1970-11-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60(2) I should like to request the designation of an Order of the Day for the consideration of a ways and means motion so that I may make a budget presentation on Thursday next at eight p.m.
af* sf*



SHIPBUILDING


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce an extension of the government's national program for shipbuilding which will help shipbuilders throughout Canada to obtain export orders.
As hon. members are aware, shipbuilding activity in Canadian yards has been at a low level this year despite the support available for the construction of Canadian flag vessels for domestic use. Employment has seriously declined and will continue to do so.
At the same time the international market for ships has strengthened. Demand has more than doubled since 1965 and is now running at some $15 billion per year on the world basis. The extension of government assistance to the industry which I am announcing today is designed to help our yards share in this strong market.
To penetrate the international market it is important for Canadian shipbuilders to achieve lower unit costs. Multiple unit production is one of the ways to improve cost performance. To this end the government has decided on a temporary program of support for the building of ships for export.
The program will apply to firm export orders received by Canadian shipyards prior to June 30, 1972. Support will be granted to shipyards up to an amount of 17 per cent of the audited costs of a ship built for export and under 40,000 deadweight tons. For ships over 40,000 deadweight tons the support will amount to 14 per cent of audited costs. The rate of this temporary assistance will decline after September 30, 1971 by \ of 1 per cent
per quarter. In determining the base for support, profits will be excluded. Detailed information as to the various conditions of government assistance will be announced in regulations to be issued in the near future. The necessary approval of Parliament will be sought shortly.
I understand that as much as $300 million worth of export orders representing over 14,000 man years of employment for this mainly Canadian-owned and operated industry may be available to competitive Canadian shipyards which can offer early delivery.

I trust that the government's decision to give this special temporary support will help to maintain employment during the period until the domestic shipbuilding market strengthens. I hope that the activity generated will place our yards in a better position to bid for continuing export as well as domestic business. It is not intended that during the life of this program our industry should overexpand in relation to anticipated long-term demand.
I believe that the expected higher level of business will help our yards further to diversify their production and reduce vulnerability to fluctuations in the demand for vessels. It is significant that a number of our yards are already producing efficiently a wide variety of heavy equipment.
[DOT] (11:10 a.m.)
In recent years Canadian shipyards have improved their competitive competence and product capability and have increased their productivity and lowered their costs. This process has been facilitated by government policies directed toward the encouragement of a healthy and viable industry. The modernization of shipyards has been encouraged under the programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and support for such modernization and diversification will be continued.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to file a copy in both official languages of my statement and the press release on the shipbuilding expansion program.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, we of the Official Opposition welcome the statement the minister has made in the House today on this most important matter. I did not realize that the question I directed to him yesterday would get him going so quickly, but I thank him for doing so.
Shipbuilding subsidies were introduced by the former government under the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) as a program to assist the industry in this country to become competitive with foreign shipyards. As we all know, to the end of 1969 the

November 27, 1970
Shipbuilding Program
subsidy amounted to 25 per cent but under the present plan will decline to 17 per cent by 1973.
I commend the minister for the step he is taking to assist our shipyards in getting into the export market. This is important, but it is only a stopgap measure and something of greater permanence must be brought forward. I commend to him, as I did yesterday, the recommendations of the Robertson Committee on Shipbuilding. As he pointed out, there are 21 recommendations in that report. Among them is a recommendation that subsidies on commercial shipbuilding remain at 23 per cent for deliveries prior to June 30, 1973.
Also of importance are the subsidies under the Department of Fisheries and Forestry in respect of fishing trawlers. These must also be maintained because of their importance.
I think the minister and the government should take cognizance of recommendation No. 1 of the Robertson Committee Report:
That the government develop, formulate and state a maritime policy that will ensure fulfilment of Canada's maritime interests, and that it establish appropriate organizational arrangements for continuous implementation of that policy.
I always believe in starting at the beginning so I commend recommendation No. 1 to the minister. We welcome the assistance in respect of export markets and we look forward to a permanent maritime policy which will help the shipbuilding industry of this country. The measures taken are helpful but a permanent policy must be forthcoming at an early date to assist in solving the unemployment problem. As the minister has said, activity in Canadian shipbuilding yards has been at a low level this year. The only way it can be brought to a higher, permanent level is by the government coming forward with a permanent and complete maritime policy.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have no congratulations for the minister or the government today because, after all, what does one say to a government which after systematically running around for the last two years destroying the economy now comes forward with some measures to make up for the destruction it has caused? Over and over again we have pointed out the high cost of unemployment to this country and the inability of adjustments to take place as a result of the deliberate unemployment policies of the government.
The government panicked. The government created unemployment in a futile effort to control inflation. It has not been successful in controlling inflation and its unemployment policies have been absolutely damaging to the economy. Then the government comes to the House of Commons, yesterday with a shirt policy and today with this measure in respect of shipbuilding, and expects to be congratulated. Their actions remind me of their campaign teams during the last election. They had one team putting up signs and another team tearing them down. That is the kind of arrangement they have now. They have one group trying to regulate the economy and they have another group which is trying to put the sticks together-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor for the purpose of commenting on the statement made to the House and not to make the kind of speech he is now making. If the hon. member will consult the Standing Orders he will know that he has no right to make this kind of speech.


Max Saltsman: Thank you for the advice, Mr. Speaker. I was merely attempting to put the statement before us in the proper context. Having made those remarks, I think it is necessary that we move in this direction but only because of the damage that has been caused to the economy and the need to repair some of it. If anything good can be said about this measure it is simply that it is much better to encourage the shipyards in this way than with another Bonaventure.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, the minister has just announced a program intended to attract international contracts estimated at up to $300 million, and representing 14,000 men-years of work during the next five years.
Mr. Speaker, some people take pleasure in playing on words, just as they do with our Canadian dollars when dealing with foreigners.
Although our coastline is nearly three times the circumference of the world, although we have the largest inland sea in the world and the most beautiful river, because of an irresponsible policy we have no Canadian clients.
To remedy the situation, the government is endeavouring to take over part of the market. It is setting out to conquer world markets, in an attempt to find companies or foreign countries willing to buy a few ships from Canada.
Finally, a few workers will be in a position to take advantage of the new jobs created under this program. Unfortunately, it is again a program aimed at creating jobs for water-carriers because we have neglected that sector of our economy and waited until there was a general paralysis. By putting that program into effect, the government will give with one hand and tax with the other.
The program will apply to firm orders received by Canadian shipyards before June 30, 1972. The shipyards will receive assistance which could reach up to 17 per cent of the controlled cost of a ship built for exportation purposes, etc.
Since Canada no longer owns too many ships, the population will have to pay to keep the few jobs still existing in the shipyards.
I am pleased as are the shipyards owners who will benefit from the program. The members of the Rallie-ment Creditiste rejoice with the workers who still have a job and those who will be hired under this program. Unfortunately, we must recognize that the program is very limited as compared with the possibilities existing in Canada.

November 27, 1970

Mr. Speaker, I seize the opportunity to ask the minister to consider other programs so that the country could be equipped with a merchant marine similar to the one it had a hundred years ago.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
November 24. 1970-Mr. Saltsman-Bill intituled: "An Act to establish a Canada Development Corporation".
Mr. Speaker:: I think I should bring to the attention of the hon. member and the House that after a quick look at the bill proposed by the hon. member I have serious reservations about it and will not put the motion at this time. The hon. member may wish to give some thought to the possible financial implications of the bill. As he knows, of course, the measure proposed for the consideration of the House under the title "An Act to establish a Canada Development Corporation" is, perhaps by coincidence, substantially the isame as the bill assented to on April 24, 1970 under the title "An Act to Establish the International Development Research Centre". As the hon. member is aware, that bill had been preceded by a royal recommendation and I am rather suspicious that this would be required in this instance, although an effort obviously has been made by the hon. member to eliminate the most obvious financial implications of the bill.
[DOT] (11:20 a.m.)
If the hon. member will look at some of the clauses, in particular clause 11 or at any rate the clause which provides for the appointment of officers and agents and employees, he will detect, as I do, a faint odour of money in this clause. I have some doubts regarding the opening of a bank account and the payment of sums out of such bank account. I doubt whether the hon. member has succeeded in his imaginative efforts to remove all financial implications from the bill.
I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member. I would like to have a serious look at the bill and, if possible, give the hon. member the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps on Monday next the hon. member might have an opportunity to explain to the House his point of view and indicate why he thinks I may be in error in suggesting that this bill has financial implications.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the rather welcome announcement on motions by the Minister of Finance, would he advise the House
Inquiries of the Ministry
whether his budget will be in the usual form and contain the usual budget resolutions requiring lengthy legislative consideration by the House?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult for me to say what is going to be in the budget at this time. If resolutions are necessary, of course we will present them in the ordinary way.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Without trying to delve into the contents of the budget in detail, may I ask the minister to advise us whether the budget proposals will include any reference to the white paper on taxation and the subject matters and recommendations contained in that document?



CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS-BRIEFING OF PARTY REPRESENTATIVES PRIOR TO PRESENTATION

Max Saltsman: May I ask the Minister of Finance whether he has consulted with the provincial representatives in this matter and, if so, when he commenced his consultations with them?


Edgar John Benson: The officials of the provincial governments have been here for the last couple of days talking about the meeting of Ministers of Finance which is to take place in a couple of weeks. I believe my officials pointed out some of the problems in the economy and this sort of thing to them but did not refer to the specific matters in the budget.


Max Saltsman: Will the minister make arrangements for the respective party representatives and research staff to be briefed in confidence prior to the budget presentation, similar to the privilege given to the news media?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will follow the same practice that was followed last time when we presented the white paper whereby one or two representatives of each party were briefed. I will try to arrange this. However, I do not think we can move to the stage where we have research staff and other people briefed as well. This would create an impossible situation. I think the question is, who is allowed into the so-called secret press briefing and who is not.



EFFECT OF POSSIBLE CHANGES ON UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. J. Edward Broadbenl (Oshawa-Whifby):: In view of the fact that the spin-off effects of whatever changes in economic policy are made now will not have an effect on unemployment levels this winter, is the government reconsidering its position with regard to the immediate raising of unemployment insurance payments?


Edgar John Benson: My hon. friend has arrived at an interesting conclusion without knowing what is in the budget. I could not arrive at the same conclusion.

November 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



ALLEGED ABOLITION OF SALES TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainie-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a supplementary question.
Since the government apparently intends to repeal the sales tax on building materials will this measure be retroactive?


Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of the hon. member to the fact that his question is hypothetical.



POSSIBLE CONTROL OF BANK PROFITS

['Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there have been talks on this subjects and I doubt that there will be any.']
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that three banks have now announced substantial increases in profits, is the Minister of Finance giving consideration to any control over bank profits in developing his policy statement for next week?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, according to long-standing custom of the House I really cannot say what I am going to include in my statement next week.



Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the hon. Minister of National Defence.
Can he tell us whether he is aware of a request from South Africa to become a member of NATO and which position Canada intends to take in the matter?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a request, but it seems evident that South Africa is not located within the North Atlantic region.


Gérard Laprise: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell us if there have been any talks between NATO and South Africa about the protection of the Cape route and the Indian Ocean against Soviet ships on the Indian Ocean?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there have been talks on this subjects and I doubt that there will be any.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the

universal opposition, he will now agree to withdraw Bill C-190?


Righi Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I do not
know if the hon. member is seriously suggesting this, Mr. Speaker. As the House knows, the bill was drawn up by the government following the directions given to it by the committee chaired by a Conservative member and of which, I understand, the member asking the question was also a member. If it is the desire of the House to withdraw this bill, we will certainly give it most serious consideration, but it seems to me the opposition is in the curious position of reproaching the government for drawing a bill which follows exactly the instructions given to it by the committee.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is the Prime Minister not aware that this party, irrespective of the views of the committee, was, is and still will be totally opposed to the principles of this bill? I would also like to ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: I would also like to ask the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: -if he will agree-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows the reservations which the Chair has about asking questions about a bill on the order paper, discussion of which has not yet been reached. That is clearly anticipating a government order. I allowed the hon. member to ask the question because I felt guilty about having disallowed his questions so often, but I suggest we should not enter into a debate at this point.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Gerald William Baldwin: On the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Prime Minister rises on a question of privilege. I believe a question of privilege has precedence over the hon. member's point of order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member put on the record that the government knows that the opposition are opposed to this bill. I do not know how we could know-


Mr. Maclnnis:: That is not privilege.


Mr. Horner:: That is no point of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The privilege is that we are told we know something-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: That's a mistake.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and I say we cannot possibly know it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order.
November 27, 1970


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the only basis on which we could know the opposition's position is the way its members voted unanimously in the committee and recommended this bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the point of order which Your Honour raised is quite correct, but I submit I am entitled to ask general questions without going into details of the bill. I ask the Prime Minister, is he now prepared to bring the bill forward for immediate discussion so that we can settle once and for all whether the autocratic tendencies to stifle criticism of the Prime Minister or the views of the taxpayers are prevail?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that the question as asked is not in order and should not be asked.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. member for Prince Albert.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I feel sure that the question I wish to direct to the Minister of National Defence will receive the support of all hon. members who have had members of the armed forces present at their homes during recent weeks. While yet unconvinced that the course was necessary I would ask the minister, on behalf of all who had members of the forces at their homes, to convey to the Canadian Armed Forces thanks and appreciation for the manner in which all ranks have discharged their responsibility beyond the actual call of duty and to let them know that their efficiency and courtesy during difficult days and under uncomfortable circumstances have done honour to them and to our country.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the right hon. gentleman having raised the question and I should like to say that I will be most happy to convey his commendation to the forces. Perhaps no compliment to our armed forces could be conveyed to them more felicitously than in the words of the right hon. gentleman and I shall be very pleased to pass it on.



ARMED FORCES-ANNOUNCEMENT OF PAY INCREASES- ENCOURAGEMENT OF RE-ENLISTMENT

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmoulh-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. If you will permit me, I should like to thank him for the news with respect to pay raises for the armed forces which we heard this morning. While we
Inquiries of the Ministry
welcome the raises, I should like to ask whether the minister could indicate to the House what special considerations were given in the structure of the pay increases to encourage a higher rate of re-enlistment?
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to confirm that effective October 1, 1970, there will be an increase of 6.06 per cent in the salary of members of the armed forces of the rank of colonel and below. Some of the specific provisions will be with regard to those specialties in which there is a special need to keep competitive with the private area. I refer particularly to some aircrew and airborne staff, and also with regard to sea and air duty. There will be increases in the allowances available in those areas to assure that those particular specialties do not fall behind.


J. Michael Forrestall: Because it is quite apparent that the minister has not addressed himself to the question of incentive bonuses, can the minister indicate to the House if this current series of pay increases is in any way designed to narrow the disparity that exists between pay increases to the armed forces over the last eight or ten years compared with pay increases to the Public Service over the same period?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the hon. member's conclusion. I would point out that particularly in the case of certain groups such as air crew and submariners and also other specialist tradesmen there has been a specific increase beyond the increases made available to the forces generally. With regard to the general position of the armed forces, the government has had under review for the period of the past year a series of proposals to try, in the first place, to bring the manner of remunerating the armed forces into close comparison both with the Public Service generally and with the private sector. We hope to have this review completed in time for the increases which might come into effect in the next calendar year. At that time efforts will be made to put them on a comparable basis.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Is the minister aware of reports of dissatisfaction among the staff of the Auditor General which reportedly resulted in a meeting of members of the staff this week over their present wage and salary scales? If so, would he look into this matter which it seems to me may further handicap the work of the Auditor General?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the administrative arrangements governing the staff of the Auditor General was quite extensively investigated last spring by the Public Accounts Committee and the record of their proceedings

November 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
is quite clear. If there are additional items to which the hon. member refers, I should be glad to have the details and inquire into them.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, since the government has had a week to digest some of the decisions of the recent Liberal party conference, is the President of the Treasury Board considering the amendment of the Public Service Staff Relations Act to allow decisions affecting classifications and job descriptions, now the sole prerogative of the government, to be shared with its employees?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct. The government is now reviewing the Public Service Staff Relations Act.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, this is welcome news, but in view of the fact that many CR positions in the government service are being reclassified and reduced at the present time, does the minister not feel that this procedure makes a farce of the whole collective bargaining process?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question is of a highly argumentative nature and cannot be accepted.



