1969-12-04

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to notice of motion No. 46 which appears on today's order paper under Private Members' Notices of Motions. I shall endeavour to be brief, Mr. Speaker.
To propose that a private member's notice of motion on a question of privilege should rank as a private member's notice of motion on the order paper is to accept two propositions which in my view must be repugnant to this House. The first proposition is that privilege can be divided into government questions of privilege and private members' questions of privilege. A member of the government front bench who raises a question of privilege by this method is to have an absolute priority by having his question considered as government business. On the other hand, a private member raising an identical question of privilege is to be given the priority, if it can be called that, of a private member. I find it disturbing that such thinking should exist.
It seems to me the second proposition is founded upon what would appear to be an amazing lack of knowledge and appreciation of the principles of privilege. Any question of privilege concerns the privilege of the members of the House collectively and not that alone of the member raising it. Questions of privilege cannot be divided into questions of privilege that affect members of the government and questions of privilege that affect "the others", and here, Mr. Speaker, I am speaking for the others.
Another principle of privilege is its urgency which compels the raising of it at the first opportunity. If a private member puts his question of privilege by way of notice of motion, knowing that he will be put on a list that precludes his question from coming up
for weeks or months ahead, he has in fact denied the urgency of his question and thereby proved that his question is not one of privilege. Again I find it disturbing to private members that such thinking should exist.
I could have raised this question of privilege yesterday, Mr. Speaker. I was aware, however, that another member intended to raise a question of privilege and that leave would be asked to put a motion under Standing Order 26. Rather than intrude further upon the business of the House, and because my question of privilege involved a continuing breach, I quite properly availed myself of the new method of proceeding by way of Standing Order 42. It would appear that because of the treatment my question of privilege has received it is obvious that no private member will so proceed again unless we have a ruling from Your Honour.
May I be permitted to say, Mr. Speaker, as the member of this House for St. John's East, that 1 consider myself one amongst equals and hence expect to be treated accordingly.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to make a ruling on this matter which I consider to be one of some urgency. I would hope that other hon. members would assist Your Honour in arriving at a ruling, not only the experts in the House but other hon. members as well who have some stake in this matter.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise not as one of the experts to whom the hon. member alluded but as one who has had the experience earlier this year of having his notice of motion put in a place where it should not be. Therefore I approach Your Honour with some experience in that regard.
One of the difficulties about this matter is the fundamental misapprehension about the time of this House. The feeling is held among a considerable number of members, particularly some of those ornaments on the front benches on the other side, that the time of this House belongs to the government. This is not so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: The time of this House belongs to the House. The House, as it sees fit,

December 4, 1969
Business of the House
gives part of that time to the government, as it should and must do, for the proper carrying out of government business. There is more than enough time for a government which is not sloppy and slovenly and which pays some attention to cultivating the good will of the House that is necessary if it is to get its business done in adequate time.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
Here we have a situation in which the House has provided time for dealing with those types of problems, such as questions of privilege and points of order, to which reference has been made by my hon. friend. This is time which the House has kept for this purpose. It is a residue of time still retained by the House to enable it to transact such business properly. I think that government members and others are under a misapprehension in this regard. Therefore I wish to call the matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker. Standing Order 17 reads as follows:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
The second part of the Standing Order reads:
Unless notice of motion has been given-
I call these words to Your Honour's attention.
-under Standing Order 42. any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
In my submission there are three ways in which a matter of privilege may come on the floor of the House during the time of sitting of the House. One is when it arises directly during the course of proceedings in the House. A member may then rise immediately-in fact, he must rise immediately-and bring it to Your Honour's attention. The second one is when privilege arises out of matters which take place outside the House or there is some specific reason why a member cannot bring it to the attention of the House when the House is transacting its business. An hon. member then has an opportunity to bring it up upon giving one hour's notice pursuant to the Standing Order I read. The third way is by giving a notice of motion under Standing Order 42.
We must assume that words put together mean something as they are contained in the Standing Orders. Otherwise, why would it be

said that "unless notice of motion has been given under Standing Order 42" a member may raise it in another way? In other words, there are three ways of doing it: when it comes about during the transaction of business, by giving an hour's notice to Your Honour, and by a notice of motion under Standing Order 42.
If I am correct in that, the matter is then of such signal importance that, as has been pointed out by the hon. member, it should not be relegated to the position of a private member's notice of motion. The two days' notice has been given to permit the House to become adequately acquainted with the matter and to permit Your Honour to examine the precedents and the facts so that you may decide at the proper time, not what disposi ion shall be made of the motion but whether or not a prime facie case has been raised. This is the opportunity that has been given to Your Honour by the two days' notice.
Therefore I suggest that under those conditions any hon. member has the right to make use of Standing Order 42 so that Your Honour may have the opportunity to decide if there is a prima facie case of privilege. If Your Honour gives effect to our proposal we will not have a full day's debate on Friday but only such debate as will or will not convince Your Honour that a prima facie case of privilege has been made.
May I conclude by referring Your Honour to May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, 1964, in which it is written at page 378, when dealing with matters of privilege:
A matter which is postponed to suit the convenience of the House or to secure the attendance of a Member implicated, or to give the Speaker an opportunity to consider it fully does not forfeit priority when eventually raised;
That precedent would be broken if Your Honour did not give effect to the request made by the hon. member today to ensure that this notice of motion is placed where it should be for consideration tomorrow morning.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no further contributions to the debate on the point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East I think I should assure the hon. member for St. John's East that I will take the first opportunity available today to give very serious thought to the point he has raised and which has been supported by the hon. member for Peace River.
December 4, 1969

I do not want to minimize in any way the importance of the procedural point he has raised, and since he filed the motion yesterday I have already spent a considerable amount of time looking into precedents and decisions which have been rendered in similar circumstances in the past because there is nothing particularly new about the procedure which is now proposed by the hon. member. I hesitate to use the word "attempted", but this procedure has been proposed previously in similar circumstances and decisions have been rendered by the Chair on such occasions. These are decisions that will have to be studied, particularly in view of the arguments advanced by the hon. member and his colleague, the hon. member for Peace River. I will be looking into the matter intently later today.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table copies in French and in English of a paper entitled "Income Security and Social Services", which the government wishes to submit for discussion at the Constitutional Conference to be held next week.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the indulgence of the House to consider a matter I want to raise pursuant to Standing Order 43, which reads as follows:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 42.
If I may have a moment to explain how pressing and urgent this matter is, before I ask for permission I would point out that it is something which should be on the conscience of every member of the House, which demands that we take immediate steps to correct a situation that was given some publicity

Mortality Rate Among Indians yesterday by the making public of a communication signed by G. Graham Cummings, Medical Liaison Officer, Medical Services Branch, for Dr. Wiebe, Acting Director General, Medical Services Branch, Department of National Health and Welfare, and dated October 20, 1969.
The communication was addressed to all regional directors, and the subject matter was "Changing Characteristics of Indian Mortality." If I may make two brief quotations from this stunning and shocking document, not to take them out of context but to give substance to what I claim is the pressing nature of this matter, perhaps they may convince the House that unanimous consent needs to be given. The first quotation relating to Indian mortality is:
(c) rising mortality In the third and fourth decades of life;
The second quotation is:
Indian infant mortality remains a matter of concern particularly in the provinces of British Columbia and the Yukon, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
The communication goes on to point out that an Indian woman of age 27 has less than one-fifth of the chance of an average Canadian of proceeding any farther through life, and an Indian man of the same age group has half the chance. Based on that brief explanation I would respectfully ask that the House give its consent for the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development to pursue this matter which is not contained within its current terms of reference. I therefore ask permission to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North:
That the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development be empowered to inquire forthwith into the matter of health facilities available to, and the conditions of health of, the native Indian people of Canada and to report its findings and recommendations with all speed and dispatch.
[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Skeena. He has addressed himself to the fact that this motion, before it can be put to the House, requires the unanimous consent of the House. I shall inquire now whether there is such unanimous consent on the part of hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 4, 1969

Mortality Rate Among Indians


Mr. Speaker:: There is not. The motion will not be put to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege and ask which unconscionable person objected?


Some hon. Members:: All of them.


An hon. Member:: The Prime Minister first.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As always.


Some hon. Members:: The just society.


Some hon. Members:: Just for Grits.


An hon. Member:: An insensitive society.


An hon. Member:: Handouts, pay-offs, just for Grits.



CIGARETTE POISON CONTENT CONTROL ACT


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellington-Grey) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-166, to control the tar content and nicotine level of cigarettes.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Marvin Howe: Mr. Speaker, in view of the information that comes to hand from time to time that there is a difference in the amount of deleterious material found in cigarettes, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the industry to be brought under the Food and Drug Directorate in order that the safest possible cigarette will be made available to the Canadian public. I would ask that this bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Services, in view of the fact that this committee at the present time is considering this question.


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

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena, to move the adjournment [Mr. Speaker.)
of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the catastrophic decline in the health standards of the native people of Canada as revealed yesterday in a. letter made public from the Department of National Health and Welfare, revealing that the native people's death rate has increased by 6 per cent for males over the past three years and 8 per cent for females, and the immediate and urgent need for the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to take immediate steps to deal with this crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North has given me the notice required under Standing Order 26 and I have had time to consider the matter very seriously. I can assure the hon. member in all honesty that this is a decision that is not easy to make. I have pondered the aspects of this situation. I have looked into all aspects of Standing Order 26 and have taken into account other considerations, wondering whether the business of the House scheduled for today should be set aside for the purpose of discussing the most important and serious matter raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North and which was referred to earlier today under the provisions of Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Skeena.
After due consideration I think I must rule with extreme reluctance that this is not the type of motion which can be put to the House at the present time. While there is no point in my going into all the subparagraphs of Standing Order 26 which specify under what circumstances a motion can be put to the House, I might refer the hon. member to Standing Order 26, subsection (5), which states:
In determining whether a matter should have urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker shall have regard ... to the probability of the matter being brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means.
I hope that by an agreement of some nature some way may be found by hon. members to bring this very urgent matter of national importance before the House for discussion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime
December 4, 1989	COMMONS
Minister or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development consider making a statement on motions tomorrow with regard to the report on the mortality rate of Indians? The report describes the increasing mortality rate among young adults as disastrous. In the course of making such statement will either the minister or the Prime Minister make particular reference to why this report allegedly was kept under wraps for some months? Will the Prime Minister or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development make such a statement on motions tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not looked into the matter so I am not prepared to make a statement, but the minister will be in the House tomorrow and he will be prepared to answer questions then. In the meantime the Leader of the Opposition may wish to ask questions of the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When was this important report made available to him by the director of health services? Also, was it then immediately brought to the attention of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the mortality rates among our Indian population have never been a matter of secrecy within the government or for anybody else who has wished to inquire. We have had analyses of these rates in various reports that have been available for several years to anybody who is interested. There is nothing of a secret nature about it. What is in issue today and what is concerning the Leader of the Opposition is that these statistics were analysed in an interdepartmental memorandum that went from the Acting Director General to his zone officers across the country. The press and the media quoted the memorandum of October 20 correctly. What followed from that was a further memorandum of November 25 from the Acting Director General to the regional directors, correcting a grave error in the earlier memorandum from which I believe the hon. member for Skeena quoted. The later memorandum makes it quite clear that there was an erroneous interpretation of these statistics.


Mr. Lewis:: Table it.
DEBATES	1583
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to table both memorandums if I may have unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carr Munro: Inasmuch as copies of these interdepartmental memorandums were sent to people outside the Public Service, there is no reason why they should not be tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has asked whether certain documents he has referred to can be tabled with the consent of the House. Has the minister this consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I still ask whether the Prime Minister will request the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make a statement on motions on this subject tomorrow? Also, will the Prime Minister consider a suggestion that was put forward, although in a slightly different form from mine, a few minutes ago and refer this report to the appropriate committee of the House for study and consideration? Will the Prime Minister lend his good offices to this move?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I just said, Mr. Speaker, I have not inquired into the matter. I will inquire into the matter and if such appears to be the right course I will do as the Leader of the Opposition suggests. In the meantime the Minister of National Health and Welfare is prepared to answer questions.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the disturbing aspects of this report, will the minister recommend to the cabinet a substantial increase in the budget for Indian health services?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to consider that course. I point out that over the last four or five years there has been approximately a 30 per cent increase in the total expenditures in this particular area. In further answer to the hon. member's question, I would like to point out that the five to one ratio quoted earlier was not correct. What the figures do show is that 3.8 Indian women in 1,000 die annually compared with 0.7 other Canadian women in 1,000.


Mr. Hees:: Canadian Women?


Some hon. Members:: Explain!
December 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


John Carr Munro: That is in the age group 25 to 29. The memorandum from which the hon. member for Skeena quoted did not point out that there has been a decrease in mortality among infant and school age Indian children. It is in this particular age group, 25 to 29, that we have experienced the great increase which is so disturbing.


David Orlikow: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact this report states that the rising mortality rate amongst adults is associated with suicide and violence and indicates serious social dissatisfaction, will the Prime Minister on behalf of the Treasury Board give favourable consideration to an increase in the funds available for working with this group of people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it necessarily follows that you prevent the suicide rate from increasing by providing more money from the Treasury Board.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I think it is safe to say that the high mortality rate amongst native people can be directly related to the lack of proper medical facilities, particularly the lack of doctors' services. I have had personal communication with the minister by way of letters. I want to know whether he is still objecting to the idea of a flying doctor to serve the isolated northern communities?


John Carr Munro: If I might reply, Mr. Speaker, the same report, the intradepartmental memorandum, shows that the Indian mortality rate is more favourable than the white mortality rate in some of the Maritime provinces. Maybe the hon. member could draw the same inference from that and say this is a serious reflection on the administrations of certain Maritime provinces, both present and past. All I would argue-


George Harris Hees: Name the provinces.


John Carr Munro: The Maritime provinces
generally.


George Harris Hees: Name the provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the minister and the hon. member who asked the question should not debate the matter. Some latitude is being exercised and will continue to be exercised in connection with such an important matter, but not in the form of a debate.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. When requesting the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to make a statement tomorrow on the suggestion that a committee should be set up, would he indicate the reasons why the government fears to have this matter investigated by a committee?


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I understand from an answer the minister gave earlier that the first memorandum was dated October 20 and the second memorandum was dated about the end of November-[DOT]


John Carr Munro: November 25.


David Lewis: November 25. May I ask the minister whether the second memorandum was sent by the director on instructions from those above him, including himself and the deputy of his department?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. Instructions were not given by anyone above him to send either of the memoranda. I talked to the Acting Director General today and he advised me that he noticed the error himself in his earlier memorandum. He sent it out. I learned that today.


David Lewis: The minister referred to an error. As I heard him read the alleged correction in the second memorandum, it still remains true that the ratio was roughly five to one, 2 point something as against .7. The ratio was still five to one except there was a reference to infant mortality. Will the minister tell the House and the people of Canada what the correction is supposed to be and whether the decrease in infant mortality offsets the increase in adult mortality?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. The decrease in infant mortality and mortality among school age children does not offset the increase in this particular group. That is what is pointed out in the second memorandum which has been tabled. What it does point out is that there are 381 deaths per 100,000 amongst Indian women compared with 69 deaths per 100,000 in the whole population. As anyone can see from comparing those figures, that is not five to one.


George Harris Hees: I would like to ask the minister if he would name the Maritime provinces in which he said the mortality rate was higher than among the Indian population?

December 4, 1969


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Why don't you look at the Canada Year Book?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would have thought the hon. member was aware of the provinces that make up the Maritimes. In the memorandum there is reference to the Maritimes mortality rate. In other words, it takes the totality of the mortality rate in the Maritime provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Does the right hon. member have a supplementary question?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: No, Mr. Speaker, it is a new matter.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to hon. members that we might return to this very important subject later in the question period. The hon. member for Shefford.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for Shefford.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question about children.
Can he tell us if, during the federal-provincial conference next week, the government intends to start a debate with the spokesmen of the provinces that want to take over the administration of the federal family allowances program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the only thing about children in this question is that I find it somewhat childish.



