1971-02-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware of the movement of South Vietnamese troops into Laos with the support of United States air and other elements based in South Viet Nam.
The government, of course, is concerned about any violation of Laotian neutrality and, as a signatory of the 1952 protocol of the Geneva Agreement on Laos and a member of the International Control Commission for Laos, we support fully the demand of Laotian Prime Minister Prince Souvanna Phouma that the neutrality of Laos be respected by all parties. The disregard for Laotian neutrality by neighbouring states has been the subject of complaints to the International Control Commission from the Royal Laotian government for some years now and we have on several occasions within the International Control Commission supported commission activity to investigate these complaints.
Unfortunately we have had no success in persuading our colleagues on the International Control Commission to undertake investigations of the Laotian government complaints, the most recent of which were made in the middle of last year, in that instance against North Viet Nam. Despite this past failure we are, nevertheless, instructing the Canadian commissioner on the Laos International Control Commission to request an urgent meeting of the commission to discuss the situation in southern Laos and to undertake appropriate action to initiate an investigation of outstanding complaints of violations of the neutrality of Laos by whatever foreign forces.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, may I say a few words in response to the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as the hon. member for Fundy-Royal did not hear the whole statement and the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not give any prior indication of a statement on this subject.
.10 p.m.)
I must say, first of all, that it does not seem to take things very far for Canada simply to continue to protest against the breaching of the neutrality of Laos by various
neighbours. This in itself may tend to make us feel a little more virtuous but it does not do anything to restore peace in Laos.
I am pleased that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has renewed his attempts to reactivate the efforts of the commission with a view to conducting an investigation. I am sure this move will certainly receive the support of my own party. However, the minister did not indicate in his remarks what effort, if any, is being made to generate support among other countries for this intia-tive. In other words, Sir, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has not made clear whether this is simply a request Canada has made and is leaving at that, or whether Canada is moving energetically on various fronts to generate support from other countries for the reactivation of the commission and the conducting of this kind of inquiry. The making of this request by itself may be helpful but if it is merely left there it may not amount to anything. It would be helpful to have the minister throw further light upon the question of precisely what the government of Canada intends to do.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, the invasion of Laos by South Vietnamese forces with the assistance of United States forces threatens a new escalation of this disastrous war and the piling of disaster upon disaster. I am glad the Secretary of State for External Affairs was able to tell us that Canada has protested, but I wonder whether protests are enough when both sides have repeatedly violated the neutrality of Laos and Cambodia and when the Geneva agreements have been torn to shreds by both sides in this conflict. I wonder whether it is consistent with the dignity of Canada any longer to remain a member of the International Control Commission which controls nothing in these countries. I wonder whether serious thought should not be given to Canada's withdrawal. I would be very much in favour of the reactivation of the International Control Commission if there were the slightest likelihood that it would be effective, but if not I would like to see it withdrawn.
I conclude by saying that while the United Nations has not always been effective it is the international forum for the conscience of mankind, and I wonder whether the repeated violation of the rules in Southeast Asia is not a matter which should once again be taken to the forum of the United Nations.


Mr. Romuald Rodrigue (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the announcement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) of the invasion of Laos by South Vietnamese troops causes us great concern.
It all means that the population will have to suffer and make sacrifices because of this endless war, which has

February 8, 1971
Labour Conditions
already been going on for some 30 years. We support Canadian initiatives and efforts toward prompt achievement of peace in the South of Asia. We urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs to continue his efforts to that end.
sj:	si:



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 to make a motion in respect of an urgent and pressing matter.
This country and this parliament need no reminder that unemployment, so degrading and humiliating to hundreds of thousands of victims, is the number one problem in the country, nor that this Prime Minister and federal government which deliberately created it now wilfully refuse to provide any immediate relief.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member who knows, as well as any other hon. member, what are the restrictions regarding the proposing of a motion under Standing Order 43. The arguments which can be put forth are relatively limited. I suggest to the hon. member that he cannot argue the case; he can only indicate why there is urgency. Perhaps I interrupted the hon. member too soon and the remarks he has been making are purely introductory, but there should be a limitation. If we place ourselves in the position where every day we have a number of motions under Standing Order 43 and general statements are made by the hon. members proposing these motions, we will put ourselves into procedural difficulties. I would therefore invite the hon. member to keep this in mind, as I am sure he will.


Gerald William Baldwin: I quite agree, Your Honour, that we must establish as a condition precedent urgent and pressing necessity, which I was attempting to do.
The federal government, which is primarily responsible for unemployment, is now meeting with the provinces in Ottawa and there is an indication that some provinces do recognize the urgency. If the senior authority can be made to realize its duty, then together, even at this late date, something can be done to respond to these imperative needs. I therefore ask leave to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell):
That this House speaking for the people of Canada urges the governments of Canada and of the provinces at the current federal-provincial conference to give priority to immediate measures to deal with the current unemployment crisis.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion which would be proposed by the hon. member for Peace River. The motion has been submitted under the terms of Standing Order 43 which requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Since there is not unanimity, the motion cannot be put.


An hon. Member:: Who says no?
* * #



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Bourassa: for leave to introduce Bill C-223, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mr. Trudel:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the riding of Bourassa to that of Montreal-Bourassa, in order to eliminate the confusion arising from the fact that both federal and provincial ridings bear the same name without having the same geographical boundaries.


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

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

Mr. Sallsman: Have any government officials given written or verbal assurances to a Japanese Trade Mission in Ottawa during the Summer that Japanese companies would be allowed as much as 50 per cent ownership in new Canadian mines in which they buy minerals and, if so, who are these officials?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: While discussions were held with Canadian Government officials concerning Japanese interest in investment in the Canadian mining industry during the visit of the Japanese mining mission to Canada in September 1970, there were no assurances, written or verbal, made by Government officials with respect to the subject of an acceptable level.


ARRESTS UNDER PUBLIC ORDER REGULATIONS 1970
[Stage Direction]
Qusetion No. 248-Mr. Brewin:
1.	How many arrests have been made under the provisions of the Public Order Regulations 1970 being P.C. 1970-1808?

February 8, 1971
[Stage Direction]
2.	In which provinces have the arrests been made and how many arrests have been made in each?
3.	How many of those arrested under the said Order are still in detention?
4.	How many have been charged with offences and what are the offences with which they have been charged?
5.	How many of those arrested or detained under the said Order have been released?
6.	How many have been convicted of offences under the said Order?
7.	As a result of searches made under Section 10 of the said Order or Regulations what amounts of offensive weapons have been found and/or seized?
8.	What is the nature of the weapons so found or seized?
Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: I am informed as follows: 1. Three hundred and seventy-two as of October 23, 1970.
2.	All above arrests were made in the Province of Quebec.
3.	One hundred and ninety-eight people were still in custody as of October 23, 1970.
4.	None of those arrested under P.C. 1970-1808 had been charged as of October 23, 1970.
5.	One hundred and seventy-four were released as of October 23, 1970.
6.	Up to and including October 23, 1970 none had been convicted.
7.	Thirty-three firearms and 21 offensive weapons were seized as of October 23, 1970.
8.	Shotguns, rifles, revolvers, other firearms, four bayonets, four machetes, nine various hunting knives, one sabre and three smoke grenades.


NAMES OF PERSONS ARRESTED UNDER PROVISIONS OF PUBLIC ORDER REGULATIONS, 1970
Mr. Brewin: What are the names of the persons throughout Canada who have been arrested or detained under the provisions of Public Order Regulations 1970 P.C. 1970-1808?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: It is not
in the public interest to release the names of those arrested and then released, unless they have been appropriately charged under the War Measures Act or the Criminal Code.


MILITARY ITEMS AND EQUIPMENT SOLD TO PORTUGAL
Mr. MacDonald (Egmonl): 1.	(a) What was the exact nature and intended use of the automobile parts sold to Portugal between 1960 and 1969 for which $86,360 was expended as indicated in the answer to Question Number 1,617 on October 7, 1970 (b) what was the exact nature and intended use of the radar equipment for which $28,261 was expended (c) in detail what was the exact nature and intended use of the items purchased by Portugal for which the amount of $51,242 was expended?
2.	Has any attempt been made by the Department of External Affairs or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to ascertain whether aircraft made in Canada are being employed in Portugal or any of its colonies for military purposes?
Questions


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce advises that: (a) the automotive items were parts for tanks and vehicles. The parts were for use in carrying out roles within NATO, (b) The equipment consisted of spares for a surveillance search radar. The parts were for use in carrying out roles within NATO, (c) The items were accessories for us with small arms and transportation equipment. The parts were for use in carrying out roles within NATO.
2.	The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs have no information to indicate that there are Canadian built aircraft operating in Portugal or its colonies for civilian or military purposes.
REPORTS ON AIR POLLUTION IN WINDSOR/DETROIT AREA
Question No. 481


Mr. Anderson:: Is the government willing to release two reports on air pollution in the Windsor/Detroit area, entitled "Sulphate and Sulphuric Acid Levels in Windsor Air" and "The Calcium to Sulphate Ratio in Windsor Air" to medical researchers wishing to investigate deaths due to respiratory illnesses in the area?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The two reports on air pollution in the Windsor/Detroit area, entitled "Sulphate and Sulphuric Acid Levels in Windsor Air" and "The Calcium to Sulphate Ratio in Windsor Air" were tabled in the House on November 18, 1970.


INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOL ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES-MEMBERS OF CANADIAN DELEGATION
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	What are the names of the members of the Canadian delegation to the negotiations on the international protocol on psychotropic substances?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to ratify the protocol before the Report of the Commission of Inquiry into the nonmedical use of drugs?


John Carr Munro: 1. Representative: Dr. J. Maurice LeClair, Deputy Minister of National Health, Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa.
Alternate Representatives: Dr. R. A. Chapman, Assistant Deputy Minister, (Food and Drugs), Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa; Mr. J. D. McCarthy, Director, Legal Services, Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa; Dr. Aurele Beaulnes, Coordinator of the Non-Medical Use of Drugs Program, Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa; and Miss Pauline Sprague, Criminal Law Section, Department of Justice, Ottawa.
Advisors: Mr. R. C. Hammond, Chief, Division of Narcotic Control, Department of National Health and Welfare, Ottawa; and Mr. R. D. Auger, Third Secretary and Vice-Consul, Permanent Mission of Canada to the United

February 8, 1971
Questions
Nations, Geneva and to the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament.
2. No.


CBC-BROADCASTS TO MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What areas of the Maritime Provinces are now able to receive CBC FM broadcast in English?
2.	What is the location of English language FM transmitters in the Maritime area?
3.	What is the estimated number of listeners in (a) Prince Edward Island (b) New Brunswick (c) Nova Scotia, who will be able to hear the CBC's projected Radio Two Programs?
4.	Has any department any knowledge of plans, policies or efforts likely to provide alternate TV service to viewers in Charlottetown and other areas in Prince Edward Island and, if so (a) what are they (b) when is it estimated that alternative channels will be available to these viewers?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. None.
2.	There are no FM transmitters carrying CBC FM programming in the Maritimes at present.
3.	Estimated number of listeners to CBC-owned AM radio stations in the Maritimes: (a) 10,000; (b) 59,000; (c) 112,000. Until a full distribution system may be possible for both Radio One and Radio Two, communities served by only one AM transmitter will receive a mixture of the two CBC radio services. It may take over five years to complete the distribution system.
I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television Commission as follows:
4.	The Commission has had discussions with various parties with the objective of providing alternate TV service to viewers in Charlottetown and other areas in Prince Edward Island. Discussions are continuing and therefore there is no information which could be given at this time.


INTERNATIONAL PROTOCOL ON PSYCHOTROPIC SUBSTANCES-MEMBERS OF CANADIAN DELEGATION
Mr. Alexander: 1.	Who will represent Canada during the final negotiations on the international protocol on psychotropic substances
2.	What are their qualifications or experience in dealing with the question of drug abuse?


John Carr Munro: 1. See answer to Part I of Question 538 today.
2. All members of the Canadian delegation have extensive experience and qualifications in dealing with questions related to the protocol on psychotropic substances. Their specific areas of expertise and experience are indicated in the answer to question 1.


COMBINES-TAITE AND LYLE-INFLUENCE ON CANADIAN SUGAR POLICY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 649
Mr. Watson:: 1.	Does the government have any information which would indicate that the London based, Taite and Lyle, multi-national group of companies is an international sugar cartel and, if so, does the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce allow that group to influence in any way Canadian trade policy in sugar?
2.	Does the Minister contemplate the development of a national Canadian policy on sugar in the near future?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minisier of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. In response to question No. 2039 (Hansard, April 30, 1969, at pages 8161-8162) it was stated that since it was a matter of public knowledge, an application under section 7 of the Combines Act by Roberta Gray et al relating to the sugar industry in Eastern Canada had been received and that the Director under the Act was carrying out his statutory duty. It is not the policy under the Act to disclose whether or not particular information or evidence has been obtained in an inquiry unless and until it is disclosed in a published report or in proceedings before the courts.
2. No change in the Canadian policy on sugar is contemplated at the present time. The Tariff Board currently is reviewing the rates of duty and tariff nomenclature for sugar and related products.


USE OF FEDERAL AIRCRAFT WITHIN BOUNDARIES OF ABITIBI CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laprise: How many trips were made by federal government aircraft within the boundaries of the constituency of Abitibi during the years 1968, 1969, 1970?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the government that statistics are not now maintained in a manner which would readily provide this information. To obtain the information requested in the question would necessitate the carrying out of a special survey, and the necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the large amount of work which would be required to provide an accurate answer. This special survey would also require an extremely large expenditure.


DELISLE, SASK.-ASSISTANCE FOR LOW RENTAL HOUSING
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How much money is being contributed by the following toward dwelling units for low-income families in Delisle, Saskatchewan (a) the federal government (b) the provincial government (c) the Town of Delisle?
2.	What amount was paid for the land involved?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: 1 and 2. The Federal government is not presently involved in the development of a housing project for low-income families in Delisle, Saskatchewan.

February 8, 1971


PRINCE ALBERT, SASK.-ASSISTANCE FOR LOW RENTAL HOUSING
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How much money is being contributed by each of the following toward the 65-unit low-rental housing project in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan (a) the federal government (b) the provincial government (c) the City of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan?
2.	What amount was paid for the land involved?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) Central Mortgage and Housing approved a loan of $554,040 in December, 1970, under Section 16 of the National Housing Act to assist in the financing of a low-rental housing project in Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, the loan being repayable over a term of 50 years at an interest rate of 7-| per cent.
2. Since this low-rental project is privately sponsored, information with respect to the purchase price of the land is not available.


DEVELOPMENT GRANT TO ARMCO, CANADA LIMITED, REDWATER, ALBERTA
Mr. Mazankowski: Was a area development grant awarded to ARMCO, Canada Limited, Redwater, Alberta and, if so (a) what was the amount (b) how many people are now employed on a permanent basis?


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes. (a) $152,682, (b) We have been informed by the company that 5 persons are now employed on a permanent basis.


DEVELOPMENT GRANT TO IMPERIAL OIL LIMITED, REDWATER, ALBERTA
Mr. Mazankowski: Was an area development grant awarded to Imperial Oil Limited, Redwater, Alberta and, if so (a) what was the amount (b) how many people are now employed at both fertilizer plants on a permanent basis?


Abram Ernest Epp: (a) A grant of $5,000,000 was made to each of two plants, (b) We have been informed by the company that 213 persons are employed on a permanent basis and an additional 92 are employed on contract from outside agencies.


METROPOLITAN TORONTO-REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT LOANS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many Regional Development loans, if any, have been made in the Metropolitan Toronto area?
2.	What was the amount of each loan?
3.	What is the name of each company who received such loan?
4.	How many loans, if any, are presently being considered for the Metropolitan Toronto area and what is the amount of each and to what company will each be awarded?


Abram Ernest Epp: 1. None. 23786-571
Orders for Returns
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	None.


ONTARIO AND QUEBEC-NUMBER OF VETERANS IN RECEIPT OF PENSIONS
Mr. Valade: How many veterans in (a) Ontario (b) Quebec receive a pension from the Department of Veterans Affairs?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: (a) 46,108; (b) 15,382.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Coates: How many Royal Commissions are presently operating (a) what are the subjects covered in each instance (b) for what period of time have they been in existence (c) what are the names of the members in each instance (d) how much has each received in honorarium and expenses (e) what has been the cost to date of each Royal Commission (f) what will be the final estimated cost in each instance (g) what is the anticipated date on which they will conclude their work?
Return tabled.


PRINCE GEORGE, B.C.-RENTAL OF SPACE BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Howard (Skeena): Does the government, or any agency or department thereof, rent or lease any office or other space in Prince George, B.C. and, if so, what is (a) the name of each such agency or department (b) the amount of space so rented or leased by each (c) the date upon which each such rental or lease arrangement came into effect (d) the length of time of each lease (e) the amount paid annually for so renting or leasing (f) the name of each company or person from whom space is so rented or leased?
Return tabled.


ASSISTANCE UNDER INDIAN INTEGRATION PROGRAMS
Mr. Nowlan: In each of the past five years, how many persons are estimated to have been assisted in programs in the Indian integration category, and at what cost?
Return tabled.


COST OF ROYAL COMMISSIONS
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	(a) What has been the total cost of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women in its investigation and production of a report (b) what has been the total cost of the Le Dain Commission in its inquiry into the non-medical use of drugs (c) what has been the total cost of the Barber Commission on Farm Machinery?
2.	What were the salaries and total expense accounts of each of the members of the Commissions?
Return tabled.

February 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


ROYAL COMMISSIONS ESTABLISHED SINCE JANUARY 1964
Mr. Valade: Since January 1964 (a) how many Royal Commissions were established (b) what was the name of each (c) what was the cost of each?
Return tabled.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-STUDIES CONDUCTED BY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS SECTION
Mr. Howard (Skeena): What studies have been conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Development Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and (a) what were the amounts spent on each of these studies (b) who conducted these studies (c) what is the status of each study?
Return tabled.


APPLICATIONS FOR GRANTS UNDER MANPOWER MOBILITY PROGRAM
Mr. Skoberg: 1.	With reference to the Department of Manpower and Immigration recent publication "Manpower Mobility Program Follow-up Study'', prepared by Kates, Peat, Marwick and Co., dated March 31, 1969, how many applications for a relocation grant since the inception of this plan until December 31, 1970 have been refused?
2.	How many applications for relocation grants under the Manpower Mobility Program have been refused by province?
3 On what grounds was the majority of the applications for a relocation grant under the Manpower Mobility Program refused?
4.	How many applications for grants under the Manpower Mobility Program have been accepted by province?
5.	What is the total amount of the grants paid for those qualifying under the Manpower Mobility Program by province?
Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to bother the parliamentary secretary but question No. 79 has been on the order paper since the first day of the session and it was on the order paper last session. In fact it has been on the order paper for almost a year. I know the Prime Minister has a big staff of consultants, but surely it should not take that long to let us know who they are and what they are doing.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as is becoming almost normal I would like
to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the problems relating to unemployment and the deep concern expressed about this subject by a number of the provincial premiers, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he or any of his colleagues intend to make any new proposals to the federal-provincial conference that is taking place-that is, to the provincial premiers-or whether it is simply the intention of the government to defend the proposals and arrangements it has already made?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we intend to discuss fully with the provincial premiers the economic matters which will be raised by them.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, that is not very encouraging particularly in view of the forecast of business investment made by the Economic Council of Canada, based upon studies conducted last autumn. In view of this forecast, described as the most pessimistic medium-range forecast the Council has made since its establishment and which forecast has even been described as too optimistic by the well known firm of James Richardson and Sons, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he now proposes to undertake any measures designed to give some vigorous stimulation to the economy?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at the comments of the Economic Council it will be seen that it pointed out to business, as I have often done, the stimulus included in the special provision in my recent budget through increased depreciation. It also pointed out that in the first year its forecast with regard to expansion of new business investment was about 2 per cent less than that given by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I think we can stick by our forecast of an 11 per cent increase.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he simply proposes to stick to his own forecast in light of the very pessimistic forecast that the Economic Council has made with regard to business investment in 1972, which is hardly the stuff of which business expansion is made? Does he intend to stick stubbornly to his own forecast, or does he intend to put something forward that will effectively encourage business expansion?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would think, based on past experience, that a survey taken in October, 1969, is not a very good forecast of what is going to happen a year and a half later.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, since the Economic Council estimates that business capital investment for 1971 will increase by only 9 per cent compared with the government's estimate of 11 per cent, and that for 1972 it will actually decline back to the 1970 level, may I ask the minister whether he is preparing, either in his budget or in any legislation

February 8, 1971

which he will bring before the House, measures designed to stimulate capital investment, certainly for 1972, because if the forecast is correct the level will actually decline?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend will take a look at the recent budget I presented in December he will And that there is considerable stimulus there for capital investment by business.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact-


Edgar John Benson: And the Economic Council agrees with that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the Economic Council's survey shows a very pessimistic outlook for 1972, is the government taking any measures to provide adequate social capital for 1971 and 1972, particularly in view of the statement that investment, for instance, in university construction will actually decline in 1972 by 10 per cent below the present level?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at my budgetary forecast which I brought forward in December, one will find that the government has provided a stimulus, on the budgetary side alone, to the tune of some $600 million in 1971 and 1972 and over all, cash wise, to the tune of some $2 billion.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be allowed to ask his supplementary, but I am wondering whether we are not at this time entering on the budget debate. There are still two more days of that debate remaining and I assume it will be brought before the House again in a short while. Having said this, I gather that the hon. member has a supplementary question, as has the hon. member for Peace River, but for the moment the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands has the floor.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the Economic Council of Canada dealt only with the capital spending of business and universities but made no survey of capital expenditures in the fields of agriculture, fisheries or housing, has the government any forecasts of capital expenditures for 1971 and 1972 for those three areas? If the government has, would the minister be prepared to make them available to the House?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to indicate that I think there is serious deficiency in the Economic Council's forecast in that such important areas have been left out. For example, housing has been very strong, and the minister in charge of housing will be speaking about this in a few days. It is expected to be very strong in the period under review.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The government had better change the record.



UNEMPLOYMENT-PROVISION OF MORE LABOUR-INTENSIVE PROJECTS UNDER REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION PROGRAM

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Minister of Regional Economic Expansion? Since the economic expansion program has failed to create enough jobs to provide for even the normal increase in the work force, would the minister review his program with the provincial governments now gathered here and see if it is not possible to provide more labour-intensive projects at this time?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member that in December last amendments were passed to the Regional Development Incentives Act which greatly enlarged the programs of the department and those programs have relation to the present situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: That is not what the provinces say.



UNEMPLOYMENT-DISCUSSION AT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE-TABLING OF AGENDA

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmonl):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister? I believe that last week the Prime Minister indicated that when a decision had been made on the agenda for the present conference of heads of government the agenda would be tabled in the House. Is the Acting Prime Minister prepared to table that document? Could he also indicate when, according to the agenda, the item of unemployment will be discussed, how much time will be devoted to it, and whether it is a priority item at this conference?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the agenda for the conference. I understand, however, from consulting with my colleagues, that the item of unemployment will be discussed tomorrow morning.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REVISION OF MANPOWER RETRAINING REGULATIONS-DISCUSSION AT FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. For some time now I have been trying to find out from the minister the number of people who have applied for training but have not qualified. In view of the difficulties encountered by people applying for training assistance, will the minister be discussing the problem of revising the regulations with the heads of government this week with a view to providing that
February 8, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry
greater numbers may make use of the program during this period of high unemployment?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would not expect that item to come up in the discussions this week, although there certainly is room for constant consultation with the provinces on the question of how best to make our training and operating programs effective. I agree that the hon. member was not able to obtain some figures he wanted about the number of people who had sought training and had not been able to receive it, but we have made some changes there which may allow us to provide better information in the future.



UNEMPLOYMENT-ASSUMPTION OF GREATER SHARE OF WELFARE COSTS BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the increase of 25 to 30 per cent in welfare costs faced by most of the provinces and cities in 1970 and in view of the estimates by both federal and provincial officials that these costs will sharply increase this year, is the federal government considering discussing with the provinces the possibility of assuming a much greater share of the cost of welfare?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that as welfare costs go up the federal government's costs go up as well. As my hon. friend knows, we pay 50 per cent of the cost. This matter was discussed at the meeting with provincial ministers of health and welfare, but I am not sure whether it will be brought up at this conference.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, what I asked, and I wonder whether the minister could answer, was whether the federal government is giving consideration to increasing the percentage of its share of the cost of welfare. I am not talking of the total cost, of which as it goes up the federal government still pays 50 per cent.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, no such decision has been made at this time.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises out of the statement that he made at the beginning of the sitting this afternoon in connection with the situation in Laos. Is it not a fact that in the past several months the North Vietnamese have been invading and infiltrating that country, and that no particular criticism has been made by members in certain parts of the House who invariably criticize any action taken by the United States or by the South Vietnamese?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as to whether or not there had been invasion, we did receive complaints from the Royal Laotian government to this effect. We tried in the International Control Commission to have an investigation put in hand and as I said in my earlier statement, we were not successful. This is why in the statement I made I pointed out that I feel the whole question of the situation in southern Laos should be the subject of investigation by the International Control Commission. We took this action on our own initiative in advance of any request.


John George Diefenbaker: On the basis of experience which indicates the degree to which the other two members of the International Control Commission actually have dragged their feet and refused to participate in any way, is there not something that could be done by Canada to bring this question directly before the United Nations in order to have a committee of the UN to look into the problem of Laos so as to clear up once and for all the continued condemnation of the United States and those associated with that country who are preserving us against the advance of communism in Asia?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of Canada to bring this matter before the United Nations but I do understand that initiative may be taken to bring the matter before the Security Council by one of the parties mainly concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: Which is that?


Mitchell William Sharp: One of the countries concerned.


John George Diefenbaker: But which country?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not certain, Mr. Speaker, I have heard some rumours and I do not want to prejudge the success of their application. I think it would be better for them to make their application before I announce it. I should also add that the British government has called on the Soviet government to reconvene the Geneva conference for the purpose of investigating the invasion of the neutrality of Laos.


John George Diefenbaker: What was the reaction of the USSR? Did they show the same contemptuous disregard that has existed in the past?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there has been no response.
^	4:	$


INFORMATION CANADA
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norih Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. In view of reports that the entire professional staff of the design section of the exhibition branch of Information Canada is leaving because of the difficulties under which they have
February 8, 1971

to work, can the minister say what steps are being taken so that we can retain these very valuable employees?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, there has been no indication to me of any such move on the part of the employees. We are very hopeful, of course, that we will be able to retain this very talented staff if sufficient work is committed by departments. As the hon. member knows, we act as a contractor for departments, and to the full extent that work can be committed we would like to retain staff.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the minister look into the point I raised, and will he also look into the question whether or not work that might be done by this staff is being let out by contract?


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. R. R. Soulham (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who, according to the roster, is supposed to be in the House. In his absence I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of current statements by the Premier of Saskatchewan, will the government be stating any new positions with regard to regional expansion programs in Saskatchewan and western Canada and, if so, when?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will direct that question to my colleague.


Richard Russell Southam: Mr. Speaker, when the minister directs my question to his colleague, would he also ask him whether the minister has replied to the charge by the premier of Saskatchewan that the federal government has been sitting on the initiation of an approved grant to a food processing complex for Saskatchewan and, if so, what was the response?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In light of the warning by the president of the Canadian Construction Association that the basic problems of the construction industry relate to the widespread swing in construction activity-a feast or famine syndrome-is the government going to construct a long-term monetary and development policy for the construction industry in order to avoid further wide swings in federal policy toward this industry, as recommended by the Economic Council of Canada?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will recognize, I am sure, that the question is put in wide terms and is one of very general scope. I wonder whether it is in order to ask it in those terms. Perhaps the hon. member might like to cut down the scope of the question so that the Chair can accept it in other terms.


Walter C. Carter: Yes, Mr. Speaker. To put my question simply, in view of the problems encountered by the Canadian construction industry and the statement made by the president of that association, can the Minister of Finance say whether the government intends to make any monetary or other policy changes to help the construction industry, as recommended by the Economic Council of Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this is a matter to be determined by monetary changes. As far as federal government construction is concerned, we have for the past several years been working out long-range construction programs so that one does not get the dips that usually take place and which bother the construction industry very much. One of their main problems is that when people decide that they are going to economize, or they believe the market is falling, one of the first things they cut down on is capital construction. As the economy goes up and down, capital construction feels it very severely.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since the Minister of Supply and Services will be addressing a public meeting in Southey, Saskatchewan, this coming Saturday, would the minister be prepared to substitute himself on that occasion and discuss with the people of that area why he and the hon. member for Assiniboia proposed to the Postmaster General the closure of a post office in that area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Since several pulp and paper companies are withholding expansion plans in Canada, according to the Economic Council, would the minister now consider making some sort of temporary reply to the Senate and House committee reports on the white paper on tax reform in order to clear up the indefiniteness as to the financial position of the country?


Edgar John Benson: I do not think that has anything to do with the question of the pulp and paper industry expanding at the present time.

February 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Miller Bell: In view of the need to plan this spring to make work available during the coming summer, and especially in view of the fact that many young people, even the sons of some Members of Parliament, may not be able to get jobs, will the minister make a statement to try to clear up the uncertainty which is spreading throughout the country?


Edgar John Benson: I have indicated how we shall proceed in connection with tax reform; I have indicated this clearly to the House and it is the intention to do that.


PROCEDURE FOR PRESENTATION OF TAX REFORM LEGISLATION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Does he intend to proceed with tax reform on the basis of a budget or on the basis of a separate bill?


Edgar John Benson: If it is
involved in a budget it will mean a separate bill anyway.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I am asking the Minister of Finance whether he will make a statement about tax reform which will be accompanied by a separate bill or whether he will do it in the course of a budget speech with associated legislation?


Edgar John Benson: One could do it either way. If I made a statement involving tax reform it might be considered by many as being tantamount to a budget. I could also make it in a budget speech, but in any case it has to be followed by a separate bill in the form of amendments to the Income Tax Act.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am asking which course the minister will take. If I cannot get an answer now, may I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not quite that late yet.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY AS TO CLOSING OF 1969-70 WHEAT POOL AND FINAL PAYMENT
Mr. A. B. Douglas (Assiniboia):: My question is for the
minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that an announcement was made recently about the closing of the 1969-70 oats and barley accounts of the Canadian Wheat Board and the final payments involved, can the minister tell us when the 1969-70 wheat accounts will be closed and the approximate size of the final payment which may result?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot give this information now. The previous year's pool for wheat was not closed until June 30. I would hope that the pool which is still
open may be closed somewhat before that date, but I cannot be more definite than that.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: Can the minister in charge of the Wheat Board tell us when the report of the committee which was set up to study the operation and marketing methods of the Canadian Wheat Board will be tabled for the information of the House?


Otto Emil Lang: The report is in the process of being translated and printed and it will be available to the public as soon as this has been completed.


INQUIRY AS TO CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING RAPE-SEED FUTURES OPERATIONS
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Further to my earlier question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board with regard to rapeseed futures operations at Thunder Bay and Vancouver, is the hon. gentleman now prepared to table the correspondence between his office and the officials of the Winnipeg Grain Exchange-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that this is really a supplementary, but the question having been asked, perhaps the minister would like to reply.


Otto Emil Lang: The item is on the order paper and is being dealt with in the usual way.
1969-70 BARLEY DELIVERIES-FORWARD SALES- PRICE RECEIVED


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Of the 163 million odd bushels of barley delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board in the 1969-70 crop year, can the minister tell us what amount of this barley was involved in forward sales and what price was received from the Wheat Board for this barley?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, it would not be customary to comment on such items.


FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the

February 8, 1971

budget presented to the House in December last was prepared with the Economic Council's forecast concerning capital spending in mind?


Edgar John Benson: We had our
forecast for the oncoming year available to us, developed by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It was based on that. Incidentally, it is very close to the forecast of the Economic Council.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Am I to gather from the minister's answer that he did not have available to him the forecast made by the Economic Council based upon returns compiled by the council as of October?


Edgar John Benson: I have no secret access to the Economic Council.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that an old age security pensioner from Trail wishes to return the lavish 42-cent raise recently granted by the government, will the minister accept this 42-cent contribution so as to ease the conscience-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FINANCE
[Stage Direction]
1971-PROPOSED PORTABLE WELFARE GRANT SCHEME
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Minister of Finance. In light of the call by the Premier of British Columbia to declare a one-year moratorium on constitutional talks, and in face of the unemployment and economic difficulties in which the country finds itself, does the government now intend to outline its economic objectives and policies for 1971 and give a specific date for a full employment economy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking the minister or someone on behalf of the government to make a statement very general in nature. I would not think this should be done at the present time.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: With respect, Your Honour, I was asking him to give a specific date for a full employment economy in Canada. This is very urgent.


An hon. Member:: What time of the day?


Mr. Speaker:: I would not think a question in those terms was in order. The hon. member might be allowed to rephrase the question.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Will the government at least reconsider British Columbia's request for a portable welfare grant scheme under the Canada Assistance Plan?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: I think that is a matter for submission by British Columbia to the government. Of course, we always consider submissions by British Columbia. With respect to the economic forecast for 1971, I would suggest that the hon. member read my speech-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS ON NEW AGREEMENT TO REPLACE INTERNATIONAL GRAINS ARRANGEMENT
John George Diefenbaker: I direct this question to the Minister of Manpower who reports for the Wheat Board. Is the minister now in a position to place before the House a general picture as to the degree of success or failure being attained by the conference in Geneva on international wheat matters?


Otto Emil Lang: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there justification for the very strong rumour that there has been a virtual collapse of the discussions there, three weeks hhving gone by without any progress being made?


Otto Emil Lang: As my previous answer indicated, I do not think it would be timely to report to the House on these negotiations.


John George Diefenbaker: When the minister, as ringmaster of the cabinet safari, goes to Saskatchewan on Friday or Saturday next, will one or other of the 20 cabinet ministers present, but not for athletic purposes, let the people of Saskatchewan and western Canada know what hope there is for the future in connection with the sale of wheat at a fair and reasonable price?


Mr. Speaker:: 


Mr. Robert P. Kaplan (Don Valley):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will Canada consider resigning from the International Control Commission if it is not successful in persuading its fellow members of the commission to investigate the Laotian situation?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that the question as asked is hypothetical.

February 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry MANPOWER


PLANS FOR PROVISION OF SUMMER EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS
Mr. W. B. Nesbill (Oxford):: This is a question for the Acting Prime Minister because it also involves one or two other ministers. In view of the great concern, particularly among university students, as to future summer employment, will the Acting Prime Minister undertake to tell us at the earliest opportunity, or have one of his colleagues do so, exactly what type of plan the government has in mind to assist these students?


Mitchell William Sharp: The subject is under consideration in cabinet and just as soon as decisions are reached they will be announced, because it will be our purpose to promote the employment of students not only in industry but in government as well this summer.


STUDENT LOANS-INCREASE IN AMOUNT, EXTENSION OF REPAYMENT FAILING SUMMER EMPLOYMENT
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In view of the fact that last summer many students failed to find employment for part or all of the summer, and as this situation may occur again this summer, has the Minister of Finance worked out any plan with his provincial counterparts to stretch out the period of repayment of student loans and to increase the amount of the loans available to students who are unable to find employment this summer?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, with respect to payments, Mr. Speaker, these can be stretched out through the banks at the request of the individual.


John George Diefenbaker: What if the banks won't?


Edgar John Benson: If the banks will not do so, there is a procedure for requesting it through the provincial governments and we follow up the provincial governments in this regard. With respect to the size of loans, we have annual meetings on the students loan plan at which the provinces put forward their views on the level of loans, as do we, and the matter is decided then.


FORECASTS OF STUDENT UNEMPLOYMENT IN 1971
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingale):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I raised the question of unemployment projections among students with the Prime Minister who asked me to redirect it to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. May I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether the department has made any projections of the expected level of unemployment among students in 1971, and would he be prepared to make available to the House estimates indicating the extent of such unemployment to allow us some basis for making recommendations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there are any reliable methods to distinguish a certain group of unemployed people statistically at a certain period in the future. I think it is possible to put together certain conclusions about the previous year and the current year, the size of the student body, economic conditions, and to draw some conclusions, but I would think that the hon. member would be able to do that by himself.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned whether the minister is capable of doing it. May I ask the minister if his officials have put together all of these complications and calculations and whether he would be prepared to make the results available to the House and the public to enable us to estimate the extent of unemployment among students, which he has predicted this year will increase over 1970?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question and I do presume that the hon. member can draw the same logical conclusions that I have.


NUMBER OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS SEEKING WORK
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. A week ago today I asked him to give the House some information as to how many persons in Canada seeking work had registered with the manpower department. I wonder whether the minister could give the House this information now.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did have the figures before me. I believe at the end of December the number of people who were in the columns of the manpower offices as being unemployed and seeking work totalled 641,000. However, an examination of the figures over the month leads members to be cautious in their use of such figures. There are periods when unemployment is actually lower but these figures may be higher because they exclude some people who are unemployed and not registered and include people who may have found employment but not made that known to the office. These are some of the difficulties created by the figures.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. In view of the wide discrepancy between the figures given by the Department of Manpower, the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the survey made by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, is there any liaison among these three agencies of government so as to reach a reasonably accurate and reliable figure on the number of persons unemployed at a given time?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, of course there is, and it is the Dominion Bureau of Statistics' figure which is recognized as the best guide to the number of people unemployed at the time in question. The other figures which are available, whether of the number of people on unemployment insurance or of the number of people registered with manpower in one column or another, may

February 8, 1971

be accurate measurements of quite a different thing. Therefore all three figures, while each very different, may be accurate measurements. Nevertheless it is the DBS figure on unemployment which is normally considered the most reliable indicator of the number of people out of work at a particular point in time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might wish to ask a further supplementary but we are running short of time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to ask the minister if the DBS figure is merely a sampling survey made on the basis of some 30,000 samples, rather than a figure extracted from other figures which are a matter of record both in the Unemployment Insurance Commission and the manpower department?


Otto Emil Lang: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that certainly is true. The survey is considered by statisticians to have a statistically reliable base, and of course that statistically reliable base is relied upon by the hon. member when he likes to do so.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darlmouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Could the minister elaborate on the reply by the Minister of National Defence the other day in which he indicated that he was not at the present time giving any consideration to closing the defence colleges in Canada-a matter I put in the realm of employment if nothing else. Is any consideration being given by the cabinet to a recommendation that the armed forces colleges be closed?


Gérard Pelletier: I am not
aware of any such recommendations being before the cabinet at the present time, Mr. Speaker.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, would the Secretary of State bother to sit down and read the recommendations that are emanating from his own department?


INQUIRY AS TO ORGANIZATION OF CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. On this 71st day of the third session of Parliament I wonder if the President of the Privy Council, who I know is responsible for organizing other government business, could make a report to the House this week on
Inquiries of the Ministry
why five committees of the House, namely the Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Committee, the Transportation and Communications Committee and three others, have not yet been organized? I direct my specific inquiry to the Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts Committee because there are a number of matters that have come up on the floor of the House many times and should be raised. I asked this question about a month ago and I wonder whether the minister could reply either today or later this week.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, normally the committees are organized when the House makes a reference. To my knowledge, that is the reason the committees mentioned have not yet been organized.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD
Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board and it arises from an answer given by the minister a few minutes ago concerning the report on the review of Canadian Wheat Board operations. In view of his answer can the minister indicate if he is now in a position to announce the appointment of a new chief commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board, and can he also assure the House that the appointment will be made from within the present membership of the Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have not reached any conclusion on this question. As hon. members know, we wanted to await and report, and of course I would want to have some further discussions with the Wheat Board about the report before that phase is really completed.
* *


AGRICULTURE
Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may be permitted to correct part of an answer I gave to a question the other day because it may have led to some misunderstanding. In reply to a question from the hon. member for Renfrew-Lanark-Carleton with respect to the closing of the slaughtering facilities at the Canada Packers Hull plant, I said, among other things, that this action was more directly related to the treatment of effluent coming from it. Canada Packers have been in touch with me and have advised me that the facts are, and all of their official announcements have so stated, that the slaughter facilities at this plant are being closed because of the lack of sufficient livestock
3150

February 8, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
being consigned to the plant as well as the obsolescence of the facilities, not for the reason I stated. I am sorry if I misled any member of the House.


MANPOWER
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the time and motion study now deing performed by 30-odd staff officers from the Winnipeg head office in the Edmonton manpower office, would the minister please advise the House whether this study was implemented to demoralize the staff in Edmonton or can we expect the staff to find more jobs for the unemployed after the study has been completed?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SIGNIFICANCE OF TRAINING PROGRAM FOR UNEMPLOYED COLLEGE STUDENTS-AVAILABILITY TO GRADUATES
Mr. Jack Murla (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the announced training program at the Red River Community College in Manitoba for unemployed college students, can he inform the House whether this program signals a new approach to manpower retraining?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


Jack Burnett Murta: May I also ask the Acting Prime Minister whether, in light of this announcement, the government is now prepared to make this course available to all unemployed college graduates?


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State regarding the CBC. In view of the deadlock between the CBC and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, particularly in the area of wages and job security, has the minister sought assistance from the Minister of Labour in assigning one of his industry specialists to the dispute?


An hon. Member:: What for?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations between the Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation and its employees' union were followed very closely by my department and also by the Department of Labour and I must say that at the present time the CBC is still ready to re-open the negotiations as soon as the union is willing to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. After looking at the names set forth in the roster list, effective as of January 11, 1971, and after looking round the House, I find that seven ministers are not present.


Edgar John Benson: There is a federal-provincial conference going on.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The seven in question are the Prime Minister, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry, soon to be the minister of environment, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
I happen to have questions for three of four of those ministers, in particular for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I should like him to explain certain remarks he made in Quebec City over the weekend. I have questions for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry dealing with the unemployment problem facing shore fishermen, as well as questions of somewhat lesser importance for other ministers.
I suggest this is an absolute breach of faith on the part of these ministers having regard to the business we are expected to deal with in Parliament. I take this opportunity of raising this as a very serious and substantial question of privilege. I know we will be faced with the answer that-


An hon. Member:: How many members have you got over there?


Robert Jardine McCleave: I can give a very simple answer to that question. When we have questions to raise we are here to raise them, and we want to find people here to answer them. It is the responsibility of the government to answer these questions, not ours.


An hon. Member:: You have only 21 members over there.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am not directing my remarks to all the ministers who are absent but rather to those to whom I have specific questions to direct today. I suggest this is an absolute breach and dereliction of duty on the part of ministers which denies the rights of Members of Parliament, and I raise this matter as a question of privilege at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

February 8, 1971



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 30, 1970, consideration of the motion of Mr. 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.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which relates to the progress of the debate on second reading of this bill. As the House is aware, during the last session on a comparable bill a request was made for a special reference to the committee of two items, namely the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways system and the question of Canadian National pensions. Such a reference was made and the committee was able to deal with the latter question but did not have time to deal with the former.
When this debate started in this session we asked that the same two matters be dealt with. The matter regarding pensions has now been dealt with, and in order to facilitate the debate perhaps the Government House Leader would assure us that the other matter, namely the capital structure of the Canadian National, will again be referred to the committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have had a word with the Minister of Finance on this point and we see no difficulty in making this reference.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, like most hon. members, I am sure, I was happy to hear last Friday, that is February 5, that the pensions of CN pensioners will be increased. I take this opportunity to remind CN officials that such an effort calls for recognition. Still, I trust this increase is but a sample of what the company plans for the future.
In fact, over the weekend I met a former CN employee who retired in 1955; he now gets a pension of $95 per month; thanks to the new adjustment, he will receive $122.50 from now on. I also met the widow of an employee who retired in 1955; at the time he received $47.50; she will now receive $61.75 a month. To my mind, should those pensioners ask for more, they would be justified in doing so.
As regards general administration, we can see once more under Bill C-186 that this Crown company is unable to do anything but submit budgets in the red, and among the steps that I intend to propose I think that the most efficient would be the resignation of its Chairman,
Canadian National Railways
Mr. MacMillan. I take the liberty to ask for his resignation because this Chairman has sufficiently proven, by submitting annual Canadian National deficits, that he has never assumed his responsibilities and that he does not intend to change. I feel that the salary paid to the Chairman of this Crown company is high enough to enable us to look elsewhere and to select an executive who is really competent to fill the position.
Finally, the Canadian National is a staggering business because it is basically rotten. There is also too much snow on the roof: too many foremen, too many inspectors, too much unproductive personnel. To really remedy the situation, I see nothing else but a royal inquiry commission endowed with full powers. Unlike the membership of previous royal commissions, I would suggest that we refrain from appointing lawyers and economists because they know nothing in this field.
So that an inquiry may bring results, as far as these Crown companies are concerned, I think that the members of the commission should be chosen among station-masters, train employees, clerks, etc. at various levels. In my opinion, this would avoid the waste of time since those people already know what is wrong and where the fault lies. Since this category of citizens will not be stopped by money, it is obvious that we will get all the information we were denied until now.
With regard to the prevailing situation among pensioned railway workers, I take the liberty of quoting some of the evidence heard by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on June 4, 1970, as recorded in report No. 31:
CNR acts as trustee for the Pension Fund. This simply means that the CNR Board of Directors has sole and absolute control of the assets of the Fund. The employees who contribute to the Fund have no share whatever in policy decisions.
It is true that the pension is administered by a Pension Board on which employees have minority representation but the function of this is largely administrative.
This situation is almost incredible and we find it remarkable that the Superintendent of Insurance continues to countenance such an inequitable arrangement.
This representation was made by E. T. Harrison, Chairman of Local 173, Sarnia, Ontario.
Mr. Speaker, the days follow one another but they are not the same. In the case of the witnesses before the Committee, we can say that their complaints are the same. Here is the proof.
On page 29: 48 of the proceedings of the meeting held on June 2, 1970, there appears the following statement from J. L. Pickett, Secretary-Treasurer of the United Transportation Union, and I quote:
I am the Secretary-Treasurer of Local 861 of the United Transportation Union. I have been delegated by Local 861 to appear before this Committee and also to speak for other employees in the Edmonton area.

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
A few moments ago I was reading the evidence of a witness from Sarnia. This is an evidence brought by a witness from the Edmonton area I quote:
Over the years as a trainman or a brakeman, I have heard many rumours sweep the system about changes that are going to take place in regard to the pension, especially regarding the lowering of the retirement age. Of course, nothing ever happens.
At our union meetings, I used to listen to the senior brothers discuss what we should do but nothing ever happened. It appeared to be comparable with the old saying "hammering our head against a brick wall".
The same witness says, as is recorded on page 52, and I quote:
As you know, the body that represents us on the Pension Board with the Company is known as the General Chairman's Association. Mr. V. I. Clements is the Chairman. He is the spokesman for thousands of CNR employees coast to coast. The General Chairman's Association has complained about having no position of strength from which to operate.
I cite further:
The General Chairman's Association put in a brief last July 5, 1969, to the CNR Pension Board, recommending changes. They received an answer eight months later.
Mr. Speaker, they had to wait eight months to receive an answer! What kind of a deal is this?
There is something odd now about Crown corporations, and the public wonders. However, Parliament has the answer. If we examine the Public Accounts, the report made by the Auditor General for the Receiver General for Canada, we see substantially the following concerning the Company of Young Canadians:
In last year's report, we mentioned that the CYC staff was working in cooperation with us towards establishing controls to correct deficiencies in the accounting system...and efforts are being continued to implement adequate controls.
It was then just a matter of a statement by the Auditor General to the effect that the books were not properly kept, in the case of the Company of Young Canadians which, for that year, had received an amount of $1,900,000.
Mr. Speaker, documents have clearly established that violence in the city of Montreal resulted from propaganda emanating from the Company of Young Canadians, printed on machinery paid for by the Canadian government. The authorities of the City of Montreal appeared before the committee for three days in support of a 47-page document and it is known that they had sufficient proof to call for a Royal Commission inquiry. Not only did such an inquiry not take place, but the government continued to finance the Company of Young Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, as far as Crown corporations are concerned, one wonders whether the government is in collusion or has lost control. But our particular concern today is with the Canadian National Railways.
Mr. Speaker, when the bill was introduced, I mentioned that an item for $371 million had been deleted from CNR ledgers, and I should like to know how much money was spent to do this.
Since the Canadian National Railways go to great lengths in order to escape audits, as can be seen from the

evidence, at page 22 of issue No. 31, June 4, could it be that they have something to conceal? Is there an agreement under which half of these $371 million, or $185 million, would have been paid into election funds?
Mr. Speaker, the campaign managers of the Liberal party never agreed to disclose the source of their election funds. Could it be because the CN has gone as far as depriving its pensioned employees or their widows of their livelihood that such a silence has fallen over the question? We have every reason to believe it. In fact, we are again dealing with a Crown company which manipulates in a professional way. The evidence heard during the many committee sittings provide damning evidence which the Canadian people is entitled to know.
Referring to page 58 of Issue No. 31 of Thursday, June 4, let me recall the words spoken by Mr. McGregor of Local 108, Bank Street, in Ottawa, and I quote:
For the purpose of delineating some of the inequities that exist in the railway pension plans, we make the following rough comparison of major pension plans.
We urge the committee to take a serious look at the federal plan. We wish to point out that there is no good reason why pension plans of various federal Crown corporations should be so radically different. It vras also shown earlier in this brief that the CN as employer pays a much lower pension plan cost benefit to its employees, vis-avis cost benefits assumed by the federal government as employer, while at the same time the rates of employee contributions are more or less at the same level in both institutions.
As reported at page 27 of issue No. 31, Mr. Egan, representing local No. 700, in Ottawa, stated:
Proposals which should be carried out immediately are:
a.	Review all pensions that are being paid now.
b.	Increase these pensions which would give our pensioners a decent Canadian standard of living today.
c.	Review these pensions quarterly and raise them again by an amount based on the cost of living index.
d.	Widows' pensions to be handled in the same manner, with one exception. Upon the death of the pensioner the widow will receive 100 per cent of pension and not 50 per cent as at present. The assumption here is that costs are supposed to halve when the spouse dies. I would like to know how.
Pension age to be reduced to 60 on a voluntary basis for 5 years, then all should retire at 60 automatically with full benefits, and I must stress this-full benefits-
Mr. Speaker, as reported in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 32 on pages 27 and 28, Mr. Clements said, and I quote:
In conclusion we request that this Committee take action to ensure:
1.	The Company transfer the $371,010,000 surplus, appropriated by the Company, back to the company's unfunded liability acount.
2.	The Company improve the benefits of the 1959 Plan in line with the proposal we placed before them.
3.	That the 1959 Plan rules be made to comply with the Pension Benefit Standards Act forthwith.
4.	That the Pension Benefits Standards Act regulations be amended to prevent the arbitrary use of surpluses arising in Pension Trust Funds for the Company's benefit.
5.	That equal representation be given to the union representatives on the Pension Board and that the reconstituted Board become the Board of Trustees.
February 8, 1971

6.	That provision be made by amendment of the Pension Plan rules for meaningful negotiation of the rules of the Plan.
7.	That a full-scale independent investigation be made of the developments of the growth of pension monies in the Pension Trust Fund.
8.	That the Company make immediate provision for the supplementing of the pensions of present pensioners.
Mr. Speaker, representatives of pensioners have come from all parts of the country to discuss the pensioners' hardships and to say that they have had enough and that the conditions in which they lived were inhuman.
Being convinced that they have involuntarily supplied electoral funds to the Liberal Party, which had promised to establish a just society, they hope that they will not be forgotten and will receive their share. They do not ask for a share of all taxes collected, but only for what they have paid, as they should have a right to expect in an honest society.
Through their depositions, CN pensioners have, in the last year, shown a bit of the truth. I believe that this game of "hide-and-seek" with public funds has lasted long enough.
In connection with the CN employees' Superannuation Fund, it is obvious that pollution has reached a dangerous level, because this company is a Crown corporation financed with public money. I believe that the taxpayers are also entitled to know everything about this matter and that all hon. members will agree that, if we cannot have honest administration of Crown corporations, it is useless to talk of a just society.
As for the government, which may have sold its silence, it is time to make amends through putting into application the measures proposed by those most directly concerned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before I notice the next speaker, this might be an appropriate time to rule on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Welling-ton-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe).
When Bill C-186 was last before the House on November 30, 1970, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo proposed an amendment as follows:
That Bill C-186 be not now read a second time, as in the opinion of this House, the making of financial guarantees or grants to the Canadian National Railways without the appointment of the Auditor General of Canada at least as a joint auditor of the CNR is not a principle that this House ought to support.
On that occasion I indicated that I intended to deal with the procedural aspects of the amendment but before I could do so the hour for private members' business intervened and, subsequently, the debate on Bill C-186 was unanimously adjourned. This is the first occasion when the bill has been back before the House and therefore, if it is agreeable to the House, this might be an opportune time for me to deal with the procedural aspects of the amendment.
It seems to me, and I appreciate that this was the intention of the hon. member who moved it, that the
Canadian National Railways
proposed amendment, if adopted, would have the effect of amending clause 15 of the bill which provides for the appointment of auditors. It would, in the words of the proposed amendment, provide for "the appointment of the Auditor General of Canada at least as a joint auditor of the CNR." While the purpose of the amendment is clear, my concern must be whether or not it is procedurally correct.
With great respect to the hon. member who proposed the amendment it seems to me there are two aspects of it which may not pass the test of a reasoned amendment which could be accepted at this point in the proceedings. First, it appears that the proposed amendment does not oppose the principle of the bill. It opposes or adds to the provision of clause 15 by substituting one auditor for another, or by providing that instead of the auditor named in clause 15 acting alone, he would act jointly with the Auditor General of Canada. I cite here as authority, without reading it to the House, Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, citation 393(3).
The second point which gives me some concern, and on which the proposed amendment may fall somewhat short of the practices of the House, is that the purpose the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo is attempting to achieve is the amendment of a detail of the bill which might very well be attempted in the standing committee, or at the report stage of the bill. Again, without reading the citations, may I refer hon. members to May's 17th edition, pages 527 and 528, and Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 389.
I am not unmindful of the care with which the proposed amendment was drafted but, because of the caution which the Chair must exercise to ensure the procedural acceptability of amendments, and for the reasons I have mentioned, I am of the opinion that the hon. member's proposed amendment cannot be put at this time.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, once again Parliament is being asked to go through its annual exercise of rubber stamping expenditures for the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. Most of the money has already been spent. In addition, we are being asked to give our approval to substantial loans to both of these companies, and even to guarantee the payment of any losses which the companies might incur beyond the specified amounts.
It is very disturbing to me, and I am sure to many other hon. members, that when introducing the bill the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) saw fit only to catalogue the provisions of the bill without any explanation of government policy in respect of the many criticisms that have been levelled at the CNR and Air Canada in the past year. Surely, someone on the government side could tell the House if the government is planning to investigate the growing public criticism of both the CN and Air Canada. Surely, someone could tell us whether the government agrees with the CN policy of passenger line abandonment, and more particularly the obvious intention of CN to abandon all those lines which it categorizes as unprofitable. Why should the profit aspect be the sole determining factor of whether or not a line

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
should be discontinued? Surely, Mr. Speaker, there are criteria, other than profitability, in developing a national transportation policy.
Consider, lor example, the hundreds ol millions of dollars that will have to be spent on new highways to take care ol the great influx of automobile traffic that will result from the abandonment of all passenger trains, even the runs between densely populated centres. Already, the government is incurring an annual deficit of $57 million on the operation of airports. It also spends about $121 million a year on communications, navigation and meteorological services, much of which can be regarded as a direct subsidy to airlines. Certainly, it is fair to say that the government is already subsidizing the airlines to a greater extent than the $70 million that it will pay to the railways in 1970. Then, too, millions of dollars will have to be spent building new airports and expanding existing ones. I need only mention the $1 billion that will go into the new Ste. Scholastique airport, and the $300 million to be spent on expansion of Toronto International Airport.
One has only to look at United States experience to get a disturbing picture of what can happen in Canada if the railways are allowed to continue their wholesale abandonment of passenger lines. In the United States, back in the 1920's, some 20,000 trains were busy carrying people. At the end of 1969, only 500 of these were still operating. The effect of turning all those people loose on the highways has been staggering.
Since 1956 the United States has spent $75 billion on new highways, and it is estimated that in the next 15 years new highways will cost more than $320 billion. It is little wonder, then that editorialists are questioning the idea that profitability be the sole criterion for determining a national transportation policy. One cannot measure the annual return on investment of the road and highway networks, still consuming billions, or the profitability of taxpayer involvement in the air transport industry. Road and air corridor congestion is getting so bad that the logic of a railway renaissance cannot much longer be avoided. It is time the government laid down priorities. If we are to subsidize the CBC to the tune of $150 million, spend hundreds of millions of dollars on highway systems and possibly $1 billion on one new airport, is it too much to ask that this government take a hard look at its railway policy and abandon its stated principle of profitability for one of service to the public?
Recently, in leafing through some reports and comments connected with the McPherson report, I was interested to read the comments of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) who, at that time in 1961, was president of the Confederation of National Trade Unions. At that time he said that transportation policy is closely tied to economic planning and, as such, must be linked to the common good and not the profitability of private enterprise. I wonder how that hon. gentleman now feels, in his capacity as Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, when he sees his efforts
to correct regional disparities largely negated by the policies of the government. The imposition of staggering freight rate increases, with the blessing of the Canadian Transport Commission which has adopted profitability as its sole criterion, is crippling industry. These remarks apply not only to passenger traffic but also to freight traffic.
For example Mr. Speaker, let us see what is happening in the Atlantic region. What is happening is happening with the blessing of the Canadian Transport Commission and under the provisions of the national transportation legislation which set up the commission. Before the National Transportation Act was passed, the railways had to make an application for rate increases and justify those increases before a board. Under the new regulations, it is only necessary for the railways to file notice of the increase 30 days in advance.
Tariff policies adopted at the time of confederation to promote an artificial east-west trading pattern effectively excluded the maritimes from their historic north-south trading routes. At that time it was recognized that transport would be a vital element in the ability of regional industries to compete in and obtain world markets. This fact was recognized by the Duncan commission and embodied in the Maritime Freight Rate Act, which was passed in 1927. It was also recognized that competition is the most effective method of regulating freight rates and, since effective competition did not exist in the Atlantic region, special consideration in the form of financial assistance must be given. The National Transportation Act relies largely upon the force of competition to protect shippers from discriminatory rates. Owing to the lack of competition in the Maritimes, it was understood that the provisions of the National Transportation Act would not be implemented until a new transportation policy was developed for the Atlantic region-hence the so-called freeze that was instituted on certain rates.
The Atlantic premiers' report recognized that subsidies to the carriers were not the answer to the problem, and that they should be phased out. The report emphasized what I consider to be the crux of the situation. I quote from the report:
The provinces will accept modification in the blanket subsidization of intra-regional traffic subject to the strict qualification that a federal-provincial agency be empowered to administer transportation assistance from federal funds to selected industries within the Atlantic provinces.
In other words the premiers' report recognized that subsidization was not the answer, and that assistance should be provided to new, select industries, to enable them to compete in the markets. They agreed that subsidies should be phased out, but only on the condition that any money saved on the phasing out of the subsidies would be applied in the form of special assistance to the industries. That is the situation we face today. The government has begun to phase out subsidies without giving any thought to replacing them with the type of assistance for which those premiers had asked.
Let us see, Mr. Speaker, what has happened since the freeze was lifted on September 23, 1959. On that date, two railway freight increases were announced simultane-

February 8, 1971


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shame!


Charles Humbert Thomas: No wonder we, on this side of the House from the maritimes, are sort of sick when we hear about the government's so-called 6 per cent guidelines. The editorial continues:
It is time for the Atlantic premiers to swing into action again. They should put strong concerted pressure on Ottawa to draw up regulations providing special aid to industries whose markets are jeopardized by the subsidy reduction or any other rate juggling.
Canadian National Railways
And they should demand that Ottawa call a halt to further rate increases of any kind in this area until our long-awaited regional transportation policy become a reality.
As I have mentioned, there is a great deal of concern among shippers and businessmen in the area. They are beginning to wonder if the government will ever bring forward its long promised transportation policy. The government has been given plenty of suggestions. Very often, when we criticize the government, the snide remark is thrown back to us: what about suggestions? Well, the government has had the benefit of a great many suggestions in this field. There was the Atlantic premiers' report which outlined a comprehensive Atlantic transportation policy; there was the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications wh:ch had plenty of recommendations to make on Atlantic transportation-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Right on.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Then, there is the federal-provincial committee which is supposedly meeting daily. This committee has also been sending suggestions along, but unfortunately the minister and the government are only prepared to accept the recommendations with which they agree.


An hon. Member:: Too bad.


Charles Humbert Thomas: We on this side have repeatedly asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to tell us when the government is going to act on the recommendations of the premiers. Recently, in reply to a question, the minister stated the government had already acted on a number of the recommendations. Let me refresh his memory. Of all the recommendations made by the premiers, the government has acted only on those involving a reduction in the subsidy and its extension to trucks, as well as reductions in ferry rates between New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. These are the only recommendations upon which the minister has acted, and they happen to be recommendations which tend to reduce the amount of assistance which has been granted, rather than help the situation in the Maritimes. The cabinet has completely ignored the recommendation of the premiers' report that any reduction in subsidy should be offset by special assistance to the shippers.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Hear, hear.


Charles Humbert Thomas: Instead of getting better, the position of shippers in the area is worsening, because fierce competition in other parts of Canada between road and rail has led to a reduction in railway rates. So, in reality, the shipper in the maritimes is now worse off than he was before this report was written.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Right, and shame.


Charles Humbert Thomas: This is why I felt it necessary last Thursday to see whether I could get some action out of the Minister of Transport who sits there and brushes

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
off all our questions with snide answers. Last Thursday, I sought to propose a motion calling upon the Minister of Transport to appeal the most recent freight tariff increases. Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, I was denied unanimous consent to put the motion by members on the government side. It is difficult for me to understand how Liberal members from the Atlantic provinces could take such an attitude in the light of mounting dissatisfaction expressed in leading newspapers, by the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission and businessmen in the region. At a time like this, could they not forget partisan polities? I might point out, however, that the Minister of Transport was not in the House on that occasion, so I cannot include him with his colleagues; I know he has the interests of the Mari times at heart. Unfortunately, he is not in the House today, either, but possibly someone will carry this appeal to him.


Mr. McGrath:: Why is he not here?


Charles Humbert Thomas: The minister should intercede with the railways to forgo the increase slated for March 1, as well as further increases which are rumoured, until such time as his department announces the new policy which has been promised us for some four years, now. If the railways will not heed persuasion, I ask the minister to avail himself of the right of appeal provided in section 16 of the Railway Act. This section provides that where a person has reason to believe the effect of any rate established by a carrier might prejudicially affect the public interest, such a person may apply to the commission for leave to appeal. The minister has a staff which should be well qualified to produce all the statistics and figures necessary to substantiate an appeal of this type before the board. Obviously, it is impossible for a private person to be in possession of these figures and statistics. Since the minister does have this information available, I trust he will recognize his duty to the people of the Maritimes and take the action necessary to forestall further tariff increases.
I know the reply of the railway companies will be: We cannot afford it; our deficit is $25 million or $29 million. But I would point out that in 1969, Canadian National had the third highest operating surplus since the war years, and that every year except three since the war, the CNR has shown an operating surplus. What distorts the picture is that most of the loss shown in the CN accounts arises from the need to pay interest on debt accumulated over the years, in fact, from the time the company began operations. Very often, members of the public are not aware of this. I am last to throw rocks at the Canadian National. I live in a Canadian National town and I realize the effort the company has made to up-grade its services, to modernize and improve the handling of freight. Indeed, the company is handling a higher volume of freight now with less equipment-though more modern equipment-than was previously the case. But despite these efforts, it cannot show a net profit when it is faced with paying $75 million in interest charges on debt incurred many years ago. This is why we in the opposition, both in my party and in the New Democratic party, have requested that the question of the capital debt structure of the CN be referred to the standing
committee. Perhaps in that way some sensible solution can be found, after which the railway could go ahead and operate on a current basis. I repeat this request.
I should like now to say a word about air services and Air Canada. I know this is a subject which is causing great concern to airlines all over the world. In the last year, airlines throughout the world have found that increasing expansion, decreasing revenues and decreasing passenger traffic have placed them in the position of incurring heavy losses. I shall not go into detail of the reasons for these losses. Many solutions have been proposed. Some will say: you must reduce airline fares and increase the flow of traffic. They cite the case of Icelandic Airlines which does not belong to the International Air Transport Association and which sets its own fares. This airline managed to fill every seat on its jets between New York and Nassau whereas other airlines were travelling half full. This is one solution. I am not saying it is the only one. With more people travelling and bigger loads possible, the airlines' loss can be reduced.
The point I want to make before I conclude my remarks on this bill is that there seems to be nothing but doubt and uncertainty as to the future of Air Canada. We have seen the wave of shock and indignation created two or three weeks ago when Air Canada announced the lay-off of some 415 employees. Some who had been with their employer for 25 to 30 years were given two weeks' notice. Air Canada justifies this action on the basis of the old argument of having to cut down because traffic was falling. But how far can you cut back before you start to decrease the service that you are providing, Mr. Speaker? When your service deteriorates, passenger traffic drops off still further. It looks to me very much like the CNR passenger service policy repeating itself. It is the argument that not enough people are using the service and so you reduce the service. Since the reduced service attracts fewer customers, you then say that as no one is using the service you must abandon it.
This is the sort of thing worrying people in Canada today. They fear that Air Canada is adopting the same policy the CN has employed for the last 15 to 20 years. We have questioned the government several times about announcing some air carrier policy. We have questioned the minister about what his policy is in relation to second and third line carriers. So feu, to my knowledge, the only answer we have received has been that this question is under consideration. In my particular area of Moncton, which is the freight terminal for the Maritimes area, there is a good deal of concern not that services have been cut back, though of course people are worried about this, but that the airlines have created disillusionment and the morale of the people is shot. Rumours are being circulated that Air Canada is going to pull out of all unprofitable services, following much the same pattern as the CNR. Rumour has it that another airline is going to take over. This sort of uncertainty is upsetting to residents of the area, to shippers, manufacturers and so on.
Once again, I call on the Minister of Transport to let the House know what his air policy is going to be. If he

February 8, 1971

has decided upon an air policy, then I would ask him what is going to be done about these small carriers. Is Air Canada going to end up with all the profitable long-haul routes? If so, let him tell us. Then we will know how to attack the problem of getting a proper service on shorthaul routes. If Air Canada is going out of the short-haul business, then the minister should not be negotiating with carriers such as Eastern Provincial and Quebec-air who apparently are quite prepared to take on these smaller routes. But let us have some clear, delineated policy. These are the things that give us some concern in connection with the bill. Not only that, we are being asked to rubber stamp the spending of money in the face of no clear statement of transportation policy by the government with respect to rail traffic, air traffic or highways. Let the government give the House some answers to these questions. We will then be able to discuss these matters in committee intelligently with officials of CN and Air Canada.
Before resuming my seat may I say that I hope the officials of Air Canada will appear before the committee this year. How can we obtain answers from Air Canada when none of their officials appears before the committee? They did not appear at all last year. I hope the minister will give his guarantee that the Air Canada officials will appear before the standing committee to justify some of the actions they have been taking in the last few weeks.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, this bill gives the House the opportunity of dealing with so many situations, most of them horrible, such as the laying off of 415 Air Canada employees, that one hardly knows where to begin. However, I think I would be remiss if I did not take a moment at the commencement of my remarks to comment upon the welcome announcement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) last Friday that the Canadian National Railways has improved the pension benefits of its retired employees. I would be remiss in not mentioning that because the capitulation of the railway was due to the unceasing efforts of some of the members of this House over a long number of years, and they deserve our congratulations. In this regard I should like to make special reference to my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has worked on this problem for some 25 years.
I should like also specifically to congratulate members of all parties in the House who did such an excellent job in preparing the unanimous report of the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications which recommended action by the CNR on the pension question. Undoubtedly, the report of the committee, coupled with the firm resolve of members in all parts of the House not to let this bill through until the pensions of retired CNR employees were improved, precipitated the decision of CNR management to implement many of the committee's recommendations.
Having said that, it remains necessary to remind the House once again that there are still three battles to be fought and won before we can be satisfied with the CN
Canadian National Railways
pensions. First, in the plan for public servants announced on December 19, 1969 and placed in effect in April of last year, provision was made for the 2 per cent increase for each year of retirement to be compounded back over the years so that ten years' retirement, for example, would result in more than a 20 per cent increase in pension benefits. I suggest that the CNR would be well advised to look at this precedent with a view to implementing it in respect of their own retired employees.
Second, the plan recently announced by Canadian National Railways does not seem to include provisions for future increases in pension benefits as the cost of living increases. This provision was made for retired public service employees, and once again it is a precedent that the CNR would be well advised to follow.
The third factor to which we must devote some attention, I suggest, is that there be included in the retirement plan for current employees of the Canadian National Railways provision for the automatic escalation of their pensions in order to keep them in step with increases in the cost of living. The minister has said that this question is going to be left to the process of collective bargaining. I can only express the opinion that the CNR would be well advised to avoid resisting any such demand on the part of its current employees in light of recent precedents.
I should like to turn now to another matter, one that was highly contentious in the transportation committee and which it seems is going to be referred now to the committee for study. I refer to the capital debt structure of the CNR. The work that the transportation committee did on the question of pensions provides an excellent recommendation for its becoming involved in a study of the capital debt structure of the railroad. Ever since its inception the CNR, no matter what its operating position has been, has shown a net loss because of the burden of public debt with which it has been saddled. I refer to public debt, not to railroad debt.
The CNR was saddled with this immense debt because the government backed crabwise into public ownership of a group of bankrupt railroads, not with the need to provide necessary public service as its primary consideration but, rather, in an attempt to save a number of its political friends from sustaining severe financial losses. The result was that the government paid 100 cents on the dollar for shares worth about 25 cents, and the railroad has ever since been paying interest on what was essentially a rotten investment.
I think it is about time that this debt was removed from the shoulders of the CNR and that it be treated as it properly is, a public debt. In this way the government, this House and the public could finally get the true financial position of the CNR. This is something long overdue and something which I have no doubt the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communication will recommend once seized with the problem.
I am sure hon. members of this House have been receiving letters, as I have, protesting the cancellation of CNR trains Nos. 7 and 8. I am in entire sympathy with

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
the demands for reinstatement of this service, and I should just like to take a moment to explain why. First, I was annoyed by the fact that without even waiting for an examination of the question by the Canadian Transportation Commission, the CNR took it upon itself to advise the Canadian post office that after February 1 it could no longer supply mail car service between Winnipeg and Long Lac. The post office was advised, back in December, to seek other means of providing that necessary service to the communities involved. That seems a bit presumptious to me, but it may be a small incident.
Second, the cancellation of trains Nos. 7 and 8 represents a severe curtailment of service to many Canadian communities. Prior to the discontinuation of trains Nos. 7 and 8, passenger, express and mail service could be given to any community in northern Ontario in winter or summer within a 24 hour period from either Toronto or Winnipeg. For example, refrigerated grocery goods could be sent by express from Winnipeg at 9 p.m. and arrive in Sioux Lookout at 3.10 a.m. to be delivered fresh that morning to the merchants. The alternatives are now uncertain because many of the 91 communities between Winnipeg and Toronto have no highways. Furthermore, since trains Nos. 7 and 8 are being discontinued, the Supercontinental is expected to carry an extra load, resulting in the Supercontinental running on a schedule which will make it operate like a milk train.
The management of the CNR suggests that adjustments in services will result in an extended running time for the Supercontinental of from one to one and a half hours. It is already obvious that Supercontinental trains are arriving three to four hours late as a result of attempting to give proper service to the 91 communities I have mentioned. This downgrading of the Supercontinental will, in turn result in a decline in passengers and passenger demand for sleeping and dining car services. I have no doubt that ultimately the CNR will ask for the abandonment of Supercontinental service. I would, therefore strongly suggest to the government that it should immediately take steps to have the CNR put trains Nos. 7 and 8 back into service to provide the alternative necessary to the Supercontinental and to prevent the erosion of that first class service. There was no justification, financial or otherwise, for dropping the services of trains Nos. 7 and 8.
As a further suggestion, I would indicate to the government that it is essential to immediately establish a definite policy on the development of a proper continental passenger train service with modern passenger equipment, one capable of providing service to communities without highways as well as other Canadian communities which require such a service.
I have mentioned a number of specific problems and I ;ould mention many more, but they all boil down to the direction government policy has taken in the past number of years in respect of public transportation. It has been entirely wrong. Increasingly, governments have been attempting to divorce themselves from making policy decisions in the area of transportation by insisting, rather too strongly, upon the autonomy of Crown corporations operating in this field; by setting up so-called independent boards and commissions to look after the development and implementation of policy on public transportation; by insisting upon treating crown corporations engaged in public transportation as normal business ventures, and thus judging them on the basis of their balance sheet rather than on the basis of whether they are meeting public needs.
I am not saying that crown-owned transportation companies should not concern themselves with their profit and loss positions. What I am saying is that their primary consideration should be whether they are providing the sort of service which meets the needs of the country. To put it another way, the government must decide what kind of transportation system this country requires to meet its current needs and to assist in its future development. Having made such a decision, the government must then instruct its Crown corporations to meet those needs as efficiently, both in terms of service and costs, as is humanly possible. If such a policy results in the corporations running a deficit, then the deficit should be paid and paid gladly as one of the costs of developing our country in an orderly fashion and providing our people with the quality of life to which they aspire. If this means changing the legislation governing the CNR and Air Canada, then change it.
What is happening now is that we are dealing with transportation in a piecemeal fashion through the Canadian Transportation Commission. Air Canada is having its routes carved up and handed over to regional carriers without regard to the over-all implications for the nation or the cumulative effect of each individual decision. I suggest that this may very well result in the kind of situation that occurred in the 1920's when railroads all over the country were going bankrupt and the public of Canada had to invest wildly in an attempt to establish some sort of a rational system. The debt thus incurred is one of the major problems confronting the CNR at this moment.
To get back to my point, the railroads are applying to reduce service or to abandon lines on a piecemeal basis. Decisions are made one by one, once again without proper regard for their cumulative effect upon public transportation in this country. Indeed, as in the case of the abandonment of trains Nos. 7 and 8 by the CNR, we have the ridiculous situation of a minister of the Crown informing this House that he has absolutely no control over the actions of a Crown corporation in an area of public policy as vital to the national interest as public transportation. This has to stop. Something else must be begun. Except for the turbo train now operating between Toronto and Montreal, virtually no experiments in high speed rail service are being undertaken in Canada. This: is the situation at a time when in all other parts of the developing world countries are up to their elbows in such developments. Indeed, we in this country are busily engaged in divesting ourselves of what little passenger service remains.
I wish to quote some figures in this regard from art article which appeared in the January edition of the

February 8, 1971________ COMMONS DEBATES	3159
United Transportation Union's publication "Unity through Progress"
In 1944 railroads in Canada registered about 6.8 billion passenger miles; in 1968, the figure was down to about 2.6 billion Last November, the CNR and CP Rail filed 31 applications with the Canadian Transport Commission seeking relief from the burden of uneconomic passenger trains.
They claim they are uneconomical. In terms of public policy this would appear to be absolute madness at a time when 85 per cent of North American interurban transportation is carried out by automobiles; and at a time when it is a demonstrable fact that the automobile is one of the major sources of environmental pollution. Surely, any sane government would be bending every effort in seeking ways and means of encouraging the public to abandon the use of automobiles in favour of public transportation in order to reduce both pollution and the high costs in terms of money and social side effects of the construction of more freeways to accommodate automobiles. Instead, our government appears to be ready, for example, to allow the railroads to downgrade the passenger service between Ottawa and Montreal, something which can only result in the increased use of automobiles and increased expenditures on highways.
What we need in this country is a national transportation system, the first priority of which would be to meet the requirements of the country, both in terms of present needs and in terms of the demands of future development, not one designed in principle to meet the demands of an accountant's ledger. We need that kind of transportation system, and it is necessary that the government begin action to create it immediately. All protestations of government members to the contrary, there is no such animal yet extant.


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, each year the government of this nation introduces a bill for CNR financing and capital expenditures for the year. The chiefs walk in with cap in hand, hon. members of this House fill the cap, and then the chiefs return to their head office to calculate how much service they can eliminate. It is high time that the members of this House and the government of this country stopped writing the CNR a blank cheque. It is time we asked for a full report on what the CNR does with all their money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Robert Turner: As one who has spent over 30 years of his life in the railroad business, I can tell you in a few words what is the matter with the CNR-too many highly paid chiefs and not enough little Indians, and most of the chiefs know nothing about running a railroad. During the war years when railroad men worked 14, 16 and 18 hours a day, we had few bosses. If you had occasion to meet the boss, he was usually running around the country with a pair of pliers and a length of wire trying to keep locomotives in good repair. But when the boss caught up with you, usually you found you had done something wrong. He wanted to give you a
Canadian National Railways
good tongue lashing and a few demerits, then send you on your way.
Employees had the highest respect for their bosses who knew their job. The latter also knew their respective employees' jobs, and the men knew that when they went into the office for an investigation they would get a square deal. Today, the morale is so low it will never recover. Why is it that most of the middle management bosses have retired at the age of 60, and why is it that most of the middle management bosses today can hardly wait for their pension time to arrive? There is something wrong when employees are unhappy about their working conditions. There is definitely something wrong when many bosses are waiting for their retirement.
Recently we had a wildcat strike at Fort Erie, Ontario, and a few weeks ago we averted a wildcat strike at London, Ontario. Both these strikes were the result of CNR trying to force a change on the employees without prior consultation. CNR employees are sick and tired of these high-handed methods of change without notice, without talking to the union officials. There is no dialogue, no meaningfull co-operation in the CNR. The management just moves the hatchet men in and bulldozes the employees into submission. I, personally, know hundreds of the employees and I can honestly say they are not easily stirred up. However, these new methods of trying to make the employees submit without prior talks will not work. Employees wish to be treated with common sense and they want management to prove to them that the changes are necessary to improve the service. They are always ready to co-operate but not when the CN uses the methods which are employed today.
As a former railway engineer I have operated passenger and freight trains over all CNR lines west of Toronto. During my 30 years of service I have watched how the company eliminated service and downgraded the passenger service. First, the service is run late so that mailmen complain and the mail contract is lost. In most small towns the express is delivered in the morning, but if the train is late the express man has to deliver his parcels well into the afternoon and then starts to pick up his shipments to go into the big cities on the afternoon train. If he cannot finish his route in the morning, he leaves the express until the next day. Therefore, a day's delay results in the shipping of express. The shippers get angry and find other ways of shipping their goods, so the express business is lost. Then, the railway can show the Canadian Transport Commission that the train is losing money, and the CTC rubber stamps the application of the railway so the train is eliminated.


James Aloysius McGrath: That's what happened to the "Bullet".


Charles Robert Turner: If you ride some of the passenger trains between Toronto and Ottawa, you find you cannot even buy a lunch or get a drink of water because so many of the employees have been laid off the company does not have the workers to do the job. The car windows are dirty and so are the coaches. I have talked to many of the track workers and they have told me that even if they had the supplies they could not keep

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
the track in good shape because their numbers have been cut to the bare minimum. You must have a good track to run high speed trains, and if you do not keep the track in shape you have derailments. We have certainly had many derailments in the past few years.
Some time ago car inspectors were cut off at the London, Ontario station. I understand that passenger trains now run from Toronto to Windsor and Toronto to Sarnia, a distance of over 200 miles in one case and just under 200 in the other, without inspection. The Standing Committee on Transport and Communications held hearings last spring and returned early in the fall to complete their report, which was tabled in the House on October 7, 1970. But other than the introduction of a change in rules allowing CNR employees to join the pension scheme with the option of paying back money which they owe to the pension plan, plus the introduction of pensions at the age of 60 with no reduction, we have heard nothing about that report. It is time the CNR made a statement regarding the committee's report. The pensioners and the employees want action, and they want it now. I am pleased that some action was taken last Friday.
The transport committee did their job and are patiently waiting for a statement, as are CNR pensioners. The CNR pensioners, who find themselves in dire straits, are hoping and waiting for improvements in their pension plan. The employees of other railways, and indeed all Canadian citizens, are also waiting. The real problem, of course, is inflation. Like all who are on a fixed income, the railway pensioner who retired many years ago sees his standard of living deteriorating as the cost of living continues to soar. The Dominion Bureau of Statistics indicates that in the last decade alone the cost of living has increased some 30 per cent. What hon. members may not be aware of and what I wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, are the factors which, aside from inflation, have acted to place the older pensioner in a steadily worsening financial position.
The first point involves the depression years and the fact that all railway employees suffered a 20 per cent reduction in wages which was not restored until the late 30s. This, of course, affected the average annual earnings on which pensions were calculated. This reduction of wages during the thirties left no room for the workers to save for their old age, and in many cases reduced the amount of pensions paid when employees retired. Many employees were laid off and, to live, had to withdraw their contributions, further reducing their pensions.
This situation was corrected to some extent by the 1965 revision of the CNR pension plan, whereby one and a half per cent was allowed for each year of pensionable service. However, this change was not made retroactive, and therefore it was of no value to those who retired prior to the revision. The older pensioners, those who have been on pension 18 years or more, had their allowances calculated on the basis of their best 120 months of service rather than on the best 60 months. This longer period of service, of course, included the low wage years

of the late thirties and early forties, resulting in lower pensions for those who did not benefit from the rule change.
The new rule providing pension benefits calculated on the average earnings over the best five years of service completed, with the more generous allowance of one and one half per cent for each year of pensionable service as compared with 1 per cent for the first 20 years, one and a quarter per cent for the next ten years, and one and a half per cent for the remaining years of service, provides a built-in hedge against rapidly rising inflation, which the old rules did not have. Naturally, these rule changes were accompanied by a slight increase in contributions to help pay for the cost of the changes. I say, Mr. Speaker, that pensioned employees should have shared in the increased benefits by reason of their equity in the fund which has increased in value over the past few years, and by reason of their right to equal treatment from the company with respect to that portion of pension costs assumed by the company for future pension benefits.
I suggest that the cost of increased pension benefits could well be financed by the pension trust fund, assuming a proper valuation of that fund is made and that there is a fair, equitable disposition of the so-called surplus. I also say that increased benefits should be extended to pensioners who were contributors and who have an equity in that surplus. I believe, too, that the 13,000 retired employees who did not elect to become pension plan contributors, because they could not afford to pay into the fund, should receive more than the $25 per month which they presently receive. This has been increased to $50 now, but I do not think that is enough. I say that the CNR has a moral obligation to increase minimum pensions to these employees who gave many years of long, faithful service to the company.
It is common knowledge that the government of Canada recently increased the pensions of its retired civil servants in recognition of the problems caused by continuing inflation. This action has been matched by the governments of Ontario, Quebec and Alberta. In the private sector Bell Canada, with a non-contributory pension, is paying supplementary pensions to retired employees to ease the effects of inflation. Although the Canadian National is a Crown corporation, I see little reason for any difference in the treatment between a civil servant and an employee of a Crown corporation. If there is a difference, then railroaders can easily be compared to employees of Bell Canada since they both work in a rate regulated industry.
The committee, Mr. Speaker, has done its job. Now. it is up to this House to tell the management of the CNR to implement fully the recommendations of the transport committee, and to do it now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Charles Robert Turner: The employees and pensioners will not wait much longer. They all want action and they want action now. Each year this House votes millions of dollars for the financing of the CNR debt.
February 8, 1971

If the people of Canada are called upon to pay the shot they should also be allowed to have some say in when and where the trains are going to run.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read into the record the contents of a letter I received from a railroader describing the feelings of the employees of the CNR. It reads:
Thank you for your efforts on behalf of the CNR employees recently when it appeared that we would have to resort to a wildcat strike because of the arbitrary and unilateral action of the company. After talking to you on Monday evening, a meeting was scheduled for Tuesday morning at 8 a.m. This meeting lasted until 10 a.m. when it was terminated as no progress could be made of the belligerent attitude of the company officers. At 2 p.m. the company contacted the local chairman and the difference in attitude was as night and day. It was quite obvious that instructions had come from higher up.
The company requested that a brief be drawn up concerning the Ingersoll switcher, also another with all the grievances that did not come under our respective collective agreements.
A meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, November 25th, at 2 p.m. that lasted until 8 p.m. Although the tone of the officers was very cordial the results were negative.
The Ingersoll jobs are to be changed as of October 7th, 1970, to out-post jobs.
After the attempt of the CNR to arbitrarily run through in Northern Ontario, resulting in the Freedman Commission, all brotherhoods negotiated a clause stating that all changes that adversely affect the working conditions would be negotiated. The company claims that these jobs are not adversely affected even though five crew members must now drive 25 miles to work. The adverse effect can be judged by the fact that one engineer was forced to cover one job; the other was bid by a very junior man that was just set up, that lives near Ingersoll. These jobs are not covered by one of the most senior engineers in London, and the other by a man about middle of the seniority list.
Contracts also provide that the company provide a cook room and cooking facilities. Their answer to this is that they will put anyone up that has to stay overnight at the Ingersoll Inn, and have a restaurant stay open until the afternoon job is finished.
Imagine having a restaurant stay open for one man, or even five men.
In answer to the objections to this the company states that we could take it to a grievance, but we couldn't start this procedure until after the jobs were changed.
This statement clearly shows that they intend to take the full time and could prolong this for over a year. A great many things, in all contracts, depend to a certain degree on mutual respect and acting in good faith, in the spirit that an agreement was entered into. Recently, the past two or three years, it has become increasingly evident that the CNR in the London area has no intentions of acting in good faith with its employes, the general public, or its freight shippers.
I am enclosing a clipping from the London Free Press that you are no doubt aware of. These incidents can only increase unless this company changes its attitude. Should the union officials ever decide to act like union leaders this country will be into one of the biggest strikes it has ever seen. The morale of the men is the lowest I've ever seen. Their frustrations and resentments could make a strike very costly and ugly. A strike could, or could not be with the sanction of the unions. Given the right set of circumstances a wildcat strike in one terminal could spread through an entire area or province.
Another area that is causing some concern is the CTC. This body generates no respect from the rank and file railroader in transportation. Hearings before this body in regard to passenger train abandonment are regarded as a farce and a charade, and the CTC is often referred to as "that rubber stamp outfit."
Canadian National Railways
Mr. Pickersgill should be removed from office and the whole body revamped. It is quite interesting that many of the towns and cities that are affected by passenger train cut off have come to the conclusion that it is useless to protest at the CTC hearings. The action of the CTC reminds one of a saying about old time western justice, "You will have a fair trial and then we'll hang you."
I know that on many occasions you have warned your colleagues about the conditions on the CNR. Your efforts are greatly appreciated by our people in this area. It would be a shame if action by the railroaders is the only way to convince them of your good judgment.
It's rather amusing to hear talk of forcing foreign owned companies to act as good Canadian corporate citizens when the government apparently can't force a Crown corporation to act in anything but their own interest. The public be damned attitude of the CNR is becoming more apparent every day.
It is time, Mr. Speaker, for this company to change its attitude towards the people of Canada.


Mr. Osier:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would allow a question.


Mr. Turner (London Easi):: Certainly.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the hon.
member's comments about company methods for making passenger runs unprofitable. Did he happen to be on the CNR train running between Toronto and Ottawa on September 25 when, to my knowledge, passengers requested chairs in chair cars and were told that there was no chair car service? I was a passenger on that train and there were three empty chair cars on the train. That sort of thing is bad; first, for the economy of the railway and, second, for the economy of railway employees, who suffer as a result of lost tips. I was told that this sort of thing is very common, in large part because the computer works out the seating arrangements. Has the hon. member heard about this?


Charles Robert Turner: Mr Speaker, I have heard from those who run the passenger trains that these are the instructions they receive from officials, and that they must follow instructions. The position of employees is this: if they follow the rules, they are fired, and if they do not follow the rules, they are fired. That is the situation.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, this is probably one of the most difficult bills coming before Parliament. Of course, my valued colleagues from Newfoundland have raised from time to time in a short, orderly, but persistent fashion, the affairs of the Newfoundland "Bullet" when bills of this nature have been debated. I tend to find myself thinking like James Forsyte, the elderly solicitor of the Forsyte Saga who, when faced with monumental changes, looks blank, and says, "I do not know about it, because nobody ever tells me about these things." However, all the time knows what is going on. You know that that sharp old devil is trying to save his own skin, and that somebody has told him something is going on.
That something is happening you and I know, Mr. Speaker, as does everybody in this chamber. Monumental

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
changes are taking place in Canada transportation, and all the while the government tries to make it appear as if no changes whatsoever were taking place. So, we have a perfect right to raise the questions being raised here, and to raise the sort of questions that the last three or four speakers this afternoon have raised. We shall continue raising them. Probably it is a good idea that the Canadian National system and Air Canada have to appear before us and account for themselves. I do not think anybody would be very happy if all this spending or lack of spending that we are discussing were to be dealt with by some committee of the House of Commons. We, therefore, make no apology for becoming involved with this matter.
I should like to raise a myriad of questions but will try to be reasonably brief, so that some of these matters that are raised can be considered by the managements of both systems and answered. For one thing, I can never understand why there should be a difference between first class and second class on aeroplanes. Why should people be crowded, as it were, in one part of the aircraft and others be given a little more flank room, if I can use that expression, in another part of the aircraft. I saw the worst instance of this discrimination last Saturday when I finally took a trip back to the Maritimes. On that Air Canada flight a television crew was flying to Halifax. Also on board was a very distinguished person who was to be photographed on the flight. As I say, there was a CBC crew on board with its flash bulbs and cameras and the like. This most distinguished, most photogenic person, was photographed in the second class part of the Air Canada aircraft that was flying to Halifax.
I asked this very distinguished and photogenic person, whose songs have made up a large part of the Canadian content on Canadian radio during the last few weeks-*


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: -why she was now travelling second class when I felt sure that she could afford to travel first class and that her sponsors would insist on it. She said that it was not her fault; that she had made no arrangements like that. The CBC had checked with Air Canada and Air Canada had said "No, no; we cannot allow things like that to go on in the first class part of the aircraft." Consequently, the photographs were taken in the second class part. There must have been four or five people in the first class part, yet this photogenic person had her picture taken in the second class part. I thought that an unfair distinction had been raised between first and second class passengers. I have not mentioned her name, even though her songs have made up a large part of Canadian content for, lo, these many months on Canadian radio. I thought I would raise this at the first opportunity in Parliament because there should simply not be a distinction as between first and second class on Air Canada. The criterion for where one sits should be extra length of one's legs, or one's extra girth, or whatever other physical reasons one can bring forward. The criterion, surely, in seating arrangements should not involve first and second class...


An hon. Member:: Were the CBC people first class?


Robert Jardine McCleave: No, not at all; not the people who did the picture taking. Nevertheless, the extremely photogenic person I have described, this consummate actress-I suppose I have given her identity away-was first class indeed. Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say all this. I hope that she will talk to me the next time we make the same trip together.
Now, Sir, may I tell you about another adventure in real debt financing involving the Canadian National system? I have taken my crack at Air Canada; now may I take a crack at the Canadian National system? All this happened a few weeks ago when I went from Ottawa to Montreal on a Friday evening. On that occasion the main line between Montreal and Toronto had been "blown out" in some extraordinary fashion. As a result, all the Canadian National trains from Toronto to Montreal were coming up the Ottawa line and then finding the best route they could to their destination. We all gathered in the station which, as we all know, is a fair journey out by dog sled, or bus, or whatever form of travel one uses.
You are allowed on board the train when the officials are good and ready, after which the train goes off, lurching as the case may be to Montreal or Toronto. On this evening-the station was packed. We had to line up for half an hour and then were suddenly allowed on the train. We found that the train did not have enough space for all the passengers, and that there were no extra cars. This Canadian National train to Montreal, travelling on one of the most heavily travelled lines in Canada, I suppose, did not have enough space for the passengers. To be told by the conductor that they simply did not have those extra cars was one thing, but then to get 17 miles out of Ottawa on the route to Montreal and find that there has been a derailment between Montreal and Toronto, and that trains were being rerouted to Ottawa and then to Toronto, was another thing. Then, to find oneself submerged on a siding in Ontario for one hour while all those trains went by from Montreal to Ottawa and then to Toronto was still another thing.
But the thing that really shook me was that the people in the station who look after CN affairs knew there had been that derailment and knew there was this hold-up on the CN service toward Montreal. I realize that when there is an emergency you have to expect that the best is being done. I do not complain about that. But the fact is that no one was told before we left Ottawa for Montreal that this would take place. Not one soul told us that if we had to be there at a certain hour we were going to be delayed. Not one soul told us until we got under way that once you got aboard that train you might have to stand all the way to Montreal because there were not going to be enough cars. This is exactly the sort of thing which would prove to any passenger that the management does not give a damn about passengers, and that is exactly what happened on that journey.
I will tell you what I did. As soon as that train drew out of the station, I was told there were no seats available. I got in between two cars, you know, where they
February 8, 1971

have a platform and they have that little chair sort of thing that they put on the station platform on which you step to get out on the platform. I sat there between those two railway cars and when the conductor came along he said "What are you doing there?" I said "Well, it so happens that they told me I am not going to get a seat. I have figured out the answer to that. I am going to put a few questions on the House of Commons Order Paper and eventually the CN is going to answer for this, "I began to scribble my questions on a pad. Then, the conductor, who happened to be a reasonable and bright sort of chap, said "You had better come back with me and sit down at my table and maybe we can talk this out." And that is exactly what happened. But in an enlightened day and age, when certain people running the CN knew there was a derailment between Ottawa and Montreal, they did not have the sense to tell any passenger on that trip that he should have taken the C.P. which would have brought him very quickly into Montreal with no trouble at all.
Perhaps this was the first time it had ever come home to me, but I am one of those who now believe that the railways are out to get their passengers, that the railways are now out to move all their business into the movement of chattels and goods, bulk carriers or simple carriers, with no regard for the movement of human persons from one part of Canada to another. I would not have thought, until that experience of about two weeks ago, that this was exactly what is going to happen. You may say it is paranoia or suspicion but that is exactly what I believe about the operations of the CNR and perhaps exactly what I am going to believe about the operations of the Canadian Pacific.
I agree with most of the speakers who went before me. It may be a very odd thing that members as disparate as socialist members and the hon. member from London, Ontario-I do not know what kind of member you would describe that as-or a member like myself, or a maverick Liberal, or a maverick Tory, or the like, should all share the same view with regard to the operations of the Canadian railways, but I think we all do and that surely must be some kind of tip-off to the people who run our railroads as to what we feel. I think perhaps we shall all share the same view with regard to Air Canada operations as well. These are some thoughts. The railways do have a tremendous public relations job to do, and I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, it is not an easy public relations job they have to do among the members of this House of Commons or among the members of the other place. I think the time has come when they have to do that public relations job with the public of Canada they are supposed to serve.


Mr. Richard:: Perhaps I might interpose a comment. We have just heard a recital of a trip by train on that fateful day from the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I was personally involved because my young daughter, 16 years of age, was on her way to Toronto that day. She was told to be there at 5.10. She was there at 4.30. A little later they told her there was an accident and the train was delayed until 7.30 when it started for
Canadian National Railways
Toronto. Somewhere past Smiths Falls, in the darkness, the train stopped and remained there for many hours. There was no coffee, no sandwiches. It was dawn before they landed in Toronto the next morning at 6.15.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I think that is a very good question. It certainly makes it clear there are really no political differences when we deal with the services of the Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows the importance of exerting an effective control over the use of public funds. As a consequence, it is our duty to review the actpons of crown corporations which, as is the case here, can spend these funds at the public's expense.
There is cause for concern about the adequacy of the programs established by the CNR in terms of public need and service. I entertain some doubts, Mr. Speaker, since for so many years we have seen a decrease in the service provided to the public by this company in terms of passenger service as well as in terms of freight transportation.
Obviously, the objective of a state owned corporation is not only to show profits. We recognize this and since the only objective is not profitability we must review all possibilities to provide adequate service to all areas of the country and particularly to those where this service is of vital importance.
There are, Mr. Speaker, some striking contradictions. For instance, at a time when we are speaking of decentralization, while we seek through the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, to help some areas somewhat less developed than others to rise from economic stagnation, we can hardly accept that the CNR should reduce its service to these areas. This is particularly the case in my region, the Saint-Maurice Valley and in the Quebec City area where I must say that the service provided by the Canadian National Railways is becoming less and less efficient; indeed, for all practical purposes, this service tends to disappear. This is why all the municipalities presently served by the CNR are up in arms and wondering what is happening and how far the CNR will go along these lines.
Mr. Speaker, we are not against progress and we do agree that if we manage, thanks to ingenious plans, to reorient and to reorganize our railway service, this will be so much the better if this can provide better service to our citizens. But we wonder whether there is an actual improvement in the service provided.
Is there not too many individuals more interested in setting up plans and creating new techniques than being exclusively concerned with the service? Is there not connivance between the Canadian Transport Commission and the CNR and even, in certain cases, the railwaymen union?
Mr. Speaker, let me explain myself: When new plans are introduced, when a new technical orientation is

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
devised for the CNR as I said earlier-I do agree. But we should not at the same time forget to take the required precautions so as to solve also the human problems intimately connected with it.
For example, when it is decided to eliminate, for all practical purposes, all the stations, all the stationmasters or all the technicians who are now working in the small railway stations, is it advantageous? I hesitate to say that it may be advantageous in view of the need for decentralization.
But even more serious is the fact that they now neglect entirely the condition of human beings who have been with the company for 20, 25 or 30 years, and for whom no proper means to live fairly and decently are provided, since the existing pension fund is inadequate. And one can hardly imagine, especially in the present circumstances-while unemployment is so accute that we meet an increasingly large number of well-educated unemployed people-how difficult retraining is for an individual of 45, 50 or 55 who must get it to find a new job as well-paid as that of stationmaster or telegraph operator, for instance. Mr. Speaker, this problem must absolutely be solved.
At the present time, the way the problem is approached is absolutely unfair for a rather large number of individuals who are in the same situation. And we wonder, for instance, how it is that a company like General Motors has come to an agreement with its employees to the effect that no matter the age, retirement after thirty years of service will be granted a minimum pension of $500. Therefore, regardless of age, after thirty years of service, there is a $500 minimum pension.
Why should not the railway employees' pension fund, with a couple of millions in it, be able to solve the pension problem for those whose jobs will disappear or who will need retraining at an age where that is impossible? Those employees should have at least the same thing, especially since at this time there is no shortage of money in the pension fund.
Now, to solve the problem, if really nothing else can be done, if better techniques are available and if it is believed that stationmasters or telegraph operators in various small stations can be dispensed with, if the problem has been seriously examined and if it is considered that a more adequate and better service will be provided through the new plans, then let us solve equitably the human problem which is involved.
Therefore, what those people are asking for is rather simple and quite fair. They merely ask that retirement be made optional after twenty years of service and that after twenty years of service, an employee who cannot be transferred, cannot be retrained and decides to retire be given a minimum of $500 per month. