau.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
It is only 28 miles from Matane to Baie-Comeau. A rail-boat could easily operate between the two cities and thus encourage considerable development in that region.
In 1964, here in the House, I raised the question and the newspapers suggested the establishment of a railway link between the South Shore and the North Shore, resorting almost to the same arguments as I have just used.
Yet, I do not know whether the studies were carried out further by the management of the Canadian National Railways; however, I am aware that on the other side of the river, that is in my constituency, on the North Shore, very serious profitability studies have been made in that respect by private companies on behalf of the Canadian National Railways.
When the Committee on Transport and Communications went to the North Shore to study transportation problems there, a Canadian National Railway representative appeared before us in almost all the towns visited by the committee. I do not know what has been done since then, but I know that
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada some interest has been shown about the subject.
I should like to take this opportunity to deal with this problem because I know it will be referred to the Committee on Transport and Communications. We should look into it. As a matter of fact, the rail transport problem has become so serious in our area that the briefs, studies and requests addressed to the government should be taken into consideration.
A few days ago, not far from my riding, in Labrador City to be more precise, a disastrous airplane crash took eight lives. It was not possible to reach the scene for two days, because flying was the only way to get there. They finally had to use the Quebec North Shore Labrador Railway, a private railway, to reach the scene of the accident.
I deplore such facts and I would like to say that a population of 128,000 and a region developing at a fantastic pace, bringing an extraordinary contribution at the national level, must not be left without permanent railway lines. This responsibility is the government's own.
This is a rather reasonable attitude from the CNR authorities who are at least prepared to consider the rail-boat system which could be established as a link between the South Shore and the North Shore and which could, as studies and reports have shown, be profitable.
I wanted to make these comments and I hope that, when this bill is submitted to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, it can be studied as a whole and more information can be obtained.
If CNR officers hear my plea, I hope they will make the effort of examining briefs already submitted and that they will try and do something to have both sides of the river connected by rail.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I shall not take too much of the time of the House in voicing my opinion on Bill C-7 entitled:
An Act 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 day 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.
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that this bill is a replica of a similar bill introduced in
November 14, 1989
848	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada the fall of 1968 for the purpose of assisting the Canadian National Railways.
Now this morning, my colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) pointed out that last year, the Canadian National Railways made profits of $40 million, which were converted into deficits due to the payment of interest charges of $70 million, thus showing a deficit of some $30 million. If we compute the amount paid in interests in the last 25 years, we get the astronomical figure of $1,200 million paid in interest only on the C.N.R. debt.
From the way that Crown Corporation is administered, and at the rate finance is used in this particular case, it is clear that in about 10 years hence, the Canadian National Railways will ask us to authorize the abandon of all its lines throughout Canada.
The C.P.R. is asking to abandon its Mont-real-Toronto-Vancouver service, and now the C.N.R. is preparing to ask for permission to abandon its service to Lake St. John and from Abitibi to Montreal.
As for our region of Abitibi, it was born directly from the construction of what was then called the transcontinental railway.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
People left the areas north of Quebec or Montreal, to come and settle in Abitibi, along the railroad that was being built through Barraute, Senneterre, Amos, La Reine, La Sarre and Cochrane. It was the only railway from Montreal to western Canada which was an important area then. Cities like Toronto were less important in 1912, in 1913, at the time when the C.N.R., the transcontinental railway, was being built.
Today, we are asked to abandon that line, under the pretext that last year there was a deficit of $2 million in the operation of passenger trains between Abitibi and Montreal.
Mr. Speaker, no one talks, however, of the profits accrued to the Canadian National Railways through the transportation of freight and wood.
If the passenger service is abandoned in that area, how will we transport our lumberjacks, for instance, who come from Kamou-raska, Quebec, Cochrane, Hearst, and take them to Clova, Parent, Paradis, Bic, Senneterre, where there are still huge lumber operations.
Mr. Speaker, if the lumberjacks are unable to get to the operations, it will be pointless to continue the freight service since there will no longer be any wood to transport.


