1969-12-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that by Order in Council P.C. 19692228 dated November 20, 1969 a writ has been issued today for a by-election to be held in the federal electoral district of Selkirk, Manitoba, on Monday, April 13, 1970.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: Waiting as long as you can.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATIONAL DISASTERS


Mr. Rosaire Gendron (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that getting away to the Moon is not always possible, and that the terrible realities of every day life bring us back to much gloomier thoughts.
Hon. members undoubtedly recall the great disasters of May 1950 at Rimouski and Cabano. This morning, it is at Notre-Dame-du-Lac, a locality near Cabano, that a tragic fire took the lives of more than 50 aged people and caused injuries to more than 20 others at the rest home "Le Repos du Vieillard", thus bringing consternation to that locality which celebrates this year the centennial of its foundation.
To the stricken families and to all the population as well, I wish to extend the expression of my heartfelt condolences, and I am sure that all hon. members will wish to join in this expression of sympathy.
I ask the government to take all necessary steps to bring those people immediate assistance.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that, on behalf of the Canadian people and government, I have already sent a message of condolence to the people stricken by this horrible tragedy.


Mr. Speaker:: I have no doubt that all hon. members will join in the Prime Minister's expression of sympathy as well as in the grief expressed by the hon. member for Temiscouata.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to announce a change in the business for today. Regrettably, owing to illness in the family, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) will not be able to be in the House today to take for the Minister of Finance the four measures I announced. Therefore the order of business will be changed from that announced last night.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
The first order will be as announced last night, resumption of the debate on second reading of Bill C-7, the CNR financing bill. Upon the conclusion of that debate we will resume the debate on second reading of Bill C-4, an Act to amend the Canada Corporations Act. As the third item we would call the report stage and third reading of Bill C-2, an Act to amend the Judges Act. I have made this statement to confirm to the House the changes which have already been indicated to the representatives of the parties.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I informed the House of arrangements which have been

December 2, 1969
Tribute to Astronauts
made in connection with the third session of the Constitutional Conference, to be held in Ottawa on December 8, 9 and 10.
I would now like to table the agenda of that conference in the two official languages.



MAN ON THE MOON


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of drawing Your Honour's attention and the attention of all hon. members to the presence in your gallery of several distinguished visitors. I refer to the three astronauts who made up the crew of Apollo 11, Messrs. Neil Armstrong Mike Collins and Edwin Aldrin and their wives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The venture of these three brave men into the unknown stirred the imagination and the pride of all Canadians. This country is not so old nor so well explored, that either the experience of the frontier or the taste of adventure is forgotten. We are close in time and in space to wilderness. In our blood-or perhaps just in our secret desires-is found the spirit of such as Hudson and Cartier, Palliser and Steffanson. The exploits of our visitors today proved that the age of exploration is not over and we are glad. They proved too that there is new meaning in the heavens, and we are better for it. Mr. Speaker, we are delighted to have with us these courageous men and their equally brave wives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on behalf of my colleagues and myself to be associated with the welcome the Prime Minister has extended to Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins and Buzz Aldrin, and their wives. We are particularly honoured that having gone to the moon these men have come to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Whatever our admiration of their courage and our awe at their accomplishments, I think the dominant feeling of all of us besides that of pleasure is one of humility.

Distinguished visitors have, of course, come to this Chamber before, but there have been none before who have symbolized the breaking of old concepts in the way these men do. We must remember that, while they were alone in space, the responsibility for making this space age serve man is one we must all meet together.
I do not wish to be too solemn, but as a practical man who watched these men in space there were some considerations of a practical nature which occurred to me. However, I believe these would be better presented to these gentlemen in private.
It will, of course, be many years before the full significance of this exploit is realized. In 1492 it was difficult for contemporaries to visualize all the consequences of the discovery by Columbus. It is a sobering thought that we today are one of those consequences and that an equally significant development may follow from the exploration of these men.
To be serious, Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure for me to join with the Prime Minister and all members of the House in welcoming these three brave men and their wives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Canadians will echo the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister in paying tribute to our distinguished guests. They honour us by their presence here today and we honour them for the great contribution they have made to man's enlarging knowledge of the universe in which we live.
We pay tribute also to their courage, skill and the teamwork which made the venture of Apollo 11 such an outstanding success. We also pay tribute to the thousands of men who made their trip possible and to their great country, the United States, which has been in the forefront of the exploration of space.
The names of Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and Edwin Aldrin will go down in history among the great pathfinders of space.
I am convinced that this is only the beginning of man's exploration of our solar system. The day undoubtedly will come when other earthmen will reach out to other planets and even break through into our sidereal system.
The astronauts whom we honour here today represent a challenge to the governments and legislators of the world to match their achievement in landing on the moon with similar advances here on earth.
December 2, 1969

Two of the astronauts landed near the Sea of Tranquillity. I think we can assure them that we in this Parliament will do our part in trying to make this earth a place of tranquillity and security for all mankind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Real Caouetle (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, this event would not be complete if a French voice was not heard in Parliament to endorse the eloquent speech made by the Prime Minister to welcome and congratulate the three astronauts who reached the earth's satellite a few weeks ago, an accomplishment which undoubtedly puts them in the category of heroes.
All three know that the Canadian people followed every step of their flight and that Canadians are proud of having contributed to this achievement by manufacturing certain components of the space ship which took them to the moon.
Since a Canadian of the Montreal area worked on the landing gear of the lunar module-and for the information of the Prime Minister-I would point out that the three astronauts successfully completed their venture without any assistance from the Bank of Canada.
This was a most perfect achievement and on behalf of my colleagues. I ioin with the Prime Minister to greet and welcome the wives of the three astronauts and wish them a happy stay among us.
May those three famous space travellers never forget that Canada is proud of its modest contribution to the conquest of the moon and hopes that their future undertakings will be successful.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: the first reading of Bill S-4 (from the Senate), to amend the Yukon Placer Mining Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Inquiries of the Ministry OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION CONSERVATION ACT



AMENDMENTS RESPECTING DEFINITIONS, APPLICATION, OIL AND GAS COMMITTEE

Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: the first reading of Bill S-5 (from the Senate), to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he authorized his Parliamentary Secretary to undertake discussions to have the hon. member for Wellington removed as chairman of the Public Accounts Committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know whether the question is-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister arising out of a statement he made on March 19, as recorded on page 6853 of Hansard. At that time he said:
If, Mr. Speaker, after receiving all the information, we are led to the view that the ABM system constitutes escalation and is conducive to greater peril for mankind, then we shall condemn it. We shall tell the United States that we disapprove. If, on the other hand, we are convinced that the ABM system is necessary though regrettable as a move by the United States, then we shall have to decide whether or not we shall participate in the operation of that system.
What decision has been reached by the Prime Minister and his colleagues with respect to the ABM system, and has that decision been transmitted to the government of the United States?

December 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, this question was only one of the various questions which had to be examined and decided upon by the government in the context of our review of defence policy as regards continental defence. I believe we indicated in the Speech from the Throne that there would be a white paper published on these matters during the current session. Until then we are not prepared to comment.
Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The
Islands): A supplementary question. Have any discussions been held by any representatives or officials of the Canadian government with the government of the United States regarding the construction of an ABM system and particularly with reference to the implications it might have for Canada, especially the two bases which are to be located close to Canada, one in Montana and the other in North Dakota?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, at the time this matter was in the public eye we did have discussions. When I went to Washington I had some discussions with President Nixon and his ministers and officials, and our officials and ministers have had subsequent discussions. I cannot say whether there have been any recent discussions.


Mr. J. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whii-by):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Prime Minister's answer concerning the government's intention to publish a white paper on this subject, but has the government of Canada already informed the government of the United States of its views on whether or not the ABM decision by the Americans constitutes an escalation of the arms race?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only
repeat my first answer. Our views will be contained in a white paper; it will be an attempt to express to the country and to other countries an over-all view of our approach to continental defence.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's statement that a white paper is going to be introduced, may I ask him whether or not this important matter will be discussed with the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence prior to the publication of the white paper, particularly since under the committee's terms of reference it now has before it the subject of U.S.-Canada relations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course I would not want to meddle or interfere in the conduct of that committee's work.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you very much. But it
would not be our intention to refer this matter piecemeal to the committee. It would be our intention to refer it by way of a white paper, if they want to look at it in that form.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of his earlier statement in the House that it was the intention of the government to study this ABM question and if the government decided that the decision of the United States was unfortunate or bad the government of Canada would then express its views to the United States, does the Prime Minister now expect that the government of Canada will reach a decision in this respect in time for its views to have any effect or any influence on the course to be followed by the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question is clearly hypothetical. With regard to the second part, the timing, I understand that the United States is not actually proceeding with the construction until some time in the seventies. Therefore I am sure that this government's policy, the policies evolved in other countries, and perhaps as well the results of the strategic arms limitation talks being held at Helsinki, will all be factors that the government of the United States will want to take into consideration before proceeding with the finalization of an ABM system.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Earlier, he informed us of the agenda of the Constitutional Conference to be held on December 8, 9 and 10, where the following matters will be discussed: distribution of power, regional disparities, reports of ministerial committees, programs of next conferences and, finally, other questions. Is the
December 2, 1969
Prime Minister in a position to say whether monetary reform is included in the other questions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that any of the governments that will attend the Conference, not even that of British Columbia, will be willing to study the matter.


David Réal Caouette: I want to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
If the provinces fail to propose such a study, could not the Prime Minister himself suggest to them to study the matter of monetary reform?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall be very happy to consider seriously the hon. member's request, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, so that the conquest of space should not be useless in the future, it is necessary first to put some order on our planet. Therefore, I direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Pursuant to the serious public statements made recently by Mr. Saulnier during press conferences on subversion in Canada, does the Prime Minister intend to follow up Mr. Saulnier's request for a Royal Commission on subversion in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government will certainly not take any decision until the parliamentary committee's report on the matter is published.


Georges-J. Valade: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Is the Prime Minister aware that the terms of reference of the committee do not include looking into subversive activities in general, but simply into the activities of the Company of Young Canadians. That is why I am asking this question.



WHEAT-INVESTIGATION OF MARKETING-DISTRIBUTION OF BOXCARS

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio, the hon.
1479
Inquiries of the Ministry member for Saskatoon-Humboldt. By reason of the widespread criticism at the Liberal convention which the hon. member attended in Saskatchewan concerning sales of wheat and also boxcar manipulation as it was described, rather than distribution, is the minister now in a position, having had the benefit of the general viewpoint of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan at that convention, to agree-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -that there should be an investigation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to object to the form of the question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not know how to bring it to his attention except by telling him what took place. Will he say now whether or not consideration is being given to looking into the whole question of marketing by means of a royal commission to report within a couple of months, and the appointment of a controller so that the past injustices in connection with boxcar distribution will end?


Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the right hon. member described the convention in some detail because I certainly would not have recognized it from the start of his question. We are very concerned indeed that the transportation system of this country should be adequate to handle not only grain in particular but other commodities. I should like to assure the right hon. member that appropriate steps are being taken to see that everything that can be done is being done, but I certainly have not changed my view about a transport controller.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the challenge of my authority, for the benefit of the minister may I read from the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest the reading should not be for the benefit of the House at this time.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary and related question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Wheat Board. Can the minister advise the House if the National Harbours terminal elevator No. 2 in Vancouver is at present fully operational-



December 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Mackenzie on a supplementary question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order,	please.	The	hon.
member is raising a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in light of the grain movement and grain handling situation I have reason to believe that the minister would like to answer this question. I believe the terminal is sitting vacant-


Mr. Speaker:: Order,	please.	The	hon.
member will be recognized in due course. He took the floor under the guise of a supplementary but it was not supplementary. It might have been related, as he suggested, but he will be given the floor in a moment. The hon. member for Mackenzie.



ISSUING OF REPORTS OF QUOTA OPENINGS BY WHEAT BOARD

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will permit me this question which I should like to direct to the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Hum-boldt. May I inquire whether under his direction the Wheat Board will no longer issue reports of their quota openings as they have in the past and whether these reports will have to be sought out by Members of Parliament asking questions in the House of Commons?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether this is a related or unrelated question. Perhaps the hon. member might be allowed the question. I shall return to other hon. members in a moment and we will try to get all the questions on this subject out of the way. The minister might reply to the question.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I know of no change in Wheat Board policy in regard to the announcement of quotas. The unit quota is the one receiving major attention at the moment. I am sure the Wheat Board has in mind the opening of quotas as soon as it is satisfied that enough cars are directed to those points where unit quotas are still to be filled.


Stanley James Korchinski: In the past, Mr. Speaker, it has been the practice for members to receive

these reports without asking questions in the House of Commons. In order to save time could we have these reports sent to our offices as has been the custom?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member for Regina-Lake Centre, a supplementary question.



OPERATION OF TERMINAL ELEVATOR NO. 2, VANCOUVER

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt whether he can advise the House if the National Harbours Board terminal elevator No. 2 in Vancouver is fully operational and whether or not the storage capacity is being fully used at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The terminal elevator to which he referred is not in use. It was in use under lease last year when its drying facilities were in operation. It is not used because it would need very extensive and costly renovations for anything but the cleaning of wheat and then, I think, in rather awkward fashion. At the moment it is not in use although it is being looked at from the point of view of what future needs may be.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister, in view of his reply, whether or not the government is attempting to lease or sell this terminal? If they are not, would the government consider authorizing the Wheat Board or the Board of Grain Commissioners to operate this terminal and use it for specific commodities such as flax or rapeseed?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to consult with my colleague under whose responsibility this particular elevator lies. We certainly will be looking at all facilities on the coast from the point of view of what is adequate for future requirements.



FLAX-PROVISION OF BOXCARS TO PLACE IN MARKET POSITION

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatoon-Humboldt which is related directly to the question asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert. In view of the the present special quota for flax and the serious concern of western farmers about
December 2, 1389



reported losses of flax sales through the grain not being in market position, what steps, if any, has the minister taken in collaboration with the Minister of Transport to provide boxcars for these much needed sales of flax?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have received no reports at all of any problems concerning the supply of cars for the handling of flax. The Wheat Board has given top priority to the provision of cars for shipment of this grain. As far as I know, when the owners and handlers of the grain call it forward the cars are provided.



POSSIBLE ENTRY OF BRITAIN INTO ECM- EFFECT ON CANADIAN SALES

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, which arises out of the answer given by the minister in reference to the marketing of grain. In view of the fact that Great Britain will likely enter the European Common Market which subsidizes grain, would the minister be prepared to have high level talks with Great Britain, one of our best markets for grain, in reference to this problem because we will be competing against subsidized grain in that market?


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, the government and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce have discussed with the United Kingdom various aspects of its relationships with Canada under various hypothetical contingencies. Certainly the one mentioned in regard to grain is considered by us to be very important.



OPERATION OF TERMINAL ELEVATOR NO. 2, VANCOUVER

Harold Edward Winch: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister not confusing No. 2 elevator with No. 3?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member is asking a statistical question.


Harold Edward Winch: But, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Since the matter seems to be of some importance, perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.
21545-23 h
Inquiries of the Ministry


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, since there may be some confusion may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister without Portfolio. Is it possible for consideration to be given to using the 1,200,000 bushel capacity No. 2 elevator for storage at this time?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I am confusing No. 2 with No. 3. At any rate, the information I have and .which I gave was in connection with No. 2 elevator. The point was that some renovation might be required in order for it to be used, and I would have to look into the actual renovation techniques to ascertain whether it would be worth while to renovate this elevator. It would not ordinarily be wise to use such a space for storage if it is not possible to use it for throughput.


Mr. Speaker:: I see that other hon. members wish to ask supplementary questions on this subject. Since I am sure hon. members will recognize that we have had a large number of supplementary questions on the same subject I would think that for the moment we might go on to some other question.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe Norih):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources because it is connected with pollution. In view of the very serious information emanating from the National Cancer Institute on the use of 2-4D and 4-5T as defoliators, what steps are being taken to check the potentially dangerous side effects the use of these substances will have on genetics?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member is very general and wide in scope, and I would think it should be answered by way of a statement on motions. Perhaps the hon. member might ask the minister whether he proposes to make a statement in due course.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he will make a statement tomorrow on this situation?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, although I cannot undertake to make a statement on motions I will certainly be glad to look into the subject matter and answer my hon.. friend's question directly, to him.

December 2, 1969
Inquiries of the Ministry INDIAN AFFAIRS



REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF STANBURY-FIELDS REPORT

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In these days of space exploration, would he mind conducting an investigation within his department to see whether he can find the Stanbury-Fields report so as to make it available to the Indian people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already replied several times to this question. It is not that the report cannot be found, but it is not complete and to publish it would create confusion.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister mind fulfilling the promise he made to the House during the last session to the effect that he would be prepared to make public an abridged version of the report in which the names of individuals would be deleted, thus protecting their privacy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to study the hon. member's suggestion.



STRAIT OF GEORGIA-ISSUANCE OF DRILLING PERMITS

Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has the minister changed his mind and is his department about to grant a permit for oil drilling in the Strait of Georgia near Vancouver? I ask this question in the light of a press release recently by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker, because there is no way in which my department can or will grant such permits for the drilling of oil there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Resign.
IMr. Greene.]


Douglas Aird Hogarth: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister intend to consult with other government departments, as opposed to merely giving them notice, before granting permits for oil drilling, particularly in the Strait of Georgia?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, before any permit to drill is granted notice must be given, not by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources but by the applicant to the various departments concerned. A complete plan must be filed, after which the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources conducts meetings with the various departments in order to discuss the proposed plan. No permit is ever granted unless the approval of the various departments is secured. There is no application for any permit to drill in the Strait of Georgia before us at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has already granted to oil companies seismic testing permits, will the minister assure the House that these seismic testing permits were not granted on the understanding that oil drilling permits would automatically follow if the oil companies should find favourable structures?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that no such undertaking has been given and no such understanding is in effect. The permits are not called seismic exploration permits. Actually, a plan was filed and discussions were carried on for two years or more before permission for seismic exploration was granted. The work was carried out in a fashion that was, then, satisfactory to all departments; in fact, the method of doing the work was changed in order to make it safer. No dynamite was used. A new and safer technology was used in the seismic work and that work has been completed.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: May I
direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, Mr. Speaker. Would he advise us whether his department has in fact received notice of any such application with respect to drilling in the Strait of Georgia?
December 2, 1969


John (Jack) Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, there have not been any applications from oil drilling companies to my department with respect to drilling in the Strait of Georgia.



EFFECT OF U.S. TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION ON CANADIAN EXPORTS

[Stage Direction]
Kon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Has-lings): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I gave him notice of it. As the United States cabinet task force looking into oil imports into the United States has recommended to the President that the present system of import quotas be replaced by tariffs, has the minister's department determined what adverse effects, if any, this would have on Canadian exports of oil to the United States? If it has determined that adverse effects would result, does the government intend to protest very vigorously against the implementation of such new policy?
John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the Schultz committee, which reports to the President with respect to oil policy, has not yet concluded its deliberations. It has studied various matters, including the possibility of substituting the present quota policy with a tariff policy. To the best of my knowledge the committee has reached no conclusion. We are having continuing negotiations with our United States counterparts and with the committee with respect to the Canadian position. Our position continues to be that it is in the interest of both countries to have an open market for Canadian oil in the United States oil market. I, personally, will be attending in Washington to consult with the Secretary of the Interior in this regard on Thursday of this week.



FINANCE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Since the Quebec government failed to obtain a $50 million loan at the rate of 9.65 per cent last Monday, in New York, does the Prime Minister intend to offer the services of the Bank of Canada to insure the loan, as well as the economic development of the province of Quebec?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have reasons to believe that the government of the province of Quebec will manage without help in this matter. However, should this expectation prove unfounded, we shall be happy to discuss the matter with them.



SUPPORT FOR CANADA MINK BREEDERS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Is it the intention of the government to provide the Canada Mink Breeders Association with facilities and support at the International Fur Trade Fair in Frankfurt, Germany?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is a matter of urgency. Perhaps the hon. member might like to discuss it at the time of adjournment later today.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. In view of the information given by the Minister of Fisheries, according to the reports of a speech he made in Toronto on November 28, with respect to the proposed salt fish development corporation, will the minister now take the House into his confidence and introduce the bill dealing with the matter for first reading so that hon. members on both sides of the House may have an opportunity of studying these proposals which will have a far-reaching impact on salt fish processing plants in eastern Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this bill will be forthcoming very soon.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is based on knowledge that the minister gave details of this legislation outside the House in a speech made as late as last Friday as well as in a press release in St. John's. My supplementary question is: Does he not think that the House of Commons has a right to see this legislation, because he seems to have refused to give the House knowledge of it-
1484	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is obviously an argument.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am trying to ask a supplementary question of the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member, if he wishes to ask a question, should ask it and not present argument to the House. I am sure the hon. member realizes this.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, having laid the foundation for my question, I will now ask the minister about something extremely important affecting many thousands of Canadians. Will he now take seriously repeated requests made on this side of the House to have this legislation brought in and read the first time so that we may have a chance to study it and prepare ourselves for debate on it?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is not in order as asked. I think I should give the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate an opportunity to ask a supplementary.



ASSISTANCE TO THOSE ENGAGED IN LABRADOR FISHERY

['Yes, Mr. Speaker; provided, however, that both Canairelief and ourselves agree that an announcement made publicly at that time would be to the general profit of the cause we are trying to help.']
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour might rule that this is a related question. Can the Minister of Fisheries say whether his department has concluded its inquiry into certain aspects of the Newfoundland fishery, especially the Labrador fishery, and can he tell us whether the government has reached a final decision with regard to the possibility of making seme form of assistance available? If so, can he inform the House as to the nature of the decision?


John (Jack) Davis: Several measures are being examined with a view to helping the fishermen in the Labrador fishery which, as the hon. member knows, was a complete failure this year.


John Howard Lundrigan: Bearing in mind the fact that all hon. members are getting an enormous amount of mail-I have had 80 letters myself in the last week-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member should ask a question; he should not convey information to the House, although I recognize it may be very important and relevant information. We should go on to another subject.


John Howard Lundrigan: But, Mr. Speaker-

DEBATES	December 2, 1969


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has made a representation; he has to assume it has been noted. If he will look around he will see there are many of his colleagues who wish to ask questions, and there are only a few minutes of the question period left. If, however, he wishes to take that time, I will recognize him.


John Howard Lundrigan: Thank you. I do not want to hold up the proceedings but this is an urgent matter. Would the minister make a statement on motions tomorrow-I do not expect him to have the information before him today-so as to clarify the position of the government with respect to the assistance it might wish to offer the fishermen of Atlantic Canada who, as he has indicated, have experienced a disastrous year?


John (Jack) Davis: I will give the hon. member's representation every consideration, Mr. Speaker.



Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Having in mind reports which appeared following the Prime Minister's meeting last Thursday with representatives of Canairelief and Joint Church Aid, can he say whether he will be making an announcement this week in response to the requests which were made to him in the course of that meeting with respect to relief for the people of Biafra?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I cannot say for sure, Mr. Speaker. I hope to be able to give some kind of indication to the representatives of Canairelief with regard to the timing as we see it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When the Prime Minister is in a position to give an answer to these people will he make the same statement here in the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker; provided, however, that both Canairelief and ourselves agree that an announcement made publicly at that time would be to the general profit of the cause we are trying to help.



SHIPPING


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Brelon-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Minister of
December 2, 1969

Transport, Mr. Speaker. In his absence may I direct it to the Parliamentary Secretary or to the Acting Minister. We are aware of the tragic incident which occurred in the Atlantic off Sydney a few days ago when lives were lost. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary or the Acting Minister whether the minister will make a statement as soon as possible, first, in regard to whether those responsible for search and rescue operations under the Department of Transport did everything possible to assist in the shortest time possible and, second, whether a private aircraft operator in the city of Sydney was refused information by the Department of Transport which would have enabled him to assist in the rescue operation much more quickly than the government aircraft?
\Translation~]


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, following this tragic accident, the Department of Transport started an investigation, and I am sure that, as soon as the information reaches his office, the minister will be pleased to pass it on to the hon. member and to answer his questions.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: In the absence of the Minister of Finance may I put a question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker? Is there any cost to the Canadian taxpayers involved in the operation of the Liberal political cabinet?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is the final report of the Barber Commission on farm machinery prices yet available and, if not, are any further interim reports of that commission ready for Members of Parliament?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisier of Agriculture):: No, Mr. Speaker, the final report of the Barber Commission has not been presented and I have had no indication from Dr. Barber when he expects to present it. He has presented a subject matter report on the pricing patterns of tractors and combines and he has also presented one of the study papers, the one on the cost of producing tractors, the
Inquiries of the Ministry economics of scale and that sort of thing, which I believe could be made available to hon. members and to the public within a few days.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the studies he indicated his department is conducting into the effects of the increase in the price of nickel upon Canadian customers. In view of the indication the minister gave the other day that the increase seemed to be in the public interest, may I ask whether he has concluded his study of the effect of this increase upon Canadian consumers?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Some of the results of this study have already been indicated by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The effect is to add $1.30 to the price of an automobile, seven cents to the price of a kitchen sink, and so on. Two things, among others are to be borne in mind when assessing the consequences of this particular price increase. One is that 96 per cent of the nickel produced is exported, and the other is that nickel is sold internationally by the Soviet Union, for example, at a price higher than $2. During the strike it went up to $5, $7 and even $10. These factors and others, must be borne in mind. We have conducted a study, and my report is that the effects will be minimal unless nickel users decide to maximize them, and I hope they will not do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to understand that the position taken by the minister is that an increase of 25 per cent in the price of this basic metal is not inflationary?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: should like to direct this question to the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. In view of the statement by Lionel Sorel, past president of the Quebec Union Catholique des Cul-tivateurs, that western feed grain is being
1486	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry bootlegged into eastern Canada in violation of Wheat Board regulations, will the Department of Agriculture through the Board of Grain Commissioners or the Eastern Feed Grain Agency investigate the situation to determine whether Canadian Wheat Board regulations are being violated in the movement of feed grain to eastern Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: This allegation or charge has been made a number of times and I believe the Wheat Board has in fact looked into it. Perhaps the hon. member would like to direct his question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I would direct my question to the Minister without Portfolio from Sas-katoon-Humboldt. Will he investigate or cause to be investigated the allegation made by Lionel Sorel of the Quebec Union Catho-lique des Cultivateurs?


Otto Emil Lang: As the Minister of Agriculture has just said, similar allegations have been made before. I will certainly look into the question whether there have been any recent indications of the improper movement of grain and see that appropriate steps are taken accordingly.



USE OF FOREIGN CARRIER TO TRANSPORT NICKEL

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My
question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport. Would the minister after consultation make a statement in the House as to why a major Canadian nickel producer had to resort to a foreign carrier in order to transport nickel ore to Norway in an operation to salvage Canadian international trade in nickel?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have looked into the matter, Mr. Speaker. Canadian carriers were contacted first and at least one was used.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of his earlier reply to the

DEBATES	December 2, 1969
hon. member for St. Mary, will the government be willing to receive a recommendation from the broadcasting committee on Mr. Saulnier's request for a royal commission on subversion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the proper thing to do would be to wait for the committee to report, and I always like to do the proper thing.



FORESTRY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry which is related to a question I directed to the Prime Minister, in the minister's absence, a week ago last Friday concerning whether or not the ban on the export of logs from British Columbia is still in effect and, if so, for how long it will remain in effect.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the ban is not in effect. It has not been in effect since midsummer. There is now a large surplus of logs on the west coast, and a large number are currently being exported.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the minister undertook in this House to retain the export ban until September 1 and to review the matter at that time, may I ask him whether the government has reviewed the matter and is it now the opinion of the minister that no such ban is required?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, it is our opinion that no such ban is required now. The export permits are in fact administered by a joint committee comprised of people from our department, from the provincial government and from industry. All of these people are convinced that there is a large surplus of logs on the west coast.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-Sl. George's-Si. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I should like to refer him to the answer given to the right hon. member for
December 2, 1S69

Prince Albert by the Minister of Transport on Friday last in regard to the hardship caused the florist industry. The minister stated that he would be holding meetings with the people concerned and also the carriers. Would the Parliamentary Secretary disclose to the House what the result of the meeting was, because time is pressing?


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, in his reply to the right hon. member for Prince Albert the minister made a slight error. Instead of the meeting being held yesterday, the meeting will be held tomorrow.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forresiall (Dartmouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question would have been directed to the Minister of National Defence had he been present in the House today in accordance with the roster. In his absence may I direct it to the Acting Minister or to the Minister of Supply and Services. Has the investigation into the accident on H.M.C.S. Kootenay now got under way, and when may we expect its completion? If I might ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Supply and Services, could the minister indicate whether or not the department has been asked to call for tenders to repair the vessel?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I will convey the first question to the Minister of National Defence. With regard to the second question, I will look into the matter and reply as soon as I can.



RESEARCH


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Has the minister anything further to report to the House in relation to the utilization of the rocket research facilities at Fort Churchill by NASA, or does the minister intend to make a further statement within the next few days?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that if a statement is to be made it must be made on motions.
Inquiries of the Ministry



HOUSING


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kings-way):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of housing. Can the minister say when the revised rent-to-income scale will go into effect in public housing projects?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, guidelines relating to public housing policy, including the rent-to-income scale, are being discussed with my provincial counterparts. As I recently informed the hon. member for Broadview, I hope to be able to make a statement on the matter before Christmas provided we are able to get the information required from the provinces in time to digest it and find answers to the problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for St. John's East rising on a point of order?


James Aloysius McGrath: No, Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege. I had hoped to have this matter clarified during the question period, but since I was not given that opportunity I am rising on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from the fact that in a speech in Toronto on Friday the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry released details of proposed legislation to set up a salt fish development corporation, information that has been denied the members of this House.
My question of privilege is based on the fact that the minister has gone against the well accepted and well established practice of the House. Under the circumstances, I submit that the minister has no alternative but to bring in the legislation for first reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will recognize that he cannot raise a question of privilege at this time. The rules clearly state that this type of question of privilege can be raised only on notice given in writing. Normally the hon. member should give notice to the Chair that he proposes to raise the matter as a question of privilege, and I would have to rule upon it.
I was going to make a theoretical ruling but I think this would be very unwise. I would rather say that in the circumstances I do not think a ruling should be made at this time.
1488	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 14, 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.
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colches-ter North):: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was last before the House I outlined some of the reasons the people of the Atlantic provinces have lost all faith and hope that the government will give them the opportunity to receive equal treatment with other Canadians. I tried to place on the record some of the ways in which this government has endeavoured to ignore the justifiable arguments presented by the business communities why a transportation policy should have been introduced in this region a long time ago.
As a result of the government's failure, the people in the Atlantic provinces are faced with almost impossible burdens industrially and are unable to attract new industry. In 1967 the government allowed the railways to impose new l.c.l. charges on the shippers in the region. After about a year and a half the government gave the trucking industry certain incentives the railways already had, making it possible for them to compete with the railways. This resulted in the shippers in the Atlantic region being placed on a somewhat better footing.
Since then, the government has allowed the railways to increase their rates on carload lot shipments. The rates freeze has been lifted before the promised transportation policy for the region has been introduced. Although the government has talked so much about elimination of regional economic disparity, there is no way in which it can justify its actions in the field of transportation.

DEBATES	December 2, 1969
At the present time the florist industry in the area is being placed under new burdensome express charges as a result of the action of the railways. Every time we turn around something new is happening; either more layoffs under the guise of increased efficiency or closures of one type of operation or another. Only recently my colleague the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacEwan) appeared before an inquiry relating to the elimination of air services in the Pictou County area. Every step this government agrees to is a backwards step, and every step it takes represents damage to the economy of the Atlantic region.
We watch the spiralling unemployment rates in the area every winter. This is the same story every winter. Sometimes during the summer we look at our unemployment rate and feel that maybe things are getting better, but when the fall comes it is the same old story of an unemployment rate that is two or three times the national average. We then read in the newspapers about this or that industry having to close down because it is impossible to compete with industry in the rest of Canada.
One of the basic reasons for this problem is the fact that we have been the captive of the railways. Our industries have not been able to compete with similar industries in the central part of Canada. Surely, by now this government should have conceived a policy that would place industry in the Atlantic part of Canada on an equal footing with industry in the remainder of the nation. Industry in our area of Canada could then produce the same product and move it anywhere in this nation in competition with industry in Ontario rather than being forced to pay more for the movement of these goods than if that industry were located in central Canada. Surely, this is the only way that we can exist as a viable entity in Canada.
This certainly is not the case today. It will not be the case tomorrow, and it may well never be the case if this government does not soon move in this direction. There are few indications that it intends to move in this direction. One makes representations to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) who comes from the area, and he indicates justifiable concern. It is quite apparent that when he tells his story to his cabinet colleagues they become completely mute as far as transportation in the Atlantic provinces is concerned. We hear fanciful stories at election time. We have heard about all kinds of wonderful and fancy things that are to be made
December 2, 1969	COMMONS
available to the Atlantic area if only the people will vote for the Liberal party. When the votes are counted and the Liberal party becomes the government of Canada that pie in the sky disappears completely. The brighteyed gentlemen who come down our way and tell us their fine stories forget about them. We are the forgotten region of Canada and we will continue to be so as long as this government holds office.
Only recently the great Liberals met at Harrison Hot Springs. Great ideas poured forth. We discovered that there was one main transportation policy the Liberal government never forgets. I refer to the transportation policy conceived by Walter Gordon in the famous Gordon report which suggested that the people, of the region be given one way tickets out of there and then the problem would be eliminated.


Robert Muir: That is always the Grit policy.


Robert Carman Coates: That has always been the Grit policy and it always will be, because even with these great thinkers of the 1970's the one way ticket policy of Walter Gordon is still prominent in the thinking of the members of the Liberal party. That is the sad fact of the matter. There has never been any other philosophy in the Liberal party. Apparently the best way to eliminate the problems of Atlantic Canada is to eliminate Atlantic Canada. The government is going about this with the effectiveness of a bulldozer as it moves everything out of its way. Apparently the concept of this bulldozer policy is that it starts in Newfoundland, hits Cape Breton island, the mainland of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and pushes everything over the borders of Quebec. In that way, we will have no problem in Atlantic Canada.
This is not what the people of Atlantic Canada discovered to be the hallmark of the Diefenbaker administration when it held office in this country. That administration made its moves, did what it could, established boards to provide new incentives and did everything anyone could imagine any government doing in a given period of time. When the Diefenbaker administration was in office it produced concrete evidence that it was concerned about the people. It wanted those people to remain in that part of Canada if that was where they wished to remain and gave them equality of opportunity, about which this government does not think, care or do anything.
21545-24 j
DEBATES	1489
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
The one way ticket philosophy of Walter Gordon and the Liberal party is not good enough for the people of Atlantic Canada in the 1970's. It is not good enough for me or any member from the Atlantic provinces of Canada, regardless of what party he might be associated with, because we want action and we have asked for action over and over again. We have received little or nothing in the way of action from this government. We have heard all kinds of fine and fanciful words but have seen absolutely nothing in the way of action.
I might say to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Dube), who is a member from the Atlantic region, that he would do much better for his region and his people if he spent more time assisting the Minister of Transport in getting action for us and less time worrying about Nouveau Acadia and fanciful terms which will produce nothing in the way of benefit for the people of the area. This will not eliminate in any way, shape or form the problems that face industry in our region.
We must have action quickly from this government. Unfortunately, we are saddled with this government until 1971, 1972, or 1973, depending on when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) decides to call another general election. Between now and then we cannot live on words alone. Our stomachs are empty and our opportunities for employment are few. We need policies for the 1970's which do not involve the purchase of a one-way ticket out of the region. We need policies that will keep our people in the region and entice other people to come in to develop a degree of employment that will reduce this unemployment rate which is now two or three times the national average. We want action. We want the type of action that will allow our people to remain where they are, that will allow our industries to become viable entities in the Dominion of Canada, and that will give us a place in the future of this country, something we have failed to receive from this government today.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, every year parliament goes through this same process and deals with this same kind of measure. About the only difference in the script is the amount of money involved. Every year we put up with the spectacle of the parliament of Canada bailing out the CNR from under debt charges that it

December 2, 1969
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada should not be expected to carry. When the Canadian National Railways system was formed in 1923, and ever since, the deck has been stacked against it in favour of the economic pirates who promoted and invested in several railways that subsequently went belly up. The deck has been stacked to make sure that those people are paid off. They have been but the people of Canada have been paying ever since, and are still paying.
Some sizeable part of the money provided by this bill is for the payment of a deficit resulting from the interest that has been charged the CNR on this debt in the past year. Much of that debt is a result of the financing and refinancing of the Canadian National Railways system since 1923. When the Grand Trunk Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern, probably the three main railways, were going bankrupt they were formed into the CNR system. Their indebtedness was taken over by the Canadian National Railways system, and in the years since the Canadian National Railways and the Parliament of Canada have been paying, paying and paying. This suits very well the people who do not like publicly owned enterprises of any kind and in particular do not like a publicly owned railway system. Since 1923 it has suited their purpose to hold up the Canadian National Railways system as a terrible example of how public ownership does not work and how private ownership is holy, pure, successful, efficient and so on. The myth has been perpetrated and perpetuated by these free enterprise opponents of publicly owned enterprise that the CNR somehow is bad because it always loses money and is publicly owned.
The facts are otherwise. The Canadian National Railways system in most years has shown operating profits. In 17 of the last 24 years it has shown a railway operating profit. In 21 of the last 24 years, after considering income from other operations such as hotels and telegraph services, it has shown an operating profit. Of the last 24 years only in the years 1958, 1960 and 1962 was there a loss on the Canadian National Railways system. One could become involved in unkind partisan arguments by trying to make a case that this might have had a relationship to the government of the day, but I shall not do that. I think it had to do mostly with the type of debt load with which the CNR has had to contend since 1923. I should like to quote from the Winnipeg Tribune of April 25 last. This article points out the following:

The CNR made an operating profit of about $41,000,000, in 1968, its annual report disclosed Thursday, but its accountants had to use red ink once more because of the debt burden that goes back to the founding of the nationally-owned railway in 1923.
This report points out that the net income, before interest on the debt, was $41,274,438 but that the interest on the debt was $70,450,968. This means that parliament must vote another $29,176,530 to wipe out that interest debt. The article continued:
The CNR carries a burden of fixed-charge debt inherited from the several bankrupt railways whose operations it took over when it was formed. As of last Dec. 31, its total long-term debt was $1,919,560,709, including bonds amounting to $1,132,903,264.
So long as the Canadian National Railways system is required by this Parliament to operate under such conditions it can never operate efficiently and can never provide an effective transportation service for the Canadian people. So long as this system of ours is expected to operate under these conditions, it must continue to fight a losing battle in attempting to remain a healthy and viable operation. As it loses its viability, it automatically decreases the service it can provide to the Canadian people.
The operating statements of the Canadian National Railways over the past 24 years I believe indicate that there has been efficient management in the face of these debts, that there have been competent employees and that a massive effort has been made to succeed in operating the Canadian National Railways system in the face of the horrendous obstacles this parliament has continually placed before it. I mentioned earlier that in only three of the last 24 years has the system shown an operating loss. In all the other 21 years there has been an operating profit. It is very interesting to note that the peak period in respect of number of employees was in the year 1952 when there were 131,297 employees. Today, there are 85,240 employees, some 46,000 fewer. I submit that this says something pretty good about their productivity and competence in operating our nationally owned railway system.
In spite of having 46,000 fewer employees, the railway has a larger amount of freight ton mile revenue and other kinds of revenue than it ever had before. The issue of passenger business is confronting members of this House and the people of Canada as a result of applications by both railways to further decrease their passenger services. Even in this area, however, the Canadian National Rail-
December 2, 1969	COMMONS
ways system, I submit, has made a very good effort in the face again of great obstacles at a time when all other private railway carriers in North America have thrown up their hands in despair. Back in the period 1944-45, the Canadian National Railways system was operating some 3,338,000 revenue passenger miles. By 1962 this figure had dropped to a low point of 1,044,000 revenue passenger miles. In the face of that, the CNR did not give up. It began a program of modernization and expansion of passenger operations by means of publicizing and persuading the public to use railway transportation.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
Since that low point in 1962, the number of revenue passenger miles has climbed to 2,046,000, equivalent to the kind of passenger business the company was doing in 1947. Admittedly, costs are a great deal higher now than they were then, but the evidence is conclusive that the company has made a conscientious and consistent effort to regain and restore passenger service to something near former levels in this country. I submit that the management and the employees of that nationally-owned transportation company deserve the thanks and the compliments of the House and of the people of Canada.
They have a long road before them yet. Many more improvements and developments are needed in the passenger service as well as in all other aspects of railroading, but at least they have been trying, which is much more than can be said for their main competitor, the Canadian Pacific Railway. Our publicly owned national railway system has never had a fair chance to operate successfully. It has been and still is burdened with a debt load that prevents it from paying an investment return to the people of Canada and, even more important, that prevents it from doing an even better job in providing service. We have been lucky that this company has done as well as it has. The previous and present management and employees are to be congratulated. No privately owned system could operate under the same debt burden as has the CNR. If a privately owned system tried, it would have been bankrupt a long time ago.
While the CNR and the people of Canada continue to pay and pay dearly, its competitor, the CPR thrives on gifts from the people of Canada which, since 1881, have returned dividends to this corporation and its shareholders amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. I think one could safely say they have
DEBATES	1491
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada been in excess of $3 billion. Surely, this kind of situation in our rail transportation is grossly unfair to the management and the employees of the CNR and to all the people of Canada.
Governments of Canada since 1923, when the CNR was set up, have been refinancing the national railway in various ways such as buying up bonds and advancing funds. They have always done it in such a way as to completely safeguard the interests of the original investors of the bankrupt railways. Those who had investments in the old Grand Trunk Railway, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Canadian Northern Railways have all received the full return on their moneys. None of them is still alive but the railways are still paying. I suspect that the original investments have been repaid two or three times over and we are still paying.
Contrast that with the attitude of this and of previous Canadian governments to their own employees. The government and the CNR management-and here I must be somewhat critical of the CNR management-have always been able to find ways of persuading this Parliament to provide moneys for such things as equipment and for buying up old bonds. However, they have not been able to devise a way whereby some money could be included in Bill C-7 or in previous bills of this kind to do something about the pensions of retired CNR employees. Whether there is only one of them or one million, the fact that we would require formal loyal employees of ours to exist on the kind of pensions that some are now receiving is something of which all in this chamber should be ashamed.
As of October 7 last year, in a return filed in answer to a question of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), there were, believe it or not, 388 retired CNR employees receiving less than $25 a month. There were another 639 receiving between $25 and $29 a month. There were another 1,301 receiving between $30 and $39 a month. There were another 1,062 receiving between $40 and $49 a month, and until one arrives at the figure of $99.99 a month there is a total of 7,715 retired CNR employees receiving less than $100 a month as pension. I know of the case of a man who served the CNR for over 30 years who is receiving a pension of less than $35 because his service was interrupted as a result of illness. His pension benefits did not accrue until after he started working for the CNR the second time.
December 2, 1989

Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
Every time this situation is mentioned, government members, both in the Transport Committee and in the House, agree that it is terrible. They express all kinds of sympathy and support for the idea of doing something to increase the pensions of retired CNR employees. Every minister who has ever piloted this kind of bill through the House has, at some time or other, expressed sympathy and deplored the situation, but none of them has yet brought anything to this House to deal with the matter. The CNR officials are equally vociferous in expressing their sympathy and in saying how badly they feel about it. They even promised to seriously consider ways of dealing with this matter by raising the pensions of retired CNR employees. In the Transport Committee last spring the President of the CNR, in answer to my question, promised to give serious thought to this matter. On July 29 I wrote him, and two days later I received an acknowledgment from his executive assistant. I have not heard a word from him since. It does not matter if he does not write to me, but it does matter that he should do something about the over 7,000 retired CNR employees.
Surely this is a problem that should be solved, and provision should be made in this bill for solving it. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would then not have to hound the government on this subject. He would have more time to hound them on other subjects on which action has been equally long delayed.
May I say something more about CNR financing and ask hon. members to look at the pension trust funds held by the CNR. According to the company's annual report there is supposed to be $1,414,744,000 in that fund, but there is only $743 million in it. Where is the rest of the employees' pension money? The difference of $671,423,250 is owing by the CNR to the employees pension trust fund. I do not really blame the CNR for being in that situation. I suspect that in past years they have been desperate for operating funds and that when the railway system was putting up the majority of the money for pension funds they had no other choice but to use the money for railway operations.
In 1967, provision was made for the CNR to commence repaying the $671 million to the pension trust fund. So, during 1967 and 1968 they repaid with interest, slightly over $3 million. Mr. Speaker, the Company have allowed themselves 60 years to repay this $675 million. They are fairly safe in doing

that, since it is hardly likely that all the employees of the railway would retire at once.
o (3:40 p.m.)
But surely this is a misuse of trust funds. That misuse has been caused by successive governments of Canada and successive Parliaments keeping the Canadian National Railways system continually burdened with a load of debt they cannot possibly get out from under, a burden of debt that originated with bankrupt corporate pirates who put on Canada's back railway systems that were not paying. Mr. Speaker, in the financial statement of the Canadian National Railways system this Pension liability is listed as an unfunded liability. All that really means is that the money is not in the pension trust fund. It is accountants' gobbledy-gook, and in fact what it means is that in the past this publicly owned railway system had to use their employees' pension money for other purposes.
The time has long past for members in all parties in this House to resist the passage of this bill until the government finally-after 100 years of governments that refused to come up with a national transportation policy-comes up with a transportation policy that is meaningful and purposeful in the interests of the Canadian people rather than in the interests of the bond holders and the shareholders, many of whom do not live here.
We must resist this business of being asked year after year to vote money when we have no clear picture as to where we are going in this country in terms of transportation policy.
Those words are a direct quote from a speech made by my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). To some degree I must disagree with him because I think we have had a clear picture, as clear as mud. We have had transportation policies the first purpose of which was to give great profits to a few while the public paid and paid, and rail services went through a pattern of deterioration that no self-respecting country would tolerate.
We have had policies that allowed the privately owned CPR system to be almost a law unto itself. We have had policies that have continually hamstrung and stopped our own national railway system from operating efficiently in the best interests of the people of this country. This Parliament must come to grips with the whole matter of public rather
December 2, 1969	COMMONS
than private ownership of our railway systems. Surely, there is sufficient evidence now to convince even the most ardent opponent of public ownership that the private sector, in this particular industry at least, has failed Canada, has not acted in the best interests of the Canadian people, and has lost any right or privilege it had to operate a railway system in this nation.
The time has long past for this Parliament to enact legislation nationalizing the CPR system and merging it with our publicly owned national railway system to operate a national, efficient, effective rail transportation network throughout the entire nation. We could do it on a scale of efficiency and service which would be the envy of any other nation in the world. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, am in no hurry to see this bill pass. I hope that members on both sides of the House will agree that the bill should be held up until such time as we get at least two commitments from the government and the management of the Canadian National Railways system.
The first commitment should be that the government and the CNR management will bring in a measure in the next session of this parliament to provide for an increase in the pensions of retired CNR employees. The second commitment should be that the government will bring in measures in the next session of this Parliament that will relieve the Canadian National system of at least the long-term debt which amounts to $1.9 billion; in other words, that this be written off the books. We do not want any more of those half-made commitments, "Yes, we are going to consider it seriously," and "Yes, we will announce it in due time as government policy," for that will take too many years.
Most of this debt consists of money now owing by the CNR to the people of Canada as a result of advances and loans. In fact, there were a couple of hundred million dollar interest free loans. Further, Mr. Speaker, I think that the measure should include a grant totalling $675 million to allow for the full refunding of the CNR employees' pension fund. The $1.9 billion plus the $675 million would, for the first time, give the CNR a chance to operate efficiently and effectively, and would lift from its back this burden of debt which was none of its fault. This course would allow the publicly owned system to show the privately owned operators how to run a railway, once it was free of this debt that the management could never repay even if they lived 1000 years.
DEBATES	1493
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I hope members in all parties will take part in this debate. My goodness, it is 46 years since this annual bill first appeared. I hope members will ask that the government of Canada bring in measures that will put an end to this spectacle that we go through every year. If that is done it will give the people of Canada-I believe it is efficient now-a more efficient and effective publicly owned railway transportation system that can do a much better job than it has been doing in the past.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, there has been a great deal of criticism of the CNR and of our railroads in general across the country. Indeed, I do not recall hearing very many words of praise for the CNR. In my maiden speech a year ago last September I stated that the railway in my part of the country was better 50 years ago than it is today, and that is a fact.
There is something wrong somewhere. Perhaps there is room for criticism, but perhaps there is also room for alternative suggestions. Certainly, the holding up of this bill in this House is hardly a way to change a system, because it is the whole system that is at fault. It does not matter what government is in power, the independence of an organization like the CNR is such that the government actually does not have the control it needs over that organization, and certainly the elected representatives of the people who are paying the bills do not have enough control over that body or over any other Crown body.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: The railroad complains about losing money on its passenger services so it wants to cut out several of them. It separates the revenue obtained from passenger service from that obtained from the freight service. For its own purposes this may be very good but as far as the people are concerned it is the same railroad. In an area such as mine, Northern Ontario, where the railroad is making a great deal of profit from freight, the people do not see why some of that profit cannot be applied to the deficit on passenger service. How do we explain that to the people? How do we explain it to anyone who goes into a store and knows that a certain part of that store is not making money but the over-all operation is. They know that the owner would not think of closing down
December 2, 19S9
1494	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada the part that is not making money because he needs the total operation to make it a going concern. They feel that if the railroad company is losing money on the passenger service- and I will not agree that it should-but is making a profit on freight in the same area, there is no reason why both services should not be kept in operation in such circumstances.
It is amazing, Mr. Speaker, what one learns from talking to those who work for the railroad. I have recently discovered the means used by the management of the CNR to exaggerate losses in the passenger service and I call it nothing less than "cooking the books". I will give certain examples.
There is one train in my riding which could be pulled by one unit but four are used in order to increase the cost and show a deficit on that service. When the service between Kapuskasing and Hearst was taken off two years ago, the reason given was that it was losing money. Certainly, not too many people were using the train because of the expense. They had to go from Hearst to Kapuskasing by car in order to take a sleeper as it was not economical to do so in Hearst. This is not mentioned and it is only people at the source who can tell about it. Certainly, the CNR officials would not disclose that. In Hearst there used to be a shop for engines. The cost of this shop was shown as part of the deficit on the passenger service when that service was removed. But, Mr. Speaker, that shop happens to be a plywood plant and has been for many years. This is a subtle example of one of the methods used to increase deficits and is the kind of thing they have used in the past. I suggest they are not going to get away with it in the future.
I have seen cases where the rates were raised in order to discourage people from using the train. I accuse the railways of scheduling trains to discourage people from using them. When I travel to my riding by train I return on the overnight train from Kapuskasing or Cochrane and I must change trains at North Bay in the middle of the night. One hour before that train arrives at North Bay, the through train to Montreal has gone so one has to sit there for eight hours waiting for the next train. One would think that they leave North Bay as soon as they hear the whistle of the train from the North. I see the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has just come in and he can verify that statement.


Mr. Peters:: That's right.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: This is the type of train scheduling which discourages people from using them. Now if I want to take a train, I go to Toronto and fly from there.
This is not the type of organization that is conducive to encouraging people to use trains and thereby overcome the so-called deficit. This poor service seems to permeate the CNR, and other railroads as well, but we are speaking specifically about the CNR today and I shall confine my remarks to that company. The poor service also extends to the dining car and everything else which generally discourages people from using trains. Most people would rather fly or drive but some parts of the country are not easily accessible by plane or car and it would be a great advantage in such areas to have a decent train service. My area is in that situation.
I believe that a great deal of the losses claimed by the CNR are due to mismanagement and mishandling and I should like to give some specific examples. There is a train from Quebec City which comes via the Montreal area through the Abitibi region to Cochrane. In a specific case that I know of 15 colour televisions worth $1,000 each were sitting in the express car, to be delivered to Amos, Quebec, in the Abitibi area. These were handled in such a way that only five of the 15 were serviceable. There were damage claims for the other ten and that meant $10,000 worth of claims against the railroad. Now, that amount is charged against the passenger service budget.
A train which carries express has to stop at several stations for which it has goods and sit there for 20, 30 or 40 minutes while the express is unloaded. For a passenger, this is a very discouraging factor. The train from Quebec City through the Abitibi region averages 22 miles an hour from Quebec City to Fitzpatrick. In this day and age, Mr. Speaker, I think most people would prefer to walk rather than use a train which averages 22 miles an hour.
I know it is easy to criticize, but perhaps there are other things that we can do. We can make suggestions on how the poor service can be overcome. Several groups in my part of the country and I personally, have suggested re-routing one of the transcontinental trains. Instead of bringing it through the bush country where next to nobody is served, it should come through the tritown area, that is the Abitibi area, the Cochrane area and the
December 2, 1969

Hearst area, and join up with the main line at Nakina.
There has been no formal reply to this suggestion, Mr. Speaker, just the usual acknowledgement of my letter. A brief was sent in as a result of a conference which took place in Cochrane subsequent to my own suggestion, but there has been absolutely no argument forthcoming from the CNR as a result. I suggest the reason is that they cannot offer good grounds to rebutt these suggestions.
Privately, the company has breathed certain thoughts about the roadbed not being up to par and that the CTC, (which is an automatic signalling device) is not available on the northern line of the CNR. Surely, with one passenger train in that area such a system is hardly required; it could easily be fitted in with the freight train schedule. If the line is to be kept open a certain amount of upgrading of the roadbed must take place in any case and in the meantime the trains could take it a little more slowly. We have shown by the proposed schedules that the train could go through that area and still save time, even with poor roadbeds in certain parts of the north country.
For some time now, Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a great deal about the development of Northern Ontario and how to encourage people to live there. This year the government passed a bill to encourage new industries to open in the area and have given incentive grants. But how can we expect people to come if we offer poor transportation services? Just about a month after a program was started to encourage people to move north, the railroad stated that it wished to cancel the existing inadequate service.
I believe that a transportation system properly run and managed should not lose money. This is borne out by the action of the courageous gentleman in Barrie who ran a special train to Toronto and made money. It seems to me that these losses indicate poor management and we, who represent the people of Canada, should examine that aspect a little more closely. I believe that the board of the CNR should include members who are elected by the people. What is wrong with putting a member of Parliament on the board of a Crown corporation? It has been done elsewhere; but we, in Ottawa, always seem to shy away from the idea. Yet, when we ask a minister in the House a question about a Crown corporation, the first thing we hear is that Crown corporations are independent,
DEBATES	1495
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada that they must run their own affairs and that we cannot interfere. It is the system that is wrong and that is why I take to task the previous hon. member who spoke about this government not taking its responsibilities seriously. I do not care whether a Liberal, Tory or NDP government is in power, so long as the present system exists we shall not be able to control the CNR or any other Crown corporation. We should decide, therefor, that there must be more representatives of the people on the boards of those corporations. That is why I advocate a member of Parliament being a representative on Crown Boards and agencies. Are we that stupid that we are not capable of serving on such boards? Of course, many public servants think we are stupid; we are treated with contempt by many of them.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
But I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that on some boards the government has formed, and the National Arts Centre is a case in point, there is not one member who is as highly qualified to serve as several hon. members in this House. So far as the CNR is concerned, the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) who sits behind me in the House and who has had several years service with the CNR probably knows more about the CNR and matters of transportation than any member of the present board of directors of the CNR. Certainly, there is no reason in the world why members of this House should not serve on the boards of Crown corporations. That is why I feel that until this House decides that we must have greater control over the way people's money is spent, we shall continue to be confronted with the same difficulty.
The hon. member who preceded me spoke of holding up this bill because year after year we must approve the allocation of a certain amount of money. It is true that we go through this every year and that is futile, but we shall not get anywhere by refusing to pass the bill because the railway must continue to operate. It is the system that must be changed, and there is only one way to change it. We ought to change it right here in this House so that hon. members of this House may serve on the boards of directors of Crown corporations.


Mr. Charles A. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, when he introduced this bill on November 13, the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray) told us that a similar bill to
December 2, 1989
1496	COMMONS DEBATES
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada appropriate funds for the CNR and Air Canada has come before Parliament year after year, the exception being those two years that were combined. I believe an hon. member who preceded me said that this has been going on for 45 years. I do not know whether that is quite accurate, but the mere fact that we have been doing something for 45 years does not mean that we are going about it the right way. I join with many spokesmen on this side of the House who have complained about this being a useless exercise. Here we are being asked to approve the granting of some $200 million already spent. What is the good of this? What if we say that we will not grant the money? It has been spent. We are also asked to approve another $82 million, I believe, to be spent between January and July 1, 1970 for obligations incurred prior to January, 1967. In other words, that $82 million is also committed. This, I feel, is the most unbusinesslike way of handling finances that I have ever run across. Although we cannot do anything about the money that has been spent, I feel that we should demand some accounting so that if these moneys are requested, in future years at least we will have some idea what these corporations are doing with the money. But here we are presented with a fait accompli; the money is spent and we cannot do anything about it now. I think each and every one of us should examine these items closely in committee to make sure the money has been spent properly, so that in future years we may have some basis for a decision.
In this modern day and age nothing is more important to a country like ours than transportation, and it certainly behooves us to know what the government plans to do. Does it have a comprehensive transportation scheme? Does it have a plan to hook up outlying parts of Canada with the centre, provide passenger service and provide for the movement of freight? I say this afternoon that despite all the committees the government appointed, despite all the reports that have been brought in about the Atlantic area and other areas, the entire subject of transportation today lies in greater confusion than ever before.
Although I was not a member of this House in 1967 when the National Transportation Act was introduced, I read many of the pertinent debates and speeches of opposition spokesmen. Many of those spokesmen are in the House today. I agree with many of the objections raised at that time by the opposition.