PURCHASE BY JAPAN OF RAW MATERIALS OR FINISHED PRODUCTS

Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Recently, the minister announced that he will head the ministerial and industrial Canadian delegation to Japan. I would like to ask him if, in addition to promoting the sale of crude Canadian ore, he will also attempt to interest the Japanese representatives in buying our finished products, which would be more useful, I think, for the Canadian economy.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the commission is to discuss all facets of mining relating to the relationship between the Japanese purchasing agencies, private and public, and in Canada, with respect to both the private and public sector. Certainly we will be considering finished products and raw materials as well as investment policies.



POST OFFICE


Mr. H. Gordon Barrett (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I wish at this time to bring to the attention of hon. members that today, November 27, is the 141st anniversary of a date significant in the history of Canada-the passage of the first ship through the Welland Canal which had been built through pioneering-


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


H. Gordon Barrett: The question is, Mr. Speaker, that in recent years the government has recognized outstanding Canadians by the issuance of commemorative postage stamps. I should like to ask the Minister without Portfolio in charge of the Post Office if the name of Canada's father of transportation, Mr. William Hamilton Merritt-


An hon. Member:: Merritt or Barrett?


H. Gordon Barrett: -would be considered as deserving of this honour in the future?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of this question. The commemoration of this outstanding Canadian by means of a postage stamp will be given the most sympathetic consideration when a suitable anniversary occurs, which would be on a 50th anniversary or a multiple of that figure.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since Monday is St. Andrew's Day, will the minister give consideration to emulating the Soviet Union by bringing out a stamp to honour Robert Burns?



LABOUR RELATIONS


Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinihe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to address a question to his Parliamentary Secretary. Has the minister offered the services of his department to assist in settling the General Motors strike in Ste. The-rese, in light of the consequences for the future of a very serious national strike and its effect on language development in Canada?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: The hon. member is aware of course, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is under provincial jurisdiction. At the same time, I am sure he appreciates the deep concern of the minister with industrial unrest wherever it occurs in Canada, and I shall report the hon. member's question to the minister.

November 27, 1970



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Did the Treasury Board approve a full go ahead on the destroyer escort program?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the Treasury Board has in the past authorized such things as are necessary to be authorized to enable the destroyers to be constructed.


Thomas Miller Bell: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, concerning the matter of extra defence costs. Is there any evidence that if the Minister of National Defence does not get his way in such matters he will disembowel himself as the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Spadina.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for urban affairs. Would the minister inform the House whether the government intends to set up a fund in order to help the cities to improve their mass transit systems?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, no such specific decision on such a specific program has been agreed upon yet. The whole question of assistance to the cities, in co-operation with provincial governments, is a matter that will be assigned to the new ministry that is to be created. This, among many other matters, will be discussed with our provincial counterparts.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Has there been any decision to assist the city of Montreal with the extension of its subway system?


Robert Knight Andras: Not specifically to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a related question to the minister. Some time ago, I believe last week, the Minister of Transport indicated that he intended meeting with Premier Robarts with regard to Toronto's second international airport. Considering the minister's interest in urban growth, may I ask him whether this meeting has taken place and has resulted in the necessary safeguards to prevent specula-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion? If so, when can we expect an announcement regarding the definite sites which are being considered?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is consultation between my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and myself on this matter. However, I think the question should properly be posed to him when he returns to the House.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Government House Leader. Would the minister filling this role take a look at page iv of the notice paper attached to today's order paper and see whether there is a typographical error. There is a recommendation there that suggests that the basic old age pension is to be raised to $80 a month, which is only 42 cents more than the amount now being paid. Surely this must be an error.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Solicitor General. In light of the report that has been in the possession of the Quebec ombudsman regarding beatings of persons arrested under the War Measures Act, has the minister inquired of Quebec ministers whether the officer responsible has been arrested or suspended. If not, what action has the Solicitor General taken?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is referring to the press reports of part of the evidence before the coroner's court. If he is, he will recall that the Minister of Justice of Quebec indicated that he was having that allegation investigated. He made that indication almost immediately after the item was reported in the press.


Mr. Fairweather:: Is the Solicitor General or is the Minister of Justice following this case on a daily basis, or is the minister relying on the results of the Quebec investigation?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the matter is within the responsibilities of the Quebec Attorney General and not of the federal authority. It is my understanding, as indicated in the House by the Minister of Justice, that that minister has been in communication with the Minister of Justice of Quebec over the matter. I am not in possession of the detailed information as to whether this continues daily, or how it is arranged.

November 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry



WAR MEASURES ACT-ARRESTS, RELEASES, CONTINUING DETENTIONS AND CHARGES

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, as the matter of arrests in Quebec is before the House may I give the House information on the latest statistics, which I think will he of interest. The total number arrested is 454. The total number released to date is 403. Of the remainder of 51, two have been sentenced by the courts, 48 have been charged with various offences and their cases are before the courts, and one person is being detained who has not yet been charged. That person was arrested earlier this week and the matter of whether to charge him or not was being considered last night. I do not know the result.


Mr.  H. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to ask as a result of the minister's supplementary information. Has he had the opportunity to check out the question that I asked first of the Minister of Justice and second of the Solicitor General about the number of people among the 403 who have been released who might have lost their jobs solely as the result of the original apprehension?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not been able to obtain that information yet.



WAR MEASURES ACT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON TREATMENT OF PERSONS HELD IN JAIL

Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Would he in the near future make a complete statement to the House on the treatment of persons being held in jails so that the public will be informed about these matters and about how these investigations have been conducted?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite clear as to just what the hon. member is referring to, in view of the work of the committee that has been reviewing these matters at the request of the Quebec Minister of Justice. I shall see if it is possible to gather together the information that already has been mostly given in this House on the point and add anything to it that can usefully be added.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Because of the responsibility of the federal government for bringing in the War Measures Act and because of the degree to which people are concerned about evidence that ill treatment is being handed out, does the minister receive reports from day to day from this committee appointed by the government of the province of Quebec dealing with specific cases?


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman started his question by saying, "Because of the federal government having enacted the measure-"


John George Diefenbaker: No. It has not enacted it yet; not the new measure.


George James McIlraith: Well, he referred to action taken under an Act of the federal Parliament. The position of any person under that Act is exactly the same, of course, as that of any person arrested under the Criminal Code. It is a federal statute and the responsibility-and I wish to repeat this-the primary responsibility for its administration remains and must remain with the provincial authorities. The right hon. member spoke about information on a day to day basis. I do not think it is fair to saj that it is given on a day to day basis. Nevertheless, we have a very close working relationship and do obtain information regularly throughout the period involved.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has admitted that the government does obtain information concerning the allegations being made, will he teH the House whether or not the allegations of cruelty and inhumane treatment in specific cases have been looked into and whether the government of Canada thinks there is no justification for so doing on the basis of the information which the government has received from or on behalf of the committee?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I was not sufficiently clear a moment ago. The allegation of inhumane treatment, or whatever term the right hon. gentleman used, was in evidence given in an open Quebec court. It was the evidence of one witness and was not, so far as I know, countered; nor was an opportunity given to deal with that evidence by way of rebuttal or otherwise. Consequently I am not in a position to say whether the allegations have any substance in them or not. The investigation of that matter is going on under the responsibility of and is being conducted by the proper authorities of the government of the province concerned.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: But the minister is privy to that information.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have no responsibility in relation to that investigation that is going on and do not have detailed information on it. I assume that we will be able to obtain what information can properly be given at the conclusion of the report dealing with what the investigation has disclosed.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister is washing his hands of the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: What does the minister mean by "give such information as may be properly furnished"? This government must be responsible particularly for any inhumanity and should certainly see to it that a full investigation takes place. Does the minister not agree with that?


George James McIlraith: No, the minister does not agree with the right hon. gentleman's constant attempts to place the federal government in the position of interfering in areas which are the responsibility of the provincial government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Mr. Mcllraith.l
November 27, 1970

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are only a few minutes of the question period left and hon. members should be given the opportunity to ask new questions.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: My question is also directed to the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister anything to report on the escape of prisoners from Prince Albert Penitentiary, and would he consider setting up a commission to investigate the conditions and problems of inmates at that penitentiary?


George James McIlraith: As to the
Prince Albert escape, on November 25 we were advised that the 11 inmates of that institution had escaped.


Gerald William Baldwin: On their way to the Liberal convention.


George James McIlraith: Four are still at large, two having been returned to prison yesterday and the five having been recaptured almost immediately after the escape. As to setting up an inquiry, there is a board of inquiry within the penitentiary service already looking into the matter and until this inquiry has been completed I cannot deal with the question as to whether any further type of inquiry is warranted.

* *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Secretary fo State for External Affairs.
I would like to know whether the minister has made representations to the board of directors of the International Civil Aviation Organization to have them establish their headquarters in the east end of Montreal.


Mr. Andre Ouellei (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is most actively concerned with giving new life to the business section in east end Montreal and besides promoting the construction of Place Radio Canada in that section, it is doing the utmost to have Place Desjardins also located in that area.
However, may I remind the hon. member that it is up to the International Civil Aviation Organization to make decisions concerning the location of its headquarters. The government, however, is doing whatever it can to have this organization stay in Montreal, under terms which take into account the interests of the government and those of ICAO.


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


Mr. Rene Malte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Did he have talks, during the last two days, with his Quebec colleague about the emergency powers act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Which act?


René Matte: Did the Prime Minister have talks, during the last two days, with the Quebec premier about the emergency powers act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Upon my word, Mr. Speaker, I do not think so. I spoke to the Quebec Premier a few days ago, I believe it was on Monday, and I reported about it to the House. But since then I have not had an opportunity to talk to him.


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, questions have been asked for some time about who is going to support the cost of armed forces services in Quebec, and I should like to ask the Prime Minister to tell us today whether there has been any progress in negotiations on this matter, and who will support the cost of these services.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


John Edward Broadbent: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact automotive workers for General Motors have returned to their jobs in the United States, can the minister assure the House that General Motors of Canada will not be allowed to import automobiles from south of the border as long as workers on this side of the border are on strike?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker.



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Can the hon. gentleman report to the House on the progress he is

November 27, 1970
Inquiries of the Ministry
making in his plan to transfer the Royal Canadian Mint to the province of Manitoba?


Hon. James A. Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: We are now at the stage of engineering and design studies; there has been no serious consideration of site location.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In the quaint language used by the government, is it safe to say the matter is under active consideration?



WHEAT-REACHING OF FOUR-BUSHEL QUOTA

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a question to ask the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In line with predictions which were made earlier, and because there seems to be some space at the terminals without a corresponding increase in quotas at country elevator points, is the minister still hopeful that a four-bushel quota will be reached by the end of this year?


Hon. Oifo E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I am not sure whether any very precise predictions were made as to when a specific quota would be reached. But there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that an eight-bushel quota will be achieved in the course of the crop year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: My question is directed to the minister answering for the Secretary of State. In view of the bias displayed on a CBC program last Sunday night in favour of further liberalization of the law on abortion and, more particularly, in view of the CBC's announced intention to broadcast the results of a public opinion survey on this issue, may I ask whether those who oppose further liberalization of the law will be afforded equal prime viewing time on a Sunday, to express their views?


André Ouellet: I take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: In keeping with Grey Cup tradition, we on this side of the House wish the Prime Minister well as he kicks off tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I realize that the Prime Minister has hardly ever been wrong during his tenure of office-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I realize the hon. member is referring to an important occasion, but he cannot make a speech. He should ask a question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is my understanding that the right hon. gentleman has picked his home-town team to win. I wager him one dollar that he will be wrong, and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to book the bet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmoni):: I have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Having regard to the fact that within half an hour the report on the study of maritime union will be tabled in Charlottetown in the presence of the three maritime premiers, would the Prime Minister or the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion make a statement later this day to the House on the basis that the federal government has participated in the preparation of this report and will of necessity have great responsibility with regard to its potential implications application?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That would not be our intention. As the hon. member knows, the report is to the maritime governments. We shall expect them to study and analyse it and perhaps make their position known with regard to it. If the federal government is requested by them to assist in any way or to express its opinion in due course, we will certainly consider such a request favourably.



SKAGIT RIVER-POSSIBLE FLOODING OF VALLEY-DISCUSSIONS WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I wish to ask him whether, in the recent talks between Canada and the United States at the ministerial level, any discussion took place which might lead to the abandonment on the United States side of the proposal to flood the Skagit Valley in Canada for the purpose of power development? In any event, can the minister indicate what position the Canadian government is taking in the negotiations with the United States in line with questions asked by some of my hon. friends as reported in Hansard at page 1311, which might be directed to the minister now since he is in his place.

November 27, 1970


John James Greene: This matter was not an item on the agenda at the ministerial discussions. No application has been made to the federal government to date to the best of my knowledge by the Seattle Light Company for a permit under the International River Improvements Act, so there is nothing to report as far as my department is concerned.



SUGGESTED VISIT TO CANADA OF REPRESENTATIVES OF CHINESE TOBACCO MONOPOLY

Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. First of all, I should like to commend him on the efforts of his department in bringing the Japanese tobacco monopoly to Canada and showing them all the aspects of our industry. My question is: Will he make the same efforts in an endeavour to bring the Chinese tobacco monopoly to Canada? I ask this question because, prior to world war II-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot explain why he asks the question; he can only ask the question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly have this possibility explored, and if there are any sales to smoke out that will be done.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. In light of the fact that the government has apparently taken the position that Mr. Cross is still alive, has the Solicitor General any new initiatives to report to the House with regard to efforts to obtain the safe release of Mr. Cross from his abductors?


George James McIlraith: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no new initiatives to report to the House. I must say I am sensitive to the fact that it is impossible, when an investigation is under way, to keep the House advised from day to day as to just what steps are being taken. To do so would be to impede the work of the investigators. I am aware of that difficulty and I thank the House for showing its appreciation of that difficulty.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With that observation of the hon. gentleman I am sure the House will be in agreement, but yesterday the minister of external affairs announced in London that as far as the government was concerned it still believed Mr. Cross was alive. Is that the view of the minister?
Canadian National Railways


George James McIlraith: I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that I should give my views on a matter of this kind. I have no reason to do other than to expect and to hope that he is alive, but I do not think my views are particularly relevant to this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of cooperating with Your Honour, and in view of the fact we are now beyond the time allotted to the question period, I will wait until next week to raise my questions.
[DOT] (12:00 noon)



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Edgar John Benson: that Bill C-186, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1970, to the 30th day of June 1971, 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, financing and guarantee bills, including the present one, have been introduced annually, with the exception of the 1963 bill which covered 1962 and 1963, and the 1966 bill which covered 1965 and 1966. The present bill has seven main objectives, most of which had a similar form in previous legislation.
First, the bill would authorize capital expenditures by Canadian National Railways, not exceeding $229 million, during the 1970 calendar year. This level of expenditures compares with $201,700,000 authorized for 1969. The bill also contains technical provisions authorizing Canadian National Railways to make expenditures not exceeding $80 million between January 1 and July 1, 1971 for obligations incurred prior to January 1, 1971 and to enter into contracts before July 1, 1971 for capital expenditures not exceeding $163 million for which payment will not come due until after 1970.
Second, the bill contains a provision authorizing Canadian National Railways to borrow $12 million for financing all branch line construction. This amount includes the financing of branch lines in excess of 20 miles authorized by special statute as well as the financing of those lines under 20 miles which do not require special legislation. By covering all branch lines, the provision in the bill is consistent with the intent of reflecting in the financing and guarantee bill all the


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments on the bill under study. I will quote a few excerpts from the 1969 report of the Canadian National.
Bill C-186 is designed to grant funds to the CNR to provide for certain expenditures. The Bill is described as:
An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1970, to the 30th day of June, 1971, 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.
Once more, we are being asked to vote substantial funds required for the operation of those Crown Corporations, Canadian National and Air Canada.
Out of this quite astronomical figure-$229 million- some $10 million are to be used for new branch lines. I was expecting the minister to go into more detail on the

new branch lines Canadian National Railways intend to build in 1971 or early in 1972.
Certain regions of the country are obviously rich in natural resources which could be developed but as they are increasingly remote from the United States border and larger centers, adequate transportation is necessary to bring them to consumer centres.
We heard a few days ago that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) would be going to Japan to try to interest Japanese industrialists in our ore. We know most of those resources are located on the west coast of Canada.
There are, in New Quebec, many ore bodies of all kinds that are about to be developed. Big companies are starting to develop them.
There are vast iron bodies near Whale River, and further north, deposits of nickel, copper and asbestos.
On March 19, 1970, Mr. Jean-Paul Drolet, federal deputy minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said as follows:
The extreme north of New Quebec, according to surveys made in 1969, is said to hold, among other deposits, huge reserves of several million tons of rich copper-nickel ore and asbestos deposits estimated at a total value of at least one billion dollars. It will very likely become one of the most important mining areas in the province, the deputy minister pointed out.
[DOT] (12:10 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this is a small part of the natural resources which can be found in that huge territory of New Quebec.
Evidently those mentioned by the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Ressources are rather remote, while others are much nearer and easier to develop. But we must find the necessary means to ship them to Hudson Bay and James Bay or to places such as Chibougamau or Matagami which have railways enabling them to ship their minerals southwards.
I think that the government should have undertaken the necessary studies for the construction of branch lines in order to ship those minerals to refining centres.
I expected the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) to reveal government projects in that regard and I am sorry that he left the House.
The hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is not in the House either at the moment to hear the speeches of hon. members, but I hope that at least he will take note of my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, the recommendation of His Excellency the Governor General regarding this bill, indicates the sums required for the administration of the Canadian National and Air Canada and specifies that if the need arises, the government will have access to supplementary funds to meet the deficits of both companies.
This led me to examine the 1969 report of the Canadian National.
November 27, 1970

The Canadian National debt is now about $1,898,801,641. It is rather impressive for a Crown company. I admit that it must serve an immense territory-the whole of Canada-and maintain thousands of miles of tracks, the like of which is practically non existant in any other country.
Nevertheless, such a heavy debt for which exorbitant interests must be paid each year might only be attributed to the bad administration of public funds. For instance, we will have on January 16, 1971 to repay a $40 million loan on January 16, 1971 and in December 1971 another amount of $184,643,000.
In the bill under consideration we are being asked to vote moneys to meet such a debt. Where will the government take the necessary funds to provide them to the Canadian National?
It will have to resort to the sale of bonds on the public and American markets in order to meet its financial commitments.
It is like a gardener who wishes to fill a hole in his garden and digs another one to get the necessary earth.
So finally we end up facing another deficit. We are no better off. The situation as far as Canadian National Railways and Air Canada are concerned is exactly the same as that applying to the administration of the country.
When debts come due for reimbursement, we borrow. The situation worsens from year to year. I notice that the two payments Canadian National Railways will have to meet in 1971 cover loans obtained at interest rates of 2| per cent and 5J per cent respectively.
To be sure, any loans the Canadian government will have to contract this year or in 1971 will be granted at rates of interest much higher than those which applied 12 or 21 years ago.
The situation is not improving and the government has not done anything about it so far. The Ralliement credi-tiste offers a solution. It is asking the government to finance the public sector and to use the Bank of Canada for this purpose. As a matter of fact, many Crown corporations have to be financed in his way.
What has happened over the last 25 years? In looking at a table contained in the report for the year 1969, we find that during the last 25 years, the CNR has paid in interests $1,265,721,000, which is almost the amount of its debt.
It is obvious that this $1.25 billion went to someone, somewhere. It is also obvious that Canadian taxpayers, workers, CN employees have had to pay the interest charged by financiers. One can thus understand why I ask that the Bank of Canada should finance, without interest, these public expenditures.
Looking at the same table, it is to be noticed that for the year 1969, the profit of Canadian National Railways amounted to $49,500,000.
One cannot say that the managers or the employees of this company are no good administrators since they
Canadian National Railways
managed to make a profit of $49,500,000. It goes without saying that we have nothing to hold against the management of Canadian National Railways.
However, we also find that interest charges during the
same year, 1969, reached $74,205,000.
This is where the administration is faulty. This means that a profit of $49,500,000 was transformed into a deficit of $24,500,000 due to the interest on the debt. So the CNR has a deficit of $24,500,000 and today we are asked to
vote the necessary credits to cover that deficit.
Mr. Speaker, it is certain that the Canadian government is not getting ahead by administering the public sector in this fashion. I do not blame the administrators of these Crown Corporations, but the government because it failed in its management to make a profit, at least as far as the CNR is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks, I should like to point out that a $49.5 million profit would have enabled the Canadian National to improve its passenger services, for instance, or its freight services. It could also have provided from its revenue for the developments needed by its transport industry, either by building branch lines or by improving its various telecommunication and hotel services. It should have given its employees better working conditions, for there is considerable room for improvement in this field.
This could have been possible if the government had tried to manage the Canadian National wisely.
e (12:20 p.m.)


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, while the minister was making his brief opening remarks on the introduction of this bill I happened to be called away to the telephone and therefore did not hear all his remarks. This is an annual bill. In assessing the finances of the CNR and Air Canada one really should ask one's self, are these finances examined as carefully as they should be or is this just an annual bill which is given a brief examination? Who audits the accounts of the CNR and Air Canada? No doubt it is done by auditors hired by Air Canada and the CNR. Yet, when we are considering the duties of the Auditor General this is one issue which certainly should be considered. The duty of the Auditor General is to closely scrutinize government spending. I think when we see the deficit of the CNR and the deficit which Air Canada is building up, it is high time the Auditor General was given the duty of carefully examining the accounts of Crown corporations as well as the accounts of departments of government.
The CNR continues to build up deficits, and to spend more and more money on enlarging its facilities, while passenger and freight services are declining. At the same time Air Canada is buying airplanes perhaps even ahead of the game. The jumbo jets are to go into service in 1971 with Air Canada and they will be very difficult to fill on international flights or on long domestic flights within Canada. When one examines this particular financing bill, one notes that of an amount of $229 million, $174

November 27, 1970
Canadian National Railways
million is to go to Air Canada for expenditures between now and July, 1971. In this regard one must examine what Air Canada is doing. It is the seventh largest airline in the world. We must ask ourselves how we, as Canadians, operating an airline are making out in respect of competition in international passenger service to and from Canada. I should like to read from the annual report of the Air Transportation Association of Canada: International traffic entering and leaving Canada showed an increase of 10.9 per cent in the number of passengers and a 28 per cent increase in the amount of freight carried. However, Canadian carriers handled only 46 per cent of the passenger and 45.4 per cent of the freight traffic as compared with 48 per cent and 49 per cent respectively the previous year.
In other words, we have a little less than 50 per cent of the passenger and freight traffic, and it is declining. Why is this? Since a similar bill was submitted to this House a year ago, some negotiations have taken place in respect of the allotment of landing rights of foreign competitors and Air Canada. Certain cities have not been satisfied with this allotment. Calgary has not been satisfied with the landing rights allotted to planes arriving at that city and Toronto is not satisfied with the situation in which it does not have direct overseas flights to and from that city. The province of Alberta has had a long standing complaint concerning air service in and out of the international airport at Edmonton.
This financing bill must be given a much closer scrutiny. Perennially the CNR has had a deficit because of interest rates and so on. So far as operating revenues and expenses are concerned, it has operated in the black in the past. It is predicted there will be in the future a growing number of years in which Air Canada will be in a deficit position. The bloom is off the flower in respect of air passenger service. Airlines throughout the world are running into greater difficulties because of the high cost of capitalization. Members of the Transportation Committee were fortunate to have an inaugural flight on a 747 aircraft. We were told it could operate with one-third capacity and pay its way. But has this plane really lived up to that expectation. Figures indicate that the 747 has been losing money. Air Canada has ordered four 747's.
[DOT] (12:30 p.m.)
I suppose that part of the capitalization will go to the repayment of loans which will allow Air Canada perhaps to make initial payments on some of these orders. What has the government done? What leadership and advice has the minister given with regard to the purchasing of these planes and with regard to the arrangement of more suitable landing rights in and out of Canada? If we are to increase rather than decrease our percentage of the air traffic in and out of Canada, then we have to pay a stricter attention to landing rights. If we are to at least attempt to operate the 747's in the spring of 1971 in a profit making manner, we have to pay greater attention to landing rights in and out of Canada so as to obtain a greater share of the passenger and freight haul in and out of this country.
I cannot help but repeat that a year ago Canada had 48 per cent of the passenger traffic in and out of Canada and 49 per cent of the freight traffic. This year we are down to 45.4 per cent of the passenger traffic, which is a decrease of just under 4 per cent, a huge figure. The passenger capacity has increased and the percentage of haul has decreased, this is a discouraging fact. I regret that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has not seen fit to spend more time in the House to listen to some of the criticism levelled at his department and at Air Canada. This is not done with any bitterness but in an attempt to communicate a sense of urgency with regard to making Air Canada a profitable business. We cannot continually run up deficits in the CNR and now start on a period of years in which deficits are projected for Air Canada as well. Airlines throughout the world are facing great difficulties and we must be on our toes to protect our interests in Canadian passenger and freight traffic as well as in the Canadian taxpayer's money.
There is some question as to whether Air Canada and CNR auditors are, in fact, objective in their reporting. They check over the books but do not make an actual check of the expenditures. We should give this financing bill a really careful scrutiny in the House because of that fact.
Another matter that has to be examined relates to freight rates and the Canadian Transportation Commission which was set up back in 1967. We all remember the long and extensive debate which took place at that time. The former minister of transport, having got the bill passed in the House, appointed himself chairman of the Canadian Transportation Commission. At that time, we were told that railroads should be freed from government control and that if this were done they could make money. Now, we see net losses continually. What have they done in an attempt to become profitable? I would like to put on the record some of the freight rate increases which have taken place since 1967.
The first increase took place on May 4, 1967. It was a 12 per cent increase in freight rates for short hauls and a 6 per cent increase in freight rates for long hauls. I might add that until the bill was passed the Freight Rates Reduction Act allotted a $20 million subsidy to the railways and froze the freight rates. After the bill was passed in 1967, freight rates were freed and the CNR said it could make its way and become profitable. We all know that if the price of commodities is increased too much, a point of no return is reached. I would not be surprised to learn that this is happening to CNR freight hauling. Another freight rate increase on competitive rates of 6 per cent for short hauls and 3 per cent for long hauls took place on September 5, 1967. On May 1, 1968 another increase took place which affected agreed charges. There were some exceptions but there was a 5 per cent increase for short hauls and a 3 per cent increase for long hauls.
On April 1, 1969, both with regard to competitive and general freight rates, there was an 8 per cent increase for short hauls and a 5 per cent increase for long hauls. There were certain exceptions and reductions were made

November 27, 1970

on traffic moving between east and west. A 6 per cent increase was put on traffic moving between the east and the west but the increase for long hauls was 5 per cent. A flat increase of 25 cents a ton was put on coke and coal at that time.
Then, along came a surcharge of 4 per cent on normal rates and a 2 per cent increase on competitive rates in September of 1969. This surcharge was put on top of the total freight cost. In other words, this was not a per ton mile rate but a 4 per cent increase and a 2 per cent increase on the total charge. This was re-enacted on January 22, 1969. Then, on March 1 of 1969 there was a general freight rate increase of 8 per cent for short hauls and 4 per cent for long hauls. A charge of 6 per cent on primary commodities was imposed, in other words on commodities shipped by the ton. The total ton rate was increased by 6 per cent on March 1, 1969. Another full freight increase of 25 cents per ton was imposed.
On September 1, 1970 there was another freight rate increase of 5 per cent for short hauls and 3 per cent for long hauls. Also at that time there was a 3 per cent across the board increase on freight rates on coke and coal. I could go on and on. There were some excepbons and some unit charges of a flat 5 per cent on the total freight bill. On agreed charges, since 1967 there has been an increase of 22 per cent. I am totalling three general freight rate increases in the past three years. This gives you some idea of the freight rate increases.
Why should we be concerned about freight rate increases? Freight rate costs are directly related to the cost of commodities used in Canada. We must always bear in mind that it is the cost of producing the goods and getting them to markets which the consumer has to pay, plus the cost of marketing the goods once they arrive at their destination. Freight rates have played a very important part in the composition of our economy. The Canadian Transportation Commission has not done a very good job in accurately scrutinizing these freight rates. In the old days before the famous Bill C-237 was passed by the House, railroads had to come before the board of transport commissioners to prove they needed a freight increase. Anybody who objected to the proposed increase could appear before the transport commissioners to state their reasons, and why it would be detrimental to one or another region in Canada.
[DOT] (12:40 p.m.)
The process of securing a rate increase has become so simple that all the railroads have to do is phone the CTC and say, "We are introducing an increase on such a day on agreed charges, on general rates, or on competitive rates." If a shipper wants to object he has to be a captive shipper under the terms of section 16 of Bill C-237. There are two cases I know of presently before the CTC under clause 16, and it will take at least a year for them to be fully heard and examined. This gives some idea of the difficulty in opposing freight rate increases. Bill C-237, passed in 1967, completely removed the court in which objection could be raised against freight rate increases, so
Canadian National Railways
the shipper can no longer be heard on freight rate increases.
We were told that the whole purpose of freight rate increases was to take the CNR out of its deficit position. However, we still see it running up the same deficits year by year. Its annual deficit has now become so commonplace that it is considered a normal deficit, even though there have been a host of freight rate increases in recent years.
I now wish to deal with the passenger service offered by railroads. We are told that passenger service is costing a huge amount of money and that the railroads are making every effort to get out of passenger service. They have been discontinuing lines. But, Mr. Speaker, that is nothing new. They have been discontinuing lines for years, and lately they have stepped up this process.
Again, under the terms of Bill C-237 setting up the CTC, all that Commission has to do is hold hearings in a given area. If it is shown that the passenger service is losing money, then the government has to decide whether to subsidize the railroad for 80 per cent of its losses or whether the passenger service is no longer necessary. As I have pointed out on many occasions in this House, such a system encourages the railroads to discontinue passenger service, to deliberately downgrade that service so that passengers will not ride the trains. As a result, the railroads can present a financial story to the Canadian Transportation Commission indicating that service is running in the red and thus be subsidized for 80 per cent of the losses they say they incur. This amounts to quite a tidy sum of money.
This is a poor system because it encourages the provision of poor passenger service by the CNR and by Canadian Pacific. I believe the system must be changed. The public are finally becoming concerned about pollution caused by automobile traffic. Railways can provide good, clean, fast courteous passenger service if they wish. They could recapture some of their lost passenger traffic if they were encouraged to do so. But instead of that we have a bonus system which encourages them to downgrade passenger service. Our policy should be the direct opposite. We should have a bonus system to encourage them to upgrade passenger service with modern passenger cars.
I now wish to deal with the question of air passenger safety, but I shall not speak about the recent tragedy at Toronto. On November 13, 1969, a similar financing bill was before this House. The Air Transport Association of Canada had previously held its annual general meeting and expressed dissatisfaction with the attitude shown by the Department of Transport toward the continuous violation of safety regulations. As recorded at page 804 of Hansard for that date, I quoted from a report in the Globe and Mail on what took place at that meeting, as follows:
The membership was told at that meeting the transport committee's general orders were considered unenforceable by the Transport Commission because of a Supreme Court of Canada decision last year that ruled that the Air Transport Committee did not have the power under the Aeronautic Act to issue orders.

November 27, 1970
Canadian National Railways
That was a very important statement at the 34th annual meeting of the Air Transport Association. In the 34th report, the chairman of the association also said:
X would be remiss if I did not record the disappointment and frustration of this industry resulting from the confusion existing regarding government policy. Not only has there been no implementation of previously enunciated policy governing the mainline and regional carriers, but no extension of policy governing other segments of the industry has been developed. Virtually all Canadian air carriers are suffering under a tremendous handicap in the development of plans, acquisition of new aircraft, and the continued operation of their companies on a profitable basis as action is delayed in providing effective air policy.
One would assume that much progress had taken place since then. However, the Minister of Transport seems to be very capable with words but not so capable with actions. I have before me the 36th annual report of the Air Transport Association of Canada for the year ending September 30, 1970, and on page 5 I read:
It seems probable that the ultimate step that must be taken is an appropriate amendment to the Aeronautics Act. In a recent letter to the Minister we have again asked for confirmation that the Canadian Transport Commission is responsible for enforcement of the Aeronautics Act and will take the necessary steps to enforce it. We are now awaiting the Minister's reply.
This matter, Mr. Speaker, has been under discussion for three years. Last year I quoted from the 1968 annual report of the Air Transport Association. Now, I have quoted from the 1970 report. I hope I will not be able to read something similar from the 1971 report. If an amendment to the Aeronautics Act is required, I hope that the minister will act.
Whenever one asks the Minister of Transport a question in this House one gets a great deal of verbiage in reply. That is not good enough. When one reads into the record statements which indicate a complete distrust of the Department of Transport by the Air Transport Association extending over three years, and sees that no action has been taken, one becomes concerned. "We will judge your verbiage by your action" is what one should say to the Minister of Transport, and if he were in the House I would gladly say it to him.
There is another matter I have not dealt with in this debate. Generally, the financial statements and annual reports of Air Canada and the CNR are brought before the Standing Committee on Transport. Last year there was a great deal of confusion in the operation of Air Canada and the jobs of a number of people were in jeopardy. We were anxious to get representatives of Air Canada before the transportation committee but for some reason or other we were not able to do that. Before this bill passes, I hope we can get an undertaking from the minister that they will be asked to appear before the committee this year and that last year's Air Canada report will get a high priority.
[DOT] (12:50 D.m.)
We see Air Canada getting into difficulty and showing deficits because of the decrease in their percentage of the traffic in both passengers and freight to and from Canada. There also seems to be a lack of clear understanding of the guidelines laid down with regard to the

purchase of planes. I should like to see Canada take a leading position in the world by saying that we really do not need supersonic jets for passenger traffic. Personally,
I do not think they will be needed for perhaps another 20 *years. The jumbo jets are fine and will probably be around for a long time before we can fill them to more than 60 per cent of their passenger capacity on both international and long haul domestic flights.
These are some of the questions that face us. Do we believe that the benefits these supersonic jets will bring to the airlines will be more than offset by the harm they do in the area of pollution. There is also the difficult question of the cost they will add to the provision of airport facilities, et cetera. Just to move a 747 around an airport by tractor into a loading position costs $150,000. These tractors just pull the aircraft around and several are needed in each airport. One has to be available whenever a 747 is going to land. You can imagine how the costs build up with the various changes of planes from the stretched DC-8 or Lockheed 710 to the 747, so what will happen with the supersonic jet? The airports will necessarily be a long way from communities and thus increase the distance that passengers must travel to get to the airport. The Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission has stated that it is not the difficulty of moving people in the air but the difficulty of moving people on the ground to and from airports that is causing the biggest bottleneck in the movement of passengers from one city to another.
Another question that has been bothering me for some time, Mr. Speaker, is the transportation committee's recommendation with regard to CNR pensions. We brought in a unanimous report which recommended certain changes in the Canadian National pension plan. These changes would have benefited many people receiving pensions today as well as others who will be retiring in the near future. Over 32,000 people in Canada today are receiving CNR pensions in one form or another. There has been a huge rise in the cost of living over the past five or six years but no comparable increase in CNR pensions. The committee unanimously agreed that an increase was necessary, particularly for those people on the $25 a month pension of earlier times. The number of people on that particular pension is very small and they are in dire need of an increase. However, Mr. Speaker, we have not heard a word from the minister on the committee's study. Is the government going to recommend to the CNR that it take action? Here we have the CNR asking for financial assistance for the construction of branch lines and so on, but there is no mention of action with regard to the Canadian National pension plan which was studied so exhaustively by the committee.
These are some of the questions that have been in my mind for a number of months with regard to our Department of Transport. It is regrettable that this debate should take place with only one minister in the House. The Minister of Transport is not here nor is his Parliamentary Secretary.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
November 27, 1970


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In the light of the poor attendance of cabinet members, including the Minister of Transport, I should like this debate to continue for another day or two so that we can get answers to our questions and complaints with regard to the operation of the Department of Transport, the CNR and Air Canada. If we could carry on, we might be lucky enough to bombard the Minister of Transport for a minute or two while he happens to grace the House with his presence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume sitting at two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) pointed out, Bill C-186 is a routine piece of legislation. We have had bills like this one almost every year for quite a number of years, and there has been a tendency on our part to give these bills perfunctory treatment. Mind you, that attitude has changed in recent years. I suggest that on this occasion we, in this House, should take a good, hard look at what we are being asked for and a good, hard look at the position in which we are being placed.
We are being asked to approve a bill which authorizes the making, by Canadian National Railways and Air Canada its subsidiary, of very substantial loans. We are being asked to guarantee those loans and even to give the assurance that if there is a falling behind on the part of CNR or Air Canada, the loss will be made up out of the public treasury. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that because this is the position in which we are placed, we have both the right and the obligation, here in Parliament, to speak plainly to the Canadian National Railways. As I say, in former years there has been a tendency to regard bills of this kind as formal bills that are given routine treatment and passed. I think it would also be correct for me to say, almost by way of admission, that because we in this party favour public ownership, there has been a tendency on our part not to be unduly critical of the Canadian National Railways. Speaking for my colleagues, we think that we are coming to the end of that era. We are losing patience with some of the things that the CNR does and some of the things that the CNR has failed to do. We believe that the debate on the second reading of this bill is an occasion on which we ought to talk "turkey" to the Canadian National Railways.
I realize that it is frequently argued in this House that Crown corporations are independent bodies, and that once we have set them up we should not interfere in
Canadian National Railways
their day to day administration. That principle has been laid down with respect to Canadian National Railways, Air Canada, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and so on. In general terms this is, I believe, a good principle. But there are times when the line between day to day administration and broad policy is a bit grey. I would still contend that we should not interfere with day to day administration, but when a Crown corporation such as the Canadian National does things which in terms of broad policy, in terms of principle, are offensive to the views of Parliament, then I think we ought to say so, and we who strongly support public ownership are prepared to say so to the CNR. A number of my hon. friends will be dealing with subjects to which reference has already been made in this debate, such as the abandonment of railway lines and the deterioration of railway services. This very bill asks for moneys with which to build more branch lines, yet at the same time we have a railway system which is abandoning many of the services it is supposed to provide.
[DOT] (2:10 p.m.)
I realize that when we talk about railway services in Canada we cannot think in terms of one line only. We are thinking today about the CNR because the bill before us concerns that company. Nevertheless, we shall be keeping in mind the policies pursued by the private company, the CPR. I realize it is not our prerogative in connection with this bill to talk about the Canadian Pacific Railway, but there is something I should like to say, something which I believe Your Honour will agree I have the right to say: I do not mind the CN claiming to be a body independent of Parliament as far as day to day administration is concerned, but when we get the notion that this so-called independence becomes almost a readiness to do whatever the CPR wishes, it is time for us to step in. If anybody is going to run the CN, let it be Parliament, not the CPR. I believe that in far too many areas the CNR does what the CPR does, and what the CPR wants it to do. Maybe there are times when it resists, but the resistance does not last very long, and for reasons of this kind I feel we should just speak plainly to the CN through the medium of this debate on the second reading of the bill before us.
I know it will be said by some of those who speak for the government in this instance I mean cabinet ministers, because I believe the backbenchers on the Liberal side feel as we do about this-that we should allow the bill to go to committee where CN officials could be asked to appear and give an account of what they are doing. Well, we have been through that a number of times, but no matter what we may say to the CN, unless we get some backing from the government it does not amount to very much. This is why I believe that during the course of the debate it will be necessary to obtain certain commitments from the government to the effect that the government will back us up in the demands we make in Parliament upon the railway company.
As I have said, there are many questions to be discussed-the abandonment of rail lines on the one hand, and deteriorating services on the other. There is the
23568-27}

November 27, 1970
Canadian National Railways
whole question of the poor, slowed-down railway express service we are getting these days. I realize we cannot expect to have all the things we enjoyed 10, 20 or 50 years ago but surely there is no reason in this day and age for a publicly-owned transportation company to be cutting down vital services in the transport and communications field.
There are also serious questions to be asked about the proposals of Air Canada in connection with purchase of huge new aircraft, the kind so large that Max Ferguson described one of them landing the other day somewhere between Toronto and Montreal; the passengers for Montreal got off at the front end, to find that the weather was cold and snow was falling, while the passengers for Toronto got off at the back end, in bright, sunny weather. As I recall, he had to make a long distance call to talk to the stewardess to get her to make the appropriate announcement. Well, Max Ferguson has a way of getting the truth home to us in his humorous style and I think there is every reason to look carefully at the policy of going in for larger and larger aircraft. In particular, this development should be considered in the light of Parliament's concern about pollution; it is not enough for Air Canada simply to decide that it wants the largest and latest type of aircraft. These plans should be part of an over-all policy.
When this bill goes to the committee, as I hope it will after certain commitments have been made to us, the Canadian National and Air Canada will be required, through their officials appearing before the committee, to answer searching questions of the kind which have already been asked today and which will be added to m the course of the debate.
Last session, when a bill similar to this one was under discussion, we asked the leader of the House at that time, now the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), for two commitments. I say to his credit, and it is always a pleasure to give credit to this minister when we can, that he met those two commitments. The first was that the question of the capital structure of the CN be referred to the committee on Transport and Communications for study. The second was that the question of Canadian National pensions be referred to that committee As I say, those commitments were met and those two references were made. As hon. members are aware, the committee was not able to find the time to deal with the first of these references, at least, not in any depth, but spent most of its time on the pensions question. This means that the question of the capital structure of the CN is a left-over item and at some point in this session we want it to be referred again to the committee. Before the present debate is over we want a commitment from the government that such a reference will be made in order that the committee may continue its study of the capital structure of the CNR. I make the point that it is not necessary for this consideration to take place during the study of the particular bill before us, but it is necessary for us to obtain certain commitments before the occasion upon which we can do so has passed.

[DOT] (2:20 p.m.)
Hon. members will not be surprised if what I have said up to this point is only preliminary to the main subject with which I wish to deal. This has to do with the question of Canadian National pensions, a matter which has been the subject of questions and discussions on the floor of this House for many years. From my own experience and knowledge, it goes back almost as long as the study of the pensions of retired civil servants. Indeed, the two matters have taken a parallel course and it has been said from one side, and admitted from the other, many times that the two issues more or less stand together. We recognized that we could not expect something to be done by a Crown corporation for its retired employees if something was not done by the government for its own retired employees. The other side of the coin is that we have reason to believe that if improvements were made in the pensions of retired public servants the same thing would have to be done, and would be done, for retired employees of the CNR.
As I say, the two questions have had a parallel history in this House. Every session's Hansard going back for a couple of decades or more contains questions and answers about the amount of pensions retired CNR workers are receiving, in addition to innumerable questions about when something was going to be done to correct the situation.
Finally, on December 19, 1969, almost one year ago, we had the welcome announcement by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) that legislation would be brought in to improve the pensions of retired civil servants. Within a few weeks, that announcement was implemented and Bill C-194 of last session was passed before the end of March 1970. On the very day that announcement was made, December 19, 1969, I publicly urged that the companion operation, namely an increase in the amount of CNR pensions, be carried out without delay. This was one of those occasions when we were making statements on motions and there was no opportunity for a reply from across the floor of the House. But I am sure it is not out of line for me to say that two or three cabinet ministers told me personally that day not to worry, that of course something would be done for CNR pensions commensurate with what had been done for retired civil servants.
Fortified by that and by the fact that the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and those who preceded him over a number of years had assured me of their great interest in this matter, I continued to pursue it. I might point out that on September 24, 1968, the present Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Richardson), who was then Minister without Portfolio, when speaking on behalf of the Canadian National Railways, as reported on page 441 of Hansard for that date said:
It is my understanding that pensioners in this category and also the pensions of all retired employees have been reviewed frequently by officials of the railway. I can assure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the government will continue to consult with officials of the railways concerning the position of pensioners.
November 27, 1970

Though guarded, there nevertheless was the assurance that the government was interested in the position of retired employees of Canadian National Railways.
On June 19, 1969, as reported at page 10451 of Hansard for that date, the Minister of Transport was responding to a question of mine on the "late show" and was assuring me that something was going to be done for these retired employees. He referred, of course, to the fact that they also received the old age security pension; but if that is to be frozen and denied the escalation we have known for the past few years, then this makes the situation even more urgent. When the minister made a reference to the level of some of these pensions, Hansard records this interjection:


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is still poverty.
Then, the minister continued immediately:
I cannot agree more with the hon. member that it is far from adequate. But I am sure he also realizes that while this group has had a good deal of attention in terms of increases in the old age pension, we do wish to do more; and I believe that we will do more.
Those are the words of the Minister of Transport speaking about Canadian National pensions in June of
1969,	six months before the government announced an increase in the pensions of retired civil servants. That announcement, as I say, was made in December and it was acted upon in March of this year.
In January of this year some of us started to prod the Minister of Transport to get this question referred to the appropriate committee. The Minister of Transport told me, as reported at page 2385 of Hansard for January 14
1970,	that he would be glad to see that this matter was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport and Communications as well as to officials of the CNR. Nine days later, nothing having happened, I asked the President of the Treasury Board about the matter and he assured me that it was going to be dealt with very soon. And so it went on.
As a result of all this, this question on the commitment of the present Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), who was then government house leader, was referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and in my view that committee did a thorough and excellent job. I think I am in a position to say that because, although I did not formally become a member of the committee, I took the privilege accorded to hon. members who do not belong to a committee and attended most of the sessions when the committee was dealing with the subject of Canadian National pensions. In particular, I attended very faithfully during the time when the committee was working out its report.
Hon. members are fully aware that when the committee made its report it went into this question very thoroughly. It gave the Canadian National Railways a clean bill of health in some respects. For example, there had been charges that perhaps the Canadian National was doing something with the pension funds that it should not be doing; it was cleared on that count. However, the committee said in the plainest of language that the time
Canadian National Railways
had come for crown corporations, particularly the Canadian National Railways, to do for their retired employees precisely what the Parliament of Canada had done for retired public servants.
That recommendation is spelt out in two paragraphs of the committee's report, one at the bottom of page 36:13 and one at the top of page 36:14 of the Minutes of the Committee for last session, No. 36. They read as follows:
4. At the outset, this Committee wishes to point out that the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan adopted the principle of adjusting pensions for cost of living increases. Furthermore, a second important principle has been adopted whereby Parliament in the name of all Canadians applied the cost of living adjustment on a current basis, but more important, retroactively to all public service pensions.
The Committee strongly recommends that these principles be adopted on a broader basis and that other major employers, including Crown Corporations, recognize their obligations to follow the lead of Parliament in this regard.
Then, this sentence, which is the key sentence of the whole report:
The Committee specifically recommends that the Canadian National Railways implement these principles forthwith.
The position could not be clearer, Mr. Speaker. The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications recommended that the CNR do for its employees precisely what the government of Canada, through action in Parliament, has done for its retired public servants. This report was unanimously adopted by the committee on September 9, 1970. The report was tabled in the House of Commons on Monday, October 5, 1970. Two days later, on October 7, 1970, a motion which had been placed on the Order Paper in the proper way by the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner), who was acting on that day for the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Lasalle (Mr. Lessard), who happened to be absent, was unanimously adopted by this House. There was no debate and there was no dissension. In other words, the House of Commons unanimously, including all parties, including backbenchers and the government, said that they agreed with and supported this report which called upon the Canadian National Railways to implement forthwith the principle of pension increases that had been adopted in respect of retired public servants.
[DOT] (2:30 p.m.)
I will just take a brief moment to remind hon. members that what was done for retired public servants was in two parts. There was a retroactive provision that would pay increases up to about 42 per cent for people who had been out for 18 years or more, and there was a provision that from then on there would be an increase in pensions every year for retired public servants if the cost of living continued to rise. That is what was before us when we made this recommendation, and it is that which we are calling upon the Canadian National Railways to implement for its employees.
Hon. members were not surprised when a few days later some of us began asking questions. It was on Friday, October 9, 1970, as recorded in Hansard at page 20, that I reminded the Minister of Transport of this

November 27, 1970
Canadian National Railways
recommendation and the fact that the House had approved of it. I asked him if he was taking the matter up with the Canadian National Railways, and the reply of the Minister of Transport was in these words:
Mr Speaker, I will undertake to do that formally, hut the slight tremor noted in Montreal on Tuesday seems to be pretty clear evidence that the CNR already knows of the action taken by this House.
Some days later, on Friday, October 23, as recorded in Hansard at page 514, I asked the minister again about this, but on that occasion he tried to slough me off with the suggestion that this was a matter to be taken up in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. We of this party will not stand for that kind of treatment. I think there are members of all parties, in fact I am sure there are members of the Liberal party, who will not stand for this sort of ploy.


An hon. Member:: Who are they?


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will speak for themselves, I am sure of that. The government will find that there are Liberal members who feel as strongly about this as we do.
We have had officials from the CNR appear before the committee. We have gone through that routine, but since that point the committee has spoken and Parliament and this House of Commons have said, as we have said, we want action. For the Minister of Transport to act merely as a messenger boy to carry these recommendations from Parliament to the CNR and then simply say to us. Well, I have taken it up with the CNR but it does not want to act on this, is not good enough. To be told to let this bill pass second reading and go to the committee, there to be discussed with the CNR officials, is not satisfactory. They will come and tell us they cannot afford this. By the way, in our report we showed them how they could.
I am sure the officials of the CNR will come and tell us about some changes in the pension plan they are making of their own volition. They may tell us that their employees' associations have decided they want this matter to be the subject of collective bargaining and that we must not now discuss it. I do not accept that argument. The very fact that this is the kind of situation we would get into should indicate to the CNR that if it had any sense in this matter, it would act now. As a matter of fact in our report we have given the CNR a much happier solution to this problem than could be achieved by conflict, years of struggle, confrontation and collective bargaining. We in this House of Commons have the right to have this matter dealt with in this way.
On the two or three occasions we have raised this on the floor we have had a brush-off. We have been told we can deal with it in the committee. No, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough and I am satisfied that it will not be good enough for members in any part of this House. What we need is a commitment now before this bill passes. We may be told that the officials of the CNR are not in this House and they cannot give a commitment. We do not want and we will not accept a government

commitment that this will be discussed in the committee. The government can give us a commitment that it will tell the CNR it is expected to comply with the will of Parliament, and this is what we want.
I have gone along for many years with the suggestion that we must not interfere with the independence of the CNR. But I have said already that when the independence of the CNR becomes doing the will of the CPR, which does not want these things but wants the CNR to hold back, then if the CNR is not going to be independent it should at least do the will of Parliament. I contend that we have the right in Parliament to get a clear statement that the government will not just write letters to the CNR, not just provide a messenger service, but a commitment that the CNR will be told to accept the fact that Parliament has said to this company and that Parliament expects it to deal with this matter as it has recommended.
I remind the government that it is a party to this recommendation because it was passed unanimously by this House. The whole question of how the government will find the money is a problem which is, of course, beyond a private member's purview, except that we dealt with this in the report.
The po:nt I want to make, and the point that makes this completely relevant to the debate, is that we are being asked right now to support a bill which provides money for the CNR. This bill provides money in several ways. It authorizes the CNR to make loans, guarantee those loans, guarantee other things, but if debts are not paid the idea is that Parliament will pick up the tab and pay them out of the general revenues of this country. If we are being asked to provide money in that way for the Canadian National Railways we have the absolute and moral right to say from the floor of this House of Commons that we want that company to do the right thing by its pensioners. What is the right thing is now quite clear. It must be nothing less than was done for the retired civil servants.
I am speaking not just for myself or my colleagues. I am speaking for every member of this House including every member of the Cabinet, because the motion for concurrence passed on October 7, 1970, was unanimous. That is the will of the House of Commons. The policy o f the Canadian National Railways not to act on this issue is a case of affronting the will of Parliament itself. I think there will be an abundance of support on the part of members of all sides of this House for this position.
Therefore, to focus our attention on this phase of the matter I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg):
That Bill C-186 be not read a second time, but that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House no consideration should be given to the making of any further financial guarantees or grants to the Canadian National Railways until the government has assured parliament that it will call on the Canadian National Railways to implement forthwith the improvements in pension arrangements recommended in the Report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, tabled in this
November 27, 1970

House on October 5, 1970, and concurred in by the House of Commons on October 7, 1970, the said concurrence having been unanimous.
I point out that this is what is known as a reasoned amendment under the provisions of citation 382 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition. I also point out that it is both a reasoned and reasonable amendment in that it calls for the implementation of a policy already approved unanimously by this House of Commons.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Although the Chair does not wish at this time to pass judgment as to the receivability of this amendment it does feel that it should read it for the benefit of hon. members. If hon. members wish to comment on the substance of the reasoned amendment which is before the House the Chair will make a decision on it, but at this time the judgment is reserved.
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speak-e.r'. for a member from the east coast of Canada, participating in this debate is like talking about a ghost from the past because I believe most people vividly remember the debate of two years ago concerning the abandonment of the only rail passenger service in the province of Newfoundland. I suppose one could say we lost the debate because we lost the passenger service.
I should like to make a few remarks today concerning another kind of abandonment. Despite the fact that the members of the cabinet of the front benches are not present to hear my argument, and despite the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), who I understand is either in Europe or returning from Europe, is not here, I want to say that the ears of the Canadian National Railways which are present in the gallery-all four of them-should pay very close attention to this debate and the remarks I want to make because I expect a full response from the Canadian National.
Newfoundland is a province with half a million people and it is recognized that transportation is one of our major problems. Transportation is a difficult problem because of the geography, the fact that the province covers an area of 150 thousand square miles, and because of the distance from the major markets of Canada and the other nations. The sad story of the past two years is that Canadian National Railway have used the province of Newfoundland as the guinea pig for the proposal to downgrade rail services in Canada. It was used as a guinea pig by the President of the Canadian Transport Commission to conduct an experiment. I understand that three years ago, when the CTC was instituted, its main purpose was to reduce the cost factor and make the system pay. Where else but in this province could such a program be instituted? In view of our small population, there was less likelihood of a major outcry from the public. This is what happened. The Canadian National moved out. We raised this issue in the House of Commons day after day, and every member from this province spoke on it. I can see present today a number of
Canadian National Railways
members who supported our efforts, but we did not receive any support from government members.
I do not believe the feeling in our party was exactly unanimous because some members thought there was a specific reason for the abandonment of rail passenger services on the east coast and that consequently such abandonment would have little effect on the rest of Canada. Today I noticed that the Globe and Mail contained an editorial on the abandonment of certain lines in Ontario. This is now a major issue. I see the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) and 1 am pretty sure he will take part in this debate because I understand his riding will be affected. Many Ontario and western members will probably also take part in this debate because their controversy concerning the Canadian National in Canada has only begun. Unfortunately, we have lost the first round.
I had an opportunity recently to visit Bishop's Falls, one of the largest rail communities in my province. I spoke to a number of railway men in the last couple of weeks and have never seen the morale of any group take such a beating in such a short time as this group has. There is a tremendous uncertainty. They do not know where they are going. They do not have any assurance in respect of anything concerning their employment. The main reason for such uncertainty is that the Canadian National is moving in a most mysterious manner. There is a scheme on somebody's desk. I like to think that perhaps it is on the desk of the President of the Canadian Transport Commission. There is a planned phaseout of certain railway activities across this nation. This is not necessarily all wrong. I do not believe we can expect everything to remain the same for ever and ever amen. I believe there must be a fair amount of change, but I also firmly believe in the simple principle of management and administration of government that people must be informed of and involved in the decision making process.
I make the charge now that the Canadian Transport Commission is hiding from the Canadian public its plan to downgrade rail service across Canada. There is a sneaking, conniving, surreptitious plan about which the public is uninformed. This is the reason for the uncertainty among railwaymen and the general public.
I shall draw attention to another plan. The Canadian Transport Commission has every intention not only to limit rail passenger service in Canada, as, has been proven in our province and in other areas, but-and I say this for Canadian National ears to hear-there is a plan to eliminate a good part of the freight distribution services in this nation. Last April I spoke to a good friend of mine in the Canadian National who is a very humane person and one who believes in trying to provide the best service to the people. He told me the Canadian National had on paper a plan to abandon all freight services east of Bishop's Falls in central Newfoundland. I remember thinking what approach one should take. I carefully analysed the plan. I was certain it was a fact that such a plan was on paper. I publicly exposed the plan and the Canadian National denied that there was any such plan. When the plan became public knowledge it was thrown in the wastepaper basket temporarily and that service

November 27, 1970
Canadian National Railways
continues today. In other words, the public had been made aware of it in time so that the weight of public opinion could be brought to bear on the decision.
I understand that the same plan is to be resurrected again. The manager of the Canadian National in the province has been transferred to a place a good deal further west. A new manager has been brought in and he, I imagine, now is looking at the over-all plan for the province. I want the Canadian National to give me a full reply to this question. Are there plans to eliminate the freight service east of Bishop's Falls? If so, these plans must be made public. There must be full public comment on them and a decision reached on the basis of the total and complete interest of the people of the province.
Again a few years ago under a different manager the wood trains were eliminated. A tremendous amount of pulpwood was hauled to two of the largest mills in Canada. Also the ballast trains were eliminated. They were used to service the lines. All these trains have been amalgamated into the one service which includes freight, wood and ballast. Consequently, this is the only service we have left in the whole province. As a result, there has been a tremendous downgrading of the activities connected with keeping the roadbed in order. I raised the issue through the Order Paper a few weeks ago because I was amazed at the almost uniform decrease in the amount of money spent on maintaining the roadbed and the uniform increase in the number of derailments. I cannot quote the figures but they are on the public record.
[DOT] (2:50 p.m.)
I wonder why we cannot have wood trains and ballast trains as well as an improvement in the freight service? The fact is that all kinds of complaints are made in my province regarding freight being delivered damaged, being delivered days after it was supposed to arrive, or being lost. Generally speaking, we must have the worst railroad system in North America. I have read about railroads in India and I would say that in many ways our railroad does not even compare favourably with Indian railroads. The situation is that we have lost our rail passenger service and now there is a tremendous downgrading of the freight service in my province. If we do not get some action on this problem, years from now the same thing will happen in other provinces of Canada because we are being used as guinea pigs. Many Newfoundlanders are not aware of this. Our people are relatively quiet people. We do not have liberation fronts as in Quebec or anything of this nature. Consequently, it is sometimes difficult for us to get our points of view across to the Canadian people so that we all understand what the problem is.
The railroad still exists in Newfoundland but we do not have a service, nor do we have an efficient bus service. However, I will not elaborate on the bus service. Two of my colleagues are present in the House right now and are quite capable of describing the bus service in Newfoundland. It embarrasses me to see all the advertisements on television describing the beautiful dayliner services and the beautiful dome cars in which you can drink your glass of ale while the sunlight streams
through the dome. We have 39 passenger buses. My colleague, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle), was saying that these 39 passenger buses have only one lavatory. If the CNR has its way in Newfoundland it is likely to advertise that it has 40 passenger buses. The situation is serious and critical.
I could recount stories that you would not believe about the way in which the public is being treated by the CNR. It is unbelievable. We are full-fledge Canadians, people who have the same rights as anyone in Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, and we have been treated like cattle by the CNR bus service. Every single member of the House representing Newfoundland has received numerous representations regarding overcrowding, bad scheduling, and so on. I have heard stories of people being dropped off at junctions with not even a shelter. Sometimes there was not even a telephone to enable them to communicate with their communities. Passengers' baggage is sometimes undelivered and the passengers, after having found their way to their community, have had to go back to pick up their baggage.
I heard of the case of a group of students from one community travelling on a CN bus who arrived at a particular location only to find that their seats had been taken. These students were thrown off the bus, baggage and all. This was a group of young Newfoundland students travelling to a conference in Corner Brook. There have been occasions when people have gone to lunch during a stopover of 20 minutes or half an hour only to find later that their bus was gone. These incidents have been reported to me. On another occasion the bus was actually filled with other passengers and the passengers who had gone for lunch were left behind. There are all kinds of such stories.
It is unbelievable that the people of our province should have been treated the way they were by Canadian National. Why could we not have upgraded our roadbed and provided a dayliner system? We could have several small systems operating between Bishop's Falls and St. John's, Bishop's Falls and Corner Brook and Corner Brook and west of there. This could be arranged. I do not think cost would be a major factor. We are being asked to approve an expenditure of $229 million by Canadian National. Members just accept this as a routine matter. We might get a response. I do not doubt that a month from now I will have to raise a question of privilege to receive a response to my request for an investigation into the operations of Canadian National in my province. This will be par for the course.
I say that I want a full investigation into the freight situation in Newfoundland. Are we going to see the elimination of the rail service altogether? Was the elimination of the rail passenger service just one step? We were guinea pigs once, are we to be guinea pigs a second time? Will there be an elimination of freight rail service altogether in my province? Are we going to have separate wood trains and separate ballast trains so that we can get a decent freight service at least? What plans does the CNR have to ensure prompt and efficient delivery of undamaged goods? These are the questions which I want

November 27, 1970

to raise. What plans are there for an improved bus service which at present is totally inadequate? It is a disgrace to the Canadian public. Are there plans to replace it? I understand that the new manager is very sympathetic towards the proposal to eliminate the bus system altogether. Buses are overcrowded, uncomfortable and not properly maintained. They are cheap, inexpensive and dirty.
Do the CN people have plans to eliminate the bus service and to replace it with an efficient dayliner service? If they are not going to provide a dayliner service, will they provide a decent bus system across our province so that our public can travel in comfort? These are the questions I want to raise. 1 want to see a full and thorough investigation made into the situation at Bishop's Falls which is the big, central Newfoundland centre of rail activity. What plans do they have for providing branch systems, bus systems if necessary, down to Lewis-porte and Twillingate Island where the system of transportation is inadequate? What plans do they have, for example, for freight distribution in central Newfoundland? Last year the matter of freight distribution was raised and I can tell a story on this.
I have had many discussions with the general manager of CN, Mr. MacMillan from Montreal. He is a very understanding person. I presented a case on behalf of the residents of Bishop's Falls. I told him that that community, which was the centre of rail activity in central Newfoundland, should be considered as the distribution centre for central Newfoundland because of the CN involvement over the years. I received a very sympathetic hearing. I presented the case on behalf of the people there, the town council, the chambers of commerce, the churches. Every individual in that part of the province presented his case to me and offered a suggestion for freight distribution. If there is going to be a centre of rail activity or freight distribution, Bishop's Falls is the logical place for it; it was the centre of railway activity down through the years.
[DOT] (3:00 p.m.)
We presented our case, and luckily for us we were told that the thing had not yet been finalized, but we understood that some moves had been made with respect to the purchase of property in another town. It is a disappointment that such moves have been made. As 1 say, the decision has not yet been finalized, but from remarks made in the community of Bishop's Falls we understand that plans have been very carefully and very subtly completed not to have the distribution of freight take place through the town of Bishop's Falls.
If this is a fact, it is a real tragedy because it has been a railway town since the beginning of rail service in that province. It had a population of approximately 5,000 at one time, almost totally dependent upon railways. It was hit a very critical economic blow by the abandonment of railway passenger service. Now, when it comes time for Canadian National to set up more modern types of equipment for the distribution of freight and goods through the province, that centre is not being considered. As I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a real tragedy.
Canadian National Railways
I have talked with railway men there, and I have never seen their morale so low. I do not think Canadian National should be permitted by the government to carry on activity of this nature sneakily and surreptitiously, undermining our communities and making plans calculated to be carried out without full public involvement and awareness. This is a very serious situation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: And a very serious statement, too.


John Howard Lundrigan: The minister says it is a very serious statement. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it has to be a serious statement when the situation is this serious. If all Canadians were of my mind, Canadian National would not get away with this kind of activity. If the government were interested in protecting the rights of citizens against Crown corporations which assume omnipotent power, the Canadian National would not get away with this.
The Canadian Transport Commission has assumed a role of total omnipotence. It seems that one dare not question the decision of the chairman of that commission. If one raises this matter with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) he will say it is sub judice or will use some other legal jargon. What is the phrase that means the Canadian Transport Commission is omnipotent? In any event, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Transport Commission has been given total power so that it may go ahead without the government having to assume the responsibility for the public outcry. The government shifted the responsibility, the commission assumed it and now the government says the commission can take the blame. In that way the Canadian government gets out from under; I think there is a legal term for that somewhere. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of terms for it.


Gerald William Baldwin: Just bad government.


John Howard Lundrigan: I now wish to deal with the matter of air transport. Air Canada has been moving toward the introduction of a regional carrier system in Canada. Before I get into that point I want to say that this is in no way a criticism of the new air service that has been introduced in Atlantic Canada. Eastern Provincial Airways provides a system of air travel in Atlantic Canada. I have never heard one Canadian who has anything but praise for the passenger service it provides in Atlantic Canada. But now we have a move toward the integration of Air Canada and Eastern Provincial Airways into a regional carrier system in the Atlantic provinces. I say it is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to stand up in his place in this House and tell in some detail what are the plans and implications of this system, so that we can get public reaction to it.
I know there are many Air Canada employees today who are uncertain of their future. Hon. members will remember the many people in Air Canada who woke up one morning a couple of months ago and found themselves without a job. Some of them were men with 20 and 25 years' service and experience. They did not know what was happening. They did not know because this
1556

November 27, 1970
Canadian National Railways
Crown corporation has designed its plans and had moved to implement them without public awareness and without public debate. This is causing a tremendous amount of job uncertainty. I am not saying that the move to bring in a regional carrier system is wrong. In many ways it is a great move, a tremendous move, but the people holding jobs must be informed and the public has to be made aware so that it will understand what is taking place. It is things like this which cause uncertainty among people.
Everybody with a grain of sense knows that if the morale of an organization is low, productivity will also be low. Hundreds of pieces of research have demonstrated this conclusively. That is what is happening in the CNR, and I am afraid the same attitude is permeating Air Canada. I do not wish to speak at this time about the air tragedy in Toronto. I have not received much response from the events of yesterday, including the release of the flight recorded conversations. This may well raise an issue later on.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I do not want the remarks I have made today to be taken as just a few remarks in the House of Commons made only to hear myself talk. That is not my intention. The Minister of Transport is not in the chamber. All the big guns in the cabinet are not here, with the exception of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald). I ask that they and the CN officials in the gallery take my questions to the general manager of CNR, and to the regional or district manager in the province, so that a full and total response may be made with respect to railway services in the province so far as freight is concerned, particularly east-bound freight out of Bishop's Falls, and new and better systems for wood hauling and ballast trains. We want further information on the bus and dayliner systems and on the whole question of transportation across the gulf between Newfoundland and the mainland, which service is seriously impeding the tourist trade in our province.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make just a brief interjection in this debate. I would not like it to be thought that all hon. members shared the view of the hon. member for Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Lundrigan) that the Canadian Transport Commission is acting in a sneaky manner in its attempts to evaluate rail service. The hon. member can correct me if I am wrong in the use of that word.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say for the record that the hon. member has quoted me exactly and is right on target.


David Anderson: That certainly takes care of any possible misunderstanding about what the hon. member said. I would like to indicate that the commission, in an area of the country that I come from, with respect to the Esquimalt-Nanaimo Railway, did carry out an extremely open and fair hearing into the conditions of passenger service between Esquimalt and points north on Vancouver Island. There was a tremendous opportunity for citi-

zens to present briefs and participate in the hearing. The commission adopted a very openly critical policy, and indeed I might add that the hearings held on this tiny little railway, which carries about 30 people each way every day, were attended by about four times as many people as attended the House of Commons committee hearings held in Victoria to discuss the white paper on taxation.
[DOT] (3:10 p.ra.)
My only reason for speaking in this debate is to indicate that I disagree with the hon. member with respect to the Canadian Transport Commission, which I feel is doing a very good job. In my area it made every effort to be fair and allow people to express their opinions on the question of discontinuing passenger service.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question? Firstly, was the railroad in question retained? Secondly, could the hon. member for one second stretch his imagination to the point of understanding that we lost a rail passenger system for 500,000 people in the whole province of Newfoundland? Can he understand-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Howard Lundrigan: Can he understand it for a moment?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member wants to reply to the question, he may do so.


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, it is probably easier for me to reply to the first question than the second. The rail service in this instance was retained. The commission pointed out that the CPR was acting in a deplorable manner in attempting to allow the rolling-stock to be run down. The CPR has one passenger train each way every day which managed to miss one of the CPR's own ships by 12 minutes. The commission was extremely critical of Canadian Pacific.
As far as Newfoundland is concerned and whether I can stretch my mind to understand the situation there, obviously it is difficult for anyone not from that province to understand everything about it. But I would not like the impression left with this House and with those who read Hansard that the Canadian Transport Commission, as far as the rest of us are concerned, is a body which is sneaky or underhanded. I think that is a most unfair criticism of people who are not here to defend themselves.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With reference to the remarks of the hon. gentleman from the west coast of Canada, an area which I have had the opportunity of visiting and for which I developed a tremendous admiration whilst over there last year. I am sure that in the interest of his province, to which many of my Newfoundland colleagues have gone to make a
November 27, 1970

living and whose people are reasonable and rational, he would want to withdraw his disparaging remarks about Newfoundland and leave on the record something in little better taste-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


John Howard Lundrigan: If that comment is not in order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows that the rules of the House apply to him as well as to other hon. members. With respect, I think there is no point of order.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to contribute to the debate on Bill C-186 which, in my view, is of considerable import since it aims at allotting several hundreds of millions of dollars to the upgrading of railway services across Canada.
The recommendation contains something which is quite fantastic, and I quote:
-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, 1971, 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.
It is quite fantastic that a Crown corporation can table on a new appropriation should its operating revenue show a deficit. Furthermore, when considering reports submitted by Canadian National Railways, it appears at first glance that this deficit recurs almost every year.
I think the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise) pointed out in his speech that every year, and last year particularly, CNR operations showed a profit, taking into account the interest paid.
Now a bill is placed before the House in order to authorize capital expenditures for the year 1970 of about $229 million and of about $80 million for the year 1971. With regard to the purchase of equipment a vote for $163 million for the year 1971 is requested.
Towards the end of the bill, there is a provision aimed at avoiding deficits, if possible. In fact, it reads as follows:
Where, at any time before the 1st day of July, 1971, the available revenues of the National System are not sufficient to pay all the operating and income charges of the National System as and when due, the Minister of Finance, upon application by the National Company approved by the Minister of Transport, may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, place at the disposal of the National Company such amounts as may be required to enable the National Company to meet all such charges.
It is the duty of hon. members to take all necessary means so that as much light as possible can be shed on CNR operations, services and plans for improvement to make sure that appropriations granted by Parliament will be really used in the interest of the Canadian people.
Earlier an NDP member presented a motion for the discussion of the case of the CNR pensioners. I remember
Canadian National Railways
that I raised the matter in February last and I even called the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to this extremely important problem. He made me that promise in a formal reply in Parliament and in a letter dated February 16 in which he told me:
This matter is now under consideration and your comments in that respect of which I have taken due note, will be brought to the attention of those concerned.
I do hope that after more than six months, those people have given serious consideration to the problem of the CNR pensioners so that the pension plan can be improved and the pensioners, who have done a lot for their country, can be happier.
On December 31, 1968, the pension fund in trust according to the financial statement amounted to $1,414,744,356. I believe that it would no doubt be possible to review such funds and the freezing of pensions in order to grant equitable payments to retired railwaymen. The increased cost of living should be taken into account so that they also can derive benefit from their pensions and enjoy a decent living.
No doubt the request for funds is justified but I should like to obtain satisfactory replies establishing that such appropriations are really needed.
In my constituency they intend to close many railway stations. The CNR authorities called a meeting in Armagh, in Bellechasse County, on June 22, 1970, to inform people about the proposed changes. They call it a service centre meeting.
The CN authorities provided detailed reasons justifying the proposed changes and the closing of the stations. However, something astonished me: even though they had invited the mayors and representatives of the various municipalities, they had forgotten to invite me. Possibly the postal service was responsible for the blunder.
I made an official remark on the matter at the meeting and one of the CN representatives assured me that he had sent an invitation to the hon. member for Bellechasse. I learned that the meeting would be held through a telegram addressed to me by the secretary of the municipality of Saint-Damien, municipality where there is a very important railway station and which takes strong exception to the closing of that station.
I attended the meeting, which was very interesting, and I learned there about the C.N.R.'s plans to relocate stations and change the present services.
In spite of that, I received numerous protests from the municipalities along the railway line. I naturally forwarded them to the responsible minister in order that he may peruse them and consider the situation more carefully.
It is sometimes said that railway stations are closed precisely because their operations show a deficit.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to intervene more particularly in connection with the Saint-Damien station in Bellechasse constituency. The figures show that the operations of that station are not showing a deficit. Indeed operations are increasing sensibly, since in 1968, the turnover
23568-28*

November 27, 1970
Canadian National Railways
was $15,000, in 1969, it was $18,000 and from January 1st to June 30, 1970, it was $21,600. That surely warrants a more elaborate study of the situation in order to meet the needs of Saint-Damien and of the neighbouring municipalities.
There is in fact, in Saint-Damien, a very important and growing plastic products industry which is developing at a tremendous rate and which requires improved public services if we want them to be able to meet more adequately the needs and the expansion of this industry and of other industries which could locate there. Therefore, I would like these recommendations to be considered before decisions are made which might be detrimental to the industrial development of this region, because we are far from having reached the degree of development of large centres. We want the industrial development to be even quicker in order to find a substitute for agricultural production which is deteriorating at a fast pace because the policy of the government does not match the needs of these small farms in the area.
Mr. Speaker, I would also ask that the necessary repairs be made to the Saint-Malachie station which has operated for years and which is left to deteriorate. This makes a poor impression on passers-by. That station has a certain importance since the Transport Commission found, only a year and a half ago, that it was worthwhile to keep it operative. Such improvements would help the station make a better impression on passers-by, especially on American tourists. I wish to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the passenger train service between Quebec City and Ottawa.
From Quebec City to Ottawa, the morning service is adequate and satisfactory. However, from Ottawa to Quebec City, service is not as good ever since a certain number of trains between Montreal and Ottawa have been removed. Hence, let me tell you that I have received numerous complaints in this respect. Petitions were drawn, and handed to me for submission to the authorities concerned. Unfortunately, things have not yet changed for the better.
If actually we have to justify this request for appropriations, my thinking is that we should by the very same token insist on having improved services and thus be in a position to tell the people that Parliament has voted millions of dollars for improving the service, for bringing facilities up-to-date and for promoting the overall development of our country.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I shall keep my remarks brief because I know other members wish to speak in this debate. I wish to register my feelings about the CNR and Air Canada generally and, specifically, about the conduct of the CNR and their relationship with its older pensioners. This matter was alluded to this afternoon when the amendment was introduced.
First, may I on behalf of my colleague say that in many circumstances, when someone says that something
[Mr Lambert (Bellechasse).]
is impossible to understand, that remark may be taken as a great compliment. I think that a full-blooded member coming from a full-bodied and exciting piece of country such as the province of Newfoundland ought to take it as a compliment when someone intimates that he cannot understand something, in much the same way as when we say of a woman, "My God, you are impossible to understand"-we mean that she is mysterious, intriguing and desirable. I am sure that is what the hon. member from the other intriguing island on the other side of the continent meant when he was discussing Newfoundland. However, we will leave it at that for the moment.


John Howard Lundrigan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I accept, through you, the apology that the hon. member has given on behalf of his colleague. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker-


David Anderson: I rise on a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


David Anderson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is with great regret that I interrupt my hon. friend from Newfoundland. I did not dream anything derogatory about the province of Newfoundland, and if the hon. member were to examine his own remarks I think he would find that I more or less quoted them back to him. I was attempting to point out that perhaps there is one subject about which Newfoundlanders know more than those coming from the west coast of Canada. I think that if the hon. member examines Hansard he will realize that his criticism was a trifle unwarranted.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. It seems to me that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Sannich (Mr. Anderson) have made their speeches. This has been an interesting interchange, but I think the House might benefit from hearing the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Osier).


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to share your confidence and I hope the House will benefit from hearing the member for Winnipeg South Centre. Winnipeg is a place to which much freight is carried, where much freight is stored and from which must freight is moved. I am glad to learn that we have not forgotten that freight moves to Winnipeg from various directions. To a large extent rail is the industry that brings us our living, and that is how our association with the CNR becomes relevant. We have large yards in our city and a great many people are employed in those yards. Many are employed in looking after rolling-stock.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
I am not one who believes in any way that a parliamentarian has even the right to suggest that a politi-
November 27, 1970

November 27, 1970
Canadian National Railways
publishes statistics in the newspapers almost every day showing how many more people are using the buses. But after a year it does not even have bus shelters available for use by passengers. Adults and children alike are forced to stand for hours on main highways, regardless of weather conditions, waiting for buses which arrive at times determined by the condition of the road or the read ness of employees. Some of these people are sick, but no thought was given to proper comfort when the experts planned the service to replace what they called a nonpaying passenger service.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
They brag about the time of the cross-province trip of 14 hours and some minutes, but there is not too much said about the lack of comfort, proper reservation systems, connecting services or many of the basic services which should be provided. There is also no consideration given to small bus companies which have provided a service for years and are now at the mercy of the CNR in regard to monopoly of service. While I realize that problems exist, I hope that the experts will pay a little more attention to studying and implementing a better service in regard to which the CNR have a monopoly in Newfoundland.
I would also like to mention the difficulty I have in understanding what happens to all these studies, particularly the study made of the problems of the CNR coastal service between the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Hon. members raise these problems, a study is promised and that is the last we hear about it. I hope that whoever is responsible will produce the report in regard to the inferior service of the St. Barbe-Blanc Sablon ferry service and carry out the necessary action to overcome the dangerous transportation conditions wh;ch prevail between these two points before something serious happens. I am very disappointed in the lack of protection of seniority and job security promised to railway employees when the service changed. Many infractions have occurred in my district and no objections are raised, because employees fear losing their jobs altogether.
My colleague the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) emphasized very forcibly the downgrading of our rail lines, rail express and freight service. I understand from section men on Newfoundland rail lines that section orders are issued every day to downgrade speeds at road intersections. This is because there are not enough men to maintain these lines. We were promised that this sort of thing would not happen when rail passenger service in the province was cut. Therefore, how can we rely on statements about improvements being initiated when, instead, the service is downgraded?
I should also like to mention the uncertainty existing about the provision of air service to the west coast of Newfoundland. Again, all kinds of studies have been made in this connection but people are kept in the dark as to future intentions. In this regard I think there should be some dialogue with the people who are directly affected. Perhaps Information Canada will be able to lessen the concern of these people and say once and for all what is going to happen under regional air policy plans. I hope the minister will accept the many invitations he has received to visit the province and to state once and for all what the future holds for provincial air services in the province. I also hope that the officials of CNR will heed the words of my colleague from Gander-Twillingate and will give some assurance that the transportation problems in Newfoundland will be dealt with.
In conclusion, I wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), which states that, in the opinion of this House, no consideration should be given to the making of any further financial guarantees or grants to the CNR until improvements in pension arrangements recommended in the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications are made.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I call on the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), perhaps I should at this point refer to the proposed amendment suggested to the House earlier this afternoon by the hon member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The amendment was not put to the House because the Acting Speaker had serious reservations about the procedural aspect of the amendment.
In the meantime, while hon. members were diligently occupied in considering and debating this bill, I too was diligently occupied in trying to make up my mind whether or not this amendment should be received. Having looked at the authorities and precedents I would be pleased to hear from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if he is prepared to indicate to the Chair why in his opinion the amendment ought to be received.
I am sure the hon. member, who has long experience in procedural matters, knows how difficult it is to introduce an amendment that is, in essence, a reasoned amendment. My impression is that this is not quite a reasoned amendment but it is a proposal which is substantially beyond the scope of the bill. This would be my thought. Even after looking into the precedents and citations I am tempted to reach that conclusion, but I would not want to do so until I had heard from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope you will not think I am making a professional effort if I try to protect you from temptation! It was my understanding that this procedural issue might not be dealt with until Monday, so I have not been doing any immediate homework on the issue. However, as Your Honour has said, this is a subject on which some of us have done some debating over a number of years.
Reasoned amendments have been in various forms. I dare to hope that Your Honour has no question about the form of this reasoned amendment. As a matter of fact, it goes back to what was the form for quite a few years, namely to the use of the words, "That the bill be not now read a second time but that it be resolved that"-some-

November 27, 1970

thing or other. I think this is preferable to amendments that have used the language, "That this House declines to proceed with the bill". Nevertheless, Your Honour has not raised the question of the form but rather of the substance. The principal citation on which I rely is citation 382 in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
It is also competent to a member who desires to place on record any special reasons for not agreeing to the second reading of a bill, to move as an amendment to the question, a resolution declaratory of some principle adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provisions of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress-
There is a little more to the citation, but I think it is not unfair to stop there for present purposes. I may say there is also another citation somewhere, as well as rulings, to the effect that one cannot have it both ways in a motion of this kind. In other words, such an amendment cannot be both for and against second reading at one and the same time. If one is going to move a reasoned amendment on second reading, it has to be one that calls for opposition to the bill as it is presented to the House. That is precisely the position I have taken in my amendment, namely, that unless we can get a declaration such as that suggested in the amendment we should not proceed with Bill C-186 in its present form.
Let me now pick out the qualifications or conditions that are stipulated in citation 382. It says that such an amendment must imply not agreeing to the second reading of a bill. My amendment certainly takes that position. Then it says that the resolution may declare some principle that is-
-adverse to, or differing from, the principles, policy, or provision of the bill, or expressing opinions as to any circumstances connected with its introduction, or prosecution; or otherwise opposed to its progress-
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This is precisely my argument. Because of this situation, namely, that we are being asked to grant money to the CNR at a time when the CNR has done nothing about the request of this House in the field of pensions, we are taking the view that we should not proceed further and that we should not agree to further progress on this bill.
It may be suggested to me that there is some problem about the dollar angle, but I would argue that the question which applies is, after all, that the amendment calls upon the government to assure the House that it will call upon the CNR to implement a certain recommendation and it is not an amendment which in itself proposes the expenditure of money. As a matter of fact, even the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which this House endorsed on October 7 does not involve the payment of additional money out of the federal treasury. That report showed the CNR how it could do it out of its own resources. So there is no liability against this amendment in terms of a private member not having the right to move things involving the expenditure of money. It does not do that; it calls upon the government to do it. Your Honour might ask
Canadian National Railways
whether there is relevance to the terms of the bill. I suggest there are many reasoned amendments which have relied upon citation 382, which have given the reasons why a mover of an amendment felt that we should not proceed with a certain bill.
As I said in my remarks just before I moved this amendment, there is a very close relationship between the CNR asking us for money, pleading its poverty, but refusing to agree to a request we have already made regarding the pensions of its employees. The money that is involved in this bill is money that goes into the coffers of the CNR generally. The whole question of the CNR administration of its affairs is also involved. I would say what the CNR does as far as finances are concerned is included therein. I submit it is a reasoned amendment in that it does couple opposition to the bill with the declaration of reasons why we think the bill should not be proceeded with further and because in its present form it does not contravene any of the inhibitions imposed upon private members.
Therefore, I hope I have managed to entice Your Honour away from your temptation to feel that this motion might in some inconceivable way be out of order. I submit that the House of Commons having passed a motion on the question of CNR pensions and now having before it a bill dealing with CNR financing, a private member has the right to move such an amendment. I hope Your Honour will consider it favourably.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could add to the citation referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) citations 388 and 393 (1) of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition. The basic principle on which I would argue is that while the hon. member has been artful in his presentation of this amendment, he has put himself in an illogical position. He is saying that the CNR should pay out more money for the benefit of its pensioners, but at the same time seems to imply that the CNR should have no more money. If he is suggesting that the CNR should not have any more money, he is in difficulty in saying that the CNR should carry out his request. Therefore, I suggest what he is really doing is putting on the record a statement along the lines of that referred to in citation 393 (1) which reads as follows:
An amendment purporting to approve the principle of a bill and at the same time enunciating a declaration of policy cannot be moved to the second reading. It must oppose the principle of the bill.
What the hon. member is doing, in fact, is asking the House to make a declaration on a question that can only be effective and have meaning if the principle of the bill is not given effect to, that is, if passage of the bill is refused, thereby leaving the CNR impecunious. This, of course, would defeat not only the objective of the CNR but the objective of the hon. member.
Therefore, I suggest that while he has very skilfully attempted to bring his amendment within the wording of citation 382 of Beauchesne, what he is really doing is not opposing the carrying on of the business of the CNR but asking that the CNR carry on its business and carry it on

November 27, 1970
Canadian National Railways
in line with a certain declaration of principle by this House. I suggest that the precedent already referred to would, therefore, make this amendment inadmissible.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for their very learned advice. As I indicated in the House earlier this afternoon, I have given serious thought to the matter. I do not believe the amendment should be opposed from a procedural point of view only for the pleasure of opposing such an amendment and complicating the work of the House. I believe we should be very careful of the type of amendment which we allow either on second or third reading, especially when we are dealing with a so-called reasoned amendment. The question is whether we have before us what could properly be defined as a reasoned amendment. This is the source of my difficulty.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has referred to the form of the amendment he has proposed, and I see no difficulty in this regard. Certainly the form which he has used is preferable to the form which is sometimes accepted by the Chair. I would hope that this form might be followed as closely as possible.
In respect of a reasoned amendment in the form proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it is suggested that it opposes the progress of the bill. I am in agreement with that. This is one of the tests proposed in citation 382 upon which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rests his case. He has met that condition. There are other tests, one of which was mentioned by the Minister of National Defence. It is referred to in citation 393(1) and is to the effect that the amendment should oppose the principle of the bill. I doubt whether the hon. member intended to oppose the principle of the bill and I am not sure whether his amendment does so. In any event, this is an important consideration.
There is another point of view or approach which is perhaps even more important than the one mentioned in support of his case by the hon. member who proposed the amendment, or the Minister of National Defence in opposition to the amendment. I refer to the question of relevancy. This is a basic condition that must be met. An amendment must be within the four corners of a bill and must be relevant to the bill. When I say an amendment is irrelevant to a bill, I do not mean that in the pejorative sense but in the sense that it is beyond the scope of the bill. I am just wondering whether this is not a weakness in the amendment.
I suggest to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre that the amendment should not import into the debate a question that is irrelevant to the purpose of the bill under consideration. I submit that the purport or substance of the bill is limited, as stated in clause 1, which is the short title, as follows:
This act may he cited as the Canadian National Railways Financing and Guarantee Act, 1970.
[Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale).l
o (4:00 p.m.)
As I am sure the hon. member will agree, this is very limited. It may be that the hon. member may think pensions flow from a measure to capitalize or finance the operations of Canadian National Railways, but I suggest to him the recommendation of the Crown relates exclusively to capital expenditures and to the meeting of deficiencies of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada.
While the Chair appreciates the zeal and interest of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the realm of /pensions, which is of interest to all members of the House, I must say to him that his interest and concern in that regard is not relevant to the bill now before the House. I think they are different. I hesitate to say this, but it seems they are two different points and different questions.
While the hon. member's amendment, as I have stated, appears to be opposed to the progress of the bill, he is merely endeavouring to attach a condition which in my opinion is not within the scope of the bill or the motion for second reading threof. In that regard I must draw the attention of the hon. member to citation 388 of Beau-chesne's Fourth Edition which reads as follows:
On the motion tor the second reading of a bill respecting the Canadian National Railways and to provide for co-operation with the Canadian Pacific Railway system, and for other purposes, a member moved as an amendment "that the second reading of this bill be postponed until this House declared that nothing therein shall be taken to authorize any amalagama-tion of the Canadian National Railway with the Canadian Pacific Railway; or to divest Parliament of its rights; or to take from the House of Commons its primary duty to control expenditures of public moneys and the taxes required to meet the same; and that the provisions of this bill shall be read in the light of this declaration, and be construed so as to conform therewith, and that in so far as any of its provisions may be inconsistent therewith they shall be amended accordingly, and that the adoption of this amendment by this House shall constitute the declaration of its intention and purposes as set forth herein." The Speaker ruled this out for the reason that, instead of being a declaration of principle, it proposed a postponement of the second reading pending a definite declaration of the House; moreover, it did not purport to disagree with the principle of the bill but it dealt with its provisions and anticipated amendments which may be moved in committee. On an appeal to the House, the Speaker's decision was sustained by a vote of 88 to 35.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where were all the rest of the members on that day?


Mr. Speaker:: In essence, it does seem to me that the hon. member's amendment does not oppose the progress of the bill. What he is trying to do, I suggest, is attach a condition to the motion for second reading. In that regard, I would refer the hon. member to page 528 of May's Seventeenth Edition where in part it is stated:
__nor is it permissible to propose merely the addition of words
to the question, that the bill be now read a second time, as such words must, by implication, attach conditions to the second reading.
In effect, if I may so suggest, that is what the hon. member in reality is seeking to accomplish. I hesitate to
November 27, 1970

reach the conclusion that the amendment should not be put, because of the importance of the matter, the well-known interest of the hon. member is the subject of pensions and because the amendment might have given the House an opportunity to discuss the situation which the hon. member wanted to include in the debate which is now before the House. However, I feel there are some procedural difficulties which the Chair cannot overlook, and because of these procedural and technical difficulties I do not think I should put the hon. member's amendment at this time.
I apologize to the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton) if I have deprived him of the opportunity to at least begin his speech. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the business of the House. It appears, so far as Bill C-186 is concerned, that it is stuck in one place; the needle seems to be stuck on the record. I should like to know whether the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council has any information for the House concerning the business for next Monday.


Mr. Jerome:: Mr. Speaker, we propose to continue with the measure before us this afternoon, the CNR financing bill. Following that we would likely proceed with the Buffalo and Fort Erie Public Bridge Company bill, the bill in respect of three small loans acts, after which we would likely consider the anti-dumping bill, the statutory instruments bill, the measure concerning packaging and labelling, and the co-operative associations bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: Is that for Monday, or for Monday and Tuesday?


James Alexander Jerome: That is the schedule for monday afternoon, and in the evening we will have to come up with something else.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the order:
October 20. 1970-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs of Bill C-13, an act to amend the Statistics Act.-Mr. Robinson.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I understand
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
that the hon. member for Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) has consented to withdraw this bill. Because he is not here today, perhaps it would be better to have it stood.


Mr. Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary might give his undertaking to the House, which I am sure will be accepted, that the hon. member has indicated that his bill should be withdrawn.


James Alexander Jerome: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Motion withdrawn.



CANADA LABOUR (STANDARDS) CODE EMPLOYER'S NOTICE BEFORE DISCHARGING EMPLOYEE-PAYMENT OF WAGES FOR PERIOD OF NOTICE

Stanley Howard Knowles: that Bill C-20, to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code (notice and payment to employees in case of discharge or lay-off) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when I realized earlier today I would be moving an amendment to the second reading of Bill C-186 and then later would be moving second reading of Bill C-20, I had the notion I might win the first time but not the second. Apparently I was wrong about the first instance, and perhaps I will be wrong now as well and find that this bill is acceptable and that it will be permitted to go to the Standing Committee.
This bill seeks to amend the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. As hon. members are aware, we sought for a good many years to get Parliament to pass a labour code and finally a few years ago we were successful. Since that time we have been trying to get it improved. I believe it is fair to say the government is just as anxious as are members on the opposition side of the House to improve that piece of legislation.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I welcome the pounding of the desk by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Perrault). I think that is a good omen. At any rate, hon. members are aware that the Canada Labour (Standards) Code regulates labour matters with respect to employees who by the terms of the BNA Act come under federal jurisdiction. Almost every time a piece of legislation of this kind comes up, some journalist or other person thinks that it relates only to federal employees, in other words federal public servants. That is not so. This applies to people working in private industry in those kinds of occupations that are regulated by federal law such as railroading, shipping, communications, banking and so on.
We have several pieces of legislation that govern these relationships. There is, of course, the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. There is the Canada Labour (Standards) Code, which is before us now, there

November 27, 1970
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
is the Canada Labour (Safety) Code, there is legislation respecting equal pay for equal work, and so on. The Canada Labour (Standards) Code is the one that provides for a certain number of statutory holidays per year and a certain number of annual holidays with pay. It also provides minimum wages, a maximum work week and similar conditions.
Bill C-20 seeks to add to that legislation one further provision. I have some other bills that add other provisions, but we will take these one at a time. The provision that this bill seeks to add to the Canada Labour (Standards) Code is that when an employee is laid off or discharged he must receive two weeks' notice. The details set out in the bill make it clear that under these circumstances an employer could lay off an employee by giving him two weeks' notice today but giving him two weeks' full pay, or he could give him notice today that he is through in two weeks' time and, of course, he earns his full pay during that period.
The bill spells out a number of details so as to relate this to matters of overtime and to pay that could be irregular from week to week, but the basic principle would be that no one could be discharged peremptorily without any pay. It is very simple-any individual being laid off must be given two weeks' notice, and that must include two weeks' pay, whether the person works or not during that time. There is the exception, of course, that if a person is laid off for just cause, some misdemeanour or what-have-you, the bill does not necessarily apply, but it does apply if the lay-off is because of want of work. The bill also contains a provision that works the other way, that an employee who plans to leave must give his employer two weeks' notice as well.
The other point I would like to make is one that is indicated in the explanatory note rather than in the bill itself, and perhaps I might read the last sentence of the explanatory note. It reads:
This bill deals only with the case of individual employees being laid off, it being understood that other legislation is required to deal with mass lay-offs or plant shutdowns.
As a matter of fact, one of my colleagues is preparing a bill along those lines. We feel that in such cases the notice should be much longer than two weeks; it should be in terms of three or six months. What we are dealing with in this bill, however, is not the shutdown of a plant or mass lay-offs but, rather, the individual dismissal. We think that in such cases it should be the right of any employee to receive at least two weeks' notice and pay for that two-week period. I suggest that it is a very reasonable proposition, so reasonable and so minimal that *one should not have to argue for it at all. The only criticism that I could imagine anyone might make is that the bill should go further. At least, I hope the idea that is in the bill will recommend itself to the House and that there will be approval to send it to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. [Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).!
Knowles) for introducing this bill. I know that in so doing he has drawn attention to a situation in Canada which must leave many of us very unhappy. I say to the hon. member that his bill does not go far enough.
It is time we stopped hiding behind the old excuse that we cannot pass legislation because it is not within our jurisdiction under the British North America Act. Five provinces in Canada-Manitoba, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Saskatchewan-have legislation requiring an employer or employee to give notice of termination of employment. It is time we introduced laws in this country that would stop companies laying off employees when they feel like pulling up stakes and moving to other parts of the country or closing down entirely. These laws should apply from coast to coast and they should be federal laws. When a company has been established in any part of Canada for many years, the management of that company has a responsibility to the community in which it is located.
The city of London, Ontario, has thousands of people out of work because of the closing of Kelvinator of Canada, Robson-Lang Leathers, and the phasing-out of the 27 C.O.D. military base, as well as the recent announcement of the closing of the Eaton Automotive Company. True, the 27 C.O.D. and the Eaton Automotive Company have given at least six months' notice, but what happens to these employees who have given years of long, hard and faithful service to their employers? Many will be unable to obtain another job because of their age, and most of them are too young to apply for their pension. I sincerely believe that industry closing should be subject to investigation by the government and a public body composed of all interested groups, so that employees can be given notice of six to 12 months, where possible, with appropriate penalties for non-compliance.
I would like to read into the record a letter I received from a man who is going to be laid off from the Eaton Automotive Company. He wrote as follows:
* (4:20 p.m.)
I am extremely annoyed at the way plants are closing down in London. I work at Eaton Automotive (Eaton, Yale and Towne) here in London and it recently announced closing of the plant to begin the 1st of January, concluding the 1st of June, 1971. Eaton, Yale and Towne has made a profit of 60.9 million dollars in 1970. It has eleven plants in Canada and plants in twenty-two other countries of the world. Why are we closing? According to Eaton's president, the plant's location is excellent, profits are high, good relations exist with both plant and office personnel, lots of room for expansion and the plant is only twenty years old. Still we are closing.
The company has said it cannot find a product that is profitable. This is a lie! We have had three products successfully developed in our plant, being bucket seats, auto-interceptors (a balloon that inflates before a crash) and most recently the brake system we devised for cars. All three were developed in our plant to the extent of being put on a production line. The plant has sent all three items to the States for production and now says it can't find a profitable product. These products are in production and making money for Americans and not here in Canada where they should be.
So there it stands. Why, I ask you, Mr. Turner, are we closing? Eaton also has the power to take work from one plant.
November 27, 1970

put it in another plant and leave the workers out of a job. This should not be done and I ask you to help us. The plant is noted for closing other plants after 15-20 years production, putting elderly employees out of wark without a liveable pension.
I do hope you will speak on these matters in the House. It is the future of all Canadians.
Many industries in Canada are seasonal in nature. Therefore, when an employee is hired he knows what the job will be and whether it will be of short duration. This is where Bill C-20 should apply. Down through the years the trade unions of this nation have tried to take care of the problem of lay-offs by collective bargaining, but it must be stressed that barely a third of all Canadian wage and salary earners are members of trade unions. While a number of non-unionists are covered by collective agreements, the total thus protected probably falls well short of 50 per cent of the employed work force. Whether the workers need it or not, at least half of all wage and salary earners have no protection other than that stemming from individual agreements, common law and provincial legislation. It amazes me that according to a study of all Canadian industries in the year 1968, only 40 per cent of agreements-39 per cent of employees-had a lay-off provision, and 23 per cent of agreements or 19 per cent of employees specified a period of seven days or less.
We have been told that United States industries have an investment in our country of over $50 billion. Mr. Speaker, that is a large sum of money. Why did they make that huge investment in this country? I believe they looked at the opportunity to invest and make money on our natural resources. We, as Canadians, are glad they are here because they have created thousands of jobs for Canadians. But one of the main reasons they are here is that our wage structure is much lower than that in the United States. Now that the workers of this nation have organized to try and obtain better wages to enjoy their own Canadian way of life, many of these companies have decided that it would be cheaper for them to shut down their Canadian plants and transfer the work to their parent plants. Canadian law should not permit this to happen. Many of these companies were given incentives to locate in various areas of Canada. Therefore, they have an obligation to the areas in which they are located to help stabilize the employment there. These companies should be made to provide compensation to their workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own.
In this age of automation it often happens that a particular job is eliminated by machinery or the closing of an industry, which can cause loss of seniority and other rights. We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that these machines do not buy homes, cars, furniture or the weekly groceries. They contribute nothing to the church or to the various charities. They contribute nothing to our way of life other than to take away a man's livelihood. Also, they pay no taxes and no union dues. Every time there is a strike, the management of these large companies try to think of ways to eliminate jobs by the introduction of machines. I believe they all should have a responsibility to the area in which they are located, to make certain
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
that their employees are not forced out on the street to end up on welfare.
Public benefits to qualified workers through unemployment insurance were also intended to assist the displaced worker through the period in which he might be without work. In recent years, through collective bargaining the concepts of severance pay and the availability of unemployment insurance have been merged in a variety of ways. Workers who are laid off, with or without the expectation that the lay-off will be of a permanent nature, are also realizing in cash or in vested rights and fringe benefits that which they stand to lose, together with compensation for wages lost. Traditional severance pay plans provide a cash settlement in a lump sum or in instalments to workers whose employment has been terminated. I recall that during the time of conversion of the railways from steam to diesel, thousands of workers were laid off by both railways. They did not receive any severance pay but were very fortunate to have paid into the unemployment insurance plan so that they were eligible to draw benefits.
The prime purpose of supplemental unemployment benefit plans is to provide weekly allowances to workers on lay-offs in order to supplement unemployment compensation. Usually, the lay-off is not considered permanent, that is, both the employer and the employee expect the worker to be recalled to the job. Unlike traditional severance pay plans, supplementary unemployment benefits are paid only if the worker is unemployed. Under the auto pact, transitional assistance benefits-in short, TAB-were set up by the federal government when the Canada-U.S. auto trade agreement was signed. Its purpose is to assist workers who lose their jobs as a direct result of the agreement which set out to consolidate auto and auto parts production in the two countries.
TAB and unemployment insurance benefits together range from 62 per cent, plus an additional 21- per cent plus an additional 21 per cent for each dependent to a maximum of 75 per cent of an employee's previous earnings. The maximum may not exceed 65 per cent of the weekly average of both wages and salaries for the industry as a whole. An employee is eligible for TAB if he has worked in the industry for 16 weeks in the previous 52 weeks, and he receives one week of benefits for every two weeks worked in the previous year. There is a maximum period of 52 weeks. Benefits are to augment unemployment insurance benefits if they lapse while the employee is still entitled to TAB. The weekly TAB payment will then be increased to offset the loss.
Mr. Speaker, this is excellent protection and should be extended to all industries in the nation so that we can eliminate some of the constant worries of people who could be la'd off through a general slacken'ng in the business world. We should try to gear our country to full employment, but in the event of slowdowns in the economy the workers of the nation need protection against the interruption of their work week patterns.
As we move ahead into the 1970's we all have much to do to try and increase the benefits of the working people

November 27, 1970
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
of Canada. We could take a big step forward now if we considered all sound suggestions in a serious light. Mr. Speaker, this is the challenge of the seventies: Full employment for all Canadians. In this fast-changing nation I believe it is a tragic situation when people are thrown out of work at ages when they cannot obtain another job. I sincerely believe this situation could be cleared up if all private industrial pensions were made portable from coast to coast in any industrial business. Thus, when an employee is laid off he would be able to take his pension with him to a new job, if he is fortunate to get one. It would prevent employers from saying a man is too old because he would not fit into their pension schemes. I believe it would also eliminate most of the problems confronting a person who is 65 years of age when he retires. Over a man's working years he would contribute, along with his employers, into the pension plan and he could retire with no financial worries about his future.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It is very easy, Mr. Speaker, to begin my few remarks with commendation of the efforts and the methods of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I want to assure him right away that, both distorting and plagiarizing Shakespeare, I come to praise the bill, not to bury it-although I have noticed in the private members' hour that the two motivations sometimes coincide. I think at 4.30 p.m. I am safe from that dismal denouement.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
As I say, it is very easy to support the work of the hon. member because I am in accord with most of the measures he brings into this House. When he is not discussing foreign policy or ideology generally in the political sense or economic policies in principle, and discusses the place of the dispossessed in our society, enlightenment in the labour legislation and, certainly, procedure-last Tuesday with regard to research-I am enthusiastically his supporter. If it were not for his modesty and my excessive laconic candour, I would be inclined to say in some fulsome way that he is one of the greatest parliamentarians seen in this chamber for many years.
I should like to praise him a little more, but he might think that I am pressing him in his role of chancellor of a certain university and that I might be ambitious, like some others, who find that honours come upon them by degrees rather than dissertation.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No commercials.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: My friend from Brandon-Souris says "No commercials," and I shall heed his advice. I want to say that this is important legislation and it is more limited than many of the measures the hon. member has introduced in the past. As he has indicated, it deals with very important problems. Through the years in our society there have been many grievous disparities between labour and management. In the present day we find disparities of a serious nature developing within the

labour sector as well. But this is not the particular aspect with which the bill deals. I quite agree with the hon. member who preceded me that the peremptory discharge of employees who have rendered faithful service is an outrage upon a civilized society. It has happened far too often in recent years.
There are many factors in our society which disrupt economic patterns and industrial set-ups. Quite often large bodies of people, through no fault of their own but because of technological or technical changes, governmental decisions or conditions in the market, find themselves cast into the ashcan of the unemployed. This is sometimes done brutally. I think the hon. member, in attempting to remove the guillotine from employees such as he mentioned, is very much on the side of the angels. I am against the guillotine in Parliament and I am against it in labour relations.
One of the things which has troubled us in recent years is the situation facing our students, although some of these may not precisely come under the three-month period of the hon. member's bill. They have had difficulty finding jobs which will assist them in their costly educational careers. We know that last year and the year before many were not able to find work. I have heard many shocking cases of those who were able to find work being discharged at the whim of the employer, with no redress and no warning.
I often think of the great responsibility that some of these callous and cynical employers bear in our society where there is great anxiety because youth is in revolt. How could they be otherwise than distressed and dissatisfied in a system which so often lacks reason and compassion? So, Mr. Speaker, this effort to ameliorate these conditions, to give the required measure of reason and compassion, is certainly a move in the right direction.
I also commend the hon. member's sense of balance. As he pointed out in his brief and succinct explanation, the employee must also act reasonably. I suppose it is a fundamental of civilized societies that the people comprising them must generally act reasonably one toward the other. It is a reflection, of course, of our occasional, if not frequent-and some would say eternal-irrationality that we cannot count upon man's essential nature but must legislate acceptable and minimum codes of behaviour and minimum laws of contract. This, of course, is what we are doing in this Parliament when we pass legislation of one kind or another. I believe this is important because we live in a society of much enforced unemployment. We have many victims of technological change. It, is important as well because we have great mobility in our society.
I think this is the underpinning of an essential contractual relationship, and I am thoroughly in accord with it. I agree with the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) who said that it deals with part of a very serious situation. When this bill comes to committee, as I am sure it will, I hope it will receive the support of hon. members from all parts of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Question.
November 27, 1970


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that all sides of the House are not of the same mind, that there should be no more speaking. I should like to agree with those who have spoken before me.


An hon. Member:: Good. Now sit down.


Ralph Wesley Stewart: The consideration of notice of discharge is an extremely important matter and something should be done about it. However, I do not agree that it should be done in the way suggested by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I agree with other members who have said that the provision does not go far enough. Why not three weeks or four weeks? Also, this proposal has to be considered with other things in the code; the whole code has to be considered.
I, for one, like the idea of severance pay rather than simply giving notice. First of all, a man who is to be out of work will look for another job because he wants money in his pocket. It will cost him money to go around looking for another job. Secondly, if he continues working during his period of notice, neither he nor his employer are satisfied because his mind is not completely on his job as he is thinking of finding another one. I would like the idea of notice to be confined to severance pay, and this principle should extend to all walks of life.
There are those who like to make remarks about Members of Parliament being so well off, and so on. If any of us without notice were to lose the next election, we would not receive any severance pay. Sometimes it is well for people to remember that. We would walk out without a cent in our pockets and we would be looking for a job. I think it is well to keep this in mind. I am not making the point that Members of Parliament ought to be included in this legislation, but from time to time it is well to remind people of these things. So many members seem to be ashamed of saying what they are worth. I am not one of those.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: I wish to refer briefly to the Speech from the Throne. In it there is reference-granted, it was in broad term-to the government's intention of reviewing the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. If the government is to review one part of that code, certainly it will open up the entire code for amendments-this is something we ought to consider-and not just the aspect referred to in this bill. If the entire code is reopened in that way, I think the House will have to consider making a comprehensive set of amendments.
The bill we are discussing covers a very small area. It mentions the lay-off of the individual as opposed to a mass lay-off. Although these are distinct problems, they ought to be taken into consideration in the review to which I have alluded. Also, if we are to make changes to that code, changes will have to be made in all these
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
areas. I do not believe it is sufficient to provide for advance notice to individuals if there is not appropriate provision for protecting large groups of employees affected by plant shutdowns. This is the kind of thing we run into very often in the part of the country I represent, and that situation results from the kind of industry established in the area. As you know, Mr. Speaker, our industry is not diversified. I have often spoken about this situation. If a mine closes in my area or if a plant shuts down, the whole town shuts down. This is unfortunate.
I think we must consider the broader aspects of the question we are discussing when dealing with the Canada Labour (Standards) Code. If, in its consideration of this matter, the government concludes that the concept of advance notice is not enough, then other factors will need to be brought into play. We must be concerned about manpower services, about retraining and the relocation of individuals, and about mobilizing all those who have lost their jobs. These are all matters which must be considered, along with the amendments that will be considered. But if we are to do that, the two weeks' notice suggested in this bill would not be sufficient. The extent of the advance notice should be directly related to the number of people who will be involved in the disruption. The more people who are disrupted, the greater should be the time required in which they are to be relocated.
In cases of technical change or industrial conversion the employer should be compelled to provide training opportunities for the employees affected whenever alternate employment is not available in the same plant. These are all matters which must be considered in the over-all review of the Labour (Standards) Code. That is why I say, Mr. Speaker, that although this bill is laudable in intent, it really does not cover the situation in the way it must be covered.
Let us look again at the question of notice of termination of employment. I should like to go back a little in time. In the nineteenth century in this country as in many other countries, employers had absolute freedom with regard to dismissal. The employment relationship was considered to be a contract freely entered into between equals for the purpose of exchanging services for remuneration, and thus it was considered similar to other types of contract of indeterminate duration. With the passage of time it became more and more recognized that the notion of the employer and worker being equal partners in a freely established employment relationship did not correspond to economic realty and that the worker, as the economically weaker party in the employer-worker relationship, required protection against hardships caused by loss of employment. The means of providing such protection most widely applied both in Canada and other countries was to impose a compulsory period of notice upon the employer.
The purpose of the notice period is to alleviate the hardship which results from outright dismissal. Advance notice provides an opportunity for the worker, while still employed, to prepare for the change in his situation caused by the termination of his employment and to look for another job. In order for him to be able to do that,

November 27, 1970
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
Mr. Speaker, it is necessary for the notice to be long enough for him to relocate in another job, to be retrained or to undertake whatever the case may require in his particular circumstances. In the various provinces there are different regulations covering this situation and we have seen that in most cases they are not adequate. However, I do not want to deal with that matter. I have no intention of talking until five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to be accused of talking out a bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ralph Wesley Stewart: There are a few generalizations that I think it would be well to make here. I will not go over the codes, coverages or laws of the different provinces. Generally, all employers and employees, wage earning or salaried, whether in the public or private sector, are included except, as a rule, rural workers and domestic servants. Legislation generally provides for the inclusion or exclusion of various occupational groups or industries by subsequent regulations. Only Saskatchewan specifically excludes managerial staff.
The legislation of the provinces varies in respect of the length of notice which must be given. One week's notice is assured by a specific provision in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, or by the reasonable no! ice provision. There is some differentiation in four provinces, either by the length of pay period provision in Manitoba, Quebec and Newfoundland or by the service based provision of Ontario. Two of the three most recent pieces of legislation in Ontario and Newfoundland make it compulsory for employees to work out the full notice period, and this is a requirement not found in any other industrialized country.
The matter of reciprocity of obligations was referred to by the hon. member who introduced this bill. I should like to make one comment on that matter. Four provinces require the same notice for quits as for dismissals. Ontario provides for partial reciprocity, but the notice periods are considerably less for employees. Saskatchewan is the odd one out, requiring no notice from the employee.
I shall now talk about pay in lieu of notice, which in my opinion is a better method to use. Pay in lieu of notice is specifically provided for by one means or another. As in most industrialized countries, pay is defined as the wages due for the prescribed period excluding overtime. The criterion set out in Saskatchewan legislation is common in other countries as well.


An hon. Member:: Does the hon. member know who brought that legislation in?


Ralph Wesley Stewart: There is usually a period of probation during which no notice is required. Probationary periods in which notice of dismissal provisions do not apply range from two weeks in Manitoba to three months in Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia and Ontario. A point which should be stressed is that barely one third of Canada's wage and salarv earners are trade unionists, so

a great many people have no opportunity to become involved in the making of collective agreements. I wonder whether this is not a weakness in our system of bargaining and trade unions. Perhaps a permanent type of arbitration committee should be required which would deal with issues on a permanent and continuing basis, rather than directing its attention to specific contracts; negotiation would be a continuing process all the time.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
I have other remarks to make, Mr. Speaker, but the clock is moving along so I think it would be well to terminate my observations at this point.


Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will not be blamed for speaking today because I am not of those who make speeches very often. But in view of the importance of this bill, I intend to say a few words.
I could have expressed myself better on the technical aspects of this bill, but as my colleagues did so before me, I shall deal with the human aspect of this whole matter.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) doubtless is right in introducing this bill. If I understood my colleagues correctly, we agree on the necessity of making improvements. Unfortunately, as I have only a few minutes, I shall not be able to give all my reasons for supporting this bill.
Besides, if my colleague from Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) had taken less time praising the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whom he considers and expert in legal and procedural matters, perhaps I would not be accused of trying to talk the bill out. Regretfully, this may happen since I have many things to say and not much time left.
When he presented the bill, the member for Winnipeg North Centre said clearly that it consisted merely of subsection (b) and I quote:
lay off the employee: without having given the employee at least two weeks' notice of termination of employment or layoff.
As do many of my colleagues, I find the two-week period rather short and I do not see any extraordinary advantage in giving the employee two weeks' notice.
In my opinion, the bill introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg-North-Centre should have provided a minimum period of two months. It would have been appropriate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then move an amendment.


Prosper Boulanger: I will probably do so, if I have enough time, but the entire bill is based on that clause. In my opinion, a two-week period is too short. The hon. member should have asked himself whether a two-week period was really sufficient.
November 27, 1970

A supplementary period of two weeks could have been proposed, in order to enable an employee to fine some work.
An employee who has received a two-week notice and who must remain in the factory will find it difficult to seek employment, for his boss will seldom grant him one or two hours off per day for that purpose.
This period of two weeks should be granted with two more weeks, for the sole purpose of allowing an employee to seek another job.
As for the International Labour Conference (1963), I feel that the reasons given by an employer to fire an employee are still far from warrantable or warranted, because paternalism still rules in certain factories. Indeed, a foreman who prefers the gait of a 20-year-old employee to that of a 40-year-old one, will often find some mysterious reason to throw the latter out. We are only too aware that there are still injustices committed for such reasons.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question? Since he seems to like the principle of the bill but wishes its provisions to be
Canada Labour (Standards) Code
improved, will he not move that the bill be not now read the second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee in order that it might be improved?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Prosper Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, this question is quite to the point and the hon. member asked it during the study of Bill C-43. As a matter of fact, he proceeded exactly in the same manner in directing a question to my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra (Mr. Deachman). But I just do not agree about the two-week period he proposes. I would have preferred that this period be of 30 days, two weeks of which, I repeat, would represent a holiday for


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 30, 1970