This morning, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard) spoke of the poor service given by the C.N.R. in his area, in our area, and he certainly was right. However, I was led to think, some seven or eight years ago, that if we had such bad service at home, if the prices were so frightfully high, if people did not care a bit for Abitibi or for Lac-Saint-Jean, it was because there were too many creditiste members in that area, and because we were not on the right side of the fence. I can recall the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean who was then a good Creditiste member, sitting on this side, with us; today, however he has turned Liberal.
In the Lac-Saint-Jean-Saguenay area, there are three Liberal members out of four, and instead of improving, services are deteriorating day after day, so that consideration is now being given to simply abandonning the line. It is worse than poor service: it is a total lack of it. However, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean was right this morning, when he referred to the poor service provided on the Abitibi and Saguenay lines. Service between Lac-Saint-Jean and Quebec is so slow that it takes 12 hours to cover the distance. As for us, it takes us 17 hours because the distance is longer still.
Some lines have practically never been adjusted to the present needs allegedly, because it was too expensive. On the other hand, on the southern lines of the province and on some other lines there have been some improvements. Nothing is done for us. Quite recently, the passenger service between Rouyn-Noranda and Taschereau was abandoned, allegedly because it was unprofitable. Workers who had been with the C.N.R. 25 to 30 years were laid off; they were told the service had become uneconomic. And now it is going to be the turn of the Montreal-Abitibi-Rouyn-Noranda-Montreal-Lac - Saint-Jean-Saguenay line.
As for the cars, used in those areas, they are outdated equipment discarded by the Toronto-Montreal lines. Quite often, they use what we commonly call cattle cars in our area.
In days gone by, they used those cars for carrying oxen or cattle from the southern part of the province. We were given an old car, with separate seats, that was used 25 years ago in Montreal. Seats were repaired somehow or other. They finally got rid, about two years ago, of the little coal stove that was in a corner of the car.
November 14, 1969	COMMONS
That was the consideration given to our area. No wonder people do not travel by train any more. As for us, members of parliament, when we have to travel, we think it over twice before taking the train, because it is a 17-hour journey to Montreal.
We have to pay $22 now for a double bed. One can get accommodations at the Queen Elizabeth in Montreal for $18, and it is much more comfortable than the C.N.R. beds, especially in our area. It does not shake quite as much in the Queen Elizabeth unless you want it.
But aboard the train there is nothing you can do about it.
So I agree with what the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean said this morning and I hope that it is more than talk on his part.
A decision have to be made at one time or another as regards the Canadian National Railways. For instance, we must stand with all our might against the abandonment of those branch lines and, as I said a while ago, the C.N.R. was not established in order to make profits but to provide services. That was the reason for creating the Canadian National Railways, a public corporation.
We need those services in our area. As for the freight service, as I said earlier, the C.N.R. is making profits in our areas, but because they lose money in the passenger service, they think they should eliminate those lines. Is that the right thing to do? I ask the question. Some C.N.R. officials will read what I have just said.
What will happen to the lumberjacks who settled in that area? Are we going to transport them by helicopter as was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the last election campaign or will we find another means of transportation? Shall we transport them on the old wooden roads, in horse-drawn carriages because the motor car cannot be used? What shall we do with the lumberjacks since there are thousands of them in that area?
If there are no lumberjacks, the C.N.R. will have no wood to carry. This means that by suppressing at once the passenger service the day will come when they will suppress the freight cars and then the wood will not be moved to the large centres, such as Toronto, Montreal or Quebec.


Gustave Blouin: There will be no newsprint either.


David Réal Caouette: There will be no newsprint either. At home we have all that. We are a
DEBATES	849
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada little short on paper mills. We are not as spoiled as the Saguenay riding. In fact, the Saguenay area has a lot of paper to be moved. I thought earlier that the hon. member would ask for a railway line just above the St. Lawrence river, about 30 miles long, a floating highway, so that the C.N.R. could engage in transport operations there. However, one problem remains and I endorse his request to the effect that ferries should be used in order to equip these areas with means of transportation necessary to the development of their economy.
This is what I had to say with regard to the bill which deals once more, as always, with the financing of the deficits caused by interests paid to financiers and not by losses incurred in our areas.
If we could manage to establish a railroad between the financiers and the C.N.R. by eliminating taxes and interests, I think that there would be no more problems for the Canadian National Railways. There would be no more problems with Air Canada either.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
The government is borrowing funds and then lending them to the C.N.R. As my colleague from Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) said it so well this morning they borrow at a rate of interest of 8-J, 8J or 8|- per cent, and they lend to the CN at a rate of 4j or 4 per cent.
Then, the government is surprised that the CN is faced with financial difficulties. The CN is not the only one to have difficulties. The government has some also and has no solution whatsoever. Even if the Prime Minister says that we are repeating ourselves, we are not any more than the system under which we rub along, because for at least 15 years, we have been passing the same act every year asking parliament to appropriate funds in order to help the "poor" CN.
If we had a sound financial system, not a stupid one, but a sensible one. But no. We are told: you keep saying that the monetary question will solve everything. But what is wrong, if not the financial system? That is what is wrong.
Our operations yield a $40 million profit, but the interest swallows up $70 million, so there is a deficit of $30 million. Let us pass Bill C-7 to make up this deficit and safeguard financial interests. The people who need railway service can always walk. Such is the present system: it moves backwards instead of progressing and creating something positive, because the financial problem will always hold us back.
November 14, 196S
850	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
The minister can only say: Let us help the C.N.R. and Air Canada which are essential services. Yes, but at the same time let us stop financing those services through such ineffective and backward methods as those now used by the government.
This is our suggestion. The hon. member for Abitibi was quite right this morning; he quoted very accurate figures. Let us not forget that in 25 years from now, we will have to pay $1,200 million in interest only on the debt and no portion of the capital has been paid off. This reminds me of the notorious case of the Jacques Cartier bridge in Montreal, which cost $18 million, of which we have to date paid $21 million, in interest alone, and on which we still owe $14 million. When will the Jacques Cartier bridge be fully paid? If God does not know, our financial system can tell us!
As far as the railways are concerned, it is the same thing. The debt is never paid off, we cannot pay anything on it because our financial situation is bad. Inquiries of the president of the CN or of the president of Air Canada bring the answer that they cannot afford it, that they have no money. So, each year, a bill is introduced in the House and the members are told: Come to our help, we find ourselves in a dilemma, we are in debt, we must make up the deficit resulting from the interest on our debt! So, pass this bill, they tell us, in order that high finance may be protected and that the Canadian people be required to pay more taxes. That is exactly what it all comes to.
So, Mr. Speaker, we insist that the CN and Air Canada should be able to meet their obligations. But we hope that, at a given time, the government will come up with concrete proposals based on the system of monetary creation instead of superficial solutions based on the tax yield.
Let us go a little beyond this unscalable wall of human understanding which cannot see beyond taxation. The monetary system existed before taxes. Nowadays all our economic structure, including the structures of the CN and of Air Canada, is based on taxation instead of going to the root of matters and of relying on the creation scheme.
Then we say: Let us revert to the principle of creation. Why should we not call the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Louis Ras-minsky, who is an expert on financial questions, before the committee on transport and communications? We could ask him if, with the permission of the Canadian government


and all members, he would not advance the necessary funds to make up the deficit of Air Canada.
Then, the Governor of the Bank of Canada, will reply: If parliament tells me to do so, I certainly will.
Preventing the chartered banks from multiplying that creation fourteenfold would solve the problem. The losses of the CN and Air Canada would be paid off. Let us stop paying interest on a nominal debt. Let us start by becoming the masters of our own financial system; then we can say that our national undertakings, our Crown corporations belong to the Canadian people and not to those who stole from them by exacting interests of $1,200 million in the last 25 years.
Mr. Speaker, the minister who is listening to me is not mentally retarded; he is an intelligent man. He knows full well what I mean. He knows that I am right, but he cannot say so. He knows also that if the sovereign parliament asks the Governor of the Bank of Canada to create the necessary credits, the Governor will say that he is entitled to do so. If parliament instructs him to do so, he can do it. However, no one dares ask him. Mr. Rasminsky is allowed to welcome, in his office, the top representatives of the big financial institutions, of the chartered banks; transactions, plots, follow, to maintain the financial system which is making slaves of us.
Mr. Speaker, these are the few observations I wanted to make on the gaps created by a stupid system and on the means of correcting them, that is, by levying additional taxes. That is what it will come to: The Canadian people will have to pay more taxes to make up deficits.
Mr. Speaker, we do not object to everything. Far from it. We are opposed however to the CNR ceasing to provide service in the North, to the Lake St. John and Saguenay region. I ask that the CNR increase its services to attract customers, that its trains move a little faster and bring people from Rouyn, Amos, La Sarre or Chicoutimi to Montreal. In fact it should provide good service and make available to the public comfortable cars, attractive ones, with even television aboard as on planes nowadays. It should pay attention to the people. If the passenger service is good it might become more profitable and it could thus be possible to keep on assuring transportation to workers and lumbermen in a still very important region with regard to lumber operations. The CNR will continue to do business as long as
November 14, 1969

these services are attractive and run for the benefit of the population.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colches-ier-Hanis):: Mr. Speaker, no subject will arouse in a Maritimes Member of Parliament more passion or justifiable outrage than the subject of transportation. Not 102 years ago but two years ago, on the 100th anniversary of the founding of this nation, we witnessed an event that sounded the death-knell for many industries in the Atlantic region. Notwithstanding all its talk about the just society and the elimination of regional disparities, this government did nothing to rectify what took place in the Atlantic region. Almost every month the Atlantic community hears more bad news about transportation. It is difficult, indeed almost impossible, for me to suggest how much longer the economy of our area can withstand the repercussions of freight rate increases, railway lay-offs and the elimination of services which industry in the Atlantic region needs in order to survive.
In August, 1967, the railways were given the right to increase non-carload tariffs within the Atlantic region. The increases took effect in September of that year and we objected to them as strongly as we could. Every area of the community lodged its objection with the government, but it was all without avail and the increases took effect. As a result, many businesses and jobs have been eliminated in the Atlantic provinces.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In time-and it took a lot of time-the government amended the Maritime Freight Rates Act to allow trucking firms in the Atlantic area certain subsidies which up until that time had been available only to the railways. This step was of major assistance to industry in the area because for the first time it was not a captive customer of the railways. I have not noticed any significant reduction in freight rates as a result of the extension of subsidies to the trucking industry. In fact, I do not believe that industry in our area is receiving the full benefit of the extension of these freight subsidies. Shippers in the Atlantic provinces should make their justifiable grievances known so that they receive a full measure of benefit from the extension of the freight rates subsidies. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) should watch closely
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada what the trucking industry does with regard to freight rates in the region as a result of the extension of subsidies.
The shippers of the region should know there are teeth in the legislation which was passed, and that the trucking industry has a right to react in a favourable manner to those shippers. After all, the objective of the extension of the subsidies was to create a system of freight rates which would be more helpful for the survival of industry in the area. Soon after the government undertook to extend the freight rate subsidies to the trucking industry, it allowed the railways to remove the freeze on carload lot shipments. As a result, a still greater burden was placed on shippers in the Atlantic region. Recently, Canadian National Railways decided to take a further step. Without consultation with the Minister of Transport, I understand they decided to eliminate all less than carload lot traffic coming into the Atlantic region from the rest of Canada. When I learned of this action, I immediately contacted the Minister of Transport. The minister was quick to take action and as a result these freight rate changes were not allowed to take effect and the CNR was forced to continue providing an l.c.l. service to the Atlantic region. It would have been an additional blow to the industry in the region if the shippers who depend upon l.c.l. traffic to bring supplies in with which to manufacture goods, which often have to be shipped out of the region, had been forced to pay higher express rates. This would have happened had the CNR been allowed to continue with its objective of putting the new rates into effect on November 3 of this year.
I believe the Minister of Transport endeavours to do his best to protect the region. It is not his fault that we are without a transportation policy which would give protection and hope for the future of industry in the area. I think he is doing his best, but the cabinet is doing little to assist him. While all this is going on, employees of the railways in the region are suffering one cutback after another. We are told this is for the sake of efficiency. It is a shocking way to achieve efficiency. After	25 years of service,
employees are suddenly finding themselves unemployed.
I have before me a communication which I received from Mr. Carl H. Hiltz, the educational chairman of local No. 9 of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers. He informed me that men with as long as 30 years' service were
852	COMMONS
Private Members' Public Bills released from their employment without more than two weeks' notice. I wrote the vicepresident of the Atlantic region regarding this matter. He accepted the fact there may be problems in relation to the unemployment being created by the railway for the sake of efficiency and stated he would look into the matter. At the same time he informed me that the Atlantic region express operations of the CNR would be reduced from 50 locations to 17 or 18. That is more very bad news for the employees of that region.
This is just the beginning, Mr. Speaker, of the issues I wish to bring to the attention of the House with regard to this bill. I would now like to call it four o'clock.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I see the government whip has just entered the chamber. I believe I can say that there is an understanding that the first seven orders might be allowed to stand and that we proceed with order No. 8, Bill C-20.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the first seven orders will be stood at the request of the government, and the Chair will put No. 8, Bill C-20?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey) moved: that Bill C-20, to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of Bill C-20, an act to better assure the public's right to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration, it seems that I could hardly do so at a more timely juncture. It is
[Mr. Coates.)
DEBATES	November 14, 1969
just over a year ago that the same bill was talked out in this chamber by government members. At that time one or two government members, when adding their voices to the debate, pointed out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was no doubt concerned about participatory democrary and in his enthusiasm for a well-informed public had set up a task force on government information.
a (4:00 p.m.)
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the task force has reported and its report, from pages 25 to 34, contain a detailed examination and criticism of the hush-hush secrecy now observed by the government together with some excellent comparisons between Canada's outmoded procedures in this area and those of other countries, notably Sweden. So my hopes soar high today that hon. members opposite will be heartened by these events, and disposed to allow this bill to go to an appropriate committee where it may be treated as raw material useful in helping to bring Canada up-to-date by opening the windows and unbarring the doors of official reticence.
As the bill states in its explanatory note, it is being presented in aid of the public right to know in what manner the government is administering the public duties entrusted to it by the people. The key clause states:
Every administrative or ministerial commission, power and authority shall make its records and information concerning its doings available to any person at his request in reasonable manner and time.
The measure provides for certain specific exemptions to this provision where these would be in the public interest. In brief, it puts into words-words which I hope will become law-the basic parliamentary, democratic principle that public affairs must be conducted publicly. Is it not incongruous that though, according to the task force on government information, close to $150 million is expended annually on circulating the type of information which the government wants to put out, many motions placed on the order paper of this House by private members call in vain for the production of the type of information which the public wants and which apparently the government denies? My hon. friend the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) stated recently:
It is ironic that the Prime Minister co-authored a manifesto in 1964 entitled an Appeal for Realism in Politics which said that democratic progress requires the ready availability of true and complete information".
November 14, 1969

Further, I would remind the House that within the last two months the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) himself stated:
Government secrecy is sometimes legitimized as the state's right to privacy but it may well be a denial of the public right to know.
A great deal has been published on this general subject by the press of Canada. To quote but one opinion, the Toronto Globe and Mail in an editorial entitled "It is the public's business" had this to say:
One bad side effect of the prodigious growth of government in this century is that it has become exceedingly difficult to keep track of. Not only are governments themselves much more deeply and widely involved in the life of the people, but their tasks have become so numerous that they have had to delegate much of their authority to boards and commissions. Accompanying this governmental growth has been a disinclination on the part of governments and their creatures to keep the public informed about what they are doing.
A private bill has been presented to the House of Commons which could do much to open these many closed doors and keep the public informed about what is, after all, its own business. The bill would require that "every administrative or ministerial commission, power and authority shall make its records and information available to any person at his request in reasonable manner and time".
Exceptions would be made for matters of national security, matters exempted by statute from disclosure, trade secrets, commercial information obtained from private persons and subjects of private interest "to the degree that the right to personal privacy excludes the public interest".
It is my idea, Mr. Speaker, that if this bill becomes law the enforcing agency should be the Exchequer Court of Canada. In urging that the House allow the subject matter of the bill to go to a committee, I feel this is in line with the expressed sentiments of government leaders, as well as with the findings of the task force on government information, and that what it proposes could be a potent ingredient of improved parliamentary democracy in Canada.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark and Renfrew):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather). He frequently introduces a philosophical note into our debates in this House, and if I might be permitted to be personal about an hon. member for a moment, he possesses another characteristic, that of a great tenacity. He has chosen certain areas of special concern, for example, the field of auto safety and items such as the one he has brought before us today. I have had the pleasure of serving on committees at which he was present and I know of his concern about the effects of smoking on health. It seems logical
Private Members' Public Bills that today he should introduce Bill C-20 to better assure the public's rights to freedom of access to public documents and information about government administration.
As the hon. member has told us, this bill is concerned with opening windows and unbarring doors. It is based on the idea that public affairs must be conducted publicly, to use the words which are to be found in the explanatory notes of the measure we are considering. I am forced immediately to consider what would be the results for the government, for the House of Commons, and indeed for the citizens of this country, if we were to follow generally such practices as are now followed when the government presents documents called, somewhat oddly it appears to me, white papers. In recent weeks two important white papers have been published, one on veterans affairs and another on taxation. These documents, both of which are likely to become famous if they are not so already, represent attempts by the government to carry on its business in the open. It seems to me that they are genuine attempts-indeed, the attempt has become an accomplished fact

to place before the people of the country the issues as the government sees them and then to wait for response and reaction.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
This morning I happened to listen to a radio program on this very subject, and I want to refer to it briefly. The program is entitled "Dialogue", and on the program this morning there were two individuals well known to the Canadian public, especially those who listen to the media, Pierre Berton and Charles Templeton. They were discussing not so much the white paper on taxation but what this bill is all about, namely whether or not a government ought to carry on its business openly before the public.
They were using the white paper on taxation as a kick-off for the discussion, and an interesting thesis was put forward, one that sort of surprised me at first, as I am sure it will surprise many hon. members of this House. This thesis was that government should not be guided by the public's reaction to its statements of intention.
I must interject that Bill C-20 does not say that all the business of government should be made known to the public, but that most things should, with some exceptions listed in the bill.
When the business of government is done before the public, it was the contention of
November 14, 1969

Private Members' Public Bills these two gentlemen that it is those who are wealthy and powerful who raise the loudest protests and are best able to finance and mount campaigns against a certain aspect of a government program or other programs that will work to their own detriment or to the detriment of their vested interests. In other words, by virtue of the fact that government makes a statement of intention or opens its books to the public, it is giving the wealthy an advantage over the poor.
These two gentlemen also suggested that if government should happen to listen to the response that it gets-and there was a real argument that it ought not listen to the response it gets for the reason I have just put forward-it will always receive an impression that is heavily weighted in favour of the strong, in favour of the established and the wealthy. Equally this results in creating an impression that is to the disfavour of the voiceless poor, those who are disestablished in society at any given point in time but constitute a very important segment of society, one that ought to be getting priority from government if total social justice is to be done.
This point seems to me to be exactly on the subject that is before the House for debate this afternoon. I would have to draw some conclusions about this question, and my conclusions are as follows: First, it would seem to me that government should make its actions and its statements of intention public. It would seem to me that the policy that is being carried out by the present government of issuing white papers, for example, is a very good one. Second, the response of the public to such statements of intention must always be treated with a healthy degree of skepticism. Third, it would seem to me that good government does not simply depend on open government; rather, it depends on responsible actions on the part of those who are entrusted to do the nation's business in the people's name.
As I suggested at the outset, this bill raises, for me at least two very basic philosophical and psychological questions. The first is: Is it true that all power corrupts? And to finish that off: Is it true that absolute power corrupts absolutely?


An hon. Member:: Like the Liberals.


Murray Arndell McBride: Well, we will not have to test that. If it is the case that all power does tend to corrupt, then it is incumbent upon people in positions of authority, if there is to be any sort of justice done, that there be some kind


of built-in system of checks and balances; that there be a system in our nation-since we are talking about the government of the country-whereby the persons in whose hands power lies can be called to account for their administration and their action.
Surely we who make up government in Canada are called to account. No one can go through an election campaign and not be intimately, bitterly, personally and joyfully aware of how we are called to account. On the same point of power corrupting, and so on, may I elaborate further and point out that we live in a society where people pride themselves very much on being open-minded. Similarly, this bill suggests that we ought to have open government for open-minded people. There is a kind of "put down" for people who keep pushing the open-minded idea which goes as follows, that you can be so open-minded that all your brains fall out. The point here is that to tolerate everything and to object to nothing is a good pushed to its logical extreme. If you push a good to its logical extreme, it comes out as an evil.
Similarly, as far as Bill C-20 is concerned, although open government is a good thing, I submit that it is possible to be so "open-governed" that action on any issue could become almost impossible. Some segments of society would be displeased by it. If this idea were enshrined in law, it would be possible to be so open-governed that all the power would fall out of government. Government stripped of the power to govern must surely be a contradiction in terms.
This bill also underscores something near and dear to the hearts of all those who deal with people. It seems to me that no one has more to do with all varieties of human nature than the politician, those of us who represent the people of Canada in this House.
The big cry today-it is also the underlying idea in this bill-is that we should all be for participatory democracy. Participatory democracy has become a kind of sacred cow and no one "knocks" or questions it. However, I wonder whether it ought not to be held up to a little ridicule once in a while. It seems to me that participatory democracy is based on the assumption that everybody ought to have a share in running everything all the time. It is very fortunate-or unfortunate, depending on your point of view-that most people have neither the time nor the competence to run everything all the time. Therefore, if one is to be realistic, as long as human nature is human nature and societies
November 14, 1969	COMMONS
are societies, power will inevitably tend gradually to migrate into the hands of a few.
This small group into whose hands the power to govern passes consists of those who are believed to be the most capable and meritorious by their benefactors and supporters; or, on the other side of the coin, those who are considered to be the shrewdest charlatans by their detractors and opponents. So it depends what side of the fence you are on whether you think those into whose hands the power has fallen are the worst people in the world or the best. Let me read a quotation from John Stuart Mill. I want to read this into the record because I think it has a direct bearing on the bill before us. He said:
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
We owe our capacity to bear with the passing errors of society to man's faculty of rectifying his own mistakes, not by experience alone. There must be discussion to show how experience is to be interpreted.
By way of interjection here let me say that that surely would be a useful definition of what Parliament or the House of Commons is all about.
Mill goes on to say:
The whole strength and value of human judgment depends upon one property, that it can be set right when it is wrong, reliance can be placed upon it only when the means to set it right are kept constantly at hand.
I would draw the attention of the chamber this afternoon to the final words, "only when the means to set it right are kept constantly at hand." Surely, some of the means which are available to us in Canada to set things right are the ballot-boxes and the education of our citizens. Surely, we also agree that to educate the people of Canada, for example to make my constituents or the constituents of any other member of this House fully aware of the intricacies of the issues before Parliament at any time, would be and is a full-time job. If I were to do a proper job of educating my constituents about what is going on here I would not have time to do anything else; indeed, I would not have time to appear here or carry on the work expected of a member.
Therefore, I am pleased that the report of the task force on government information states that governments themselves, indeed this government in particular, must spend more of its resources educating the people. In this sense I am sure the hon. member for Surrey is pleased with the task force report. Indeed, he made reference to it. Knowing the
DEBATES	855
Private Members' Public Bills hon. member personally, to some extent, I am sure he is aware that we have two things to consider. The first is, what is is not necessarily what seems to be. Every one who is in public life is aware that these things do not always coincide; what actually is, is not always what seems to be.
One of the things that most impressed me when I became a member of this House in 1968 was that in regard to the members that Canadians hold in very high regard in the mythology of our country we find when we come into this House as backbenchers-I was going to say humble backbenchers, and you have to be humble if you are a backbencher-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Murray Arndell McBride: One ought to be, in any event. We find that they are not always the same people who in this House deserve the impression that has been created in the mythology of this country. One is well aware that certain members work very hard and obviously do excellent work. However, through the news media, which is a kind of "bitch" goddess of our times, we never hear of them; they are never seen or complimented. Other members of Parliament who in some ways do far less seem always to be before the public. This in itself seems to be a powerful argument for conveying more and better information to the citizens of Canada. It is important that our people should be better informed. Simply giving access to the documents of government, as Bill C-20 suggests, will not do this. We need to adopt some of the recommendations contained in the report of the task force. I should like to read one section and its principal recommendation, which appears in volume 1 at page 61. The recommendation is as follows:
We recommend that:
1. The right of Canadians to full, objective and timely information and the obligation of the state to provide such information about its programs and policies be publicly declared and stand as the foundation for the development of new government policies in this field. This right and obligation might be comprehended within a new constitution in the context of freedom of expression.
I agree with this entirely. However, at the moment, lacking full and efficient means of spreading government information-you can call it propaganda if you will, or information as to what government is all about-we are thrown to the mercies of the news media as it now exists. Let me conclude by giving one
856	COMMONS
Private Members' Public Bills illustration which demonstrates to me at least that we are in very fickle hands. The government's white paper on taxation came out just a week ago. Headlines in some papers said essentially, "Higher taxes" and then in fine print, "for the well to do". One might just as well say, "lower taxes for those on lower incomes". Which is right? The truth is that both are right. I hesitate to name newspapers so I shall not do so, but the two newspapers which I read followed this pattern. One essentially ran a headline which could be summarized in two words, "Tax increases". Thousands of readers of that paper are not in government and do not really know what is going on.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let's hear about the other paper.


Murray Arndell McBride: The other newspaper ran a headline pointing out that taxation for those on lower incomes would be lowered and therefore lower taxes would be paid. I appreciate the graciousness of the House in allowing me a moment or two to complete my remarks. As I said a moment ago, unless someone spent the time to read all the fine print he would see an absolute contradiction. If an agency which disseminated information put forward the full story, namely, that those on lower incomes will pay less taxes and those on higher incomes will pay more taxes, we would give the whole picture. This would create a better balance and would be much more worth while.
I do not wish to abuse the courtesy of the House by taking up more time. I will terminate my speech on that point.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to be here this afternoon to hear the very interesting speech by the hon. member for Lanark and Renfrew (Mr. McBride). We are now beginning to understand what the government intends to do about the task force report. The hon. member-who I am quite convinced is not an humble backbencher, having listened to him this afternoon-quoted with some degree of exuberance the remarks of a distinguished Liberal pundit and former aspirant to leadership in the province of Ontario, Charles Templeton. We find from two different spheres an

DEBATES	November 14, 1969
indication that this government will extract and squeeze from the report of the task force those things it likes and put to one side those it rejects. I need no further proof than the example-


Murray Arndell McBride: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He
is a bumble backbencher.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Murray Arndell McBride: I am greatly honoured that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) would imply that I speak for the government. Surely, however, he will realize that I am not a member of the treasury benches and speak only for myself.


Gerald William Baldwin: I accept the fact that the hon. member is now on his way. Certainly I would suggest there are a great many places where he could sit with more honour and distinction than is merited by some of the present occupants of the treasury benches. As reported at page 550 of Hansard, my distinguished colleague the hon. member for Saint John-Lan-caster (Mr. Bell) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) this question:
Mr. Speaker, have the Prime Minister and his colleagues taken note of the recommendations of the task force on government information which state there is a specific need for the government to provide more informative replies to questions raised in Parliament than has been the tradition and, if so, what does he plan to do about it?
Of course, we found the usual movement toward secrecy on the part of the Prime Minister, who wiggled and evaded the question. The hon. member used the word "educate" or "lead". The government is to lead this country into adopting that part of the task force report which will enable the government, having erected this slick, glossy apparatus, to give hand-outs of the kind it sees fit in its inimitable desire to educate the public. Educate the public for what? For those things that the government thinks the people ought to know. What the government intends to do with this task force is as plain as the hand I see before me. God help this unfortunate country when that comes about. Any government should be an open government, particularly this government which slinks and crawls on its devious, sly and crooked path among the shady nooks of concealment.
November 14, 19G9


An hon. Member:: Beautiful! You are a poet.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member who introduced the bill spoke about the state having a right to privacy. The state has no right to privacy. It is in no better nor worse position than the people who place the government in power and give it a limited opportunity to govern. Any taxpayer is entitled to say to the government, "This is my money that you are spending to secure this information. Why should you hide it from me?" I recognize there are exceptions. The hon. member has placed some of these exceptions in the second clause of his bill. I could think of others, but think particularly of the exemption provided under subparagraph (b) concerning matters that are exempted by statute from disclosure.
If this government, which has the onus of justifying to Parliament that there are special reasons, can say there are special reasons- and places those reasons before us-why matters to which it may become privy should not be made public, I am sure the exception would be granted by Parliament. But I believe the fundamental rule is that the state has no inherent right to privacy. I take that position with all the strength at my command. Unfortunately, many governments are moving not in the direction of a greater degree of openness but more in the direction of secrecy.
I had the honour to be a member of a committee which on the last day of the last session filed a report dealing with statutory instruments. It was a remarkable experience to be a part of that committee. We listened to distinguished members of the civil service who appeared before us and gave evidence concerning the measure of secrecy which prevails in respect of the origin and actual promulgation of many orders in council and ministerial decrees which affect to a large extent the lives and fortunes of very many citizens of this country. I was amazed, as I think anyone would be who read the record, at the inherent and implied criticism of the processes of government which were laid open as a result of the deliberations and the report of that committee.
Finally, as a member of the bar who has spent a great many years engaged in the art of advocacy, while there are many ways in which the administration of justice and the practice before the courts could be improved I wonder just how far we would have gone in
Private Members' Public Bills the settlement of disputes between citizen and citizen or between citizen and the state if the old practices of the Star Chamber at the time of Strafford and Laud were still in effect. There is a rule that unless one of the parties to a trial is able to convince the court that a matter should be held in camera, all judicial proceedings are open. The participants, the accused person if it should be a criminal trial, and the witnesses are exposed to the full light of publicity before their fellow citizens in the community. The evidence is given under oath in the pitiless glare of publicity in open court. If that practice did not prevail, Mr. Speaker, the cases of injustice perpetrated on the people of our country would be magnified greatly.
It is because justice is open that justice generally is good. There is great room for improvement and I believe we are moving in this direction, but if that provision of openness, which I think is the fundamental one were not present, I wonder where we would be in respect of the administration of justice in this or any country.
I have one final point which concerns our good friends who look down upon us and tell the public what happens in this chamber. One reason they are not here in great numbers when they should be, particularly to hear this debate, is that they are compelled to wander from building to building and from minister to minister seeking scraps of information. If everything were made public as it should be, the members of the press gallery would be here and our proceedings would be more widely and elaborately reported. That is one reason I am glad, on behalf of gentlemen of the press gallery, to support this bill. I am sure from the smiles opposite that the government will support the bill, that it will receive second reading and go on to be duly dealt with in the other place.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: First, Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) who, incidentally, is a journalist and therefore brings to the subject matter of this bill a particular knowledge which I think merits considerable respect from all parts of the House.
I am sure it is no coincidence that this bill comes before us almost contemporaneously with the tabling of the recent task force report on government information entitled
858	COMMONS
Private Members' Public Bills "To Know and Be Known". I think that possibly this bill proffers some solutions and recommendations in an area where the report of the task force did a very find job of identifying and recognizing problems without coming forward with specific recommendations.
The subject matter of this bill covers an area of direct concern which is not perhaps the major item covered by the task force report but is one major item in it. I confess that I have not read the entire report of the task force because I found that in an effort to be "with it" and to be "now", the literary style of the task force report in effect made it rather tedious reading; before I had read many chapters I found it rather heavy going.
I think they have adopted a rather strange literary style so as to attract attention. While it may be rather effective for several paragraphs or even a couple of chapters, it tends to be boring as one goes through a book-length document. Not having completed it, I would not pretend to suggest that the same fault lies with the conclusions reached, but I certainly find it hard going and I am sure this was not what the drafters intended.
The task force report, in an area particularly relevant to this bill, pointed out that governments, like people, are very much subject to their heredity and their environment. Although we are living in a day where participatory democracy is a prominent phrase- hopefully, considerably more than a slogan and certainly something which many people and institutions in this country are attempting to achieve-we are also living with a tradition or an heredity of administrative secrecy which is not compatible with the concept of participatory democracy.
The report of the task force goes on to cite the United States experience. It points out that of necessity the congressional system has caused a breakdown of secrecy because in fact the administration must, in justifying its programs and conclusions to the legislative branch, disclose the processes by which it has arrived at those recommendations and conclusions. The democratic system and functions of government in the United States do not appear to have suffered tremendously from their ability to get along without this type of secrecy which we have inherited probably from the days of absolute monarchy.
We have probably also inherited this type of secrecy from the closed-family governing classes of Great Britain which were prominent in the early part of the last century.

DEBATES	November 14, 1969
Fortunately, I think my friends in the New Democratic Party can cite the Swedish tradition with considerably more validity so far as I am concerned, and I accept it as having more validity than many of the other parallels in Sweden which they cite. The right of access by the citizen to public information is a matter of constitutional right in Sweden and one which the government agency choosing to deny access to public documents can only exercise after having proved that the interest of the country is better served by not making the disclosure.
The task force report also reviews the experience in Great Britain on this matter. I think this,, again, is an experience parallel to the one which our task force presents to us; it is one where the problem is well identified and recognized but to which no solution is offered. Following the original report to the British government, a government white paper was filed in which, again, great difficulty was encountered when it came to finding practical solutions to this very real problem.
As I said before, the task force report offers no recommendations in this area. Perhaps, considered concurrently with the hon. member's bill, we may have the start of a substantial recommendation in the solution of this problem. I hope sincerely that together with the task force report this bill will receive second reading and be referred to the committee.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting coincidence, that this bill introduced by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather) should come before the House just about two weeks after the task force on government information tabled its report.
Still, I believe that there are few distinctions to be made. The hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather)-and I congratulate him for his initiative and for his interest in this question-has introduced Bill C-20, an Act to better assure the Public's Rights to Freedom of Access to Public Documents and Information about Government Administration (Administrative Disclosure).
We read, in the explanatory note, and 1 quote:
This bill is in aid of the public's right to know ir. what manner a government is administering the public duties entrusted and delegated to it by the people: save for exceptions that are in the public interest, the bill enacts Bentham's basic parliamentary Rule that public affairs must be conducted publicly.
November 14, 1969

Private Members' Public Bills
I understand that the task force's report on government information services advocates an information policy
There is nothing concerning an information policy in the bill presented today by the hon. member for Surrey, but the bill deals with the rights to freedom of access to public documents and information. I do not quarrel with the rights to freedom of access to public documents and information, when need arises, for that was also pointed out in the task force's report.
I believe I can tell the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) what the government is going to do with the task force's report on information services.
And I think I am in a position to do it by quoting comments that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is reported as having made in 1964 when he was not yet a member of parliament.
In an article published in an issue of Cite Libre in 1964, under the title: "Pour une politique fonctionnelle", he stated:
Progress In democracy requires the availability of accurate and complete information so as to enable the people to assess government policies with full knowledge of the facts. Otherwise, obscurantist autocracy prevails. Yet in many sectors, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for citizens to make sound political judgments.
You will tell me that the Prime Minister is not alone in the cabinet! No, I agree, although he may give an impetus to the policy that he intends to pursue. But shortly before the report of the task force on information was published, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) told the Canadian Bar Association, about two months ago:
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)

If individual privacy is a foundation of democracy the citizen's right to know is fundamental to any participatory democracy.
The public cannot be expected to dialogue meaningfully-still less decide-if it is refused the very information which would make such a dialogue and decision-making possible.

Another member of the cabinet, the Postmaster General and Minister of Communications (Mr. Kierans), stated not so long ago, and I quote:

I'm willing to publish any and all documents that show gaps in our organization except those which contain critical comments about specific people.

Another minister of this government, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry (Mr. Davis) said not so long ago, and I quote: [English]
I don't see why we shouldn't be able to quote public servants any less than we quote consultants. These people are professionals.

And the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry added:

You don't suppress something because you don't want it exposed to counter argument. This is lethal in the long-term. You don't suppress reports drawn up by competent people at the public expense.

I could go on quoting several other statements made by ministers of this government. This shows that this government had and still has the intention of promoting a policy on information. I am sure, in the light of what the ministers have already said, that the task force report will be used as a basis for the establishment of a policy on information.
I do not intend, Mr. Speaker, to give you a summary of the task force report, since the previous speakers did so, but it must be known that the right to information is not the sole prerogative of newspapermen. I am not saying that this is what the hon. member for Surrey had in mind. I am just expressing a personal opinion. The right to information does not only belong to newspapermen or mass media, but to the public at large.
What about the interpretation of information? This is a very important element. The general public receives its information through the large media which often colour it somehow. Can we then say that it is information? I do not think so.
Who will therefore decide which type of information should be available to the public? Should we divide citizens into categories? Should we give different information to the members of parliament and to the newspapermen? Should we give another type of information to other news, media, and still another type to the general public?
This report leads the way. It contains advice and proposals and I am sure these will be given serious consideration by the government when it tables legislation in this field.
860	COMMONS
Private Members' Public Bills
Should Canada leave it to a minister of Information to decide what information should be given? Should such decisions be left to a minister, to a committee of ministers, or, as is done in Sweden, to administrative commissions quite distinct from the legislative power? The question is a vital one and I know that the hon. member of the New Democratic Party was right to raise it. Anyway, we are not prepared to make this decision specially since, as I am practically sure, most if not all members either have not read the whole report or have not assimilated it.
Therefore, I am not prepared to make a decision. Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
DEBATES	November 14, 1969



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60, I should like to lay on the table notice of a Ways and Means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and request designation of an order of the day for consideration of this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2 (1).
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Monday, November 17, 1969