Government supporters contended the act would be the be-all and end-all for transportation. There we were, setting up the board under this czar, this renowned expert on transport who would immediately solve all our difficulties. I say that if the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) is complaining about members of Parliament not having anything to do with the operation of the CNR he ought to point his finger at the government which brought in the National Transportation Act, because the Act makes it impossible for the ordinary member of Parliament or any other person to question the activities of the CNR. That is where the blame lies.
Some of the confusion the National Transportation Act created has been much in evidence recently, as shown by the recent unprecedented action by the Air Traffic Association of Canada. That body, in a unanimous vote, condemned the Air Traffic Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission for its absolute failure to come up with any workable and enforceable air traffic regulations. Here is a body set up to devise a system of control now telling us, in effect, "The regulations are not workable or enforceable, and therefore are not being enforced". In other words, carriers are running rampant and not paying attention to schedules or regulations. In this area the CTC has fallen down completely.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Again, let me cite as evidence what happened at the recent meeting in Toronto of the Automotive Transport Association of Ontario. Here we have a body composed of the operators of probably one of the fastest growing segments of our transport system. Here again, we find a body harshly condemning the Canadian Transport Commission for failure to act in their area. These people say in effect that because the government has failed to announce its intentions with regard to implementing Part III of the Transport Act, a rash of provincial regulations has sprung up which is crippling the work of the association. I am pleased to hear that these people are meeting in Ottawa today and I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) will be able to make an announcement to the House soon with regard to Part III of the act.
The failure of the Canadian Transport Commission to operate effectively is underlined by the recent action on the part of the railway companies in applying for the abandonment of some 31 passenger trains. I shall not discuss the details of these applications-
December 2, 1989	COMMONS
that is the job of the Transport Commission- but I do wish to point out that these applications for permission to abandon passenger service have caused a great deal of worry and concern in many areas of Canada.
By way of illustration I should like to read into the record a letter from the President of the Moncton Board of Trade addressed to Mr. D. H. Jones, Chairman of the railway transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. It states:
Dear Mr. Jones:
The Moncton Board of Trade were shocked to read news reports last week that The Canadian National Railway has filed application to discontinue passenger rail service between Saint John and Moncton. We feel that this service is a most important link between two of Atlantic Canada's major cities and in some weather conditions the only reasonable means of travel. We are also concerned that discontinuance of this service will seriously inconvenience many Canadians living between Moncton and Saint John who use this means of transportation to travel to our City and to Saint John to do their shopping.
The letter goes on to say:
We feel this idea is particular folly at a time when the federal and provincial governments are taking action and spending a great deal of funds to develop Canada's Atlantic region.
Because I was concerned about this facet of the procedure I asked the Minister of Transport in the House one day last week what he intended to do in response to this proposal by the railways which would effectively destroy any attempt by his colleague the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Mar-chand) to build up industry and improve employment prospects in that region. The minister replied that he would do what he could to prevent any such action taking place. I hope the Minister of Transport was sincere and that he will exert every effort to ensure that employment prospects are not cut down because of unilateral proposals on the part of the railways.
The letter continues:
Although we as businessmen understand the CNR's concern about continuing a service that is losing money, we also realise that all businesses, particularly in the service and transportation industries, have to provide some services which may not be as profitable as others. We feel this route is one such service that our national railway must be prepared to provide in the public interest along with its other routes that are profitable.
This letter expresses the concern felt among the business community. The labour community shares this anxiety. Railway workers, in particular, are upset; they do not know when their jobs will end; they do not know which lines will be discontinued. I
DEBATES	1497
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada received a telegram from one of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen locals expressing concern about the probable loss of jobs following the abandonment or curtailment of passenger services. I was in touch with the sender of this telegram recently, and after talking the situation over I believe I can assure him that the loss of jobs will not be as severe as he fears. Here, I give full marks to the CNR; they are doing everything they can to cushion the impact of the action which the company has proposed.
I cannot go along with those who are always ready and willing to take a swipe at the CNR. In this connection I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member for Regina Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). In my opinion, he stated the position very well and very clearly.
I feel that in the past few years the CNR has made every effort to modernize its system, and done everything it could to introduce businesslike methods. It has computerized a large part of its operations, introduced new types of services, and so on. I honestly believe the CNR is making a real, one hundred per cent effort to keep going. I say again that the blame for the present unsettled situation rests clearly with the Canadian Transport Commission.
Here before me is an act drawn up in 1967 which states that all transportation services in the country should be compensatory; that if it can be shown that the railways are losing money, and if it is proved that these services are essential, the companies can be subsidized up to 80 per cent. To my mind this is nothing but a licence to steal. Can you blame the railways if they juggle their figures a bit when they have been told that if they can show a loss they will get subsidies up to 80 per cent? Would it not have been much better and more sensible to have written a provision into the act to the effect that the railways must produce their costs for inspection by the railway transport committee of the CTC? Then, if subsidies are in order, let them be granted. Why throw the people of Canada into a state of anxiety because the railways are encouraged to follow the stupid method of making a blanket application to abandon every passenger line in the country? No wonder business is upset. No wonder people are worried.
The fact that the applications have been made cannot be changed now. This is the procedure which has been provided in the act. I for one do not believe for a moment that the CNR has any hope or any intention

December 2, 1969
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada of abandoning all its passenger services. I am thoroughly convinced this action was taken in the hope that these services would be declared essential and would therefore be subsidized. But the applications have been made; the damage has been done. Now, it is up to the CTC to act, and to act quickly. If, as an hon. member has suggested, there has been any monkeying with the books, if some of the costing procedures of the CNR are not satisfactory, let the CTC examine this aspect of the applications and make its findings known. If the figures are not satisfactory, let the committee tell the railway it must continue to operate these services. If, on the other hand, the CTC is satisfied that the figures are correct, that the lines are losing money and that the services are essential, let the government provide a subsidy to the CNR. But by all means keep the services going and let us get this whole situation resolved.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I was pleased to pick up a copy of the speech which Mr. Pickersgill delivered this morning to the Canadian Association of Movers. The Movers Association is mainly interested in Part III of the National Transportation Act, but fortunately Mr. Pickersgill recognizes the seriousness of these rail passenger applications and he took the time to talk to the Association about the various applications. In the course of his speech he pointed out that a section of the National Transportation Act provided that the railways should not be obliged to carry the burden of operating uneconomic services, but that this did not mean, as some people have construed, that all of the trains involved would automatically be discontinued. Then, Mr. Pickersgill went on to say:
The act places on the Canadian Transport Commission the responsibility of deciding whether a particular service is not required in the public interest and therefore should be discontinued or whether the public need requires that it be kept in operation-with compensation.
In other words, at public expense. Then, he went on to say something that I think should be on the record:
In essence, what the Commission must do in each case is to weigh the public need against the amount that the public treasury would be required to pay in order to continue the service. There are some obvious cases where passenger train service is going to have to be continued because no other alternative mode of transportation is available in the area. On the other hand, there are some services where train patronage has all but disappeared and there is no apparent justification for the use of public funds to support something the public clearly does not want.

I think this emphasizes something that some people are not too willing to recognize. I do not think it fair to ask any carrier to continue a service which people are not using if an alternative mode of transportation is available. We must be reasonable about these things. We should not damage our case by demanding that all routes be subsidized holus bolus.
Mr. Pickersgill then went on to clarify the position regarding appeals, something that the hon. member for St. John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell) dealt with when he spoke a couple of weeks ago. While he did not say in so many words that an appeal rests in every case, Mr. Pickersgill pointed out that although the Act does not provide that hearings take place in public, his own layman's interpretation of the Act-and knowing Mr. Pickersgill, I would say his interpretation is the law-is that its provisions are very close to being mandatory on this point.
People, particularly in my area, are demanding these hearings be held. Naturally, they do not want to lose passenger services, though they recognize that some may have to go. But what they do want is some statement of policy by the government or the Canadian Transport Commission, or by somebody in authority, regarding these applications for abandonment.
Although these applications were filed almost two months ago, the railways are still waiting for an indication from the CTC when these applications will be heard. In the meantime, people are wondering what is going to happen. Just like a snowball rolling downhill, rumours are starting to fly. First of all 50 people are going to be laid off; this figure grows to 100 and then to 200. Then, it is rumoured that all these services will be discontinued. The Minister of Transport should take the lead in getting the Canadian Transport Commission to take action on these applications without further delay.
The people in the Atlantic provinces are still waiting for some clear statement of policy from the government. The Minister of Transport tells the House one thing; then he goes to a public meeting and makes a different statement. For example, he told this House that the freeze on freight rates would remain until such time as a complete overhaul of transportation policy for the mari-times had been made. Then, we hardly have time to get home and read the newspapers before the minister has announced that the
December 2, 1969

freeze has been lifted. How can we in the Atlantic provinces have any faith in the statements of this government?
An editorial in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal in October, 1969, dealt with the effect of this action on the region in an article headed "Erratic rates harm region". The article commences:
No businessman in the Atlantic provinces has the least idea from one day to the next how much it is going to cost to bring raw materials in or ship products out.
The editorial points out that freight rates which had been frozen for two and a half years to allow this government to develop a transportation policy for the maritimes had suddenly been lifted. As a result, railway freight rates shot up 9 to 18 per cent at once, and they are expected to go higher in the immediate future.
There has also been confusion over the railway's announcement that it would cancel rates on less than carload lots and bring in higher express rates for the area. I must give the Minister of Transport credit: On this occasion he acted promptly and the railways deferred action. The minister then went on to refer to the federal-provincial committee and intimated the committee might recommend removal of some of the subsidies in the area, though did not say whether the subsidies were on lumber, fish or potato shipments. As a result, no shipper in the area knows whether to expect 20 per cent higher freight costs or 40 per cent. In fact, they have no idea what is coming next.
The editorial to which I have referred concludes with this paragraph:
We need a new transportation policy, without a doubt. The rest of Canada got a new deal in March, 1967, and this region was promised one at that time.
The latest blow to this region, though all parts of Canada will feel the impact, is the announcement made by the express carriers, including not only rail but air carriers, that as of December 1 shipments of flowers and horticultural products will be accepted only if the consignors assume all risk of loss or damage from frost. This may seem a minor item, but to the florists, of whom there are a great many in this country, it is a very serious blow. In most regions in the Atlantic provinces the only way to ship such products is by express freight. In effect, the express carriers are telling these producers that all shipments will be made at their own risk.
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
I am sure the House can see the possibilities that can arise here. According to an editorial I have here, if the railway is entirely freed from responsibility for frost damage to these shipments, any concern to prevent such loss will largely evaporate. Wide open exemption invites careless handling. In other words, why worry too much about these products if you are not responsible for their loss anyway?
I lay the blame for this situation on the railways, and I suggest the Minister of Transport take immediate action to correct it. When he was replying to a question in the House on Friday, I was pleased to hear the minister say that a meeting was being held on Monday in Ottawa with the parties concerned and that he was hopeful the matter would be resolved. No announcement has been made in the House so far, but perhaps we will hear either today or tomorrow that the Minister of Transport has taken action to correct the situation. Although this problem is faced by the whole of Canada, I speak for the Atlantic region since I am naturally more familiar with that area than the rest of the country.
The blame for not introducing a transportation policy in the maritimes rests squarely on the government, and on the Canadian Transport Commission, which is a creature of the government. I submit action must be taken immediately to develop once and for all a clear and comprehensive transportation policy for the Atlantic region.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
In so far as Air Canada is concerned, I have no great complaint, although again I complain about this method of financing. I think we have a government service which is one of the best in the world. It has been recognized as such and we rightly should be proud of it. In some areas the service could be improved. I feel that interregional traffic, for example, could be better handled than it is at the present time. The whole system of scheduling should be revised.
Perhaps I am bearing a personal cross here because I am thinking particularly of my own experience. The flight leaves Moncton for Montreal and lands at Montreal airport half an hour after the Ottawa flight has left. This means that a traveller has to stay at the Montreal airport for two hours waiting for the next flight. It seems ridiculous that this jet flight from Toronto to Montreal to Moncton, which arrives at 11 o'clock in the morning at
1500	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Moncton, should sit for an hour and thirty-five minutes, to my knowledge not being serviced other than refuelled, then head back to Saint John and Montreal, arriving after the Ottawa flight has left. Why could the flight not be scheduled to connect with the plane coming in from Sept-Iles? It could be set back half an hour and connect with the scheduled flight from Moncton. You would then have a connection.
These are some of the things people are complaining about in respect of Air Canada. They have in mind the intercity service between Halifax and Moncton, two of the largest centres in this area. There are only two flights from Halifax. You leave there at 8:30 or 9 and there is no other flight until eleven o'clock. All that is involved is a revision of the schedule to fit what people want and will use.
Before we give this bill second reading, I invite other members of the House to state their views. I feel it should be examined very closely and carefully by the committee. There are many things that should be corrected in the future, and until such time as the committee is able to give these things careful consideration we will never have a proper and comprehensive transportation policy in this country.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, the matter presently being studied reads in part as follows:
Resuming debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of Bill C-7, An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada-
In fact, what the Canadian National Railways want the House to do this afternoon, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), is to vote the amounts they need to provide Canadians with certain services and to continue their operations.
The CNR management is asking me, as the representative of some 60,000 citizens in the riding of Madawaska-Victoria, to approve these credits, but I am not willing to do so until I have succeeded in clarifying certain things. What I am asking the CNR management is to tell me clearly what I will get in return.
Moreover, somewhere in this House, perhaps hiding behind the curtains, there are some CNR representatives. In fact, there are

DE3ATES	December 2, 1969
always some of them when we debate this measure here.

The Canadian National Railways has a certain way of putting things to our Canadian citizens. For one thing, it is constantly putting out fancy press releases which accomplish absolutely nothing in the way of explaining why it does certain things such as cutting down services and abandoning passenger service. They do not explain why it downgrades train passenger service. I have one here dated November 5, 1969 in which the CNR is acting as they say, under the Canadian Transport Commission procedures for the rationalization of Canadian passenger services. The CNR announces several adjustments in train services. This adjustment and rationalization procedure is well known to all members of this House, and indeed to all Canadians.
This press release reads:
Canadian National Railways, acting under Canadian Transport Commission procedures for rationalization of passenger service, today announced several adjustments in train services.
It goes on to state that all this is "part of a continuing program under which, in accordance with the National Transportation Act and recent orders issued by the CTC" it is intended to tailor passenger services to current market demands. I do not know what that means. The press report continues to explain what the CNR intends to do without giving any explanation as to what this intention means. We have to run around like crazy rats to find out what is going on in CN administration. Still, we do not get any answers from anyone.
The press release continues:
Mr. Roberts said that CN's passenger policy remains unchanged-"to eliminate the passenger deficit, not the passenger business."
Mr. Roberts is general manager of passenger sales and services. I cannot explain this statement and 1 am sure the CN cannot explain it either. The press release goes on to speak of adjustments and more tailoring. What the CN is doing is not tailoring or adjusting, it is terminating services to Canadian people. I could not agree more with members who spoke previously this afternoon. In fact, I tend to agree with them entirely on a non-partisan basis.
Mr. N. J. MacMillan, Q.C., chairman and president of the CNR, in a letter of November 13, 1969 to the President of the Edmundston Chamber of Commerce had this to say about the change in the type of passenger train
December 2, 1869

service on the CN's Halifax-Edmundston-Montreal run. What they are actually doing there is taking off the full passenger train from what we call the transcontinental run, which cuts across New Brunswick and into Montreal, and putting it on the intercolonial run which goes up the north shore into Montreal. They are replacing the Ocean Limited, which was a full service with sleeping and dining facilities and which operated at night. The CN proposes a rail-liner type of service, which is most inefficient as I will show a little later.
Mr. MacMillan, in giving reasons for taking away the Ocean Limited from the transcontinental line and putting the service on the Intercolonial line, said that the Ocean Limited via Edmundston was a test conducted to determine the volume of passenger traffic that could be generated by providing full sleeping and dining car service. It might have been a test, and I will come back to that a little later.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Again the vice-president Atlantic region of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. J. W. C. MacDougall, is quoted as saying in a press release that the operation of the Ocean Limited via Edmundston was part of a test conducted by CN to determine the volume of passenger traffic through central New Brunswick. I shall come back to that again. Finally, there is a letter from Mr. D. Lacombe, public relations manager of the Canadian National Railways Atlantic region, dated November 13, in which he states that the changes affecting Edmundston were solely the subsitution of another type of service and did not involve abandonment. Consequently, this change did not involve the Canadian Transport Commission. That is quite evident. Then, at page 2 of his long letter to me he said that he had hoped the service would prove to be a commercial success but, like the people of Edmundston, he was disappointed. .
I say to Mr. Lacombe, to the Atlantic vicepresident and to the chairman of the board, that the Ocean Limited was not a success because the CNR did not try to make it a success. It is as plain as that, and I shall quote facts later to prove it. To the people in my area and in the general area of central New Brunswick, which includes the capital city of Fredericton, Edmundston and into Quebec, this train service is essential. If the CPR should be authorized to abandon its train service through Maine there will be nothing left for the good people of Fredericton to travel on when they wish to go into central Canada
DEBATES	1501
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada except the air service. This is insufficient, especially in view of the very bad roads one must travel on when entering the province of Quebec at the New Brunswick border about 20 miles from Edmundston. This really is a bloody shame.


Harold Edward Winch: It is a joke.


Eymard G. Corbin: Sure, it is a joke. The whole CNR operation is a joke. We in this House are being made to look like fools. They want a "yes" from us but they will not guarantee anything to members of this House, nothing whatsoever. I brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) certain facts regarding the Ocean Limited. I shall deal with those right now. I have received mountains of letters and telegrams from people in my area protesting this change of service. I have answered every one of them by saying it is just impossible for me to do anything directly and that it is impossible for the Minister of Transport to intervene directly. The only door open to us now is that of the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, Mr. Pickersgill. We do not know what he will do about this.


Mr. Macquarrie:: I could tell you.


Eymard G. Corbin: I will give him one chance. I will await one reply, and if it is not the type of reply I want I will return to this subject on another occasion in this House. When the CNR officials informed me of a rail-liner service originating from Edmundston to Moncton and Montreal, with Edmundston to be the central departing point, I immediately protested to the government and the Minister of Transport. I was informed that there was not much they could do in the circumstances. It is quite clear in everyone's mind that the CNR has taken the first and necessary step to eliminate completely all types of passenger service from the transcontinental line. It is evident it can reduce, on its own initiative, or change completely the present type of service on that line from dining and sleeping facilities to a simple rail-liner without reference to the Canadian Transport Commission. That is evident. If it had announced full abandonment of passenger service, with the elimination of the Ocean Limited, the public reaction would have been too strong and the Canadian Transport Commission would have ordered the CN to maintain that service because it is an essential service.
The CNR officials, particularly the schemers, will not be surpassed in brains. They are pretty smart people. Therefore, both from a public relations point of view and with regard
December 2, 1969
1502	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada to overcoming the CTC obligation to safeguard the public interest, it will be definitely very much easier for the CNR at a later date, in the not too distant future, after the proposed introduction of the rail-liner service, to seek complete abandonment of all types of passenger service on the transcontinental line through New Brunswick. The CNR will win its point simply because introduction of the rail-liner will not meet the requirements of our travelling public and consequently it will not be patronized, with the exception possibly of the Edmundston to Moncton run which I agree may not be too bad with a rail-liner.
Our problem is in getting to Montreal and central Canada. A rail-liner just will not do. I will not attempt to present arguments to show that the people in the areas along the transcontinental line are not to blame for lack of support of the Ocean Limited. However, if the CNR would only be fair with us I feel sure, as do a lot of people in Madawaska, Victoria and Fredericton, that it could not prove its point. If the CNR wishes to clear the transcontinental line for the exclusive use of freight trains and unit trains why does it not say so publicly; why is it playing games with people, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eymard G. Corbin: I for one will not hesitate to affirm, as I did last year in the House of Commons, that the CNR has definitely not shown sufficient co-operation and public relations in promoting its passenger service in our area, and indeed in many areas of Canada as we have heard this afternoon. Yet, in spite of that crying lack of public relations and promotion, our people consistently have patronized the Ocean Limited when going to Montreal and back because this is the only means of travel to Montreal and back, especially in the winter months. That is particularly true in respect of business and industrial representatives.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Eymard G. Corbin: Certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: I share the views the hon. member is expressing so eloquently, but I should like to ask him why he did not speak up when the CNR was pulling its passenger service out of Newfoundland because the effect of that in my province is the same as the effect of the railway's plans in his constituency.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member


for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is very eloquent in respect of his own riding and, in my opinion, last year defended very well the point he just raised. I speak for my region, and I trust he speaks very well for his own region.
It is not just a matter of choosing our mode of transportation. We do not have that luxury. It is purely and simply a matter of survival. A look at a map of New Brunswick-and I wish I had a large map here to hold up-will demonstrate what I mean. Edmundston is located 200 miles from Quebec city and Route 20 to Montreal which is an excellent route. It is 200 miles from the Fredericton airport. We have no other means of access to central Canada except by road and one travels this road at his own risk and peril during the winter months. The province of Quebec has not to this date, since the introduction of the Trans-Canada highway roadbuilding program-indeed it has only this summer begun preliminary work-constructed its Trans-Canada segment from Quebec city to the New Brunswick border, a distance of 200 miles.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The anticipated date of completion is perhaps 1972, but one never knows with the province of Quebec. We are at the full mercy of Quebec with regard to access roads to central Canada. The average snowfall in the fair city of Edmundston, and the general area I represent, is 120 inches per winter in a period of four months. Last year we recorded well over 160 inches, and that is a lot of snow. Travel by road to Quebec city during the four winter months is, even today, undertaken on the old route No. 2 at one's own risk and peril. We have a bus service, but people use it mainly for short trips. We do not have a regularly scheduled air service to Montreal because we do not have a paved or safe airstrip at the present and because, in my opinion, EPA seems to be hogging the air service in the Maritimes and it gives service only to whom it pleases.
We are thankful for the service on the Ocean Limited. It is not the best of trains; it could be a little cleaner and it could be run a little better. The reservation system on the train could be much better, but we have it and we use it. We are not by any means in love with the Ocean Limited but we use it because it is the only reliable service at our disposal. During the summer our roads and those in the province of Quebec are overcrowded with tourists. This is another handi-
December 2, 1969	COMMONS
cap when we have to travel to Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa.
I would like to remind hon. members, as I did last year, that CNR opposed Quebecair's application to serve our area in 1968. Perhaps the application was rejected for other reasons as well. On that occasion CNR argued that they had just introduced a passenger service in our area-that was in 1967-and a scheduled air service in and out of our area would only hurt their chances of making money. CNR tells us, on one hand, that the whole thing was just a test and, on the other hand, they want to sound serious and give the impression that they were really serving us all that time. Who in the heck are they bluffing? CNR may not be making money by running the Ocean Limited through Madawaska-Victoria or central New Brunswick but it has yet to show that it is in fact losing money.
We could not care less about the names the CNR gives its trains, such as Ocean Limited, Chaleur, Cabot, or Scotian. What is in a train name anyhow? We also have trains 122 and 123 in and out of Campbellton. We want a train with sleeping and dining cars if it is to travel part of the night in and out of our area. That is the whole issue in a nutshell- the rail-liner will not provide us with that service. Furthermore, on a return trip to Montreal the proposed rail-liner, which is scheduled to go into service on January 7, would necessitate overnight accommodation in Montreal because it does not make a return trip on the same day as does the Ocean Limited now. People coming from Montreal into Edmundston could not make connections with other cities such as Grand Falls, St. Leonard, Plaster Rock and indeed Fredericton.
Again, I should like to refer to my short speech last year in the House in which I suggested to the CNR a slight modification in its return schedule to Edmundston to make the trip more bearable. Everyone would have been happy and passenger sales would have gone up in our area if the CNR had taken action on my suggestion. But I did not hear one word from them. What is a commercial success in the opinion of CNR anyhow? Is this measured in terms of the amount of money you can milk from the public, or should it not be the actual and real service which a Crown corporation renders to a group of people who do not have the luxury of choosing their mode of transport?
Again, I insist on the fact that the CNR has not shown that it is losing money on the Ocean Limited through Edmundston. It has
DEBATES	1503
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada only stated so. I suggest that it has no valid reason to take the Ocean Limited from the transcontinental line and place it on the intercolonial line where there are already three passenger train services. When the Cabot train, the forerunner of the present Ocean Limited, was introduced in 1967 on the transcontinental line, as editor of the local paper, and as a private citizen I tried to find out from CNR officials if their train was making or losing money on the transcontinental line. I received no answer whatsoever. Again, as a member of Parliament, I put the same question on the order paper, to which there was a polite refusal to give information because to do so would hurt the CNR in their competition with other transporters, or something to that effect. Yet, the CNR expects us to swallow its fancy press releases stating that the Ocean Limited is not a commercial success. I, for one, will not stand for that kind of nonsense, nor will the people I represent. I will spare the House the details of the hardships which the rail-liner would impose on me as a member of parliament travelling to the national capital and back to my riding. I will only say that with the introduction of the rail-liner, if I had to travel home on every weekend as I did last year-but this year my family is with me in Ottawa, therefore there is no necessity for me to travel back every weekend-I would lose two full days a week when the House is sitting. How am I expected to carry on my responsibilities as a member of parliament? Am I to travel on Saturdays and Sundays? I certainly will not.


An hon. Member:: That will teach you to be a Liberal.


Eymard G. Corbin: If train travel to and from our area is to be practical, there must be night service. The travelling public will simply do what CNR has wanted all along if we do not get that, that is cease patronizing their passenger service.
I made a proposition-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Order, please. It being five o'clock I must interrupt the hon. member.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to
1504	COMMONS
Fair Employment Practices Act inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Transport-Caribou-Wood Islands Ferry Service-Improvement of Facilities; the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean)-National Defence-Future Structure of Militia Forces; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Pesticides-DDT-Plans for Collection and Disposal of Surplus.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, private bills, notices of motions.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo) moved: that Bill C-15, to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act (Age Discrimination), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-15 which is being presented this afternoon is an act to amend the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act regarding age discrimination. The chief purpose of the bill is to add age discrimination to the list of prohibited employment practices unless age is a bona fide occupational qualification. A secondary purpose is to prohibit the employer from including in an employment application form, advertisement or written or oral inquiry, a question or request for particulars as to the applicant's race, national origin, colour, religion or age unless by reason of a bona fide occupational qualification.
Under clause 1, the present section 4 is amended by adding, where necessary, the words "or age unless age is a bona fide occupational qualification." I would ask hon. members to support this measure, and I would ask members of the government party to permit the measure to go to committee. It is of particular importance at this time. It has always been of importance, but the need for such an amendment is becoming more and more obvious.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard).]
DEBATES	December 2, 1989
Of course, one of the reasons is the government's policy of creating unemployment in an effort to control inflation, in my opinion a rather shortsighted approach which will not solve inflation problems but will create great hardship for many of our people. In a situation of this type, it is frequently the older worker who suffers the most. It is frequently the worker who needs employment the most who is placed at a disadvantage.
To my way of thinking another important reason is regional mobility. It is becoming obvious that some sections of the country are not able to sustain their present populations. Government policies of regional development have proven inadequate to the task, and many workers have to move from their areas of birth to new areas. This kind of regional mobility is most difficult for the older worker. Perhaps I should define what I mean by an older worker. We are not talking about somebody who is 70 years of age. Today, it seems that if one is over the age of 45 years one is subject to discrimination, except of course if one is trying to become the Prime Minister of Canada.
One of the great difficulties encountered by older workers moving from one area to another, aside from employment, is the problem of obtaining housing. Frequently their age works against the possibility of their obtaining mortgages. In every way, faced with this problem of mobility, the older worker finds himself in great difficulty.
Because of the rapid increase in technology people over the age of 45 years find that the skills they laboriously acquired through then-apprenticeship, through their earlier years of training and practice, are becoming obsolete. Unfortunately, some of our manpower retraining programs do not adequately provide training opportunities and encouragement for the older worker.
One of the major problems is psychological. From my experience, and from the experience of many other people, it has been found that the older worker is a very desirable worker. Many employers have found that older workers have a great deal to offer. They have experience. They have reduced family commitments. They have reliability. They have a greater accuracy. In many cases they have greater stamina. Their continuity on the job is better than that of younger workers. They are more willing to accept shift work, and to accept training. Why then is it so difficult for some of our older workers to find employment? As I stated earlier, the problem is largely psychological.
December 2, 1969

This country and many others seem to be on a youth kick. In other words, whatever is young seems good, and if it is a little old it is not so good. It is one of the great fallacies of our time that youth, efficiency and knowledge are equated. Obviously this is not always the case. There are many desirable aspects to youth, and also many desirable aspects to those no longer young. Therefore, it is a psychological barrier that we must overcome.. I think that an amendment to the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act would go a long way toward overcoming the psychological barrier.
It may be that even this attempt through Bill C-15 to have that act amended in order to overcome the psychological barrier, and to bring in legal sanctions against those who practise discrimination because of age, may not be sufficient. In the past the government has tried to bring in programs to encourage the hiring of older workers. Unfortunately, those programs did not work. They were not effective. For a number of reasons which have never been carefully explained they fell far short of their objective.
A considerable sum of money was made available to employers if they would hire older workers. That sum of money was never used up, and many older workers were not hired. Fortunately for many of our people, particularly those who are in trade unions, there is protection under seniority rights. But for those who are not in unions, age can be a severe problem. As things stand now they do not have this protection under the law, except in some provinces. There are some provinces that offer this protection, but older workers do not have this protection in federal law, and as a result older workers are sometimes left at the mercy of their employers.
Even in the case of trade unions where there are seniority rights, problems occur over which the unions have no control. For instance, when a plant closes down and a man who has been working in it for 20 or 30 years is released his seniority is gone. He has to start all over again at the bottom and sometimes it is difficult for him to make that kind of adjustment.
Even in union shops work practices change. Because of changing technology in a plant, people are shifted and the older worker is placed at a disadvantage. What we are seeing is what some employers consider a private benefit to themselves. They seem to feel, despite evidence to the contrary, that older

Fair Employment Practices Act workers are not desirable. As a result, society generally has to pick up the cost through unemployment insurance or welfare programs of some kind or another. I think this is one of the things which must change. It is one of the areas where the government will have to bring in measures, and go beyond what I am suggesting in my bill, to see that every factory in this country is required to have a certain percentage of its employees over a certain age. It might not be enough to accept the provisions of this bill, although I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is a necessary start. The provisions of the bill would at least assist in this direction and would certainly enable us to look forward to the day when everyone accepts the necessity of ensuring equal opportunity to people beyond the age of youth.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the members of this House to accept the principle of this bill and I would ask that the government provide an opportunity for it to become law.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member from Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), who is sponsoring this bill, for deciding on Friday last to let it stand until today so that we would have a full hour for discussion. This gives me time to get my remarks on the record. I have some very definite points which I want to place on the record with regard to this act and other matters directly related to it. Many people in their forties and early fifties visit me from time to time and tell me how difficult it is to get employment today, even in private enterprise.
Before I get into the meat of my topic, there are a few remarks I should like to make in connection with the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act and possible amendments being considered to it. The experience of the federal government with the administration of this Act has been most satisfactory. During the past fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, some 73 complaints were received by the Fair Employment Practices branch. Of these, 47 relate to discrimination in employment and all were satisfactorily processed and settled. The Department of Labour has expended a great deal of effort in the educational field in encouraging fair employment practices.
The successful experience with the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act has not made the government self-satisfied, or insensitive to
1506	COMMONS
Fair Employment Practices Act the possibilities of improvement in the legislation, in its administration, in the associated work of education and persuasion. Indeed, at the request of the Department of Labour, a group of officers of the Department of Labour have in recent months been examining ways and means of enhancing the value of the Act by broadening its coverage and increasing its effectiveness. Among other things, they are considering the possibility of extending the current prohibitions to discrimination based on age. Unless the age is specified in the legislation, that provision could prove to be difficult or impossible to administer.
There has also been a serious obstacle to the hiring of older workers in the form of some superannuation schemes. This will diminish through application of the Canada Pension Plan and the move toward portability of pensions. Nonetheless, at the present time, any law dealing with age discrimination should be based on careful consideration of a number of pension questions. Certainly, the same incentive program on the portability of pension plans is most desirable in many fields at this time.
In Canada, three provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland have fair employment practices legislation that prohibits discrimination based on age. In 1967, the United States government passed legislation of the same type. Several of the States of the United States have similar legislation. In general, these laws prohibiting age discrimination permit employers to reject older workers when the rejection is based upon bona fide occupational qualifications. Sixty-five is normally set as the maximum protected age. I should like to say to the House at this time that experience under these laws is among the factors being considered by the Department of Labour in its current re-examination of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, in getting to the matters related to this Act I should like to mention some other measures which I consider discriminatory. One of these is the systems of pay zones across Canada for the public service. Today, we have 36 pay zones and this brings about many discrepancies unfair to people doing the same job in different parts of Canada.
The pay zones originated at the bargaining table with the Treasury Board acting as bargaining agent for the government and the Public Service Alliance representing the public servants. In my area, public employees
[Mr Hopkins.]
DEBATES	December 2, 1969
are in zone 22; Ottawa is in zone 20; North Bay is in zone 18. Here we are halfway between Ottawa and North Bay and in practically every classification of job performed at Base Petawawa, Chalk River forestry station or Foymount, employees are receiving a much lower rate of pay than those doing the same work in Ottawa or North Bay.
It is not very long since we heard many speeches in this House about equal pay for equal work in the case of men and women; where women were doing the same work as men they should get equal pay. In the present case, all I am asking is that the Public Service Alliance and the Treasury Board go to the bargaining table and set the same wages for public service employees in the upper Ottawa valley who are doing the same work as those in North Bay or Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: I should like to state clearly, Mr. Speaker, that in relation to our geographical position I think it is only fair that we should be in the same classification as North Bay.
Now, I am going to give you some of these discriminatory rates, Mr. Speaker, to back up my statements with facts. These examples are taken from the general labour and trades group, non-supervisory. First, take the machine driving operating subgroup. In North Bay, an employee in classification 8 earns $2.82 an hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East is rising on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just wondering how the hon. member can relate his remarks to the principle of the bill now before the House which, as I understand it, is on age discrimination and practices.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say I had very much this same misgiving. I was giving the hon. member the benefit of the doubt, but the point of order having been raised I would have to caution the hon. member that the bill before the House deals with the matter of age discrimination and invite him to restrict his remarks as closely as possible to this point.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate the indulgence of other members of the House in letting me get this complaint on the record, however, because I am sure all
December 2, 1969

members are interested in the prevailing labour practices. I am certainly interested in any unfair labour practices pertaining to age or otherwise as they may relate to employees in my area. That is why we are here in the House of Commons.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
May I now carry on with the discussion pertaining to age. In some parts of this country, especially in areas where employment is at a low ebb, these people are usually the first to be let go. Add to this their possible low pay, and one can see in what plight these people can be. Many companies feel that it is not in their best interest to keep people over a certain age. We may live in an age of technology, but if we want a society that gives fair play to all individuals we shall certainly have to look after those people who have reached slightly more advanced ages. It is depressing for the man with a family to look after to be laid off, through no fault of his own and not find a highly paying job in private enterprise. As companies enter increasingly into the machine age, they lay off people. These people who have reached the middle or later stages of their lives must learn to re-adjust. This imposes heavy burdens on them and those at home. We have seen examples of people over 65 being quite capable of continuing work. Retiring these people early creates problems because if they have no hobby or something interesting to pass the time, time passes slowly. This upsets them, affects their health and makes it difficult for them to adjust.
Disregarding age for the moment, we ought to bring in uniform hiring practices across the country, particularly as they relate to public servants. We ought to avoid discriminatory factors which lead to our not hiring people in the mid 40's or late 50's or, when they turn to other types of employment, to paying them less than they deserve. I think it is time we had uniform pay scales throughout Canada for the Public Service. People employed by the CNR, CPR or Air Canada are paid according to uniform scales across Canada, regardless of age. The same applies to the Post Office Department where negotiations have been going on in recent years. At the bargaining table we must protect the interests of our people, regardless of age, and protect their families by making sure that no matter where they live in Canada, they are entitled to a guaranteed wage scale.
Fair Employment Practices Act
From time to time people come to my home and say, "I am 45; I have been to several places trying to find work, but no one will employ me." Where the demand for labour is strong such people are fortunate. But in slower growing areas of the country a man's age is taken into account and he may be discriminated against, where he would not be in areas of faster growth. I understand that the percentage of those unemployed in places like Kitchener is small. I imagine that in those areas people in their mid 40's are in great demand. However, in the lower paying zones of Canada, a man's advancing age creates difficulties for him. Also, if 45 or 50 year old people are forced to take lower paying jobs, it means that on retirement their pensions will be lower than those of their counterparts in the more fortunate, rapid growth regions of Canada.
In closing, may I make one plea in particular. I hope that the Public Service Alliance, representing the Public Service of Canada, and Treasury Board officials, representing the federal government, will take the question of age into consideration at the bargaining table and, in addition, take into serious consideration the discrepancy existing between wage levels in various parts of the country. At the risk of annoying you, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government to give serious consideration to putting employees in the Upper Ottawa Valley into the pay category enjoyed by employees of the North Bay zone.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I rise briefly to support the principle of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman). It is evident, I think, that all hon. members of this House support the principle of this legislation. I listened with interest to the hon. member who has just spoken, the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins). While he may have indulged in some technical hairsplitting, once he returned to the main body of his remarks it became obvious that he supported the principle of the bill which, as I say, commends itself to the House.
In addition to approving of the bill in principle, all we are doing this afternoon is attempting to refer it to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, where the whole matter may be studied in detail and where witnesses testifying about unfair labour practices may be heard. We know that those unfair practices exist. During
1508	COMMONS
Fair Employment Practices Act the course of his introductory remarks the hon. member for Waterloo told the House about them.
I do not wish to be accused of talking the bill out. Since I think we are all agreed about approving the bill in principle, all we are really doing is taking part in an exercise to refer the bill to a standing committee where, as I say, it will receive the detailed study and examination that is so necessary for a measure of this type which deals with discrimination against certain Canadians.
e (5:30 p.m.)
I could give the House examples of discrimination against people in the later stage of middle age, of unfair labour practices directed against the hiring of people who could, I suppose, be classed as middle aged but who are nevertheless mentally alert, physically capable and experienced by virtue of their years. As I say, I support the principle of the bill.
I note that the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration does not have an order of reference before it at the present time and I believe this bill would make an excellent order of reference; it would provide the committee with an excellent opportunity to consider the whole area of discriminatory and unfair labour practices. I hope hon. members will allow this motion to come to a vote, so that the bill may be referred to the standing committee for examination.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Carried.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: The
hon. member for Scarborough West.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Come, come.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act which came into effect on July 1, 1953, is designed to prevent and eliminate practices of discrimination against persons in regard to employment and in regard to membership in a trade union because of race, national origin, colour or religion. The Liberal government of the day under the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent in proposing the Act was translating into law a basic principle of human rights. As a member of various international organizations, Canada in recent years has subscribed to general declarations

DEBATES	December 2, 1969
of the basic rights and liberties of the individual. For instance, Canada accepted the United Nations Charter and Declaration of Human Rights, and the Declaration of Aims of the International Labour Organizations. Among the declarations of rights was one that the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act is designed to protect-the right of equality of opportunity in employment.
It is recognized that legislation alone does not entirely change the attitudes of mind which are at the root of discrimination, and the need for continued public and private educational efforts to do away with prejudice and ignorance is unfortunately very apparent. Like other federal legislation in the labour field, the act applies only to works and businesses within federal jurisdiction. These, of course, include navigation, shipping, railways, canals, telegraphs, aerodromes, airlines, radio and television broadcasting, banks and federal Crown corporations. However, like most federal labour legislation, it has had a far-reaching influence on the labour legislation of all the provinces in our country and now all ten provinces have passed similar legislation covering works and businesses within their jurisdictions.
The act states that no employer shall refuse to employ, or continue to employ, or otherwise discriminate against any person in regard to employment, or any term or condition of employment, because of his race, national origin, colour or religion. Further, an employer is not to use any employment agency which practices discrimination against persons seeking employment. Employers are not to make written or oral inquiries or use application forms relating to employment which express directly or indirectly any limitation, specification or preference based on race, national origin, colour or religion except where based on a bona fide occupational qualification. There are similar provisions against discriminatory advertising.
The act also forbids discriminatory actions by labour unions. No labour union may exclude anyone from full membership, or expel, suspend or otherwise discriminate against anyone in regard to his employment because of race, colour, national origin or religion. The act does not apply to employers of fewer than five employees, and it excludes non-profit, educational, charitable, fraternal, religious and social organizations.
While the legislation lays down penalties for positive acts of discrimination, it is
December 2, 1969	COMMONS
expected that most of the cases which arise will be settled by conciliation without any need for recourse to the courts. Experience with similar legislation in other places shows that the existence of the legislation alone is sufficient, in many cases, to prevent discrimination. Then, too, it is likely that many cases of discrimination will be found to have been caused by misunderstanding or thoughtlessness on the part of one or both of the parties, and that in such cases complaints can be ironed out without difficulty.
However, under the act a person who feels he has been discriminated against may make a complaint in writing to the director, Fair Employment Practices Branch, Canada Department of Labour, Ottawa. An officer of that branch will be directed to inquire immediately into the complaint and try to bring about a satisfactory settlement. Most complaints are settled at that stage. However, if a complaint is not satisfactorily settled, the Minister of Labour is empowered to set up an industrial inquiry commission to investigate the circumstances and to make recommendations to the minister as to how it can best be settled. The minister can then issue any order he considers necessary to carry out the recommendations of the commission, and such orders are final and binding on the parties. The act also provides for prosecution by way of summary proceedings in the courts, with the consent in writing of the minister, against anyone who does anything prohibited by the act or refuses or neglects to do anything required by it.
The experience of the federal government in the administration of this act has been, in general, most satisfactory. During the past fiscal year ending March 31, 1969, some 73 complaints were received by the Fair Employment Practices Branch. Of these, 47 related to discrimination in employment. All were processed satisfactorily and settled.
Our Department of Labour has received the fullest co-operation from the various trade union and human rights committees including the National Committee on Human Rights of the Canadian Labour Congress, from employer groups and from the voluntary agencies in the human rights field, as well as from the press, radio and television. The Department of Labour has expended a great deal of effort in the educational field in encouraging fair employment practices. In this connection, members of the House may recall the department's recent newspaper advertising which
DEBATES	1509
Fair Employment Practices Act apparently made a few people uncomfortable but was generally well received across the country.
In addition to investigating complaints, the Fair Employment Practices Branch of the department is actively promoting the principle of affirmative action, not just the elimination of discriminatory practices per se but positive steps to encourage members of badly disadvantaged minority groups to take training and come forward for employment. This promotion is being directed at management, union and government agencies at all levels.
The branch publishes and distributes pamphlets and posters on the subject, produces items for television spots, posters and exhibits, and encourages or participates in radio and television discussions. Several hundred thousand pieces of literature on the laws and the roots of prejudice have been distributed during the past year. The Department of Labour also advertises the provisions of the act in the foreign language press of Canada, and prepares articles for other papers and journals. Officers of the department attend regional, national and international conferences on discrimination in employment. During the past year they made more than 60 addresses to labour conventions and to meetings where management was broadly represented. Over the years the federal Department of Labour has been widely commended for its work in this field, and rightly so.
However-and this point was mentioned by the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins)-successful experience with the administration of this act has not made the department self-satisfied or insensitive to the possibilities of improving the legislation, its administration, or the associated work of education and persuasion. Indeed, at the request of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) a group of officers in his department have in recent months been examining ways and means of enhancing the value of the act by broadening its coverage and increasing its effectiveness. Among other things, they are considering the possibility of extending the current prohibitions to discrimination based on age.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The December, 1968, issue of the magazine "Monetary Times" has an interesting article at page 23 headed "Prejudice and Discrimination". The article comments on a recent study by Dr. Edro Signori, a psychology professor at the University of British Columbia, on dis-
December 2, 19G9

Fair Employment Practices Act criminatory beliefs and attitudes toward employment by socially disadvantaged groups. Dr. Signori and his assistants have studied 400 books, reports and other published material, surveyed a small number of university students, and gathered 881 statements, 39 pages in all, of beliefs and attitudes held about the appearance, mental and physical traits, performance, etc., of groups classified as "socially disadvantaged" in terms of employment. This well documented and well supported study showed older workers as ranking No. 11 in order of discrimination in employment in Canada.
The following is a complete list of the 18 groups in question in the order of those most discriminated against in employment to those who are subject to lesser discrimination: (1) mental retardants; (2) hippies; (3) ex-mental patients; (4) ex-criminals; (5) North American Indians; (6) beatniks; (7) physically handicapped; (8) Negroes; (9) East European communists; (10) East Indians; (11) older workers; (12) school drop-outs; (13) Orientals; (14) southern Europeans; (15) Jews; (16) women; (17) north Europeans; (18) British immigrants. The study, however, points out that ranking would assume a somewhat different order in different geographic areas. For example, Negroes might well be ranked higher in certain areas of the United States.
In principle, I would favour such an extension and I am sure the government will in due course endeavour to determine whether it can be achieved in a practical way. In the meantime, although in sympathy with its purpose, I am unable to support this bill which would add discrimination based on age, except where based on bona fide occupational considerations, to the list of employment practices prohibited by the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. I cannot do so because I am not satisfied that the bill would meet the tests of practical application.
I think all members of the House will understand that there is a significant difference between race, colour, religion and national origin on the one hand, and age on the other. The first group of factors should never be involved in determining qualifications for employment, and for this reason it is relatively simple to deal with them by way of legal prohibitions, as the present act does.
Age is different, however. In some cases, as the bill now before us recognizes, age may be a legitimate basis for distinctions in employment. Such distinctions can derive from a desire to provide training opportunities to the
[Mr. Weatherhead.l
young or special protection to the old. They are very much a part of bona fide apprenticeship plans and pension plans, and they have a legitimate relationship to seniority provisions and other conditions of employment. For these reasons, it would clearly be unwise to force rigid and universal equality of treatment, regardless of age, by means of hasty or inadequate legislation.
Age discrimination is in many cases a question of practical distinction or economic consideration and does not always have the same form or substance as discrimination based on race, colour or national origin. Unless it provided for some flexibility through appropriate regulation-making power, age legislation could prove to be difficult or impossible to administer. Poorer employment prospects for certain age groups sometimes result from a desire on the part of an employer to maintain some balance in the age structure of his work force in order to provide for an orderly process of training, promotion and retirement, and in order to avoid the problems that can be created for both managers and employees by the lack of such a process.
Some superannuation schemes have also been a serious obstacle to the hiring of older workers. This barrier will gradually be removed through application of the Canada Pension Plan and the move toward portability of pensions. None the less, at the present time any law dealing with age discrimination should be based on careful consideration of a number of pension questions.
There is legislation in Canada and in many other countries of the world which not only permits but insists upon distinctions in work on the basis of age, particularly in connection with night work and underground work. It seems clear that since some distinctions on the basis of age are necessary, and since age is such a general and universal type of factor, a good deal of care must be taken in developing a legislative approach to the problem of discrimination in employment.
It is difficult to isolate the age factor as the full cause of any apparent discrimination in relation to employment. While chronological age is not considered a true measure of employability, no acceptable measurements of psychological and physiological age are yet available to employers to replace the date of birth method for deciding the age of a man for legitimate reasons such as pension plan rates and retirement dates. Thus questions and records which would be considered dis-
December 2, 1969

criminatory if asked or kept in connection with race or religion, would be considered non-discriminatory in relation to age.
In Canada three provinces, British Columbia, Ontario and Newfoundland, have fair employment practices legislation which prohibits discrimination based on age. In 1967 the United States government passed legislation of the same type. Several of the American states have similar legislation. In general, these laws prohibiting age discrimination permit employers to reject older workers when the rejection is based on bona fide occupational qualifications. Sixty-five is normally set as the maximum protected age.
I understand that experience under these laws is among the factors being considered by the Department of Labour in its current reexamination of the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act. For my part, I would hope this examination could be completed in the fairly near future, and that definite suggestions would be put forward by the government with respect to the act.
Mr. Warren Allmand (Noire-Dame-de-
Grace): Mr. Speaker, we have heard of black power, red power, youth power and woman power, and if action is not taken soon to deal with some of the problems facing our older people we will shortly be hearing about senior power. With advances in medicine, more and more people are living for longer periods. In this day and age when there is great accent on youth we are tending to ignore this factor. Not only are the problems outlined in the bill before us of concern to older people, but also of concern to them are problems in respect of pensions, income tax, medical requirements, and so forth. This bill deals with just one important aspect of the whole question.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
This matter is further complicated by the fact that because of technological change we find men dismissed from jobs at which they first started work, being retrained for other jobs in their mid-thirties, finding that work phased out again because of more technological change, and having to be retrained again. It is all very well to have a manpower retraining program for men in their forties and fifties who are put out of work because of technological change, but if we have no method of guaranteeing them work, or helping them find work once they have been retrained, we have not followed through with our remedy.

Fair Employment Practices Act
The bill put forward by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) embodies the right type of principle. He is taking the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act, which has been quite successful, and suggesting we amend it to include people who are discriminated against because of age.


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Allmand:: Yes.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the hon. member agrees with the principle of the bill, as he has just stated, why does he not agree with the motion to have it referred to the committee after second reading, where it can be studied and examined in detail? He knows he can do that by resuming his seat now and allowing the question to be put.


William Warren Allmand: I agree that it should be sent to a committee, but the hon. member must realize it cannot be sent to the committee unless it is given second reading. I should not want this bill to go to a vote on second reading until all the arguments are on record.


James Aloysius McGrath: You agree with the principle.


William Warren Allmand: It would be a sad situation if it went to a vote now and we did not have enough members here to carry the measure. The hon. member spoke on the bill, and I feel I should make sure that this House is convinced that it is a proper bill. I saw the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. McNulty) here a moment ago and I appeal to him to convey to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey)-


James Aloysius McGrath: He is behind you.


William Warren Allmand: I appeal to the hon. member to convey to the minister the feelings of those who have spoken during this debate, including the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I hope the government will adopt the suggestions in this bill and incorporate them in a government bill which will perhaps include other types of discrimination which should be covered by the Canada Fair Employment Practices Act.
The other two types of individuals often discriminated against in employment are those who have been in a mental hospital and those who have been in prison. I have recently seen examples of people in all three categories being put out of work in their
1512	COMMONS
Fair Employment Practices Act middle forties. They all experience extreme difficulty in obtaining employment. If the government does amend this act I hope it will consider these types of individuals who have difficulty finding work.
There are objections which will be raised against this bill and we must deal with them. There are cases in which an employer has justifiable reason for requiring a younger worker. One might say that the wording of bill C-15 does not provide for those cases where an employer may have just cause for refusing an older applicant because the type of employment requires a person of younger years. However, I do not think this is a serious objection or one that could not be overcome. The committee might suggest wording which will deal with that particular problem.


James Aloysius McGrath: You have two minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You
are getting older.


William Warren Allmand: One of the reasons many of us in the House are concerned about this bill is that we are all getting older. In the profession in which we are engaged we never know when we will be put out of work. We may all find ourselves in the situation where in our forties, fifties or sixties we are looking for work and are being discriminated against because we are that age. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) suggested I was getting older. He is right. After the next election I will be in the over 40 age group, and I have a personal interest in seeing a bill like this pass.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thirty seconds.


William Warren Allmand: I do not believe that those on this side of the House are anything but safe, but we have at this time of year great compassion for our colleagues in the opposition.


James Aloysius McGrath: Fifteen seconds.


William Warren Allmand: There is one other very important point in respect of this bill. In recent weeks we have been discussing the Company of Young Canadians.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair to resume the same at 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

DEBATES	December 2, 1969
r,


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray (for Mr. Benson) 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.
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to conclude the remarks I started to make before the supper hour.
In closing, I should like to say that if the officials of the CNR want to discontinue the passenger train Ocean Limited in order to put it in operation on another line in New Brunswick, they should first take into account the suggestion I wish to make.

I submitted to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and through him to the officials of Canadian National Railways the suggestion that officials of the CNR be impressed with the need, and indeed the necessity, to maintain the Ocean Limi'ed service through Edmundston until there is a regularly scheduled air service to Montreal approved for our area and un il the Quebec City to the New Brunswick portion of the Trans-Canada highway is completed. This is simply a proposition. I and the people whom I represent in this House are ready to negotiate with the officials of Canadian National Railways. So far we have not made much progress in this regard, I am sorry to say, with the officials of the CNR.
As a Member of Parliament for Madawas-ka-Victoria I should like to state emphatically that my vote is not for sale. I do not suggest
December 2, 1969

that someone is trying to buy my vote, Mr. Speaker; but we are considering Bill C-7 to authorize the provision of moneys for the CNR and to guarantee certain securities to be issued by that company. I am not trying to bribe Canadian National Railways into maintaining a service; I am simply saying that before voting for such a measure I want to make darned sure that the CN will give something in return to my part of the country.

And in order to put an end to this part of the debate, I would like to read a letter sent to me on November 18 by the president of the Northwest Area Development Board of the province of New Brunswick-which was established by the citizens of my region-in order to study the problems and get the people to contribute to their solution.
This is what was said by the president of the Northwest Area Development Board Ltd., and I quote:
The Idea of removing the service of the Ocean Limited in northwestern New Brunswick, more precisely Edmundston, St. Leonard, Grand-Sault and Plaster Bock, might discourage the people of the region, and especially the outside manufacturers because of the social and economic development of the counties of Madawaska, Victoria and Carleton on the one hand, and might prejudice greatly the economic interrelations in the north of Maine, in the U.S.A., on the other hand.
-In fact, my riding and all this region of New Brunswick run along the United States. Therefore, there is a lot of rather important commercial exchanges.
I probably left the impression that this letter was addressed to me. In fact, it was addressed to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and I got a copy of it.
The president continues in these words, and I quote:
The Northwest Area Development Board (N.B.) can hardly understand how this decision fits in with the development program the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has just undertaken in the Maritimes, as far as we are concerned;
Obviously, I wish to point out that the present government is not to blame, but simply a Crown corporation that will not budge.
They even quote a speech given by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) to the Institute of Memram-cook in New Brunswick on October 25 last:
The two key elements of that (development) strategy are the capital grants made to industries to attract them to the area, and public service improvement projects.
21545-25 J
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
Mr. Speaker, a passenger train is a public service, and an essential one at that, as I said before consideration of the motion was interrupted.
The Development Board trusts that before reaching a decision that would neutralize the efforts towards social and economic development made by the people and supported by the Department of Regional Economical Expansion, the authorities concerned will be consulted, and this includes our representatives in Ottawa-
Mr. Speaker, as an elected representative of that area, I hate to say so, but the authorities of the CNR in no way consulted me. I was merely advised of what they intended to do. They did the same with the people I represent, and I regret their attitude very deeply.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, a great many members of this House welcome the opportunity that this CNR financing bill, Bill C-7 to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada, gives to discuss one of the important economic factors in our nation. I do not think that any other single factor plays a greater part in respect of the way we live, what we eat, the clothes we wear and the newspapers we read. I refer to transportation, which has a tremendous impact on our lives.
Those of us who over a period of years have had the benefit of a fairly good transportation system probably take for granted many of the services that are provided. However, during a trip as a member of the transport committee to the north shore of Quebec-that part of the country which people have referred to as the land of Cain; an area in which travel is very difficult-I became very concerned that the people there felt like the biblical individual who was cast out into the wilderness.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
However, we did find tremendous development going on in that area, in spite of the fact that the people had a feeling of being enclosed and separated from the rest of the world. I believe that before very long adequate transportation facilities will be provided for the area. The question of transportation seems to be on the minds of most of the people there. In fact, on the evening we flew into Labrador city one might have thought we were being mobbed and that a great meeting was being held at the airport. People
December 2, 1969
1514	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada were carrying placards which demanded to know why, in view of the $50 million in taxes that had been collected in the area, they did not have better transportation facilities. After we had been there a short while we found that the transportation facilities were far from adequate. It was interesting to see the extent to which company towns are being developed, how well laid out they are and how good are the good facilities provided by the companies, which are doing their utmost to keep the people happy and in good spirits.
However, I come back to the matter we are discussing tonight. Many of the complaints that have been made this year have been caused because both our main railways have indicated that they are going to cut passenger service. I have always felt a great deal of sympathy for the CNR and the CPR in this day and age when so much travelling is done by private motor car and only 15 per cent of the total miles travelled is left to be divided among the air lines, the rail services and the buses in our public transportation system. Not much of the pie is left to the railroads when the private individual does so much travelling in his car.
Nevertheless, there are problems which result from the continued cutting of services by the railroads. This fact was brought to my mind by an article in the Ottawa Citizen of November 12, 1969, entitled "Shades of Sir John". The article did not refer in particular to the CNR or the CPR but concentrated on the Algoma Central Railway. The article referred to the fact that when this railroad was being developed, it received certain grants, timber rights and tremendous financial assistance.
This has been the pattern in the development of our railroads in past years. My understanding is that when the railroads were being constructed in Ontario and Quebec and the branch lines about which we are speaking were being developed, railroad officials went from town to town with hat in hand. They were very gentle and kind; they did not make great demands but only indicated that if the community would sign up with them they would be of great assistance to the community.
Communities did sign up with the railroads and made special concessions in the way of property, lands, property tax concessions, assessment concessions, and in some cases outright grants to assist them in the early years of their development. Therefore, I feel


that the railroads have obligations in a great many areas of Canada because of the assistance they were given during the years of their development. As I said, this article refers to the "shades of Sir John."
When I visited the western regions of Canada with the transport committee we discussed whether the CPR rail service that has been in operation for many years, the transcontinental train called the "Dominion", should be taken off. In practically every area to which we went the briefs were very emphatic in listing the number of concessions that had been given to the railroads and the lands and property which had since become so valuable. This is the reason the railroads have an obligation to continue service in these areas, according to the briefs.
The railroads feel it is probably time to re-assess the situation. I believe there are some areas, however, wherein it is necessary for the railroads to continue service. When they finally cut off the passenger service on some of the lines, I wonder how long it will be before the entire railway service will be dispensed with and nothing will be left but railway rights-of-way throughout the country, which are of no great use for anything else because of the gravel and the embankment with which they are built. Not too much can be done with old railway rights-of-way unless the provincial governments decided to make roads out of them.
So the question of rail line abandonment raises many problems that are typical of certain areas. There was a time when the railroads had a monopoly. In those years it was thought that the trucking and bus services would never amount to anything and that people would have to use rail services or else, because there was no other way to travel. However, we found after a few years that the "or else" services became the ones that the people used. I have often felt that in those days the railroads should have become the great transportation media in our nation; they should have taken over the bus and trucking services rather than leaving it until now to do so. We know that practically all the LeX freight throughout Ontario is today being carried by trucks.
This brings me to another question. I have sometimes wondered why it would not be possible for the railways to operate small mobile units such as buses and trucks on their branch lines. In the area in which I live, for instance, both the CNR and the CPR may
December 2, 1969
COMMONS DEBATES	1515
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
have one train going up and one train going down each day, and the rails are not being used for almost 22 or 23 hours a day. I maintain that this is a waste of money and I wonder why the railroads could not take the trucks and buses off the highways, put them on flanged wheels and use them on those rights-of-way to provide trucking and bus services in the area. To my knowledge this has never been tried in Canada. I know it has been tried in some European countries.
In the area in which I live we have a rail-liner service. I believe the rail-liner service should be maintained, because if it is taken off there will be no passenger service of any kind into that part of western Ontario going to the towns of Kincardine, Southampton and Owen Sound. Granted, there are times when those services may not pay, but I do not quite understand how the railways arrive at the figure of $300,000 a year which they say they can save by cutting out the passenger service. This is indicated in some of the articles that I have before me.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
Figures in this respect were given to the people a few years ago. I emphasize that there are in this area 250,000 people who need service. The rail-liner has been used for probably 15 years and it is not the most economic means of transportation. Rail-liners need three people to operate them, whereas a bus requires only one person, which would be a great saving in wages for the railroads. We believe the railroad has a lot to answer for in that area because bit by bit it has nibbled away at the service provided. I have yet to be convinced that the railways did not give up the postal service, which was very remunerative to them in years gone by. The mail service was given away by the railroads in that particular area because they did not get revenue from it any more and consequently could not show a profit.
As is indicated in some of the articles that I have here, we feel that this service is most necessary. It should be continued in the area, because it has not developed as quickly as some of the areas just a few miles to the south. A reduction of service in a slow-growth area will not help change its status. As these articles indicate, the railroad should take a second look at this matter before deciding to make any change. In this connection I wish to quote from a letter which appeared in the Palmerston Observer, as follows:
The second subject I would like to touch on is the withdrawal of CNR jobs and runs from Palmerston. I understand that the two chain freight gangs from Palmerston to Toronto are now no longer operating, and as a result, eight or ten families are bound to be affected, or displaced. Also, that the IBM car-control system which the CNR spent thousands of dollars recently to instal, is now strongly rumoured to be on the way out.
This is another indication that there will probably be cuts in the CNR service, and yet the CNR spent thousands of dollars installing an IBM car-control system which it will now have to take away. The other matter I would like to mention is the possibility of the establishment of an airport in the vicinity of Malton as an adjunct to Malton Airport. There are areas close to my riding, in the county of Dufferin, which the Department of Transport should examine to see if they might be good areas for a new airport. It would help the development of that region. That area is some distance from the congested region around Malton and Toronto and from the proposed location around the lakeshore. I feel such an examination would be worth while and I hope the Department of Transport will undertake it.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Bill C-7 has become the vehicle whereby members can discuss the most serious matter of a national transportation policy in general and railway transportation policies in particular. I shall confine myself to speaking of railways. Coming as I do from the ci.y of Vancouver, where four railways have their termini, it will be easily understood that I have a keen interest in the question of railways. We have Canadian National Railway, Canadian Pacific Railway, the Pacific Great Eastern Railway and the Great Northern Railway. Being the termini of four great railroad systems, not only in this country but on this continent, and being a major port of Canada, we are vitally affected not only by the general national transportation policy of Canada but in particular by railway policy, not only as it affects the movement of freight and freight rates but as it affects passenger transportation.
In the main we have to deal with the CNR and the CPR. In considering those two great railroads I know that I express the opinion of hon. members from Vancouver and British Columbia in saying we take it not only for granted but as a commitment by this and previous governments of Canada, and by the CNR and the CPR, to continue a transcontinental system of railroads in respect of both
1516	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada passengers and freight, and that any diminution of that commitment constitutes a betrayal of Canada in general and of British Columbia in particular.
I would like to deal first with Canadian National Railways. A study of the CNR is most interesting and is well worth the attention of all hon. members. Without going too far back and into all the background, it is interesting to note that until the Capital Revision Act of 1952, 78 individual companies made up the Canadian National system. It was the intention of the royal commission that was appointed some four years before that to try to consolidate these 78 individual companies. As a result of the 1952 act they consolidated them into only 32 companies as at the end of last year.
The Canadian National system is still composed of 32 individual companies, and perhaps this set-up might be a partial cause of the trouble we have in operating a unified system of transportation. I believe the important fact which we should be considering at this time is one to which attention has already been drawn this afternoon by one of my colleagues-that is, that every year without exception we are faced with a bill similar to Bill C-7 which is now before us. Every year we have to pass a bill to meet the deficit of or the interest which is owed by the CNR and we have to pass a bill to guarantee payments on all its debenture issues. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is good enough that every year we should have to face this problem. We face it now, and unless real thought is given to the matter I would say that in perpetuity we will be facing the financial problems of the CNR and will have to advance more and more millions of dollars.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Since 1948 a royal commission has not studied Canadian National Railways. The 1948 commission obviously came up with only partial answers, as was shown in the Revision Act of 1952. I believe it is time that another and more detailed look was taken at the financial structure of Canadian National Railways. Consider, in a very brief way, the financial situation. Let us look at the year 1952, because that was the year of the Capital Revision Act. We find that the equity capital of the federal government in the Canadian National Railways was $857,573,774. That was in 1952. Just what it is at the moment, I do not know. I wanted to mention that figure,

DEBATES	December 2, 1969
and that is all I am going to say about the equity capital of the government of Canada in the CNR.
However, I want to mention in more detail what is owed by the CNR to the taxpayers through the medium of the federal government. In 1937 there was a royal commission and its purport was to try to resolve how to wipe out the CNR debt of over $1,500,000. Today, according to the balance sheet as of December 31, 1968, there is a debt maturing on January 1, 1972, of $100,000,000. Then we see advances for government railways and working capital in 1923, $16,983,762; financing and guarantee act, that is temporary loans, $218,573,683; refunding act, 1955, which was called loans for debt redemption, $451,100,000. So as of December 31, after all the royal commissions and after all the capital revision plans, the CNR still owes, outside of the capital equity, $786,657,445.
Mr. Speaker, it is my contention that to have to pass a bill every year covering more and more millions of dollars as loans, to pay interest and guaranteed debentures, is sheer stupidity. It is time we called a halt. We cannot call a halt to the administration of Canadian National Railways, but surely we can have the common sense to realize that this money will never be repaid. In the past the money was never repaid and hundreds of millions of dollars had to be wiped out. We know this money will not be repaid; it is proven by the bills we have to pass every year. Then why keep it on the balance sheet? Why have it on the books simply for bookkeeping purposes?
Why do we not face up to the issue in the way this House did last week when we recognized that we could not collect $122 million from Expo. There was no use keeping that deficit on the books and we wiped it off and forgot it. I think the time has come to do the same with the finances of the CNR. The money has been spent and we will not get it back. Get it off the books, forget it, and say to the CNR, "Boys, now you have had it. Produce, run an efficient operation, borrow the money under your own authority and capitalization, show a profit and return it to the federal government and, therefore, the taxpayers of Canada".
Mr. Speaker, I feel that unless we get down to this approach we are not only fooling the people but we are fooling ourselves. I think one of the biggest mistakes members of parliament can make is not only to kid the people but to kid themselves. I should like to
December 2, 1969

suggest most strongly that a second, new look be taken at this entire matter to see it we cannot put the CNR on a proper financial basis and get away from dealing with this bill year after year after year, plowing in money that we know we shall not get back.
I should like to proceed from the CNR to the CPR. Here, too, is a most interesting fact, a fascinating study; here is a real study that will show what can be done under private enterprise if it is gone about in the right way with the right friends. The CPR, too, is made up of many companies. May I point out that it was recognized by the pioneers of Canada, before the development of our economy for the population of our country, that we needed a transcontinental railway. Because of that recognition the government, acting under free enterprise, passed legislation which culminated in the first transcontinental railway. But not all of it was the investment of free enterprise; the people of Canada invested millions and millions of dollars. Not only that, hut they gave in one grant alone 25 million acres of the finest land in Canada, with all its resources.
I do not have the complete CPR figures at hand, but I have at hand the details of what is now the section of the CPR on Vancouver Island, known as the Esquimalt and Nanaimo Railway. In order to get that railway from Esquimalt to Nanaimo, the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada turned over for nothing, not only hundreds of thousands of dollars-$750,000 to be exact-but also 1,600,000 acres of the finest land of Vancouver Island; and not only the land. Let me read from the contract what the railway was given when it was granted those 1,600,000 acres. It was granted, with the land, "all resources on, thereon and thereunder." These were to include "all coal, coal oil, ores, stones, clay, marble, slate, mine, minerals and substances whatsoever on, thereon and thereunder." The railway was also given, subject to the federal government, the far shore rights; and not only the far shore rights but listen to this-it was given all those things "on, thereon and thereunder on the far shore or under the sea." That is, under the sea adjoining Vancouver Island. Why, sir, were those things given? For what purpose were they given? They were given so that in return we might have a transcontinental railway to carry freight and passengers in perpetuity.
DEBATES	1517
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forever.


Harold Edward Winch: I said, in perpetuity. I say that any move by the CNR or the CPR to renege on the promise of maintaining a national transportation system means they are breaking their contract with the subsequent governments of Canada and the people of Canada. The people, therefore, should foreclose on and take possession of these resources, because the railways are breaking the contract.
Those who operate the CPR are mighty clever, Machiavellian fellows. Under the original terms of these construction grants there was a definite understanding that not only would that railway provide in perpetuity freight and passenger service on a transcontinental basis, but that one set of books was to be kept and that revenues accruing to the railway from the development, utilization and sale of lands and resources would be applied, on the balance sheets, toward the maintenance of the railway. We see this in the speeches of those days, and it is written into the act. But in recent years the CPR has changed all that.
The company wishes to present a different picture to our government; to show only the transportation side of the picture and not the revenue it obtains from resources. That is why, aided and abetted by governments, it has formed a new company, Canadian Pacific Investments Limited, and transferred resources to this new company.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member whose speech is so eloquent and interesting. The hon. member prefaced his remarks with the suggestion that the debate now going on relates to general transportation policy. It is possible that some of the speeches which have been delivered since we began considering the bill would give this impression. Nevertheless, I hope that hon. members will try to relate their speeches in some way to the bill now before the House. I would not think that we should allow the debate to drift in such a way as to give one the impression that there is no relation whatever between speeches of hon. members and the bill now before the House. As I said, the hon. member's comments are most interesting. I hope in due course he will relate them to the legislation now being considered by the House.
December 2. 1969
1518	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I understand what Your Honour has just said. May I point out that almost every speaker in this debate has been permitted to speak on broad transportation policy. Some hon. members have even spoken about airports, which I have not touched upon; I have spoken only about railroads. May I also, out of courtesy, suggest that one can hardly discuss a bill relating to the advancing of millions of dollars to one of the railroads without in some way discussing Canadian transportation policy. When speaking about railway policy, I do not see how one can separate Canadian National from Canadian Pacific; nor, when considering a bill for the advancing of money, avoid touching on the entire financial structure as it relates to Canadian National Railways, the railway I have spoken most about. However, sir, since I have always had such great respect for Your Honour, even if I may feel I am being restricted where others have not been, I shall always abide by Your Honour's decision.
Having said in the main what I intended to say, I wish to conclude by repeating my view and my position on this matter. Canadian National and Canadian Pacific were given rights and privileges, in return for which they were to maintain transcontinental railroads for the convenience of freight and passengers. These railways have been most generously assisted by the people and various governments of Canada and we expect them to abide their side of the contract, just as we have lived up to our side of it.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7 which we are now studying is entitled "An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada from 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."
In the Governor General's recommendation, various sums of money are specified: investment, $201 million; expenditures of $82 million for discharging certain obligations and the signature of contracts not exceeding $113 million. There is also a matter of borrowing $19 million for constructing branch lines. With respect to Air Canada, mention is made of a deal involving $165 million.


I do not wish to juggle with figures any longer than is necessary. Apart from dealing with a dry subject, one rims the risk of making miscalculations which could lead to various interpretations in connection with the matter that I want to discuss concerning the use of the money asked for by transportation companies to be handled according to their capital costs, redemption of stocks and capital revision.
The recommendation seems to cover everything, even the potential inadequacy of reserves and the use of further appropriations of parliament to eventually cover the deficit.
I have nothing against the carriers' action when they want to carry out financial transactions. It is even normal for the management of such vital services to gear their operations according to requirements.
However, I feel it is also normal for representatives of the people, who are called upon to decide whether these recommendations are justified should apprize parliament of the manner in which they want appropriations to be used by authorized carriers.
Before coming to the heart of the matter, I wish to point out that the management of major companies such as the CN and Air Canada calls for a great deal of competence and a deep sense of responsibilities to make the passenger service a profitable undertaking. Air Canada management is in a better position to do that than the CN. As a result of the increasing use of other means of transportation, passenger trains are operating steadily at a loss. The 1961-62 report of the MacPher-son Royal Commission on Transportation showed unequivocally how high were the losses sustained. It is however in order that a passenger service be maintained and it is probably one of the reasons which justify grants from the government when it sees fits.
For doubtful reasons or because of the intricacies of administrative problems in an undertaking showing a deficit, the president's salary has been set at $75,000 per annum. I point this out without malice aforethought simply to prove that officialdom takes good care of its own.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
I shall indicate later that the distribution of jobs and wages of employees is dependent upon the principle of protecting the strong against the weak.
Considering it is recommended to invest in affiliated companies, this gives me the oppor-
December 2, 1969	COMMONS
tunity to tell the house that a rather big percentage of employees directly interested in investments have helped to create and increase a pension fund in order to ensure their security and that of their family when they retire.
As a result of the establishment of the Canada Pension Plan and of the Quebec Pension Plan, there were problems about portability which greatly worried Canadian Railways employees. Workers have always required, and rightly so, that the Canada Pension Plan be added to the pension plans of railway workers. Those plans, in operation for more than 35 years, have become a sine qua non condition for those who apply for jobs in a railway company. It should be noted that the pension plan is never a part of the contractual agreement between the employee and the employer. I believe the government should guarantee the rights of employees who were contributing to those pension plans when the government alone became effective.
I would like to discuss another important problem, that of railway crossings. The increasing number of accidents at railway crossings has become a matter of concern.
I know that it has been pointed out many times to government authorities, but unfortunately, they dilly-dally when decisions must be taken. The administrative machinery of bureaucracy gets into action only when an inquiry into serious accidents is called for.
For the past 50 years or so, a federal organization has a fund at its disposal, in order to build viaducts and eliminate railway crossings.
Statistics show that for the last 15 years accidents at railway crossings have caused 2,694 fatalities, 617 of them in Quebec. While accidents increase sharply, bureaucrats try to explain that they cannot do more under section 5 and section 265(2) of the Railway Act, as funds for construction or repairs were set in 1958. It is obvious that construction costs have increased since then, as the 11 per cent tax on building materials was not in force at that time.
The act should take into account priorities relating to the elimination of railway crossings. In the Saint-Eleuthere (Kamouraska) region that I represent, there are two very dangerous railway crossings.
In addition to the travelling public, two school-buses are daily exposed to serious accidents. Automatic signals have never been installed.
DEBATES	1519
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
The government has already made, through the Transport Commission, a survey of the physical particularities of all the grade crossings in Canada. Since this information has been available for some time, what are we waiting for to install protective devices, manual or automatic, at all grade crossings which, in the opinion of the Commission, are dangerous?
It is time for the government to think of increasing the statutory grant under the grade crossing vote. Then we would be giving work to the unemployed while contributing to the protection and safety of the railroad employees and of the travelling public.
At the beginning of my speech I referred to the allocation of work and to salaries. Now I shall give some examples of what is, in my view, an irregular situation.
During the negotiations it seems impossible to agree on how to change the practice of percentage salary adjustments from which it follows that those who earn less than $5,000 or $6,000 a year get small salary increases compared to those who earn $6,000 or more. All groups of wage earners deserve increases when the collective agreements are renewed, but the distribution of the benefits should be better balanced. The steady increase in the cost of living affects the worker who earns $5,000 as much if not more than the worker who earns $8,000 or $10,000 a year. I think it is not necessary to be a graduate in industrial relations to understand that.
Even if the CNR management decides to hire highly-paid personnel to carry out all sorts of investigations in order to determine where and in what crews lay-offs can be made, this does not improve the situation of the employees, but it does reduce the efficiency of the maintenance department and, in conquence, derailments become more frequent and often, administrative expenses increase.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
We notice that the number of employees affected to the maintenance of one section of 40 or 75 miles is reduced to two or three with one superintendant and his assistant, the road-master, therefore two men work and two write reports. In addition, the management of the Canadian National Railways uses a fleet of trucks for track maintenance. How can workers in charge of detecting defects in the railroad tracks do while riding a truck? I do not want to delay the passage of this bill but
December 2, 1969
1520	COMMONS DEBATES
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada I think that it is in order to indicate the bad effects of the bureaucracy entrenched in the CNR management.
And I might go on quoting examples of blunders made by some bureaucrats who know nothing about railroad track maintenance, who are comfortably settled and well paid, occupying offices in a company showing a deficit and giving orders often contrary to common sense.
Here is a typical example of existing abnormali ies. In the Central Station building in Montreal, there are two CNR offices known as the Rideau Area and the Champlain Area. In one of them maintenance and construction employees earn $2.34 per hour and in the other only $1.97 per hour. Furthermore, in the latter case, employees are paid at a lower rate for a trial period of 78 days, whereas for the former, the initial wages are $2.15 an hour. They all accomplish the same work, but some come from Ontario and the others are Quebec residents.
The foremen work 40 hours a week and they are paid time and a half for overtime. The ordinary workers work 60 hours a week at the regular rate. This shows the inconceivable injustice to be laid at the door of well paid administration officers and which is a cause of friction among employees.
We must not forget that we have supported in the House a regulation asking the railway employees to return to work after a strike. We must admit that it is in order for us to look as closely as possible into the working conditions of those who have been compelled by law to return to work.
Before closing my remarks, I should like to point out to the House the housing and security conditions of these employees. They travel from their living quarters to then-working stations in trucks where are assembled all kinds of tools, and they are always exposed to accidents. Those who work as mechanical shovel operators are often without the services of a helper. Employees have to sleep in double deckers and suffer all the inconveniences that these involve.
We are advised that the company has launched a vast program to improve employees' living quarters. Cars now used for this purpose will be replaced by trailers, which proves that we are right in deploring the existing conditions.
But in the meantime the company continues to use these 1910 model sleeping cars for its employees. And the administration does

not see too much inconvenience in it since such accommodations have been approved by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. This shows again the preference given to the big to the detriment of the small.
I would like to have more time at my disposal to indicate a number of facts that prove the good will of some regional directors. There are, unfortunately, too many things to deal with, such as passenger service improvements, job security, automation implications, the clarification of many problems resulting from salary adjustments, special compensations-they sometimes happen- freight, and the competition between the various means of transport. Nevertheless, I would like to make what is, in my opinion, a practical suggestion.
Since CNR employees are, on the whole, very able and experienced, I venture to make a suggestion to the people in charge. Why, when changes are needed in the railway timetable, should we not seek the advice of a certain number of train conductors from various areas instead of taking only into account the reports made by the bureaucrats who more often than not prefer to use their car when the railway timetable does not suit them.
I am sure that the changes suggested by the personnel responsible for conducting the trains would be in the best interest of the passengers. This in turn would result in making the services more profitable.
In 1967, the year of Expo in Montreal, we had to abide by an irrelevant decision. During a full year, the passengers from Campbellton to Montreal had to cope with a transfer at Chambly.
I brought to the attention of the C.N.R. officials more than 25 requests for some change to be made. It took over a year of urging before they were finally granted. I am sure that those who made those decisions today acknowledge their mistake. If the employees had been consulted, I am convinced that could have been avoided.
I believe I have dealt with some vital points Which show that a full investigation should be conducted in the various administrative services of the CNR. Apart from showing that the workers' complaints are justified, it would help to clarify a situation that is confused at times, and give the whole team of workers, who have heavy responsibilities sometimes, the encouragement they are entitled to from a company such as the Canadian National Railways.
December 2, 1969	COMMONS
As regards Air Canada's management, even if I do not travel very often by plane, I should like to point out that this corporation will have to be on the alert as far as the security of passengers is concerned, so as to prevent those who would be too anxious to go to Cuba from forcing pilots to change their flight plan. As a matter of fact, there are in Canada a few members of the Company of Young Canadians who have kept in touch with people in that country. Some means will have to be devised to identify them when they make their reservations.


Mr. A. C. Cadieu (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, on this occasion I have a few grievances that I should like to put before the House, and they concern branch line abandonment and railway gaps. I have raised this matter several times previously and placed it on Hansard. I should like to refer in particular to a 38 mile gap in the branch line from Frenchmans Butte to Heinsburg, Alberta.
I have raised the matter so often that I am sure most of the older members could retell the story from memory. However, while everyone appears to agree that this is one railway gap that should have been filled-in many years ago, I have been unable to get any co-opera ion from either the Department of Transport or Canadian National. The area in question is great mixed-farming country, and there are also mineral resources. There is a natural barrier to the south in the North Saskatchewan River.
Last spring I thought I was away to a fresh start with a new minister. I immediately got in touch with the minister's office and tried to arrange an appointment with the minister, but I am s ill waiting. I think this delay is unjustified because a vast area of my constituency is adversely affected by the gap in this line.
The CNR was granted a charter many years ago and should have been compelled to fulfil its obligations under the charter. Farmers moved into this area and developed some fine farms and homesteads. A great many of these farmers have now almost given up hope. However, I have not. I can see no reason for not completing this branch line. There is talk of removing some of this line that has been constructed, and if that is true the hopes of the people in the area will be destroyed. I cannot for the life of me understand how Canadian National can expect the line to pay if it is not completed. Many of
DEBATES	1521
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Canadian National's undertakings have been run at a loss in the past. Had this gap been filled it would have meant a great deal to these people in northwestern Saskatchewan and northeastern Alberta. This would have given us a direct line to Fort McMurray in the great Athabasca region. It would have provided a direct line all the way from Winnipeg, without the necessity of this long detour. It would also have served all the points along the line through the use of branch lines, right through Saskatoon to North Battleford and Frenchmans Butte. It could also have served Prince Albert, Spiritwood, Medstead and St. Wallburg. Had this 38 mile gap been completed it would have made a tremendous difference.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The other point I wish to make relates to duplication of services. I cannot understand why the management of the CN and CP could not have put their heads together and done something about these duplications. I do not understand why, when the CNR pioneered that part of the country, the CPR had to come in and obtain running rights on Canadian National-over 65 miles in one place-and spoil things. Apparently they did so in order to reap the benefits from the Meadow Lake area. The CPR should have been compelled to continue through to Goodsoil and Pierceland. I cannot understand why two companies such as these could not lay their cards on the table and avoid duplication. Surely these two companies could have got down to business and given these people the service they deserve, and at the same time put their own businesses on a better basis. Before putting forward my second grievance let me say that I hope something will be done about these gaps in service, because people in the area have grown old waiting for action.
My second point relates to the unjust treatment shown to Great Slave Lake contractors. This treatment is the worst I have seen from any group of people in what is supposed to be a democratic country. Having been a contractor, I know something about the grievances of these people. They have faced financial difficulties and in some cases have been completely put out of business. Many of them have lost their livelihoods, yet they have not been given a proper hearing. That is all they wanted. They have been coming to Ottawa for four or five years asking for a hearing.
I was a member of the transport committee last spring and recall that, one of the last
1522	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada things done by that committee was the holding of hearings in respect of the problems of some of these people. One might have expected that something would be done for them rather than allowing the matter to drop at the end of last session. There is no indication whether they will be heard again. To my knowledge not one single thing has been done for them. Let me read from page 2399 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Committee on Transport and Communications, volume 28. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) asked:
I want to make my question clear to Mr. Allen. Are you only asking that this committee recommend to the Governor in Council that an inquiry should be set up? Maybe to Mr. Mahoney's surprise, the Railway Act sets out clearly that an inquiry can be held.
In fairness to these people, I know they wanted a hearing. A great deal of controversial evidence was presented. Let me quote again from the minutes of that meeting, page 2398. Mr. Horner said in part:
It appears pretty obvious to me that the CNR abused and put you under extra duress for no real reason, because they finished out $11 million ahead of their original estimate and 18 months on time.
Surely when people are treated in that fashion they are entitled to a public hearing. Many of them have been put out of business. As a result of being a contractor I noticed particularly some of the controversial evidence given to the committee. Let me refer to another situation. This is covered in a letter from the lawyer representing certain contractors. One paragraph of the letter reads:
Another point with respect to which some comment should be made is the comment by Mr. Cox that Lucus was not instructed to place his camp at Mile 83 as Lucus states and was not refused the privilege of working from Mile 110 to Mile 120 as Lucus states.
Mr. Lucus on a number of occasions drew my attention to the fact that under the engineer's instruction he was forced to start on the contract at the specified point, but could not do so because of wet weather; the weather made it absolutely impossible for him to do anything with the high-priced equipment he had at the site. He was refused permission to move 10 miles to different terrain where there was heavy yardage and where his equipment could have been moved along with its high-priced men. The contractor could then have got on with the job.
I realize there is a conflict as a result of this controversial evidence, but Mr. Lucus said he was forced by the engineer to stay at

DEBATES	December 2, 1969
the original camp. The engineer claims he did not refuse permission to move. I should like to know who issued these orders. I am familiar with the Lucus construction company and I know it would have moved its equipment and men to the spot where they could have moved earth. This is one of the most unjust things I have ever heard, particularly when the companies are not given a proper public hearing.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to this financing bill. Let me say a few words about what we should reasonably expect from the CNR if we are to continue to support it with public funds. One thing that concerns the people in my constituency as well as those to the east and west of it is the proposal to remove entirely or cut down on passenger train service.
I have received letters and representations from people who work on the railroad and live in areas which are served by the main line of the CNR. They are very much concerned about the service and the fact that service to their communities will be cut down. Many of these letters were written by people who make their living working for the CNR. They have informed me that there has been a lay-off of about 20 per cent in some communities as a result of poor grain sales and the slow movement of grain.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
I suppose the movement of potash might be another factor. I believe there are two things which should be considered in this regard. The first is the welfare of those people who are employed by the CNR. The other of course is the welfare of those who use the facilities of the CNR. If a privately-owned and operated company in the province of Quebec or the province of Ontario proposed to lay off a similar number of employees, questions would be asked in this House. Not too long ago questions were asked in this House concerning companies which proposed to close down or restrict their operations and lay off men. I believe a publicly-owned concern should be just as responsible in respect of the men it employs as a privately-owned concern.
One person who wrote me advised there have been times very recently when the passenger train service which is to be discontinued was unable to handle the number of people who desired to use it. I have been informed
December 2, 1969	COMMONS
there have been many occasions when passengers who sought accommodation in terms of sleeping berths, and so on, were unable to obtain it.
I think we should be concerned about the type of service that is available, because if passengers are turned away or are unable to obtain the service they need, I suppose the traffic on these passenger trains will decline. I think we should also consider the type of people who use these trains. Many of them are old age pensioners, people who travel wi.h children and people who do not wish to incur the expense of air travel. Travel by train gives them a more comfortable and a more economic service. I think we might very well consider further use of both train travel and air travel as Canada expands. This would probably be more economical than the expansion of airports and increasing other air facilities.
We must also face the situation in respect of rail line abandonment on the prairies. I am not one of those who say that every branch line in the prairies should remain in service. People who live there know that there can be some modification. They plead, however, for a rational approach to this problem so that large and significant areas are not denuded of branch lines while other areas, due to competitive factors, have more lines than are needed.
When we discuss the financing of the railroad I think it is proper to take into consideration the type of service the railroad should give, because we own the railway the purpose of which is to not only make a profit but to provide the type of service needed in the area served. Within the past year I have been concerned about the abandonment of railway stations and the removal of agents from those sta ions, as well as the effect this has on the community. I have been interested in this matter especially because in some instances the people living in the areas have written to me as a Member of Parliament pointing out that they no longer have the services they need, or stating that the services have declined.
I should like to mention the situation in the village of Ruddell. Under the rules and regu-la ions of the Canadian Transport Commission, the CNR was permitted to remove the agent. Then the CNR did not take the action necessary to look after the handling of the freight that was arriving at the village on their own trucks. I received a letter from the clerk of the village in which he pointed out
DEBATES	1523
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada that freight was being dumped on the streets. I read the letter:
Dear Sir:
The village council saw a notice on the station door regarding application to remove the station building without replacement.
The council held their regular meeting on March 4. A motion was passed that they object to the station being removed.
At the present time the railway trucks dump all the express and freight on the street in front of the post office.
The council is of the opinion that if the station is removed there should be a replacement. It is not fair to the public to have their express and freight put on the street when there is a place to have this put under cover.
Mr. Speaker, I contacted the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill and officials of the Canadian Transport Commission. I believe it was four or five months before the CNR was convinced it was essential to have a proper service with which to take care of the express items coming into that village. At one point they said some of the express goods arriving at the village were being looked after by the postmaster and that the heavy express office was in a town 10 or 15 miles away. I wonder what the citizens of Ottawa would say if they were told their light express could be picked up at a certain point in Ottawa but that the heavier freight would be over in Hull, and some time when they had nothing better to do they could go over to Hull and pick it up.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
I am quite prepared to admit that this town did not have as many people in it as does Ottawa or, for example, as does Pembroke, Ontario. But the people in that small town, like the people in Pembroke, Ontario, or in Ottawa, must have essential services. You cannot turn all western Canada into a desert where no transportation service is provided. Fortunately, the Canadian Transport Commission followed up this matter and eventually said to the railroad, "You have to provide a facility in the town that will be adequate to take care of the express and the freight which you haul in." A small building is now provided for that purpose. But I wonder how many towns there are in which people do not get their rights because they do not know what they are. I can only say to the House that in these changing times we know that everything will not remain the same.
Every little station in these small towns will not continue to serve them, nor will it have a stationmaster to look after it. One would think that the prime objective of the
1524	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada two railroads would be to see that when changes are made, an adequate service is provided for the people in the area. They should not be asked to drive ten miles down the road to pick up their incoming freight or express which is lying in the street in front of the post office. The case was thoroughly investigated, and this was the report that was made.
Apart from being concerned with financing the CNR, this House should also be concerned about the service which the CNR provides for people in all parts of the country. If a particular service is to be discontinued, we should consider whether the alternative that presents itself in terms of road traffic or road transport is in a real sense more economical and more efficient. This is the real question that needs to be asked.
I am also concerned about the fact that you cannot simply apply a cost yardstick on the "X" number of miles of railroad in deciding whether a service is to be discontinued. This will not give you the complete answer for the area until you consider the alternatives. When one thinks of the town which I described, the total cost which had to be figured out was based on whether it would be cheaper to leave the railroad station there and keep an agent in it, whether it would be cheaper to close the station, dismiss the agent and provide the necessary facility in the town for the local freight or express that came in and pay someone in the town the necessary number of dollars to look after it.
If the second alternative was the better and cheaper of the two, it would be difficult to quarrel with it and it would be the logical thing to do. But it is not logical to discontinue a service which a community needs and then say to the community, "That is your tough luck. Perhaps the next generation will not be here, anyway, and you can slug it out as you like."
These are the main things I wanted to say this evening on the bill. I hope that we will approach railway transportation in a rational fashion, in terms of a service to the total community, which is Canada, and to the many smaller communities that make up our country. If we do that, I think we can have a service that will give us what we need.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, it is not my wish nor my intention to unduly delay this very important bill that is before the House of Commons, but my constituents would not forgive me if I failed
IMr. Gleave.l
DEBATES	December 2, 1969
to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a problem which is pressing and urgent to those who are directly involved and who will be affected by the recent proposal made by the CNR in northern Ontario.
I wish to comment briefly on the question and the problem of run-throughs by the CNR, more properly called extended crew-runs. Some hon. members will recall that this question was a national issue in 1964 at which time it caused almost 3,COO operating employees of the CNR to book off sick, having fallen victim to some unknown malady. In other words, the company at that time was faced with a wildcat strike. This strike led to the Freedman industrial inquiry into the question of run-throughs. Today Canadian National Railways are once again proposing to run through the home terminal of Nakina, which was one of the main communities in this controversy five years ago. At the present time, the company is attempting to get agreement from the brotherhoods for this run-through.
This will be the first time that the company has in fact run through a home terminal, as opposed to a turn-around point. There is a very significant difference between those two types of communities, because in a home terminal people have put down roots and established themselves. They look to a future in which they will bring up their children; they build schools and hospital services are proud-ed. Transportation and other facilities are provided for them at great expense by the federal and provincial governments. There is the threat of ail this being wiped out by the announcement of the CNR that crews will no longer be located there; that they will have extended crew-runs. The very existence of this community is threatened.
The House should be reminded that the community of Nakina is in fact a child of the CNR; the railway created the town 45 years ago. Now they wish to desert this child and divest themselves of the responsibility for what will happen not only to the employees of the railroad but to the inhabitants of the community in which the railway has become an important industry. How is this major decision announced to the people? An ominous red and white announcement is posted at a central place in the town. We are told:
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
The company has moved to begin discussions with its operating union on the effect of extending train crew-runs at Nakina-
December 2, 1969	COMMONS
On September 15 the company met in Toronto with representatives of its running trades. A major purpose of the meeting was to discuss the need for improved resthouse facilities between Hornepayne and Sioux Lookout. The company noted it could hardly decide on a new location for new resthouse facilities while the problem of extending crew-runs remained unresolved.
The company indicated that as it wished to locate the new resthouse facilities at Armstrong it would like to commence negotiations for extended runs between Hornepayne and Armstrong at Nakina with Hornepayne as home terminal.
With that little announcement, the people are told that their community will be destroyed. So they turn to their Member of Parliament and they plead that he do something to help save their town. As their Member of Parliament, I visited the community and saw almost all the people in the town, which comprises some 600 people. Every man, woman and child expressed the same opinion, that they do not want to move out of Nakina under any circumstances, regardless of the compensation they may receive for their houses.
They say, "Do something to help save our town." So one turns to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and he says, "Nothing can be done. It is a matter for the Canadian Transport Commission." The Canadian Transport Commission says, "Don't turn to us. Look to the brotherhoods; they are the ones negotiating with the company for this extended crew-run." Then the brotherhoods say, "There is nothing we can do because it is in our contract that we must negotiate with the company for material changes. You had better turn to the management of the company." The management then says, "We have to be efficient. We have to save money in order to have a better operation." The management provides a few figures and it is difficult for us to test their validity. Management claims it will save approximately $100,000 a year and about ten minutes in time. In order to save $100,000 a year and save ten minutes in time they want to destroy a town in which millions of dollars have been invested. That seems to be inefficient, a poor example of economy.
The community have looked very carefully at the problem and they have made it abundantly clear to me that they are not a reactionary group of people who want to stand in the way of technological progress. They have said so in letter after letter. They have said, "We are not against technological change. We are just against the manner in which it is being
DEBATES	1525
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada introduced. We want the CNR to make their technological changes in a way that will least affect people in the place in which they live and work."
As I have said, they looked carefully at the problem themselves and they have an alternate proposal which I will pass along to the House. But how seriously has their proposal been considered by the CNR? The company has been asked to come to the town to meet with the citizens' committee to explain very carefully what is involved and why they have taken this stand. We are unable to get these people to come and explain clearly and unequivocally how they will benefit northern Ontario by saving a few hundred thousand dollars and destroying a community.
Let us take just a moment and consider the cost to the community. With the extended run-through, $560,000 in wages will be lost; some 48 homes will be vacated; some 25 per cent of the tax revenue will be gone; the nearby Geraldton District High School will stand to lose about $28,000 a year in provincial grants when the 26 pupils from Nakina transfer out of it. In 1960 the provincial government authorized the Improvement District of Nakina to build a new three-roomed addition to the public school worth $70,000. Fully modern educational facilities for children from kindergarten to grade 8 are provided by annual provincial grants totalling $47,700. A run-through will reduce the school to two rooms leaving the remaining facilities standing empty and useless. The Nakina separate school, which now employs two teachers, will drop 40 per cent of its enrolment and only one teacher would be needed.
There are many CNR pensioners and widows living in the community, most of whom own homes. The increase in taxes will be far beyond their means. Some will be unable to sell, because who wants to invest in a community that is on the decline? Businessmen in the area will be affected by a 45 per cent drop in volume, which will result in staff reductions and the closing of small businesses. Until 1964 Nakina was a going concern. The province had invested huge sums of money with which to open up the town. Highway 584 was constructed to connect with highway 11, 42 miles away-a very expensive undertaking for the province. Ontario Hydro constructed a pole line into the town in 1958. Through federal and provincial assistance the new Geraldton District Hospital was built to serve the area. The population of Nakina, which in 1964 was 763, is now 600.
December 2, 1969
1526	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
Then in 1964 the CNR made its drastic announcement of a run-through. From that point the trend has been downhill for Nakina. In 1966 the Indian Affairs offices were moved out, reducing the work force by five. In 1968, the Department of Transport weather station was moved out, taking another five employees. Now, once again, the dark shadow of the CNR looms over the community. The company has decided that new rest-house facilities at Armstrong are more important than the town of Nakina, and they claim that this run-through will save an annual sum of about $100,000.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, the people of Nakina have looked at the problem very carefully and they feel that there is another possibility which can save their town and at the same time allow the railway to save the money to which it refers. They propose that a run-through at Armstrong would provide the same saving. Armstrong has a population of 400. Instead of being a home terminal, it is a turnaround point. In Armstrong only 11 employees would be affected. None of these are running crew but rather ticket, express, fuelling and bunkhouse staff. Only four of them own homes in the town. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that any of these people would have to move. As can be easily seen, a run-through of Armstrong would have a minimal effect on the town and could be effected at a fraction of the cost that would be suffered by the community of Nakina.
If the run-through of Nakina becomes an actuality, all the revenue that the province has invested in the town becomes wasted expenditure. Moreover, the province will probably be faced with even larger expenditures in the form of welfare payments for those citizens who are left without any visible means of support. The future of Nakina must also be considered. It has great iron ore potential nearby, and in a very few short years when these deposits are developed it will once again become a major community and the railway will once again seek to serve the town and will have to re-establish facilities there. We are really asking the railway management to be a little futuristic, to look at the potential of the area and not to think about saving a few dollars just at this moment.
I mentioned the alternative proposal of running through Armstrong instead of Nakina, because at Armstrong there would be minimal disruption of business. This proposal was made by the CNR in 1963. On February 5 of


that year at the call of Mr. Gonder, then vice-president of the prairie region of the CNR, a meeting was held in Winnipeg. It was attended by officers of the company as well as by representatives of three Brotherhoods. The purpose of the meeting was to give the brotherhoods notice of the company's intention to institute a series of run-throughs, commencing with the spring change of timetable. These run-throughs were to be-I mention only one-from Nakina to Sioux Lookout through Armstrong.
Repeatedly we have asked the management to come to Nakina and to explain why they cannot accept this very realistic alternate proposal made to them by the citizens' committee of the town. All we can learn is that a feasibility study has been made which shows it is better to run-through Nakina than Armstrong. We would like to see this feasibility study and examine it on our own to see whether in fact we can agree with its conclusions. We are asking that the company seriously consider this community; we ask that they have good public relations. Mr. Justice Freedman, in his report, with much wisdom made this statement:
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
The nation's resources at both the federal and provincial level must be wisely used in measures to reduce to a minimum the disruptive effect on men and communities of the technological change.
I suggest to this House, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian National Railways has not acted in the best interests of the town of Nakina. I suggest that their public relations have not been such as to assure the people that their interests are being seriously considered.
Looking for a life-line, desperate to find someone to assist in preventing this run-through until possible alternative means of development or employment can be found for the town, I turned to the Minister of Municipal Affairs for the Province of Ontario. I asked if he would have his department undertake a study, which would not take very long but which would reveal how much money would be lost and how much the taxpayers of Ontario would have to bear for this so-called efficiency move, this so-called economy measure by Canadian National Railways. If the minister will co-operate in this regard, I believe that the figures will be revealing and shocking, showing that in order for the CNR to save a small amount of money, millions of dollars will have to be spent by the taxpayers of the province; an entire community will
December 2, 1S69

be disrupted, people dislocated, and the appeals of men, women and children who live there will not be taken into account to any extent whatsoever.
I bring this matter to the attention of the House because when Parliament did not take it seriously five years ago a serious national situation developed. The people of Nakina are now so desperate to save their town that I know they want to take strong measures, but I have pleaded with them not to do anything rash. I have said to them, "We must use all the channels of communication available to us in the hope that someone will listen and reconsider this move that is neither efficient nor economic.
Mr. Speaker, this has been the time for me to bring this serious matter to the attention of the House. I thank you for your patience. I do not intend to delay this bill to any extent, but I think you will sense the urgency felt by this community of people in my constituency. Like a great many small communities, they feel they have no voice. A Member of Parliament sometimes wonders what he does, living and working in this great, gothic structure; but he is more than someone who just fills up a space-he has to be a voice for those people who have no voice, and he has to represent the people who put him here.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with a great deal of interest to the many problems that have been related to the House by members from across Canada. When listening to the presentations, and the last one was so well stated by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), we realize just what the problems are and how little attention the Department of Transport and the powers-that-be sometimes give to them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The lack of attention paid to the problems across this land has been referred to over and over again today. I realize that there are many important implications in Bill C-7, but I intend to confine myself to the province of Ontario which I probably know best. The province contains approximately one-third of the people in the Dominion of Canada, and the particular area that I come from, Thunder Bay to Lake Ontario, within a 100-mile area of the city of Toronto, contains roughly half the population of the whole province, 3J million people. This is the most densely populated area of the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion province and from it comes one-third of the income tax collected by the federal government. This emphasizes the importance of the area and the density of the population.
Networks of railroads and highways proceed from it and fan out in various directions. In my area are railway lines and Highway 400 and Highway 27 which all go to the north from Toronto. In that area, Mr. Speaker, well over one million people travel to work every morning and night, most of them by motor car, some carrying one or two people and some four but all spewing out their poisonous gases as they travel along the highway.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is only a limited number of speakers left on the list, I wonder if we might not not see the clock and continue debate to dispose of second reading this evening. I wonder if the House would make an order to that effect.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, on November 21, I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Cadieux) if he could assure the House and the country that the proposed reductions in the reserve military forces of Canada would not be as severe as was first contemplated. While the minister's answer was reassuring, it nevertheless remains evident that up to that time at least strength of the reserve forces of Canada, presumably as an economy measure, there was contemplated a reduction in the I would hope and expect that the Department of National Defence and the minister would listen very carefully to men who have made a lifetime study of this problem and are conversant with it. In light of the fact that man for man reserve forces cost approximately only one-sixteenth as much as the equivalent strength of permanent military forces, I would hope that consideration to reduce the
December 2, 1969

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion reserve forces might be abandoned even at this time of strict economy.
When the regular forces are being reduced as an economy measure is the time, I believe, that the reserve forces should be maintained if not increased in strength. It is true that over the last number of years the "forces in being" concept has been very popular. I think it is recognized generally by all military experts that in this day and age of sophisticated military weapons, communications systems, and so on, it is necessary to have highly trained, professional, military people. Nevertheless, we should not go from that fact to the conclusion that reserve forces are now obsolete. There is still a very important place for the reserves.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
I believe the present strength of our military reserves is at an absolute minimum. The reserve forces are capable of providing trained personnel for the reinforcement of our regular forces and serve as a channel through which young men may, if they so decide, become professional soldiers and join our permanent forces. The reserve forces may also be instrumental in providing trained subunits to support our armed forces in times of emergency. Most important, our reserve forces are most important as instruments of aid to civilian authorities and may be used in times of national disaster or to maintain law and order when police forces alone cannot do so, especially when violence breaks out in our major cities. I think it is appropriate for us to consider the necessity of carrying out domestic peacekeeping when necessary and not to consider our peacekeeping role as being confined to places like the Middle East and Cyprus.
It is very important for us to remember that the reserve forces provide a much needed opportunity for our young men to serve our country. The man who gives of his time in this way is twice as good a citizen because of it. The reserve forces provide an outlet for the loyalties and energies of those who wish to be ready to serve their country in times of national emergency. Also, the reserve forces bridge the gap, now dangerously wide, between the professional soldier and the civilian. This gap has grown wider in the last few years.
Our reserve forces symbolize our history and the unselfish service that has been given to our country. They are the symbols of the determination of our fathers and grandfathers

to preserve our way of life. I think it would be especially sad if units like the 48th Highlanders and the Toronto Scottish, those militia units of excellence, were to be phased out.
Considering the current social pressures and widespread acts of violence on this continent which were touched on by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), a vigorous program to revitalize and restore local militia units across Canada should be embarked upon. This new militia program should seek to rehabilitate and strengthen our traditional local units wihich have historic claims on public support and respect. The program should include imaginative training which would have a special appeal to young men between the ages of 18 and 30, and should be similar to that now being undertaken in Australia. Reserve training for our young men would develop discipline and the concept of service to one's country, and would altogether help to develop in our young men the ability and desire to be better citizens.


Mr. D. W. Groos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 

Wednesday, December 3, 1969