POSSIBLE BRITISH ENTRY INTO ECM-SAFEGUARDING OF CANADIAN INTERESTS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Apparently negotiations are now recommencing on the part of Great Britain for entry into the European Common Market. Have any representa-
21545-30*
Inquiries of the Ministry tions been made by the government of Canada or any departments thereof to the Wilson government to the effect that, while admitting that Britain and other members of the Commonwealth have the right to go their own way, no serious detrimental effects to other members of the Commonwealth should be condoned? With the admission of Great Britain to the European Common Market, will Canada, Australia and New Zealand be reasonably protected by assurance of the British government against a serious diminution in the amount of their exports of agricultural and other products to the United Kingdom?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, admitting that each of the two potential partners, the United Kingdom and the EEC has a right to go its own way, discussions have been held for a long time between Canada and the U.K. on this matter, especially since the latest application of the U.K. dated May, 1967. Detailed information has been given to the U.K. government on the effects the adoption of the common external tariff and the common agricultural policy of the ECM would have on Canadian trade with the United Kingdom. The British government has assured us of their readiness to keep us informed as developments occur in the present round of negotiations. We expect that the U.K. and the ECM, both important trading partners of Canada, will take Canada's interests into account. As a matter of fact, we hope that the entry of the U.K. will mark a further liberalization of EEC policies, especially with respect to agricultural products and non-tariff barriers.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister now answer the question whether or not the United Kingdom has given any assurance similar to the assurance given by the MacMillan government in 1960 and 1961 that if Great Britain entered the European Common Market Canada's wheat exports, as well as agricultural exports from other parts of the Commonwealth, would be, as far as possible, protected and assured before entry into the European Common Market would be acceptable to the United Kingdom?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That could be, in my view, a denial of the postulate accepted by the hon. member, which is the right of England to "go its own way." However, I would think that in their own interests, the U.K. would be mindful of our interests.
1586	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Further to the questions I asked of the Prime Minister on Monday and Wednesday on this subject, I had put it to the Prime Minister that this should be a matter of government policy and that a statement should come from the Prime Minister himself with regard to the matter, particularly since it has so much to do with Canadian agricultural products now. Is it the intention of the government to make a statement or declaration of policy on this subject to the House?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Without being pretentious about it, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had just done that.


George Harris Hees: It is not true that a summation of what the minister has said amounts to the fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would he and the officials of his department who have been dealing with the question of the mortality rate among the Indian people be prepared to appear before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development to explore this matter?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Frank Howard: As a prelude to that appearance, would the minister be prepared to table certain documents? He has now tabled two memorandums having to do with the subject. Would he be prepared to table in the House, or make available to the committee, the relevant documents and other information used in the preparation of the material he has so far made available?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Statistical analyses have been available for some time to the public and to the hon. member had he wanted them. As for the mortality statistics on which these memoranda were based, we expect they will also be published in the normal course, that is to say, within a week or ten days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

DEBATES	December 4, 1969


Paul Yewchuk: My ques-ion is also directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. About a year ago he indicated he felt medical services for the people in the north and isolated regions of Canada would be improved when medicare was instituted. Would he care to say that the service of doctors to the people in the north and in isolated places has in fact been improved?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I thought the hon. member had a further supplementary question to ask on the same subject. I suggested to hon. members a few moments ago that perhaps we ought to move on to another subject. However, the hon. member for Skeena might be allowed to ask a supplementary to his earlier question.


Frank Howard: My supplementary question has to do with the comment the minister made on the subject of documents. I was about to ask whether he was aware that we on this side follow these matters a great deal more closely than he does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You showed it today.


Frank Howard: You, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Read about it in the papers. Look at the Canada Year Book. It is there.


Frank Howard: What are you smiling about, Pierre?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest we go on to another subject.



IMMIGRATION


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he will take the first opportunity on motions to explain to the House, first, why the number of immigrants entering Canada fell by 10 per cent during the first nine months of the year and, second, why 25,000 fewer people came here from Europe than during the same period a year ago? Would he also explain what steps the government plans to take to restore the number of people coming to Canada each year to a level commensurate with the needs of this country?
December 4, 19G9

May I have an answer to my question? I asked the minister to take the first opportunity on motions to explain these things.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Annapolis Valley.



BROADCASTING


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I hate to take the stage away from the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but perhaps my hon. friend from Prince Edward-Hastings can go back to him later. I have a question for the Secretary of State. Does the decision of the CRTC against certain cablevision applications affecting towns and cities far from the United States border reflect a government plan to reduce the amount of United States cultural influence in our country?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member appears to be inviting the minister to make a statement which is very general in scope and in my view any such statement ought to be made on motions.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Very well, I will ask my supplementary. Would the minister be prepared to make a statement on motions concerning the interesting remarks of the president of the CRTC and, if so, would he in the meantime use his good offices with the president to stimulate the commission into taking action against existing cablevision stations in cities and towns close to the United States border-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's supplementary is in the form of a representation and he has to assume it has been noted by the minister.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, it cannot be noted until I have finished.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly inform the Chair of the nature of the point of order he wishes to raise?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The point of order is that 1 had not finished the question. I have been trying to get to the Secretary of State to ask several questions for a long time; he is only here about three times a week. Here is an important decision which affects Canadians not in the central parts of Canada but in parts of Canada which are isolated, parts in which hon. members opposite said they were
Inquiries of the Ministry interested at one time. I asked, with respect, whether the minister would consider the suggestion which Your Honour made to the effect that he might make a statement on motions concerning what was said by the president of the CRTC? Before doing so would he use his good offices in order that the president of the CRTC might take some action against cablevision stations which now receive United States programs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have heard the point of order. I am prepared to compromise with the hon. member and recognize that his first point is well taken-that he may ask the minister whether he would be prepared to make a statement on motions. However, I put it to him that the second part was a representation to the minister. The minister may wish to reply to that part of the question which is a question.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, all the more so since it seems that this CRTC decision which, just like everybody else, I did not have the time to study in detail, will arouse much interest in Canada and could very well justify eventually a statement on motions.


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: A supplementary question to the minister. Has he received protests from western Canada, Alberta, and particularly from Edmonton with regard to the arrogant decision of this body? Bearing in mind this decision of the CRTC, does this commission intend to dictate to the people of Canada which United States stations they are to look at? Is this another slap in the face for the west?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the CRTC in pursuing its policy of evident geographic discrimination has the approval of the government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see a number of hon. members who want to ask supplementary questions and I trust that-
December 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!	CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members should resume their seats. I will recognize hon. members on supplementary questions. I hope they will be questions and not speeches.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State whether he is prepared to review the decision of the president of the CRTC in respect of this matter?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission is an agency established by the Canadian parliament, vested with a high degree of autonomy, and quite rightly so. However, this does not mean that the Broadcasting Act precludes action being taken by the Governor in Council, or guidelines being given to the CRTC.
What I would ask hon. members opposite to take into consideration is-


An hon. Member:: He is behind you.


Gérard Pelletier: That one too if you like, yes. But I believe the others are more inclined to do so, and that would be to carefully go into the decision and the supporting whys and wherefores submitted by the CRTC before passing jugdment. At any rate, that is my own policy.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this further supplementary to the Prime Minister. First I should like to congratulate him on his great kick-off at the Grey Cup game. Second, I should like him to kick off this question. In view of the CRTC decision, is he allowing this arrogant body to dictate policies to his government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and is directed to the Secretary of State. Will he inquire of the CRTC to ascertain whether its latest decision will further delay access to second channel service in many parts of western Canada?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I could put the question to the CRTC.



ACCIDENT CAUSED BY SPILLING OF SULPHURIC ACID FROM TOY CAR

['Mr. Speaker, I will have to refer the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.']
Gérard Pelletier: Since I have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer a question addressed to me the other day by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, concerning a C.B.C. producer allegedly fired following an unaired program. I simply wish to relay to the hon. member the answer which I received from the C.B.C., namely that because the matter is being discussed at this moment between the legal adviser of the C.B.C. and that of the producer, and that the Corporation is threatened with court action, any particular on that situation could jeopardize seriously the successful outcome of those discussions.



Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In light of conflicting reports on Canada's attitude to the proposed European security conference, will he disclose to the House whether the Canadian government will, at the NATO council meeting, encourage or discourage such a conference which might lead to the dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pact and a reduction in the balance of forces in Europe?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to refer the question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he tell us whether he has taken into consideration the representations made to him by the city of Sherbrooke and by the Eastern Townships industrial committee, to the effect that Sherbrooke and the surrounding area should be considered a designated area?


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that this question should normally be put on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment. If there is any urgency,
December 4, 1969

which is not at all obvious to me, the minister may reply to the question.


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I have met the mayor of Sherbrooke, Mr. Speaker, I have taken this matter into consideration.



HOUSING


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of housing. In view of the very serious drop in housing starts during the month of November to the seasonally adjusted rate of 179,000 housing units, and the growing concern that this may extend well into the future and destroy any chance of meeting housing needs, can the minister tell the House whether any new initiatives are being taken and whether it is the intention of the government to increase the funds available to help meet this need?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the latest evidence indicates that we will hit in excess of 200,000 housing starts this year. All options open to the government are being examined with regard to the fulfilment of the statement in the Throne Speech, to wit, the achievement of one million housing starts in the next five years with special emphasis on low income housing.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, are we to assume from what the minister has said that the government does not propose to take any special measures to offset the very clear recession in housing starts which has settled in and is causing such concern to the home building industry and Canadians looking for homes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest the question as asked is argumentative.



DON VALE URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, TORONTO-DISCUSSIONS WITH CITY-SUPPORT FOR PROGRAM

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the apparent deadline of December 31, 1969 which will affect the Don Vale urban renewal project in the city of Toronto, can the minister state whether he has had any discussions with the city of
Inquiries of the Ministry Toronto and whether the government is prepared to enter into an agreement to support that urban renewal program prior to December 31, 1969?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, when I met with residents representing the Don Vale urban renewal committee I made it quite clear that it was most unlikely we would be able to have legislation available because it would require the setting up of rehabilitation grants and loans inherent in their proposal. I made it quite clear to them, regretfully, that that was the situation and that this was unlikely to take place before December 31, 1969.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the minister's statement made in Vancouver I am wondering whether those cities which received the last urban renewal grants can expect a Christmas present from the government prior to Christmas in order that they may pursue the urban renewal programs they have already started?


Robert Knight Andras: As I indicated in answer to several questions asked by hon. members in the House earlier, I will be making a statement regarding urban renewal before the Christmas recess I think.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly, the minister indicated to the House that he was going to make a statement in respect of guidelines for urban renewal and public housing. My question is, if the minister will allow me to put it to him, does the government intend to allow the several municipalities which have started urban renewal projects to further them by giving them a Christmas present of further grants prior to Christmas?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is obviously a repetition of the question the hon. member originally raised.



EFFECT OF CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio how he can reconcile the fact of severe high unemployment in the construction industry with his hopes to complete the amount of housing necessary this year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is argumentative.
December 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry
TRADE	INDIAN AFFAIRS



WHEAT-DISCUSSIONS WITH U.S.S.R.

Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. Is the Canadian Wheat Board presently carrying on discussions with the U.S.S.R. and, if so, where are these talks being held?


Hon. Otlo E. Lang (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I will not discuss negotiations of this sort but I am willing to report to the House that the Chief Commissioner and the Assistant Commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board are at present in Moscow.



OILSEEDS-FILLING OF EXPORT COMMITMENTS

Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary or related question for the Minister without Portfolio from Saskatchewan. In view of the interest shown by some of Canada's customer countries in our oilseed stocks, can he assure this House and the country that there is an adequate stock of these seeds in forward positions to fill all current export commitments in respect of these grains?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that this is so but I will certainly check again to see whether there have been any recent indications of demands which could exceed amounts available. I will try to assure that appropriate stocks are in position.



REMOVAL FROM COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP OF MEMBER SITTING AS INDEPENDENT

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. I should like to say first of all that this is a most delicate question and one which I find difficult to put into words. May I ask the Prime Minister, as Prime Minister of Canada and leader of the Liberal Party which form the government, if it is his view that one who has experience and knowledge should be removed from a committee or from a position of responsibility on that committee because he has changed his allegiance and sits as an independent?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for
Churchill.



MORTALITY RATE-POLICY RESPECTING HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Roberi Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the very disturbing revelations contained in the report on the high mortality rate among our Indian people, will the minister use his good offices to implore his cabinet colleagues to reconsider the present policy of shelving plans for the hospitals which were to have been constructed adjacent to or in these Indian communities?


John Carr Munro: I am not aware of any such policy, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I have faith in you to judge whether our questions are childish or not. In fact, it is not up to the Prime Minister to rule on the merits of a question, especially in an arrogant manner.
As the Minister of Finance stated yesterday that the interest rate was too high in Canada, has the Prime Minister any suggestions to offer for the purpose of reducing it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, if we succeed in stopping inflation.



POTASH-CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SASKATCHEWAN REGULATIONS

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of reports purporting to give the federal government's view of the recently announced Saskatchewan potash regulations, is the minister now able to inform the House of the government's view on the constitutionality of these regulations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Comments were made by the press saying that this government was in agreement with the regulations recently announced by the government of Saskatchewan. I want to say that these views referred
December 4, 1969

to a previous understanding. Now that the government of Saskatchewan has seen fit to include disposal licences in its regulations and has also announced a ministerial order in respect of minimum prices, the constitutionality generally of these regulations is now under further examination.
I might add for information that the regulations will not be effective until January 1, and that discussions about the regulations which have been held with the government of Saskatchewan at both ministerial and official levels in the recent past will continue after a public hearing which is to be held on December 8 in Regina by Saskatchewan officials.


John Stratford Burton: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the government of Saskatchewan asked for federal action or joint federal-provincial action to establish a potash export board, and have there been discussions between the government of Saskatchewan and the government of Canada on this matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: As I indicated a few days ago, this might be one way of going at it. I am not aware of formal discussion between the governments at Regina and Ottawa on that particular method.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address this question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he received any complaints, written or otherwise, regarding the very careless manner in which the extremely confidential files on communicable diseases are handled which permits the possibility of the information being leaked with disastrous results and serious consequences to the victim?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would that be in my department or in DBS?


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I want to tell the minister that this matter comes under his department, since it is handled by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics. Perhaps the minister would be good enough to look into this question and bring forward a reply tomorrow. If so, I would be satisfied.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon.
member has asked a question and the minister has given a form of reply. We are just about out of time. I was hoping two or three other members might be given an opportunity to ask questions.


Philip Bernard Rynard: I will just take a minute to ask the minister if he will confer with the Prime Minister on his well known dictum that the government has no business snooping in the bedrooms of the nation.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Max Sallsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It concerns a serious and immediate problem facing Canadian machinery manufacturers and arises from their exclusion from bidding on Canadian projects financed by foreign countries which require that that equipment be purchased exclusively from the country supplying the financing. Can the minister tell the House whether his department is taking action to counteract these discriminatory practices against Canadian manufacturers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: When a project is receiving federal government assistance we do everything possible to ensure that Canadian manufacturers are given an opportunity to bid. For example, it was suggested-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister that perhaps his reply might be continued on another occasion. We have just about reached the end of the question period. I interrupted the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster who had been recognized previously. I suggest he should be given an opportunity to ask his question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



CORPORATIONS ACT


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I have a very important question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister indicate whether any civil servants within his department have been required to prepare or assist in the preparation of the "fact sheets",
December 4, 1969

Inquiries of the Ministry in respect of Bill C-4, to amend the Corporations Act, which were distributed exclusively to members of the Liberal caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I would have to examine that situation, Mr. Speaker. My officials did prepare a group of papers for delivery to the provincial officers who are meeting here in Ottawa today and who met here yesterday on Bill C-4. In respect of what other information was available, I would have to check that.


Thomas Miller Bell: Would the minister check to see whether any members of the Liberal caucus received copies which could have been made available to all members of the House of Commons.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It would be delightful if the hon. member would cross the floor to keep informed. We in this government endeavour to keep members of our caucus informed of what the government is doing.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret very much to advise hon. members that the time for the question period expired some minutes ago. I must apologize to hon. members who were not recognized today.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order or a point of privilege whichever Your Honour wishes to call it. I respectfully suggest that the statement of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was unworthy. It is one thing, Mr. Speaker, for the apparatus of any party in this House to supply members of the caucus with information to reduce the ignorance on that side of the House. But it is an entirely different thing for public officials, paid from the public treasury, to be used to service the members of only one party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings rising on a further point of order?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was interrupted earlier. I should like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Waterloo is rising on a point of order I trust it will be a legitimate point of order.


Max Saltsman: I asked a question of considerable importance to my area before the question period had expired. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether you would permit the minister to reply to that question.


Mr. Speaker:: There would have to be unanimous agreement because the question period expired five minutes ago. I suggest to hon. members that I tried to exercise an extraordinary degree of fairness in allowing questions beyond the time allotted so as to give hon. members the opportunity to ask their questions. Since the question period expired five minutes ago, I believe we should go on to the business before the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, December 3, 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 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 Railways 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, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Peters (page 1578).
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment last night I presented a motion for a six month delay of this bill. I did so for a very specific reason. I am confused, as I am sure most Canadians are by the financing of the Canadian National Railways. Surely this is also true of some members of the cabinet and of other government members because, on looking at the financial statement of the CNR we find that their debt is just as great today as the day that railway was formed. We are paying only a token interest on the debt. Year after
December 4, 1969

year, the CNR comes to Parliament asking for a refinancing of the debt. The money they receive is not for capitalization but to maintain the status quo. I am sure that now is a good time to find out exactly what our transportation system is doing and what the role of CNR is in the country. I am sure that the various departments which are trying to assist areas of Canada, other than major urban areas, will be interested to discover what the railways can do, and what is the cost of operating them.
If we look at the profits made by U.S. railroads, by railroads in Europe and railroads throughout the entire world, we find that they are notoriously low. In the case of the CNR, we find that they are able to make a profit of $41 million, in spite of which they end up with a $29 million deficit simply because they are paying off a long term debt, the interest on which is $70 million.
I suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) should stop trying to fool the people. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that he is fooling the people because I do not think he intends to do it. However, he is too damn lazy to clean up a mess that has been in existence for 40 to 50 years. All he has to do is to transfer the long term debt of the CNR to our national debt. This will enable us to judge the financial situation of the CNR in the proper way. It seems to me that no one is able to understand exactly how the CNR is financed. Even a Philadelphia lawyer would be hard pressed to understand it. However, were the Minister of Finance to transfer the CNR debt to the National debt, the payments would continue to be exactly the same but the debt would be owed by Canadians for a railway which they bought half a century ago. The CNR would then pay off only debts for things that happened yesterday on the Prince Albert line or on the CNR line at Cochrane. The CNR would not be able to attribute such losses to almost anything, including the inefficient operation of the railways.
Let us be honest with ourselves and let us be honest with the management of the CNR. Let us start operating the CNR on a year to year basis. I am not opposed to the CNR coming to the government asking them to finance the Great Slave Railway or asking them for money for an extension to a railway in Ungava or the Maritimes. I am not opposed to the railway asking for capitalization, because obviously they will have to justify their request before Parliament. But how can Parliament justify to the Canadian people the
DEBATES	1593
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada payment of $70 million in interest on a debt that I am sure no one living in Canada today remembers being incurred?
The CNR debt grows every year. Next year it will amount to $2 billion, and the year after to $2 billion 200 million. It will continue to grow, and as it grows the interest on the debt will continue to increase. Every year, the CNR will come back to Parliament asking for a refinancing.
I listened very carefully to the speech made by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) the other day. I agree entirely with what he said about the operation of the railway as he said I would. But I think he and other western members would be less than fair-and the same would be true of everybody in the Maritimes-if they did not support my motion to kill the financing bill so that the government will be forced to come to parliament with a realistic and honest proposal.
My colleague here mentions that we should do something about the pensions as well. I suggest that those members who are interested in the pensions of CNR employees should know that the government will not be able to do anything about that so long as the railway faces the Canadian public with a $29 million debt, even though it makes a yearly profit of $41 million. So long as that debt, along with the interest of $70 million a year, remains on the books of the CNR, I am sure the pensioners will suffer, as will the passengers and everyone else who uses that railway.
There are people here who are knowledgeable about finance, a field in which I am not too smart. However, I am knowledgeable enough about it to know that it is cheaper to carry that debt as part of our national debt than it is to carry it as a debt to be paid off by the CNR. I am sure I am smart enough to know that if the CNR is only covering normal deficits and normal capitalization loans, that is if it is only carrying its current debt, it will be easier to judge whether or not the CNR passenger service is a paying proposition.
I have heard some members say that this situation will allow the CNR and, more important, the CPR to use the debt as an excuse for obtaining subsidies in various fields and for justifying the need for them. At the same time, I suggest that we should not undertake a long term financing of Air Canada in the same manner. We should set up a better system for financing the great expansion of Air Canada, and the increased number of feeder lines and carriers on its
December 4, 1969
1594	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada transcontinental service. The money used for this purpose should not be thrown into the same kettle and mixed up with the $2 billion debt which has been accumulating ever since we bought the Grand Trunk railway over half a century ago.
I suggest that any member who does not support this motion to force the government into making a commitment that they will reduce the CNR debt to a manageable level by transferring it to the national debt, is dishonest because he will not be contributing to the creation of a situation which will allow the government to take an honest look at the CNR passenger service and decide whether or not it is making money. The CNR is reaching a stage where its debt will equal our gross national product. We do not know of anyone who would want to buy the CNR for $2 billion. We should do the same as any other business, that is, re-arrange the financing in such a way that we can get a true picture of the company without this debt.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
All the members of this House who say they are interested in the CNR, interested in establishing transport costs for every area of Canada, should take an honest look at this suggestion. We have tried to make a fight on several occasions on the question of the CNR debt. I do not see any good reason for carrying the debt in this way. In fact, I see many disadvantages to it.
The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gray), who is piloting this legislation through the House, should be able to tell us what will be done about this problem in the very near future so that we will not be faced with it every year. To give him time to do this, I think members would be justified in giving the bill a six months' hoist. The government would then have time to consider other methods of financing the CNR, and transferring its $2 billion debt to the national debt.
The CNR can never repay this debt, and we as taxpayers face a heavy burden trying to meet even the interest on the debt.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, normally I do not find myself in the position of being able to support a motion proposed by the N.D.P. However, on this occasion I feel compelled to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), but my reason for doing so is entirely different from his, although there was a great deal of common sense in what he said. In fact many of his 

words last night and today would lead me to believe that at heart he is a free enterpriser. He does not believe in monopolies, as some members of the N.D.P. seem to do. In fact, a suggestion he made last night would lead me to believe he is possibly inclined to Social Credit ideas with regard to the bonds already issued by the Canadian National Railways.
The hon. member's argument made sense in view of the fact that recently this Parliament wrote off the deficit incurred by Expo 1967. The government proposed that that deficit be cancelled. The hon. member is proposing that the same be done with the Canadian National debt. The CNR should be able to come before parliament with its annual report and let us know that it has made a $41 million profit-if it is a profit-or has incurred a $29 million deficit. This should be shown in such a way that we would know it was a deficit. The people of Canada are quite prepared to pay a deficit of that kind for the service the railway is giving. On that basis, I would support the hon. member's amendment.
As responsible members of this House can we afford to delay this bill for six months? In answer, I point out that the bill covers the period from January 1, 1969, to June 30, 1970, so a six month's hoist will not make any difference. In fact, I think the hon. member should have proposed a longer period than six months, because actually the bill gives the government a blank cheque for any deficit that Air Canada or the CNR wants to incur.
As members of Parliament, we should be able to discover how a deficit of $29 million was incurred. We have faith in the directors of the Canadian National Railways, but we should know on what particular items the deficit was incurred. Actually, as I see it, the bill is misleading, and I will return to that point in a few moments.
What prompted me to speak on Bill C-7 was an article which appeared in my local newspaper, the Swift Current Sun, of November 28. The headline is very alarming, and reads "Prospects of Western Separation Increasing". The reference is to a speech made by the Liberal Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, and 1 quote:
Premier Ross Thatcher said today Ottawa's proposed tax reforms and increases in freight rates for potash and pulp are contributing to a growing awareness of the prospect of western separation.
This is the second time within ten days that I have mentioned western separation in the House of Commons. On November 24, when speaking on the Customs Tariff, I mentioned that there is a movement afoot in western
December 4, 1969

Canada to form the western provinces into a free trading area because customs tariffs are detrimental to the economy of western Canada. This feeling has been evident for years. With the present lack of cash in western Canada it is now more evident than ever, and that is due to the inability of the federal government to sell western Canadian products on world markets. Here I am not talking only of agricultural products. I am talking of minerals such as potash, and of oil and gas.
I am glad to see that the minister who is piloting this bill is in attendance in the chamber, because we need some answers from him. A colleague of mine suggests that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) should also be here to listen to the pleas being made, and being made not only by members of the opposition. The hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) and the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) mentioned complaints similar to ours. I suggest that they should support this NDP amendment on the grounds of the arguments that they made on behalf of their constituents.
The title of the bill refers to the "capital expenditures" of the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. I suppose the minister will tell me that the title does not mean anything, and that what we must look at is the Governor General's recommendation. I quote from the last few lines of the recommendation:
-to authorize Her Majesty to make loans to the Canadian National Railway Company and Air Canada to meet deficiencies in operating revenues to June 30, 1970, any such loans to be repaid from revenues of the railway company and Air Canada or, if revenues prove insufficient, by subsequent deficit appropriation by Parliament.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
In other words, this is an operating loss for which we are giving this blank cheque. Let us look at what the minister said. I was hoping that in his opening remarks I would find some explanation, so I went back to page 802 of Hansard for November 13, 1969 where, referring to this operating deficit for the fifth time, he said:
As in previous years the bill would provide authority for the government to make temporary loans to Canadian National Railways and Air Canada to meet deficiencies in operating revenues up to June 30, 1970. Any such loan is repaid later from revenues of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada or, if these prove insufficient, the loans are written off through parliamentary appropriation.
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
Here he repeated, Mr. Speaker, almost word for word what is contained in the Governor-General's recommendation. When this bill goes to the committee I think there should be an investigation of what the deficit will be. It is not good business, in any circumstances, to pass around blank cheques. I am not denying the fact that there could be a deficit and, indeed, I suppose most Canadians expect the CNR to show a deficit because they do want the service it renders. But to me, this is one of the reasons why the bill should be "hoisted", as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said. There should be a more thorough explanation given as to why business is done in this manner. Perhaps the minister could say that this is the way it has been done for the past 20 years, but if it is wrong that is no excuse for not correcting it.
Another thing that concerns me about this bill, Mr. Speaker, is a recommendation contained about halfway down page 3 which reads:
-to borrow either from Her Majesty or by means of issues of securities guaranteed by Her Majesty an amount not exceeding $19 million for construction of branch lines;
Now, the very mention of branch lines is abhorrent to a westerner, Mr. Speaker. For the past few years railway companies have been abandoning branch lines in Western Canada. I can imagine what the people in my constituency would have to say about that appropriation of $19 million for branch lines which, in their own area, are being abandoned. The arguments used by the railways in support of their decision to abandon those lines should be as feasible now as they were then. One of the reasons given was the improvement in the roads.
I am sorry that the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang) is not here because I understand that in a speech the other day he said many more country elevators would be abandoned. This puts a greater charge on the farmers of western Canada because it is more expensive to haul wheat from the rural areas to the main line of any railroad. The reason these railroads have these main lines, Mr. Speaker, is that they have a monopoly.
Last night a member hinted that there is collusion between the CNR and the CPR with regard to freight rates. Maybe the CPR is smart enough to get the CNR to make these proposals for an increase in the freight rates and then ask for the same thing! But when any company has a monopoly certainly it can
December 4, 1969
1596	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada dictate terms, and this is what is happening here.
When seeking an answer for my constituents with regard to this $19 million I managed to get a copy of the budget papers of the Canadian National Railways. On page 4 there is the heading, Canadian National Railways -'Capital Budget, Year 1969-Branch Lines Construction. Construction of new branch lines was authorized for the Windfall Extension, Amesdale-Bruce Lake and Stall Lake-Osborne Lake. I do not remember the expenditures for these three branch lines coming before the House, but perhaps they did. The budget shows the cost as $11,610,000. why does the minister then ask for $19 million? Why does he want the cushion of an additional $7i million? That is what I cannot understand. Even if he includes the Roberts Bank spur and the Nanticoke spur which amount to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5 million, that still leaves him $2 million in hand.
To return to the minister's speech of November 13-and 1 do not know whether he read Hansard or not-the last half of the paragraph referring to branch lines does not make much sense. However, I shall read it for what it is worth:
Second, the bill contains a provision authorizing the Canadian National Railways to borrow $19 million for financing all branch line construction. Up till recently each special statute for construction of a branch line has included authority for financing its construction and branch lines not requiring special legislation have been financed out of self-generated funds.
I should like to ask the minister what is meant by "self-generated funds"? Is it this the cushion of $7J million which he is asking us for now? This is the part I could not understand:
In addition to covering all branch lines the provision in the resolution and the bill based upon it are consistent with the intent of reflecting in the financing and guarantee bill all the financing authorities which the Canadian National Railways require.
Now, to me, there is no sense in that statement or statements, whichever it is. I do not know whether it is the punctuation or whether a line has been left out but it is not a satisfactory answer to the House of Commons, and is another reason why I suggested that all western members should support this particular amendment to the bill.
I should like to refer for a moment Mr. Speaker, to a couple of points brought up by the Premier of Saskatchewan. Although a Liberal, I think his attitude is very sound in this regard and I should like to put part of his

not to hamper the development of resources in western Canada, resources like oil, gas and potash; in particular, we ask the government to show our agricultural industry the same consideration it is showing to the Crown corporation we are considering. Certainly, we say that Air Canada and the CNR must be kept operating. But they will not continue operating if we do not look after our agricultural industry. I am on my feet today partly because I am pleading for that industry.
For the information of the House perhaps I should read some more of the article I just quoted, because it deals with the serious concern of people of western Canada about what is happening. I hope the government notices the warning signs which indicate what the people of western Canada are thinking. They are thinking about separation, and they are not fooling as the province of Quebec may be. Some contend that feasibility studies have proved that western Canada would be better off today if it were not part of the rest of Canada. I am not saying we want that to come about, but that is what could happen if this government sits on its haunches, as it has been, and pays no attention to western Canada. There is a strong movement towards separation, and it may happen. Even the government's supporter in western Canada, the Liberal Premier of Saskatchewan, has warned the government that if it takes no action to offset this trend, it will prove disastrous.
The Premier went on to say:
*-it will reduce incentives to mining and oil industries when they are beginning to develop in Saskatchewan.
Canada's national railways were contributing to disunity by refusing to give the prairies freight rates competitive with the rest of the country-
While the province's potash industry was fighting for survival the railways not only refused to lower potash freight rates to Vancouver, but raised them six per cent.
The freight rate increase would not be possible unless the commission had authorized it. Surely the government could have stepped in and said, "There will not be any increase. We have an austerity program and have asked farmers to tighten their belts. We will ask all others to tighten their belts." Surely, the austerity program is not designed to benefit Ontario and Quebec alone. It should be of benefit to all Canada. The government ought to practise what it preaches in this respect.
Having listened to the minister and read the bill, I still do not know what this $200 million expenditure is all about. If it is a
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada capital expenditure, maybe we should give it further consideration and ask whether, in view of the unsettled state of our economy, we could do without it. We should not spend money unnecessarily at this time because we, in western Canada, are forced to curtail our expenditures. I talk as a businessman and farmer. We cannot derive adequate revenue from our products and the government appears to be making no effort to dispose of them at prices prevailing in the world. In fact, one of my constituents the other day said he was annoyed because Ontario and Quebec seem to enjoy a monopoly control over our wheat delivery system. He suggested that we could build terminal elevators in Newfoundland.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) McIntosh: We could ship our grain to Churchill at lower cost, and from there take it over to terminals in Newfoundland for export. We would then avoid the bottleneck that we experience at present at the lake-head. Also, I suggest that course would enable us to sell our wheat at lower prices on the world market so our farmers would have a better chance to make a profit on it. This suggestion is merely one of many coming forward from westerners now.
The newspaper article dealing with Premier Thatcher's statement reads:
The premier invited Prime Minister Trudeau to examine western Canada's freight rate structure 'with the same attention it has given the Quebec question.'
Mr. Thatcher said the attitudes taken by the Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways 'make us wonder if the CPR and CNR are simply two more companies dominated by eastern Canada which are impervious to the interests of the west.'
'It is a well-known fact that the CPR holds mineral rights on hundreds of thousands of acres of Saskatchewan land. Perhaps consideration should be given to ending their relatively free ride in this field.'
Although I do not agree too often with Liberals, I agree with the Premier's statement. The western viewpoint on this question should be considered. I should like to deal with it at greater length but time does not permit.
I should like to put on record an editorial that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on November 12, outlining very well the western position on this matter. It is entitled, "CPR's Obligation". I have already shown the relationship between the CPR and the CNR. I believe the CPR, on various occasions, has used the CNR in order to better its position in
December 4, 1969
1598	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada relation to the abandonment of rail lines as well as to the obtaining of increased freight rates. It is amusing for a westerner to listen to eastern members talking about problems created by the CNR in many eastern constituencies. For years we in the west have faced such problems, and we know all the tricks the CPR has indulged in to downgrade passenger service and freight service in some areas. Actually, in one community in my constituency the CPR took the telephone out of the railroad station, so that people could not telephone to And out when the freight would arrive. When the railway wants to abandon a service it does things like this, and then goes before the Transport Commission saying, "There is no need for service". The Commission apparently swallows that story. Apparently, it does not examine the question of the public's interest. In the field of transportation perhaps I am a socialist. I believe that the people of Canada are prepared to pay any deficit that is necessary to satisfy the public interest in this field. Transport is as important as our postal service. It is essential and we must maintain it, even if in so doing it costs us money.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This article reads:
-and in many cases have been granted it-to discontinue service on unprofitable branch lines.
I doubt whether they are unprofitable, Mr. Speaker.
Where they have been required to continue the service at a financial loss, they have been recompensed through subsidies: and after 1975 such subsidies will be tied directly to any losses suffered on services that are being maintained as a necessary public service.
But it is one thing to abandon unprofitable branch lines; it is quite another thing to give up all passenger service across the nation. And the CPR must know that its request will not, and should not, be granted, for a number of reasons.
I can also include the Canadian National Railways in that statement, Mr. Speaker.
One is that train passenger service in some areas is the only satisfactory way of getting people from one place to another. It is true that buses, airlines and trucking companies have taken much business away from the railways in recent years.
This again, Mr. Speaker, does not paint the true picture because who now operates those bus and truck lines? Any line that is profitable has been purchased by the railway companies. I think in western Canada we see more CP trucks than those of any other trucking firm in the area. The CPR knows it is cheaper to transport a short distance in this manner.


They also have airlines in their set-up. It is much cheaper to transport people by air than by rail. As the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) said last night, this railway company also has shares in the bus companies. They are bound to win! What we, as members of Parliament are forgetting is that we must see that the public interest is served. I do not think we are doing it by blindly passing a bill such as the one before us without more explanation. I continue quoting:
None the less, in some areas, rail passenger service remains a highly important service. Transcontinental service, on which the CPR claims to have lost nearly $20 million last year on its trains between Montreal-Toronto and Vancouver, is a case in point.
The hon. member for Edmonton Centre pointed out yesterday that anyone who reads such a statement by the CPR, and who has made efforts to get reservations on these trains will be hard pressed to believe such a statement. On many occasions prior to the first attempt to abandon passenger service on Canadian transcontinental trains, I was unable to make a definite commitment as to my time of arrival at a certain destination because I was not sure that I could get reservations. Even an hour before I departed, I was not sure if I had a reservation on the train. There was something wrong. The lack of service was either deliberate or a revision of the reservation system was needed. Computers could be used. The railways say they are losing money because of low freight rates. How do they arrive at that conclusion if they are not good with figures? This was a subterfuge because the railways were leading up to the suggestion that has already been put forward to abandon passenger service. I continue quoting:
None the less, in some areas, rail passenger service remains a highly important service. Transcontinental service, on which the CPR claims to have lost nearly $20 million last year on its trains between Montreal-Toronto and Vancouver, is a case in point. These trains, at least in summer, are well patronized-as anyone who has travelled on them will agree. They provide service between major cities and towns-the only service in many cases other than aircraft and buses. But many people find a long bus trip too exhausting. Many people, even in this enlightened day and age are reluctant to fly.
There is quite a large group in that category, Mr. Speaker.
These are strong reasons in themselves for the continuation of transcontinental train service.
December 4, 1969	COMMONS
I agree with that, Mr. Speaker. However, I think the situation in western Canada is well summed up in the last paragraph.
There is another factor to be considered-the historical. By an Act passed in the Canadian Parliament in 1881, the Canadian Pacific company was given substantial concessions in return for building a line to the West Coast. These included subsidies totalling $25 million cash-a much larger sum in those days than it is now-
That, we well know.
-and a grant of 25 million acres of land. Out of these concessions, and because of them, the CPR expanded into areas far removed from rail service -hotels, mining and smelting, an airline-which have been highly profitable.
In return for these concessions the CPR agreed to build the railway and operate it "thereafter and forever." This means that the CPR cannot expect to duck out of some of its commitment now, simply because one aspect is now unprofitable. There may be a case for subsidies for unprofitable services- this is a matter for the transport commission's wisdom. But clearly the railway has an obligation to the country to carry on its services in return for concessions given. One cannot be withdrawn, in fairness without the other also being taken back.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the proposal made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) that we take this debt off the books of the CNR can be done because it was done in the case of Expo. If the representatives of the CNR were to appear before a committee of Parliament, as they usually do, and explain whether they are able to make a profit or must create a deficit at the rates they are charging, I think hon. members would be in a much better position to decide whether the rates in Canada are too high or too low. If their profit is too great, it is our responsibility to cut freight and passenger rates so that the people of Canada can afford to travel in that manner.
The way the situation is developing in Canada, Mr. Speaker, I daresay before very long there will be very few people in western Canada who will be able to travel by air. Instead, they will have to get a cheap bus ticket or sit up all night on the train whenever they must travel from one point in Canada to another.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances this would be a rather routine bill which, according to its title, asks this House to provide for certain capital expenditures for Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. But as my colleague for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) and others have pointed out, the title of this bill is thoroughly misleading because it also provides for this
DEBATES	1599
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada House to authorize the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to make loans to both Canadian National Railways and Air Canada to meet obligations as they fall due; in other words, to make loans to these two Crown corporations to meet potential operating deficits.
It is on that basis I find myself participating in this debate. The bill stands in the name of the Minister of Finance. Normally, I would reply to matters raised by the Minister of Finance, but this essentially is a transportation matter. It is for that reason members on this side of the House who are primarily interested in matters of transportation have led the debate. I have been in this House a number of years, Mr. Speaker. The wheel seems to have gone around one whole revolution. I recall in the years 1958 and 1959 the CNR was in serious trouble with its passenger service. I have here results of discussions I had with the late president, Donald Gordon. He admitted they were in trouble because they were doing a lousy job on their passenger service.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
On the other hand, the Canadian Pacific did seem to be doing a good job. They welcomed people aboard their trains. At the present date, I must say, the reverse applies. I do not know what it was that led the management of the Canadian National in 1959, 1960 and 1961 to take another look at its stand with regard to passenger service. But it accomplished veritable miracles, not only as to the number of people carried. All one had to do was contemplate the morale of personnel connected with passenger service. In the years 1957, 1958 and 1959 there was scarcely an employee of the CN who was proud to work for the company. But after the changes which were brought about in railway passenger services through a number of measures there was a complete reversal of attitude on the part of the company's personnel. They were proud to work for the CN and it was, frankly, a pleasure to travel CNR.
The results of this change were apparent. In Edmonton, during the summer, one saw huge trains of 19 or 20 passenger cars, double sections, on the normal runs. The baggage men who had previously played pinochle to keep themselves occupied-I do not really know how they put in their time-were called upon to put in a great deal of overtime tc keep up with the demand. And they were glad to do it, because they knew their business was succeeding.
1600	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
As shown in the operating reports of the CNR, the passenger service has never made a profit. But it was making real progress. The transport of passengers, Mr. Speaker, is part of the over-all transportation picture. Neither the CN nor the CPR are exclusively devoted to the carriage of either passengers or goods. They are in the transportation business. They have planes; they have highway vehicles Canadian Pacific has ships. They are in the business of transportation. I fail to see why either of the railroads should claim it can get out of any particular aspect of the service it has the responsibility of providing-transportation facilities in this country. Theirs is a situation which is a peculiar one. As to individual services, there may be a reasonable argument. I do not understand the attitude of the Canadian Pacific at all and I am prepared to tell them I think they are wrong, as I told Donald Gordon I thought he was wrong over ten years ago. Obviously, other people told him he was wrong, too. Mr. Gordon, as those who knew him will tell you, took a lot of convincing. But somebody told him, and he was convinced. Then, he went out and did a good job through his management. Today I find it disconcerting that the company would hope to fall back into the same old attitude, though I recognize that the transportation legislation as passed by this government invites that attitude.
I recognize there are railway passenger services which do not pay. All right. The act says the railroad companies can make representations to the Transportation Commission. If the commission finds, on the evidence before it, that the service or services in question ought to be maintained even though there is a loss, the railroads become entitled to a subsidy up to 80 per cent of that loss. I would say the railways would be chumps if they did not avail themselves of what I call the blueprint of that formula. This is why we see these proposals before the commission.
I say that in the meantime the railroads, particularly Canadian National as far as its ac'ions concern Edmonton, have created a morale problem among their employees. I do not know whether there is a great gap between the Montreal head office and the company's employees in the field, but somebody has missed signals as far as I can perceive the reaction among hundreds and hundreds of CN railroad employees in the City of Edmonton. The removal of trains five and six, which, by the way, are not exclusively passenger trains, will mean dislocation for men with between 10 and 15 years of service.

DEBATES	December 4, 1969
Some with less than 10 years service will face complete lay off; those with between 10 and 15 years service can avail themselves of the dubious privilege of bumping which exists among railroad employees; they can work in another division. But what a dubious privilege that is.
I want to ask some questions with regard to trains five and six. Does the Canadian National, when counting the cost of operating these trains, take into consideration the revenue from the piggyback service which is an essential part of those trains? What about the carriage of mails? I have not heard that the Postmaster General is going out of business. My goodness, mail service is bad enough as it is. If trains five and six are cut off in the winter, what are we going to do? One could readily transport second class mail, newspapers, magazines and parcels, over relatively short distances in central Canada by truck. But sending such mail to the Atlantic provinces or out to the prairies is another matter altogether; one might as well hook up a dog team, or start a pony express. The service will deteriorate. Here again it is the ordinary member of the public who will take it in the neck.
Again I say that since this bill authorizes the making of loans to cover operating deficits incurred by national railways we have every right to ask pertinent questions about the service provided. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) made one of the most bitter attacks on the CNR I have ever heard in this House over the years; I think he was fully justified in speaking as he did on behalf of his region and his constituents. For the same reasons I support the motion of the hon. member for Temiskaming (Mr. Peters) and I urge all hon. members to support it. This bill could be rejected and the railways could come back in with a proper proposal. The same thing applies to Air Canada, and I will have something to say about that as well. I am waiting to see whether those government members who have been bitterly critical of the operations of the national railways are going to support this amendment. Perhaps they have been just paper tigers.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Let me now refer to Air Canada. I asked a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) the other day but Mr. Speaker did not see fit to allow an answer. I put the question on for the late show debate but I should like to elaborate on
December 4>
1969	COMMONS
this matter at this time. As a result of the strike in the nickel industry in this country an almost disastrous shortage of Canadian nickel has been created in world markets. It may be that those employees who insisted on the privilege of striking may rue the day they started this strike, particularly if that market should be materially affected. Other sources for this nickel have been sought and other facilities have been developed. One of the companies involved was Falconbridge. That company took the unusual step to preserve its international market of using air freight to Norway where its ultimate refining facilities exist for its European market. It shipped sufficient ore concentrate through the use of 50 Boeing 707's. It might have used DC-8's. In any event air freighters of that capacity were used and we were told that the freight bill to Falconbridge amounted to $1 million. Who got the contract in this regard? It was KLM which obtained the contract, a Dutch air line.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I give full credit to KLM. If they were awake and on the spot with sharpened pencils, more power to them. I should like to know what Canadian carriers did. Did they sit on their well known "whats"? Perhaps Canadian carriers do not have the aircraft required. They may have valid reasons for not competing, but we should like to hear them. We are being asked to give the Minister of Finance authority to make loans to meet the operating or potential operating deficit of Air Canada.
I am informed that Falconbridge circulated all Canadian carriers but that only one expressed any interest. There may be reasons for this. Perhaps some of the carriers do not have the freighters available or could not lease them. It seems to me they should come up with an answer as to why they could not lease aircraft. I know very well that last summer when we had a strike in Air Canada the CPR was able to lease aircraft from airlines across the border.
Many of our Canadian airlines enjoy good charter service in the summer during which time they make a profit. In the winter months they lease these aircraft to United States airlines which use them on charter service as they see fit. What happened to these aircraft during the winter months? Surely, these Canadian carriers felt it worth while to carry Canadian goods from a Canadian point to a Canadian market overseas. What was wrong with their pencils that they could not figure
DEBATES	1601
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada out or negotiate the leasing of aircraft to carry this commodity? If this had given them a return of even 5 per cent they would have made a profit of $50,000.
There might have been other advantages to other Canadian carriers carrying this commodity. They would have flown the Canadian flag, carrying Canadian goods to an international market. We now have a wide awake international company flying aircraft into Canada, picking up Canadian goods and delivering them to a Canadian refining facility in Norway serving a Canadian market. This fact raises many questions to which there must be some answers. There may have been legitimate reasons for this lack of initiative. If the answer is simply that a Canadian carrier quoted a rate that was higher than the rate quoted by KLM, or that they could not meet the rate quoted I should like to know why. If the Canadian carrier happens to be Air Canada I want to know much more.
My colleague the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh) has drawn the attention of this House, not to a misleading discrepancy, but to a definite omission in the title of this bill. I am sure that 90 per cent of hon. members in this House, and perhaps even more, when they considered Bill C-7 thought it was a bill authorizing certain capital expenditures on the part of the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. This measure goes much beyond that.
What do we do with a loss when a Crown corporation cannot make an operating profit? What we are doing actually is voting moneys for that Crown corporation, either in the form of direct grants or in some other way, to pick up its funded obligation. Because of the unsatisfactory explanation and the lack of information in this regard I intend to urge my colleagues to support the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). I invite hon. members opposite who have spoken in support of this bill to give concrete evidence that they were not merely paper tigers but that they meant what they said.
In so far as the CNR is concerned, and its application in respect of trains No. 5 and No. 6, I suggest they should withdraw these applications until they make a better presentation to the public. They should give better explanations to their employees and communities such as Edmonton, Saskatoon and Winnipeg, as well as the other communities in between which depend on the services of
1G02	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada these trains. They should tell them the reasons behind this proposal. I know our senior CNR officials in Edmonton. They are reasonable men. They may have a good case. But a good case that is kept between the covers of a file folder is no case at all. They have a job to do with regard to public relations because they are as much a part of the communities of Edmonton, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, and all the points between Winnipeg and the Pacific coast that will be adversely affected by this decision, as,, for instance, all those people who work on the CNR and live in the city of Edmonton and I are a part of the city of Edmonton.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I invite this House to support the amendment and give this bill as it now stands a six months' hoist.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: 

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch)-Harbours-Vancouver- reported leasing of piers to private operators; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-National Security-acceptance of possible committee recommendation for royal commission on subversion; the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding)-Pesticides-DDT-plant 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, Private Bills, Notices of Motion for Papers and Public Bills.


Mr. Yves Forest (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there will be general agreement to proceed with notice of motion No. 162 in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and to stand the first two items on the order paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is it
agreed that we should proceed as explained by the hon. parliamentary secretary?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the message sent by the Prime Minister to General Gowon, as reported in Hansard on July 2, 1969, page 10751.
He said: Mr. Speaker, on November 19, of this year notice of motion No. 162 in my
December 4, 1969

name was transferred for debate and this afternoon we shall have the opportunity to debate this issue for a few minutes. To begin with, I had a number of reasons for putting this notice of motion on the order paper, one of which was some comments made in this House on July 2 this year. Perhaps I could read these to get the matter in its proper context. At page 10751 of Hansard for July 2 a series of questions were directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) by a number of members, including myself and, I think, the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
My question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether the Canadian government has as yet protested to the Nigerian government about the fact that the Red Cross has been expelled by the Nigerians from relief activities in the area.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs replied:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, as I said on Friday the Prime Minister sent a very special message to General Gowon following up previous contacts with that government.
On July 14 I put this motion on the Order Paper to try to get a copy of the message sent to General Gowon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), but of course the House recessed and I did not get the answer. When the House reconvened in October, I resubmitted the notice for production of papers on November 4 and a reply came from the Parliamentary Secretary on November 19. I should like to read that reply as reported at page 999 of Hansard:
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, communications between heads of government are normally confidential and their contents not made public. In any case, such action cannot be taken unilaterally. In the circumstances, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
The motion has not been withdrawn and has been transferred for debate. I cannot properly outline my case in 20 minutes, and in any event I do not wish to take up the time of the House. The House and the government must be aware of our position on the question of Nigeria and Biafra. Surely, it is apparent that we are interested in having made public the communications between our Prime Minister and the head of the Nigerian government, notwithstanding the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Walker) that communications of this
Motions for Papers
sort between heads of government are normally confidential and cannot be made public. Since the parliamentary secretary said that this information could not be given unilaterally, I hope he will tell us in his reply that he has consulted the Nigerian government and asked if it is willing to have this information made public. If that is so, I hope he will tell us when he asked, and if not, why not. The Canadian people have a right to know what was said by our Prime Minister to the Nigerian government about the Red Cross being expelled from that country. As I say, Canadians are very interested in this and have the right to know what our Prime Minister is saying. I suspect that what the government has said about difficulties being created by the war is just an excuse. It does not want to keep us informed and does not seem to want to alleviate the suffering in this tragic part of the world. We cannot excuse the government for its attitude, and we must put as much pressure as possible on the government. I shall, therefore, resume my seat in the hope of hearing a satisfactory explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister.


Yves Forest: Mr. Speaker, on November 19 last the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Walker) said that messages exchanged between heads of government were confidential and not made public. He also pointed out that such actions could not be taken unilaterally. I do not need to remind hon. members of the House of the intense interest the Canadian government has taken in the problems posed by the Nigerian civil conflict. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) described it in his statement last week.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) informed the House on July 2, the message in question from the Prime Minister to General Gowon reminded the Nigerian head of state of the deep and continuing concern of the Canadian people for the innocent suffering as a result of the conflict. It also expressed the hope that means might be found which would permit the continuation of humanitarian relief efforts directed towards civilians in all parts of Nigeria.
The Canadian government has been able to speak frankly to the government of Nigeria on many aspects of the conflict and it is the government's intention to continue to do so. Our exchanges have taken many forms, one of which has been correspondence between

December 4, 1969
Division
the Prime Minister and General Gowon. We would not be able to safeguard the confidence which underlies our relations if communications of a confidential nature were made public. In view of this, I wonder if the hon. member would consent to withdraw his motion, with the consent of the House.


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


The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bechard):: Is the
House ready for the question?
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Nys-trom) which was negatived on the following
division.	YEAS Messrs:
Alexander	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Baldwin	MacLean
Barnett	MacRae
Bell	McCleave
Benjamin	McCutcheon
Bigg	McGrath
Burton	McIntosh
Cadieu (Meadow Lake) McKinley	
Crouse	Mazankowski
Danforth	Moore
Diefenbaker	Muir (Cape Breton-
Dinsdale	The Sydneys)
Dionne	Muir (Lisgar)
Downey	Nesbitt
Dumont	Nowlan
Fairweather	Nystrom
Forrestall	Orlikow
Fortin	Paproski
Gilbert	Peddle
Godin	Peters
Harding	Ricard
Horner	Ritchie
Howard (Skeena)	Rondeau
Howe	Rose
Knowles (Winnipeg	Saltsman
North Centre)	Schumacher
Knowles (Norfolk-	Simpson
Haldimand)	Skoberg
Lambert (Edmonton	Southam
West)	Stanfield
Latulippe	Tetrault
Lewis	Thomson (Battleford-
Lundrigan	Kindersley)
MacEwan	Valade
Maclnnis (Cape Breton- Winch-65. East Richmond)
 NAYS Messrs:	
Allmand	Chretien
Anderson	Clermont
Andras	Cobbe
Badanai	Comtois
Basford	Corbin
Bechard	Cote (Richelieu)
Benson	Cote (Longueuil)
Blair	Crossman
Blouin	Cullen
Breau	Cyr
Buchanan	Deachman
Caccia	Deakon
Chappell [Mr. Forest.!	Douglas (Assiniboia)
Drury	Mongrain
Dube	Morison
Emard	Munro
Forest	Noel
Forget	O'Connell
Francis	Osier
Gervais	Otto
Gillespie	Ouellet
Givens	Pelletier
Goode	Penner
Gray	Pepin
Groos	Pilon
Guay	Portelance
(St. Boniface)	Pringle
Guay (Levis)	Prud'homme
Guilbault	Reid
Hogarth	Roberts
Honey	Rochon
Hopkins	Rock
Howard (Okanagan	Roy (Timmins)
Boundary)	Roy (Laval)
Hymmen	Ryan
Isabelle	Serre
Jerome	Smerchanski
Kaplan	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Lachance	Stafford
Lang (Saskatoon-	Stanbury
Humboldt)	Stewart (Cochrane)
Langlois	Stewart (Okanagan-
Laniel	Kootenay)
Leblanc (Laurier)	St. Pierre
Lefebvre	Sullivan
Legault	Thomas (Maisonneuve)
Lessard (LaSalle)	Trudeau
Lessard	Trudel
(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Turner (London East)
Loiselle	Wahn
MacGuigan	Walker
Mackasey	Watson
Mcllraith	Weatherhead
McNulty	Whelan
Mahoney	Whicher
Marceau	Whiting
Marchand (Langelier)	Yanakis-109.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, possibly the House would prefer that we call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Apparently there is no agreement that we call it six o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I made the request because I thought there was agreement.


Mr. Benson:: There is agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand there has been a change of heart and that there is now agreement.
At 5.33 p.m. the House took recess.
December 4, 1969


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Earlier today the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) raised a point of order with regard to the position on the notice paper of a proposed notice of motion which he had filed on Wednesday last.
I have carefully perused the remarks made by the hon. gentleman from St. John's East and also those contributed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). If I understand the question at issue, it would seem to me that the hon. member for St. John's East contends that his proposed motion raises a question of privilege and, as such, that it should have been listed under Motions so that it could be considered tomorrow.
Today in his comments the hon. member for St. John's East suggested there should not be two procedures followed in the consideration of questions of privilege, that is, a procedure which could be used by members of the government and another for other members of the House.
It is obvious, of course, that most of the time of this House is set aside for the consideration of government business, but it should be pointed out that the rules or Standing Orders which are enacted by the House provide for that division of time as between the government and private members. It is not within the competence of the Chair, I suggest, to endeavour to reallocate time to private members by means of decisions of the Chair.
It was suggested, also, that a member of the government could avail himself of a priority in having a question of privilege considered as government business. In the limited time at my disposal no precedent could be found in that regard except such motions as were proposed by private members, debated, transferred to and subsequently considered under Government Orders by virtue of the operation of Standing Order 45(2).
At any rate, it seems to me that the position on the notice paper of the proposed motion is not of the essence at this time. If
Business of the House
the question raised by the hon. member for St. John's East is a prima facie question of privilege, I suggest it could have been transferred to and considered under Motions yesterday or it could have been proceeded with today notwithstanding its position on the notice paper. At page 304 of Bourinot's fourth edition it is stated:
Questions of privilege have precedence over other matters when they appear among the notices of motion.
What the Chair must decide is whether certain propositions set forth in the proposed motion constitute a prima facie question of privilege in the light of our practice. The Chair must, of course, make a decision on the evidence at hand, which in the present instance is a notice of motion filed by the hon. member for St. John's East.
May I for a moment examine with hon. members the proposals set forth in that motion. To begin with, it proposes the referral of one general and two specific propositions to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It would ask the standing committee to determine the general proposition as to whether it is the privilege of a member of a standing committee of the House to call a meeting of members of a committee for the purpose of electing a chairman and a vice-chairman.
Hon. members will agree that this is by no means a new question. It has been generally understood for many years that such power does not rest in every individual member of a standing committee. It is particularly so, it seems to me, when the committee has received no order of reference from the House. In that regard I should like to refer hon. members to Hansard of October 28, 1963, pages 4071 and 4072, where the very same question was dealt with by the then Speaker, who said:
The government leader In the House, who followed the hon. member for Medicine Hat and who was careful to state that he had not made any study of the question, declared that he had "no doubt it has been the custom that these committees be set up at the suggestion of the government whip as a convenience'', but he added other comments which are not in accord with the conclusions of this memorandum.
Perhaps we can leave it at that, with the further suggestion that as the procedure is not clearly defined in our standing orders, this might be a matter that could very well be studied in the committee on procedure.
Obviously, the practice today would appear to be the same as that of 1963. If there was no prima facie question of breach of privilege in
21545-31J

December 4, 1969
Business of the House
1963, which was the decision of the Chair, it is difficult to understand that a new privilege has in some way been created since then. The enactment, in itself, of Standing Order 17(2) does not create a new procedure for the consideration of a prima facie question of privilege. The true and conclusive test in giving priority to a motion of privilege is that a prima facie case be first established.
I suggest it is open to any member to call attention to the listing of the position of his motion on the order paper. Indeed, the hon. member for St. John's East did so today. In this regard his point of order was quite well taken and was within his right. I suggest to the House this is the way to proceed, that is, the notice having appeared where it appeared on the order paper, it was left to the hon. member to raise the matter as a point of order for the consideration of the Chair.
The first specific proposal stated in the motion is the following:
(a) whether there was a breach of the privilege of the member for St. John's East in the failure of his effort on the 2nd December, 1969, to call a meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development under Standing Order 65(2).
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
In the opinion of the Chair, it must follow that when it is not open to any and every member of a standing committee to call an organizational meeting of the committee, there is no breach of the privilege of the hon. member for St. John's East in the failure of his effort on December 2, 1969, to call a meeting of the standing committee. In proposition (b), the Committee on Privileges and Elections would be asked to consider: Whether there has been a breach of the privileges of all members of this House in the neglect, by that member who may be charged with the duty of calling a meeting of the Standing Committee on Regional Development in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 65 (2), of such duty to call a meeting of that committee as soon as possible after the commencement of this session-
The considerations which apply to part (a) of the motion, I suggest, are equally relevant to part (b) of the hon. member's proposition.
In finding that a question of the privileges of the House is not prima facie involved in this motion, I am making a procedural decision the effect of which will not prevent the further discussion by the House of the matters in issue. The effect is to refuse precedence to this discussion but not to prevent it.
If hon. members will refer to the decision of Mr. Speaker Michener, reported in the Journals of the House of Commons for 
June 19, 1959, at pages 582 to 586, they will observe that Mr. Speaker Michener's decision, in analagous circumstances, ruled that when a private member's motion is not prima facie a question of privilege, it must be placed under the heading Private Members' Notices of Motions.
It is my decision that the notice of motion filed by the hon. member for St. John's East, in accordance with the precedent to which I have referred and other precedents, should remain on the order paper under the heading Private Members' Notices of Motions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray that Bill C-7, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st of January, 1969, to the 30th day of June, 1970, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and the amendment there.o of Mr. Peters (p. 1578).
Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in very good physical shape because coming, as I do, from Newfoundland and not being accustomed to the harsh climate of Ottawa, I have come down with the flu.


Mr. Forrestall:: It does not seem to have affected your sense of humour.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: However, I should like to make a few remarks on Bill C-7 which deals with financing the CNR and of Air Canada. I do not wish to delay its passage too long. I would hate to be the one responsible for the government invoking one of its anti-debate, muzzle laws which it is holding in readiness and has not yet had the opportunity to try out.
I confess that every time last year that I have heard or read about the CNR in newspapers, on radio or television, I could not help my blood pressure rising. Last year at about this time we stood in this chamber discussing
December 4, 1969

a similar measure to finance the CNR and Air Canada. The House will remember that it was mainly the Newfoundland members who were fighting for the retention of the CNR passenger service in that province. At that time we tried to point out that a bus service provided by the CNR would not be adequate for the needs of the half a million Newfoundlanders. We described what we thought the buses would be like, but at that time we did not know too much about the service. Since then I have managed to obtain some first-hand information. A couple of weeks ago I took a trip of 250 to 300 miles on one of these buses for the specific purpose of discovering what they are like.
The first thing that impresses a passenger on one of the CNR buses in Newfoundland- they have very fancy names such as Expedos, Road Cruisers, Super Buses, and what have you-is that perhaps the CNR is trying to convince the people of Newfoundand that they are still aboard a train. I say this because throughout the eight hours I rode on one of these buses two weeks ago, three songs were played over and over again through the loudspeaker system. They were the most tear-jerking rendition by Kitty Wells of "The Engineer's Child", Johnny Cash's "I Hear that Train A' coming", played over and over again ad nauseam and, believe it or not, "Wreck of Old 97". The volume was turned up full-blast throughout the 300 miles, and all we heard were those three songs. I am sure that for some reason or other the CNR tried to convince the people of Newfoundland that they were still on board a train.
To further substantiate that impression there was the perennial Coke bottle, which is always present on a train, lurching back and forth in the aisle. It used to have a purpose on the "Bullet"; we knew that it served real purpose as a stimulant, but no stimulant is allowed on a bus. It was just an empty Coke bottle and an empty gesture to try to make the people of Newfoundland believe they were on a train.
The other thing that strikes a bus passenger is what happens when the bus pulls in at the international airport terminal, the multimillion dollar terminal at Gander. A few days ago I spent two hours at the terminal waiting for a flight. There are about two Air Canada flights a day there, but numerous buses stop there. The buses have taken over the international air terminal. Gander is the most expensive bus terminal in Canada. It is ludicrous to hear an announcement of the arrival of Expedos No. 277 at gate No. 3, or CN Road
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Cruiser arriving at gate No. 4; all passengers are told to assemble for pre-boarding. I am trying to point out the inappropriateness of the situation.
If you go 25 or 30 miles down the road, you find a huddle of Newfoundlanders on the corner, freezing to death waiting for the bus. This situation goes from the sublime to the ridiculous. It is hard to believe. I have to laugh at this, Mr. Speaker, but it is not really funny. When one gets to the Holiday Inn at Clarenville one hears the magnanimous voice of the driver over the loudspeaker saying, "you have 30 minutes in which to eat". There were 30 passengers on the bus, and except for my riding where I am served first, I am usually served last. With 30 passengers being served, and I being the last one, I figured that I had only one minute to eat my cheese sandwich and French fries before again boarding the bus. We then went on our way; the bus driver turned up Kitty's "Engineer's Child" and away we went down the road. The next thing I knew, I was in a bit of a stupor-


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Is it his contention that the people of Newfoundland should be denied the opportunity to use the excellent airport at Gander as a facility for meeting the bus?
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)


John Howard Lundrigan: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, are you going to allow the hon. member to make derogatory references to the airport terminal at Gander?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: The main point is that we have some very excellent railway stations that should still be in use. This is the point I am trying to make-let the aircraft use the air terminals. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, there were a number of small incidents en route that I will not mention. But the biggest single indignity that makes me think the CNR are trying to make us think we are still on a train is that they run the bus through the centre of St. John's, past all the hotels, and park it right by the railway station. It costs a passenger several dollars for a taxi back to a hotel. At Gander they give one the impression that these buses are flying. When they announced the arrival of the CNR superbus I saw tourists actually put their hands to their foreheads and look up into the sky to see its arrival.
As a result of our debate I saw this headline in the Ottawa Journal this week, "CNR
1612	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Draws MPs Fire-Said Exterminating Service." This time last year when we tried to point out to the House that the CNR was starting to exterminate its passenger services, hon. members got the idea that we were trying to provide entertainment. There was the "Newfie Bullet" bit, and people regarded it as a great joke. But some of the people who regarded it as a joke a year ago are making very great speeches now. They are disturbed.
Take the example of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin). He is actually angered by the CNR's plan to reduce service to northern New Brunswick. But if anybody refers to the evidence put before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications during its proceedings last year, he will see that the same hon. member came forward almost as a champion of the CNR, as a champion of his government, as a champion of the CTC, and as a champion of Jack Pick-ersgill who runs the CTC. Questions to the witnesses were framed in such a way that they were defending everything that was going on. Some hon. members did not have sense enough to realize that this was a trial balloon being flown by the CNR, although this fact was very aptly pointed out by my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). Don't tell me they were not warned, Mr. Speaker. My colleague from St. John's East, with that foresight of his that almost approaches clairvoyance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: -said on November 28, 1968, as recorded in the proceedings of the transport committee:
Mr. Chairman, I repeat with great respect we are not interested in this solely for the reason of trying to set aside this decision-
He was speaking of the decision to abandon our railway passenger service.
-desirable to some as that may be, but there is a precedent being set here, a very dangerous precedent. What is to stop the Commission from going all across the country and abandoning services in all of the provinces if they are not paying? This is the point that we are concerned with here. They have set a precedent and we want to examine it to see if it is a good precedent because we do not think it is.
How much warning do they want, Mr. Speaker?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: If we had drawn the same eloquence and the same articulation from hon. members last year, if they had opposed

DEBATES	December 4, 1969
this move to deprive a whole province of railway passenger service, if hon. members had been nearly as eloquent and articulate as they are now, when this policy is hitting home in their own ridings, it is quite possible that the abandonment plans in Newfoundland would have been discarded and we would not now be faced with applications for abandonment.
Everybody is disturbed now. All around me I hear people saying that it does not matter if the CNR is making a profit or not; it has to provide service. But they could not, or would not, recognize the trial balloon that the CNR flew in Newfoundland, and so we have the situation we are faced with today. However, there is one difference. In the first case just one small province was involved, but all the people of Canada are now involved in the applications to abandon railway passenger service.
I am going to watch developments in connection with these applications, Mr. Speaker, and if I see that political expediency enters into the matter and these applications are set aside, whereas our appeal against similar applications in Newfoundland was ignored, you can expect in this House and outside it a noise that will be heard all the way from here to Mexico City.
There is talk of separatism in Canada. This talk started in Quebec. Now we hear the rumble of separatism out west. If we in Atlantic Canada continue to be discriminated against, I suggest there may well be a mild grumble of separatism from the east. We in Newfoundland were the last ones to enter confederation, which might make it a little easier for us to get out.


Some hon. Members:: When?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Under the circumstances it might be better for us to be a foreign country; then we could apply for some of this fancy foreign aid and do a lot better. We lend money to South America and to Africa to build railways, but with a snap of the fingers we take away railway passenger service from a whole province in our own country.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, no doubt some of these applications will eventually be referred to the transport committee. I feel that the Newfoundland situation was very shoddily dealt with inside and outside this Parliament, in committee, and in the CTC by my good old friend from Newfoundland, Jack Pickersgill. I
December 4, 1969
am reluctant to use the term, but it was railroaded through; there is no doubt about that. I make the proposition to this House that we call the whole thing off; that the service in Newfoundland be restored; that we start all over again and consider-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Let us see that this situation is given the concern and consideration that has been shown in the House over the past few days, and indeed in the past week. This concern was not evident last year, when it might have completely changed the picture. If the government is going to capitulate because of political expediency, then we want to be in on it and have the rail passenger service in Newfoundland restored. Take the super buses, the minibuses and the "blunderbuses" that we have there now, and put them where they will serve the people of Newfoundland.
Let us have a service for the town of Buchans, which is 60 miles from the nearest railway; let them service Springdale, Green Bay, Baie Verte and all the communities along the northwest coast of Newfoundland in the riding of my colleague from Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), from Rod-dickton-Englee and on to St. Anthony and other areas. Hon. members do not know where those places are, but one area in Newfoundland is 400 miles from the nearest bus stop. How would hon. members like to get up in the morning and walk 400 miles to the bus stop?
The railroads couldn't care less. They still think they are running the train and so the highway parallels the rail line. They do not care that people have to travel hundreds of miles to get to the highway; and once there they might have to stand and wait for an unannounced bus-unlike the one that comes from Gander which is over-announced.
If this House is really concerned about passenger rail service, it should give unanimous consent to having it restored in Newfoundland and turn the buses loose. Let us give the people of Newfoundland a little confederation for a change and stop paying only lip service, telling them how lucky they are to be Canadians. Let us show them how lucky they are. It is unfortunate that some concern was not shown a year ago. There was some considerable support from our colleagues on this side, but on the other side of the House they thought we were trying to provide cheap amusement.
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
During the past few days in this House some hon. members have expressed the opinion that since rail passenger service is a public service, perhaps it should not pay. If this government is allowed to have its way, in another year or so we will have to pay a toll on every bridge. The attitude will be: Give it a year's trial and if the income does not pay the cost of the bridge, tear it down. Let the people ford across as they used to in St. Christopher's time. If a road does not pay, get it out of there.
If we want to be reasonable, just and sensible, a railroad service has to be considered in the same light. It is being considered in this manner now, but a year ago it was not. The railways are now talking about the removal of bits and pieces. Last year we had a test case in our province; I am sure it was a test case. I am sure the CNR said, "Let us do this and watch the reaction." When they saw the reaction of this House, they decided they would go whole-hog. They thought that we in Parliament did not care. The same thing is happening with the post offices-if they do not pay, take them away.


An hon. Member:: It is happening to Parliament, too.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: It is a foregone conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because we know what is happening in Parliament. I know I am wasting my time and by that remark I am inviting hon. members to say, "Sit down and shut up", but a man has to keep trying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: When one comes to an assembly like this and realizes that what one says is taken as a joke and that nobody is really serious, I begin to wonder what it is all about. I believe I am here to enunciate as best I can the problems of the people who sent me to Ottawa. Generally, members of Parliament do not become excited, but the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria was angered this year. He is outraged because the abandonment plan has hit northern New Brunswick. When questioning one of the witnesses last year he asked him to look at the map of Newfoundland, pointing out that there were hospitals 75 or 100 miles apart all along the railway line. He wanted to know if a good ambulance service would not be sufficient for the population in this area. Mr. Speaker, this is the same man who is now angered that the CNR would dare to think of removing a rail service from his town in New Brunswick.

1614	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
To further indicate the attitude that was freely voiced by the Liberal members on the standing committee and to contrast it with their present attitude, I shall read from the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, dated February 22 of this year. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Perrault) was questioning Dr. Noel Murphy who had delivered a very fine, thought-provoking brief. This will give you an idea of their attitude toward the problem. The following question was asked:
I would like to ask Dr. Murphy a question regarding the terms of entry into confederation on the part of Newfoundland. Do you mean to infer from your statement today that if 100 years from now it is demonstrated that rocket power is a far more feasible way to transport the people of Newfoundland around this province, and to communicate with the rest of Canada, that the people of Newfoundland will still insist that a passenger service, which by then may be completely outmoded and technologically in the stone age, should be retained?
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
This will give hon. members an idea of the attitude that prevailed.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: What was the answer?


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: I do not think Dr. Murphy would dignify that sort of garbage with an answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: In 1966, when the question arose of the approximate deficit of $900,000 for the CNR, all we heard was, "Look at what we give you in Newfoundland; we give you this and we give you that." Actually, Mr. Speaker, they gave us nothing. We made a deal in 1949; it was a two-way deal. Canada wanted Newfoundland, and Newfoundland wanted to join Canada. An agreement was entered into to that effect. Now, whether we like it or not, we are stuck with the deal and the CNR must treat us the same way it treats any other part of Canada. Although there are many ways of looking at Canada, I like to look at it as being composed of ten provinces-forgetting	the territories for a
moment-and each of the ten provinces representing a room in a house. Is it not kind of stupid to suggest that anyone who owns a house with ten rooms would let the roof over one of those rooms leak, without doing something about it? We entered Canada, and Canada accepted us.
Speaking as a taxpayer-and contrary to popular opinion, there are people in Newfoundland who pay taxes-whenever I come

DEBATES	December 4, 1969
to Ottawa and see all the nice trappings of the city and its nice buildings, I feel proud to have contributed to all this because it is part of my country. Likewise, I expect people who come to Newfoundland from Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or any other part of Canada, to be equally proud of what they see, because that is part of their country. It is not only our province; it is part of their country. Let us forget all this nonsense about, "We give you this and that." That is for the birds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: May I return to the subject of buses. On April 30 of this year, as reported at page 8168 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Acting Minister of Transport who is now the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson)-you will recall that there was a bit of a mix-up between our ministers-and asked whether he would investigate a report of a serious accident on April 25 in which a bus with 30 passengers on board plunged over an embankment near Comer Brook. I think the whole side of the bus was torn off. Actually, the bus was a complete loss and nine of the 30 passengers had to go to hospital. The accident happened shortly after the inauguration of the bus service. I asked that question, as I say, on April 30 and the minister said the accident was being investigated and he would be pleased to report to me.
About a month later, on May 20, as reported at page 8831 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) if he would look into the matter, because I had not received an answer. He said he would be pleased to look into it. If I may be so bold as to say so now, I should be very pleased to get an answer. It is eight or nine months since the original question was asked. I can forgive the minister for being a little touchy or tender about the subject, but I still want an answer. I think it is in the national interest for us to have it. I do not think I have much more to say, Mr. Speaker. Actually, I do not know how much time I have left.


An hon. Member:: Too much.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Hon. members on the government side who are pressing me to sit down should be thankful that I have a very bad cold tonight, because I will now resume my seat.
December 4, 1969	COMMONS


Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I think I would fail in my duty if I did not take advantage of the discussion of bill C-7 to submit certain requests on behalf of my constituents about a situation which concerns them. It is rather reluctantly that I do so, because if the government were to comply with every wish of the members, it would cost millions of dollars. But my grievance will not cost anything to anybody if only certain solutions I am going to suggest were applied. I shall not resume the discussion with regard to the CNR, because it is with Air Canada that I should like to deal.
It is rumoured that Air Canada is about to discontinue its stops at Trois-Rivieres, the main city in my constituency. We have a fine air strip and terminal and every morning a plane coming from Quebec stops at Trois-Rivieres, flies through to Montreal and then to Ottawa. In the evening an Air Canada plane flies back in the opposite direction.
a (8:50 p.m.)
This service is very convenient, all the more as in the last few days, the members of the area have learned they will have to use that means of transportation because the train schedule has been so disrupted that it will be impossible to reach Ottawa in time without starting the day before.
The reason alleged for discontinuing the service is that it is not profitable and that only four or five passengers, on average use it every day. In this connection, I should like to make representations to the Canadian Transport Commission. I shall do so skeptically because I do not have much confidence.
Opposition members will perhaps think I am giving my adversaries an opening in saying that I rely more or less on the constant objectivity of some officials of the Canadian Transport Commission, but I say it anyway because my constituents will be annoyed if I miss this opportunity.
If the service is not profitable in Trois-Rivieres, it is because the company does not make any publicity whatsoever. I had the opportunity on several occasions to note that some people from my area-with a population of some 325,000 inhabitants-going for example, to Western Canada, Florida or Europe, were driven to Montreal to catch a plane. I told them: After all, a plane leaves Trois-Rivieres every morning. And they used to answer: But we were not aware of it!
DEBATES	1615
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
Before discontinuing that service, Air Canada should launch an intensive publicity campaign, in order to inform the greatest possible number of travellers in the area about its services. In fact, I am greatly interested in flying and I think that Air Canada would be surprised to find out the number of potential passengers in Trois-Rivieres.
I would, at least, like to ask that the Air Canada service not be discontinued before there is another one to replace it. Let us give to a company that uses smaller planes perhaps the necessary permit to serve the Trois-Rivieres area.
I know that some companies would be interested in providing service to Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivieres, the Lac Saint-Jean area, Quebec City and Montreal. I think it is fairly important for the people of my region numbering 325,000 not to be brutally deprived of the service presently provided by Air Canada.
Apart from the passenger service provided by Air Canada, the meteorological service will necessarily be discontinued at the airport. The meteorological service is quite convenient for our business concerns and also for the air clubs in the Trois-Rivieres area, which are quite prosperous, dynamic and active.
I therefore urge on behalf of the three municipalities of my constituency and in the name of several associations which expressed the wish that I bring this grievance to the attention of those concerned, that the Air Canada service in Trois-Rivieres should not be cancelled before an extensive publicity campaign has been launched so that all longdistance travellers may be aware that an airplane leaves Trois-Rivieres at 9 a.m. and that another one returns around 6.30 or 7 p.m. Several other passengers may be thus recruited. This service should at least not be discontinued before another one has been substituted for it.
I am going to say once more something that will seem trite: that we are so deeply involved in the age of aviation, considering progress achieved, that it would be retrograding to abolish, in a city which is the main centre of its region, a service that is of the greatest importance to contractors or businessmen who have to travel long distances with great speed.
I strongly urge that this service be maintained. I will have the opportunity to raise this matter again and I hope that I will have more luck with the Canadian Transport Commission than I had when I requested that the
1616	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada rail service in the Trois-Rivieres area be maintained, that they operate an additional train during Expo, when I was given all sorts of reasons and finally no satisfaction at all.
There are limits to what one can get out of a city as the one I represent which is the main centre of an area. Actually, mention is made of the possible abandonment of some other services. I will not deal now with the subject because it would not be in order. However, I would not want the air transportation service to be discontinued.
I hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) will consider favorably the request of the citizens in my riding and that he will see fit to argue our case with the Canadian Transport Commission which is now considering the application made by Air Canada for cancellation of its air service in Trois-Rivieres.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from listening to members from all parties in this debate that if this bill was permitted to be voted on in the form of a free vote, Canadian National Railways and Air Canada would have to look somewhere else for their finances; they would not get them with the approval of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Mongrain) is the last of a number of Liberals who have been critical of the CNR and Air Canada. Members of all three opposition parties-


Mr. Mongrain:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to hurt the feelings of the hon. member opposite but he just said "Three Rivers", which constituency does not exist.


David Orlikow: I apologize to the hon. member. If he wants his city to be called Trois Rivieres, he is entitled to that. Unfortunately, some of us did not have the opportunity of growing up in a part of the country in which both English and French were spoken regularly. I admit a failure on my part to be able to speak French as I would like to, but I have tried to understand the problems of Quebec and on occasion I have spoken in a way which has brought commendation from at least some people in Quebec.
With the change in our rules, and sending the estimates of the Department of Transport to committee, this bill is really the only

DEBATES	December 4, 1969
opportunity which members have to discuss in the House the problems of transportation in all forms. In a country as large as Canada, one of the largest in the world and one which is sparsely populated, transportation is probably more important to its people than it is to people in other countries.
Since I came to the House of Commons in 1962 there have been many debates on the problems of transportation. Several years ago the transport committee met for many months to work on the drafting of a new bill, the passage of which we hoped would begin to sort out the problems of transportation, giving us a co-ordinated system of transportation in which air, rail, bus, trucks and ferry boats, I suppose, would be used in the most efficient way to provide this country with the kind of modern transportation system which we require.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It was proposed that a new regulatory body be set up, the Canadian Transport Commission. I remember that my former colleague, the then hon. member for Selkirk and now Premier of Manitoba, sat on that committee. After the committee had met for months and made extensive changes to the original draft bill, he came into this House with more than 20 amendments. Incorporated in those amendments were the proposals which had been made by the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, the wheat pool, farmers unions and other interested organizations, but not accepted by the government.
We passed that bill, Mr. Speaker. We got a new transport commission and a new transport Czar, a former top civil servant and cabinet minister, Mr. Jack Pickersgill. He was appointed chairman, at a salary of $40,000 a year or more. It seems that the more things have changed and the more legislation we have passed, the more things are the same. We in parliament and the people of Canada from one end of the country to the other are still facing the same problems.
I say to the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle), who just made an effective presentation on behalf of his province, that if he looks at the record of sessions prior to his coming here, he will see that he and his group are not the first to have raised the question of transportation. I remember that when Canadian Pacific Railway dispensed with the "Dominion" transcontinental, their second main train, I predicted in this House it would not be very long before the CPR would be coming back asking
December 4, 19S3
for permission to dispense with the "Canadian," the brightest jewel in their crown and of which they were so proud. I was pooh-poohed and laughed at. It was said it would never happen in our time, but two or three years later they are back.
I have a great deal of respect for the job the officials and staff of the CNR have done. The CNR is one of the largest transport organizations in the world. It is moving more freight now than it ever did; it is moving almost as many passengers as it ever did. It embarked upon an aggressive program of inducing passengers to return to the railways, and it has succeeded to a large extent. I think these people are doing a good job in extremely difficult circumstances. One of the difficulties is this-that ever year they are expected to carry on while the public is being told, "The CNR is operating at a loss.
Mr. Speaker, anyone who understands anything about the history of the CNR realizes this is not true. The CNR is not operating at a loss. Anyone familiar with the facts knows that the CNR has always shown a profit on its operations except for a very few years. The reason the CNR accounts show a loss every year is that the original companies from which it was formed, privately-organized companies including the Grand Northern, the Grand Trunk and, I think, the Grand Trunk Northern, were going bankrupt; they were unable to continue in operation and their stock was worth about 5 cents on the dollar. Instead of the government of Canada simply taking them over, as it should have, it formed the CNR, floated bonds and paid off the shareholders at 100 cents on the dollar. We are still paying interest on the bonds which were floated at that time, and this is the reason the CNR shows a loss every year.
Though the CNR has done an excellent job, I am disappointed that this year, as in other years in recent times, it should have banded together with the robber barons who run Canadian Pacific and applied to the Transports Commission for permission to abandon a substantial part of its passenger lines. The line from Winnipeg to Churchill, one which is of vital importance to a large part of Manitoba from which I come, is one of those it proposes to abandon.
As for the CPR, if ever a group of people have gall it is the directors of the CPR. Here is a company which back in 1880 received its charter to build a transcontinental railway. The company then agreed as follows: "The company shall thereafter and forever effectively maintain, work and run the Canadian 21545-32*
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Pacific Railway." I submit that for this company to ask an agency of the Crown for permission to abandon its transcontinental run and dispense with all its passenger lines except commuter lines around Montreal is, in fact, in violation of the basic contract it made with the people of Canada.
I suggest to hon. members that they pay attention to the words of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) several years ago when he was Minister of Agriculture, at a time when the CPR was making similar applications. A speech he made in Winnipeg in January, 1966 was quoted in the Winnipeg Free Press as follows:
I have no sympathy with the (CPH) attitude that we can make more dollars by abandoning rail lines and renting box cars to the United States because we are a private corporation and we can do as we like.
Later he said:
That public duty did not stop in 1867 and it has not stopped now.
The minister never made a more important or truer speech than he did on that occasion. I wish to put on record what the owners of the CPR were given at the time they made the contract to which I have referred. As of December 31, 1963, the latest date for which I have figures, the CPR received from the people of Canada grants totalling $106 million and 44 million acres of land from federal, provincial and municipal governments. This can be broken down as follows: monetary aid and federal cash subsidies, $53 million; expenditures by the federal government on lines turned over to the company, $35 million; provincial aid, $12.5 million; municipal aid, more than $5 million. The grand total comes to $106 million. By way of land grants the company received almost 33 million acres from the federal government and 11 million acres from provincial governments. This land includes some of the most important and valuable land in the country. From it has come tremendous corporations such as Cominco and the thriving enterprises at Trail. From Cominco the company had been able to develop its Pine Point property.
The CPR owns huge tracts of timberland. It has been able to establish a most profitable oil and natural gas company by virtue of these gifts of land from the government of Canada. It owns an extremely valuable real estate company. I believe we all know about Canadian Pacific Investments which was formed mainly from the resources and equity flowing from original grants by the people of

1618	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada Canada. In these circumstances it is almost a disgrace that a company which has been dealt with so generously should have the gall to apply to the Canadian Transport Commission for permission to abandon its passenger services. In my opinion it is time we looked at the question of the CPR.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but as I understand it this bill is intended to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the CNR and Air Canada.
I would ask the hon. member to relate his remarks to the subject of the CNR and Air Canada.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I shall follow your advice, though it seems to me it is impossible to discuss transportation adequately without discussing all forms of transportation, including both railways. In my opinion, one of the reasons we have to deal with this bill today, concerning the advancing of money to the CNR and Air Canada, is that we have failed to develop a transportation policy or a transportation system which would use all forms of transportation at their most efficient levels. This is something we must do or we shall be faced by bills of this kind not only in 1969 but in every year to come.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
As I have said, the CNR has in my opinion done an excellent job in the field of moving freight and passengers, and it ought to be commended. It has accomplished this since 1952, since when its work force has been reduced by more than 40 per cent. However, there are a number of problems in respect of the CNR with which I must deal, although not at great length. One problem has occurred every year since I have been here. Every year I had hoped the government, which Mways promises sympathetic consideration, would take action to settle this serious problem. Every year we have been disappointed. I refer to the very serious problem resulting from the rapidly increasing cost of living of retired employees of the CNR and their inability to live at any kind of decent level on the pensions they receive.
Since my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) came here many years ago, he has been a constant and frequent advocate of an increase in the pensions of retired employees of the CNR. This is not surprising since the city he and I represent has one of the largest groups of 
DEBATES	December 4, 1969
CNR employees in the country. When you look at the record and the figures in respect of the treatment provided retired CNR employees, you must as a Canadian citizen hang your head in shame. According to a report filed in answer to a question asked by my colleague, 388 retired CNR employees are still receiving a pension of less than $25 a month; 639 CNR pensioners receive between $25 and $29 a month, and 1,300 employees receive between $30 and $39 a month. There are 1,062 pensioners receiving between $40 and $49 a month; there are 7,715 retired CNR employees receiving a pension of between $50 and $100 a month.
As a result of these low pensions, CNR employees continue to pile up pension fund contributions. The government of Canada has failed to provide an adequate pension for CNR employees. At the same time, the CNR uses the money contributed by employees to the pension fund for investment purposes and to finance its regular operations to the extent of $600 million. This is money owed to employees. It is invested, as are most pension funds. This money is more than enough to substantially increase pensions and reduce the cost to the taxpayers of Canada. Let me join other members of this House in urging the government to direct the CNR to bring its pension plan into a position where it might begin to be fair to its retired employees and enable them to live in some kind of decency.
Let me deal briefly with another question which causes concern to the people of Winnipeg and employees of the CNR. I would use this occasion, within the rules of the House, to repeat the justifiable complaint of the people of Winnipeg regarding the treatment they received from Air Canada. I refer to the way in which that company surreptitiously and illegally moved to Montreal the facilities which were based in Winnipeg. This to a large extent has been accomplished and nothing I can say will alter the decisions which have been made.
There are certain things happening in respect of the CNR organization in Winnipeg which make the people there, particularly CNR employees, feel that we are faced with a repeat performance, this time in respect of the CNR. Let me say, as a member of the House of Commons who is as sympathetic as possible to the problems facing Quebec, that these problems will not be solved by taking work which has been carried out traditionally in other parts of the country and moving it to that province.
December 4, 1969
One of the major repair facilities of the CNR has always been located in the city of Transcona, actually a suburb of Winnipeg. This area forms part of the constituency of the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), a Liberal member of this House. The secretary of one of the local unions which has members who work in Transcona wrote me several days ago and said:
The matter of the transfer of work from Transcona to Montreal is a little more complex. It is beginning to look like Air Canada all over again. With the financial shares of Air Canada wholly owned by the CNR it begins to look like Air Canada may not have been entirely responsible for their own folly. Some organization or somebody seems determined to concentrate federal government owned companies in Quebec to the detriment of the rest of Canada. When two large federally owned companies are pulled out of western Canada it ceases to be strictly a company affair and becomes a political one also.
Those are the views of the secretary of that union. I hate to think he is right. Let me deal with the specifics of this case by quoting further from his letter:
To date 30 of the smaller type diesels have been sent east. We have received 22 of the larger diesels in return. These larger diesels are unserviceable in Transcona due to their size. Now the CNR has decided that when the warranty is finished on these larger diesels they will be returned to eastern Canada and other diesels still under warranty will be sent to western Canada.
At the beginning of 1968 the CNR had scheduled 16 diesels per month to have major overhauls in Transcona. They are now doing only 6 per month and this is to be further reduced next year. The CNR claim they are going to put an addition on to the motive power shop in Transcona in order to repair the new large diesels. The trouble is they have delayed this construction for two years already and it is not in the 1970 budget.
The CNR is proposing to lay off between 150 and 200 personnel in the equipment department across the whole railway system with about 80 at Transcona alone at the beginning of the new year.
The people of Winnipeg have in my opinion been treated badly and have a valid complaint about the way Air Canada has acted. I hope the treatment they receive from the CNR in future is not the same as that which they received from Air Canada. I have raised this matter with the president of the CNR, who has assured me that it intends to expand the facilities at Transcona and that the work force will be maintained there. He confirmed in his letter a charge made by the secretary of the local union in the letter from which I just quoted. So far this situation remains to be dealt with in the future.
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The CNR workers at Transcona see work which was traditionally done at Winnipeg being done at Montreal. They see employees with long service in Winnipeg being laid off and, I presume, the work force in Montreal being increased. They, and I agree with them, consider this to be unfair. They believe this government is not interested in western Canada. They believe the government places a low priority on western Canada and its interests, and is more interested in central Canada. We do not want any special concessions for western Canada, but we do believe that as citizens of Canada we are entitled to the same opportunities and considerations from the federal government as other regions of Canada. We do not want to see work which has always been done in Winnipeg moved to another area.
I urge the officials of the CNR to heed the representations, not only of myself but of many people from Winnipeg, to make sure the traditionally important role played by the CNR in Winnipeg will continue.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the debate on this bill is lasting since several days indicates that the alarm has sounded throughout the country insofar as the decisions of Canadian railway companies are concerned.
It would be extremely unfortunate if once more the points raised by the various opposition parties, and even by some government supporters, were not taken into consideration.
The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Mongrain) joined us a moment ago to object to the decisions which both the CNR and the CPR are about to take.
For instance, if Air Canada cease then-operations at Trois-Rivieres, this will be a form of injustice and it will contribute to lowering the level of comfort and quality of services in Canada.
It is quite abnormal that we have to discuss the possibility of abolishing such important and essential services as those of the Canadian National Railways or of Air Canada. Efforts should be made instead to find out why these companies are operating at a deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I think I have found the answer. In my opinion, they operate in the red because their service is awful. How is it

December 4, 1969
1620	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada possible to run a railway profitably if passengers cannot use it? It is impossible because train schedules are simply inadequate.
Mr. Speaker, I will quote as an example the service between Quebec and Ottawa. I travel by car between these two cities simply because I can make the trip in four hours whereas it would take seven or eight hours by train. However I would prefer the latter means of transportation as it is more restful.
People will not take the train if the service is not adequate. Yet, television, newspapers and radio pour out endless advertising praising the CNR's red, white or blue rates, but what is the use of these reduced rates if there are no trains?
This is one of the reasons why we are studying this request to provide funds for the CNR, the only result of which will be to increase the contribution of the taxpayers in order to line the pockets of the shareholders.
It is almost ridiculous that the two railway companies should announce that they will abandon uneconomic passenger services. One should think that if it is a question of making an essential service profitable the best thing would be to get the taxpayers to use it.
The bus service between Montreal and Quebec City runs every hour. Buses from Montreal are packed especially when some demonstrations draw 10,000 or 15,000 people to Quebec's capital. Buses are widely used. Even when they are packed, nobody complains.
Bus companies do not ask us to make up their deficits. They do not request each year a grant of $15 or $20 million. Why? Because they can adjust to the market and convince people to travel by bus.
What can we say, however, when there is only one train running from one community to another, and that same train leaves the station at an ungodly hour. If there were, for instance, three trains leaving Quebec for Ottawa each day and you can be sure that they would be packed. The companies would succeed thus in making up for some deficits. Indeed, one can read at page 8 of the report established by the CNR's auditors for the fiscal year ending on December 31, 1968, and I quote:
Freight revenue increased during the year by 4.5 per cent, but passenger revenue declined by 15.8 per cent-
This quotation ends like this:
-from the 1967 record level.


It is extremely important to note this. During 1967, the year of the Centennial and of Expo, 54 million people came to Montreal. It was a record year. At that time, trains were more packed than usual. If you take this as a basis to say that there was a decrease of 15.8 per cent, this is altering the facts. If the CNR and the CPR rely on this to argue that the service shows a deficit in 1968 these statements are inaccurate. It was exceptional that in 1967 so many people flocked to Montreal and, obviously, a decrease was to be expected in 1968.
Starting from this fact, therefore, we may contend that if it has been possible to give an adequate service to passengers during 1967, this means that if the companies were less concerned with profit-earning capacity and more with the quality of service, they could convince more people to travel by train. I suggest, these are very important points, and I should like to take this opportunity to point out a few things that are of particular interest to me, since I am unable to visit my whole riding by car, I have to take the train when I want to get to the northern part, because it is the only possible means of transportation.
Now, the Quebec-Abitibi line is to be abandoned.
I wish to point out that when the only means of transportation available in a region is the train, it should not be abandonned. This proves once more that no serious study had been done when it was considered to discontinue this service. This is then a joint offensive by the CNR and the CPR to force our hand. In effect, it has been said that if the passenger service were abolished, the citizens will make a fuss about it of course and, consequently, the government is simply going to pay and this what the companies are waiting for.
This is how the management of these companies think and we want to condemn them here. It is absolutely necessary to make these officials think straight. We are blamed constantly for suggesting a solution but if it were applied, we would not be faced with such a problem.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The companies' deficits are mainly the result of loans and the exorbitant interest charges paid on these loans. The question of deficits would not even exist if this loan problem were settled at the source when essential public services are involved.
December 4, 1969
The companies' financial statements show the huge amount paid in interests. If the actual causes of the annual deficits were dealt with, the problem would soon be settled.
Tne House is being asked to vote these subsidies, otherwise the services will be cancelled. This type of bluff is unworthy of companies such as the CNR and the CPR and that is why I admire all hon. members who spoke in an effort to underline this situation.
On television and radio, special rates are advertised, red, white or blue, but why not a special "green" rate for loans in order to help amortize more efficiently the loans these companies are obliged to raise?
Mr. Speaker, those are the reasons why we must rise against this way of doing things.
Here again, I refer to paragraph 4 of the auditors' report, page 8, and I quote:
Interest on funded debt increased by $5.3 million over 1967 to $70.4 in 1968. The effective rate of interest on debt outstanding at December 31, 1968 was 5.18 per cent compared with 4.73 per cent in the previous year.
These continuous increases in interest are the cause of all the difficulties. It is not pleasant for the House to be called upon, every year, to discuss again this famous problem of credits especially when we know that there is a lack of co-operation and perhaps bad administration.
As pointed out yesterday by my colleague the hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Godin), let us stop being satisfied to vote and agree to what has been decided in high places. Instead, let us assume our responsibilities as we were committed to do by our constituents, and let us try to improve the services for all the citizens of our country.
Mr. Speaker, not only should we not discontinue the passenger train service, or Air Canada service in Trois-Rivieres, but we should increase them and make them so efficient that people will use them, thus solving all problems.
We complain about the numerous accidents happening every day on our highways. As a matter of fact, everybody travels by car or by bus.
The most efficient means of transportation we have, in spite of the very few accidents, is the train; but it is precisely the one that is used the least, which is paradoxical. It is our duty to promote the use of that means of transportation, and we will not do it by discontinuing the existing services but by improving them.
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada [English]


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say only a few words in this debate, but what I shall say comes from the heart. I have been a Member of Parliament in what I call the railway age, a Member of Parliament in what I call the aviation age, but somehow my heart and my inclination go back to earlier times when life seemed a little more leisurely and thoughtful and a little less hectic. In any event, I would like to tell the House, in a few minutes, why I wish to support the motion of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I think it is a valid amendment. I will not repeat the arguments that he used, nor those of other hon. members who have supported it, but rather will present an argument of my own. The hon. member made a very valid point that the financing of Canadian National Railways has become so sophisticated and so out of step with what one would regard as ordinary procedure that we really do have to question it. This point of view has found support in many corners of the House.
I do not understand how we can support a sort of artificial form of bookkeeping, and I think that is what it amounts to. If one looks back at the history of Canada and the way railway financing has built up over the years, I do not think any of us can really say it has any sense or relationship to reality. It is a bookkeeping measure, something that Mr. Laurier, Mr. Borden and Mr. Meighen discovered half a century ago to keep things in balance in the fiscal terms that existed at that time. I do not think that approach is good enough today.
When you have something that starts out artificially, if it becomes a sort of set thing which is carried on from year to year after a while you have to look at it in terms of a new generation and ask whether it should exist. Whatever the difficulties in creating a railway system back in those years, whether on the public side or private side, the fact is that we have come to a time of decision. We have to look at the books. We have to say whether practices approved by our forefathers and great-forefathers should be approved in our time.
We are younger men here. We are different men here. We are not imbued with the fights that occurred over whether this or that railway should be developed, over whether this

1622	COMMONS
Provision of Moneys to CNR and Air Canada or that fellow was a buccaneer in the way he promoted his railway. We are not that breed of cat at all. We are an entirely different breed, and to carry fictions into the present generation with regard to the financing of a very major part of our transportation system to me just does not make sense, and I hope it does not make sense to most hon. members around me.
I do not wish to engage in philosophic rhetoric. I want to make one specific point in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Timiskaming. I think that the case has been proven that we should not carry on the practices of the past in using the sort of bookkeeping approach to the affairs of Canadian National Railways.
What concerns me more than anything else is that in Atlantic Canada-and in my part of Atlantic Canada, the Halifax area-the railway has put a large number of people out of work. People with 20 or 25 years experience have suddenly been thrown out of a job. For this reason I think that the sooner we put the affairs of Canadian National on a proper footing, forget what happened in the past, and try not to carry on ancient debts when nobody remembers how they arose, the better off we will be in recognizing what is realism. I believe this, because I do not think anybody in the House can say that if we carried on this bookkeeping exercise for the next 100 years the financial situation would eventually right itself.
To me that is the test. Will it ever work? Why do we engage in fable or myth? I say we cannot afford to do that, because it is just not going to work out. There is no way on earth you can take an amount of money that is passed on from a previous generation and say that eventually it will be paid off, because it will not. Then, why do we carry on with the myth? Why do we perpetuate this way of trying to deal with the railway situation in Canada? To me it is clear that we cannot do it. Then why should we try to do it?
Are we shoving off onto the next generation of MP's something that you and I cannot shoulder ourselves? Surely we are,, because past generations of MP's have done the same to us, and previous generations of MP's did it to them, although those previous generations may have thought it would work. But the further we get away from the idea of previous generations, the more we must face the fact that what we are dealing with is a sham and a farce. This is why the point made by
[Mr. McCleave.l
DEBATES	December 4, 1969
the hon. member for Timiskaming is so valid. Now is the time to tarn abruptly around, to take stock and say that this situation should no longer prevail.
Mr. Speaker, I was not really concerned with that philosophical argument. I am probably more of a pragmatist than a philosopher, and like the hon. member I am more concerned with people's right to work, whether they have a job, whether they can get up in the morning and go to work or whether they have to sit around home and fuss and fret because they do not have work.
The point I am trying to make is that if we remove this ancient debt structure from the shoulders of Canadian National Railways, maybe they will be able to come before us and give a truer accounting of themselves. They would not be inhibited by some grandiose debt structure which they inherited from God-knows when; they would be able to say, "We can do such and such and so and so." They would be able to think in terms of progress, of improving their service and improving the conditions under which their employees work. What I am saying is, remove the fiction from the present system and give them that opportunity.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I have been very impressed that in the battle for retaining passenger service, Canadian National Railways report four or five times the amount of passengers carried that Canadian Pacific Railway report, and about one-third the loss that Canadian Pacific Railway alleges it has suffered. I think the CNR is inclined in the right direction and I should like to see it unencumbered by this fiction of the past. I make this plea very fervently because I can foresee that in the year 2000 Parliament will have to face the same situation that we face tonight, and I think that is foolish.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather deafened by the prolonged applause. If I were sitting in a certain other seat, the applause might even last until ten o'clock. However, I believe I have little to hope for in that direction. I was very impressed by the speech we just heard from the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I, too, should like to add my sweet tenor voice to the chorus of those-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mark Willson Rose: -who are supporting a six-months hoist of Bill C-7. It has been said,
December 4, 1969	COMMONS
somewhat flippantly, that no politician ever lost votes in western Canada by kicking the hell out of the railroads.


Mr, Frank Howard (Skeena):: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mark Willson Rose: Certainly.


Frank Howard: With the consent of the hon. gentleman I should like to ask if he really believes the statement he just made.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, as far as the hon. member for Skeena is concerned, I do not know whether that situation is true or not. While it might not be true of western Canada, judging by what we have heard tonight from representatives of Newfoundland it is certainly true in parts of eastern Canada and Atlantic Canada.
Mr. Speaker, seriously, my riding contains at least three railroads so I believe I can speak with some accuracy about the resentment felt there because of the arrogant intrusion of those lines into the lives of my constituents from time to time. As has been mentioned by other speakers, the services provided by the railroads have been downgraded year after year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mark Willson Rose: Only this fall, Mr. Speaker, I had a letter from a lady in my riding who complained very bitterly about the sanitary facilities in a very important railway station, Fort Langley. Apparently, because of a fire the sanitary facilities consisted of two dilapidated outhouses. To the consternation of all concerned, a family of snakes took up residence in the lower regions of the building.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question-


Mark Willson Rose: I would be pleased to allow the hon. member a question when I have concluded my remarks. I do not think hon. members should regard this little anecdote humorously. When I reported it to the proper authorities, action was taken immediately.


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


Mark Willson Rose: Hon. members would be surprised to learn that sanitary outhouses do not in fact come under the ample portfolio of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). For
DEBATES	1623
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion some reason best known to those in charge, the offtrack facilities lie in the gentle hand of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey).


James Aloysius McGrath: What about the Privy
Council?


Mark Willson Rose: I realize that members can make great sport of this, but it was a very serious situation at the time. This anecdote illustrates the degeneracy of service throughout the railroad system and I lay the blame for this entirely on the lack of adequate finances.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, on November 18 I endeavoured to obtain some information relative to government policy in turning over a certain deep sea pier service in Vancouver to private enterprise. I was not able to obtain an answer on that day, so I sincerely hope I can get some information this evening.
Only a few months ago the Vancouver newspapers carried headlines to the effect that the National Harbours Board was about to lease the city docks, which happen to be in my constituency of Vancouver East. Since then I have not been able to get any information as to government policy on the change nor, apparently, have the Vancouver newspapers. Just four hours ago I received a phone call from them asking whether I had received an answer to my question of November 18.
In 1936 the National Harbours Board took over the operation of the publicly-owned Vancouver piers from the old Vancouver Harbour Commission. For the first three years they lost money. As a matter of fact, the total deficit from 1936 to 1946 amounted to $4,242,990.03. Then there was a change for the better, because with the exception of the year 1968 when there was a deficit of $395,286, the years from 1947 to 1968 inclusive showed a surplus of $15,717,638.30.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
The newspapers and people of Vancouver are interested in knowing why, a few months
1624	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ago, a decision was made to turn over these publicly-owned deep sea piers, which were making a profit, to private enterprise. They were leased out to private enterprise, which seems very strange. Anyone looking back at the history of Vancouver harbour will recall that there was a time when private enterprise was not the least bit interested in the piers and wharves. During the years of small losses, private enterprise again was not the least bit interested in them. But when the picture changed and it became known that over the years the publicly-owned deep sea piers in Vancouver harbour had been consistently and continuously showing a good profit, private enterprise said, "What in the name of blazes is the government doing in the pier and wharf business? Let us have it." It appears that the government has acquiesced in this approach.
I understand that Lapointe Pier, Ballantyne Pier and Centennial Piers 1, 2 and 3 in Vancouver harbour have been leased to private enterprise. I think we are entitled to know why there is a change in policy and why a profit making, publicly-owned operation has been turned over to private enterprise. What is the basis of the leasing? Will the government make a profit from the leasing which will give it a return similar to the profit it has been making since 1947 on the operation of the piers in Vancouver harbour?
I point out that in the past few years the National Harbours Board has given a grant to the city of Vancouver in lieu of taxes. What is the situation so far as Vancouver City Council is concerned? Under this leasing arrangement is it to obtain taxes, or a grant in lieu of taxes? Who will pay it-those who have the leases, or the Harbours Board? When there is need for new equipment and cranes, who will supply them-will it be the Harbours Board or some other agency? If it will be the Harbours Board, on what rental basis? Will the rental provide a commensurate return? Who will pay the city wharfage rates, the Harbours Board at Vancouver or the lessee?
A great many questions could be asked about the subject and I feel that a great deal of information is required. Realizing that the hon. member who speaks on behalf of the minister will not be able to give us a complete answer in the time allotted to him in the late show, I nevertheless wish to know why there has been this change in policy, why this profit-making public enterprise has been handed over to private enterprise. Let

DEBATES	December 4, 1969
us have some idea of the basis of the leases. Undoubtedly he will not have enough time to complete his remarks, but may I ask the hon. member if he will ask the Minister of Transport to file in this House copies of the leases in question so that we may have a clear understanding of their terms and will know, through analysing them, whether through this method of leasing will bring as great a return to the taxpayers of this country as was the case when the piers were operated under public ownership for the benefit of the federal treasury.


Mr. Gerard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the original question the hon. member has asked about 10 or 15 questions about Vancouver harbour which I am afraid I am not ready to answer. In so many words he asked the minister to make a statement on motions about Vancouver harbour and to say if the government has looked into the matter of leasing in Vancouver harbour. I have in my hand a prepared answer, but it relates to the hon. member's original question.
I shall bring the hon. member's supplementary questions to the attention of the department and try to obtain the information he seeks. May I at this time, however, give the hon. member the information in my possession on the subject of leasing. The National Harbours Board advises that it has no intention at the present time of changing the system of leasing Lapointe, Ballantyne and Centennial Piers 1, 2 and 3 in Vancouver harbour. These piers are operated under a five-year agreement which commenced October, 1968. Before this new system was introduced, the Board had employed a procedure whereby the operation of the Board's deep sea piers was carried out by a stevedoring contractor under Board direction.
For some years past the National Harbours Board has been subject to criticism on the grounds that as a government agency it was engaging in unfair competition with the private sector. After extensive study of pier operating systems, the Board decided that proposals should be invited for the operation of pier facilities in Vancouver. The general purpose of the new scheme was to have the facilities operated by private enterprise and to ensure a healthy competitive environment within the harbour while at the same time removing the possibility of any one operator securing a monopolistic position.
Prospective bidders were advised that it was essential that all vessels entering the port
December 4, 1969	COMMONS
must be serviced promptly and without delay. To this end the National Harbours Board retains secondary berthing control at all facilities and may require the operator to accept vessels even where such acceptance may be inconvenient to the operator. In addition, the Board retains full berthing control over berths 4, 5, 6 at Centennial Pier.
Changes in transportation technology and the rapid evolution of containerization require the maximum flexibility in harbour operating arrangements. To this end, the five-year agreements are subject to cancellation upon six months' notice without cause at any time after the first year. The principal monetary consideration, secured by way of competitive proposals, is a guaranteed minimum annual payment to be realized from the sum of berthage and wharfage revenues all of which accrue to the Board.
I will bring to the attention of the minister the hon. member's questions with regard to the crane and the facilities at Vancouver harbour. I am sure the minister will be happy to answer the hon. member's questions so that he will understand the situation. I hope everyone at Vancouver harbour will be satisfied.



NATIONAL SECURITY-ACCEPTANCE OF POSSIBLE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION FOR ROYAL COMMISSION ON SUBVERSION

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, during the past week some of us in the House of Commons have learned how to mix a good Molotov cocktail, how to poison police horses instantly and how to run a very successful revolution from the word "go". In other words, we were the poor unfortunates who were members of the committee studying the subject of the Company of Young Canadians. On December 2, my colleague the hon. member for Sainte Marie (Mr. Valade) and I raised two questions in the House and this is the reason I am before this vast and aweinspiring assemblage tonight. As recorded at page 1479 of Hansard, the hon. member for Sainte Marie asked:
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?
DEBATES	1625
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the government will certainly not take any decision until the parliamentary committee's report on the matter is published.
The hon. member then asked:
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.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
Then I followed through very much the same point. I think my hon. friend had asked it all. The following is reported at page 1486:
I have a question for the Prime Minister. In the light of his earlier reply to the hon. member for St. Mary-
I said "Sainte-Marie," Mr. Speaker, but for some reason it came out "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?
The Prime Minister replied:
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.
Well, God bless him! Since the committee will not report before tomorrow morning, I cannot really tell the House what it will regard as the proper thing to do. However, there are a couple of points which in my opinion should be made. First, with regard to the Royal Commission on Security which reported to us earlier this year, while it did report in part, it did not report in full on its deliberations. The point I am making is that we members of the House of Commons have no idea what was omitted from the report of the researches and studies of the Royal Commission on Security. I think, therefore, that our questions in this area are legitimate.
Until we are given the facts, we cannot say the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is scuffing this off; it would be most unfair if we did. But we must ask him whether the objectives of what I consider to be a legitimate request by Mr. Saulnier are being met. Are we, as Members of Parliament, in a position properly to appreciate the type of subversive activity which is going on in Canada and the steps being taken by the forces of law and order to meet those activities?
Second, if hon. members accept my suggestion that Mr. Saulnier's request is a legitimate
1626	COMMONS DEBATES	December 4, 1969
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion one-I think it is a request for information and not a request which is intended to embarrass anybody, especially the Prime Minister, who, after all, is seized with great responsibilities-could the information be in some way transmitted to us so that we might be better informed when we meet with our constituents who ask us questions about this subject? This was really the purpose of my question to the Prime Minister the other day, and I think it was the purpose of the question asked by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.
We shall be getting a report from the broadcasting committee in the morning. Since the substance of that report has been spread all over hell's half-acre in the press of Canada, I do not suppose there will be anything new in it; it will disturb nobody in particular; people will say they have heard that song before.


Hon. G. J. Mcllraith (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has put on record the question he asked on December 2. He was asking whether or not the government will receive a recommendation from the broadcasting committee in connection with Mr. Saulnier's request for a royal commission on subversion. The difficulty in dealing with the subject tonight is simply this: the committee on broadcasting is a standing committee of the House of Commons; the subject matter was referred to the committee; it is still before the committee. It is quite improper for the House to discuss this matter until the committee reports.
I would point out that it is not the government which receives the recommendations of committees. This committee is a standing committee of the House of Commons which reports back to the House. When the report is received, the government will consider it and take what action is warranted, one way or another. For me to indicate now in answer to a hypothetical question what the government's action would be under certain circumstances would be a breach of the privileges of Parliament.
It has been clearly established over many, many years that it is no part of the function of the government,, when a matter is before a standing committee of the House of Commons, to attempt to influence the action of a committee through positions taken in this House. Indeed, were I to answer the question I am quite sure the charge would be levied by the opposition that there was an attempt to influence the decision of the committee.
[Mr. McCleave.l
In light of that, we have no alternative but to wait until we see the report, which I understand will be presented to the House of Commons tomorrow. When it is presented we will consider the matter and the other factors relevant to the whole subject matter and will then take whatever decisions are warranted by the facts.



PESTICIDES-DDT-PLANS FOR COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on November 25 I asked the following question in the House of Commons:
In view of the recent federal policy statement on the drastic curtailment of the use of DDT in Canada, and in view of the urgent need for an orderly and systematic collection and disposal of DDT now in the possession of many Canadians, I would ask the minister if his department or any government department is preparing plans for the collection and disposal of this surplus DDT now in the possession of Canadians in every part of Canada.
As usual, the federal government has been tardy in announcing its plans in this regard. Already, several provincial governments have announced plans for the collection and disposal of surplus DDT supplies. However much remains to be done, it is urgent that some immediate federal announcements be made in this regard.
As we all know, several weeks ago, the federal government announced restrictions on most uses of DDT. This ban is to come into effect on January 1, 1970. It is obvious that some central and practical plan must be found for the collecting and disposal of DDT, especially those stocks now in the hands of Canadians. It is also urgent that a central and sensible method of either disposing of these stocks or storing them be found. It is urgent that information on the government's plan soon go out to the general public before they start on their own disposal plans and cause a host of local pollution problems. As less than one month remains, it will be necessary for the government to immediately announce their plans to the Canadian people by television, radio and the news media.
Perhaps the following example will show the need for immediate action by the federal authorities. As we know, the province of Ontario has banned the use of DDT. According to the newspapers, the Minister of Energy and Resources in that province has advised the companies with stocks of DDT to move what they cannot sell in Ontario to other branches outside the province. This might be
December 4, 1969

good for Ontario but it is certainly not good for those provinces which will be on the receiving end of these surplus stocks. It is a clear indication that the federal government should move at once in regard to a Canadawide plan for the collection and disposal of stocks of DDT.
Instructions to gardeners, homeowners, etc., about the danger of flushing even small amounts down the drain or throwing it out for garbage collection should go out at once. There will be a tendency for people, once they know that DDT has been banned, to comply with the law and get rid of any supplies they may have on hand. Over the years we have had in Canada a very large number of cases where even so-called empty containers were found to be a serious threat to the ecology of our streams and lakes. A number of very serious fish kills took place which were traced directly to DDT containers which had been thrown away but contained very small amounts of the toxic pesticide which eventually got into the streams and did a great deal of damage.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
I have read a number of suggested methods for the disposal of old DDT supplies and containers. They run from burying the material in the ground to throwing it down a dry, abandoned mine-shaft. It seems to me that no method of disposal should be decided upon until the authorities are absolutely certain that the method used will not result in the eventual further pollution of our environment. For this reason I am urging that immediate firm and constructive suggestions on this very important matter be made by the department responsible. However, at this time the most urgent need is to set up a safe and sensible method of collecting these supplies and for making certain that they are stored in such a way that they will cause no harm until a proper disposal system has been decided upon.
I understand that the province of British Columbia and the province of Ontario have already made moves in regard to both collection and disposal. I am certain that a number of organizations would be only too pleased to assist in making certain that these supplies of DDT are collected and looked after properly. The various government departments, both provincial and federal, along with help from organizations such as fish and game groups, the wildlife groups, and so on, could soon organize and carry out collection campaigns
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion that would have nothing but beneficial results.
However, while some provinces will move on this immediately, others might delay, and for this reason we need immediate direction from the federal authorities. This must come before the Christmas festivities get too much under way. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister, if his department has not already finalized plans for such a project, to start on it without delay. Far too much damage has already been done to our environment and to our ecology by DDT, without having further damage done by those who are merely getting rid of supplies which they have on hand and which the government will not allow them to use after January 1 next.
I trust that the minister will tonight fully outline the plans to ensure a safe and sane method of both collection and disposal of the large amounts of DDT now in the hands of Canadians. I am certain any program will receive the full co-operation of the Canadian public, because we are all interested in improving the quality of our environment. It is essential that a firm and sound policy by the federal government be announced without delay, not only for the collection and disposal of DDT but for any limited use of this pesticide which may be allowed. Research must continue without delay so that adequate substitutes for DDT will eventually eliminate all its uses in Canada. In addition a number of other toxic pesticides should be looked into by the federal authorities and, in my opinion, should be placed on the banned list with DDT.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to congratulate you on the truly dignified way you conduct the discussion of this assembly and on your patience with the members of the House.
As for the question asked on November 25 by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding) concerning the use of the DDT stocks accumulated in Canada, following the curtailment of the use of pesticides, I will answer, in keeping with the statement made on the 17th of the same month by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson), that the program that was announced was one of planned reductions in the use of DDT and that some uses are still permitted. We therefore expect a great deal of the stocks thus accumulated to
1628	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion be used for such purposes. I am further informed that there are not many retail stocks left and these should be soon exhausted.
May I also point out that the federal interdepartmental committee on pesticides which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources
DEBATES	December 4, 1969
(Mr. Greene) mentioned in answer to the hon. member on November 21 is right now considering the problem in every possible respect.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, December 5, 1969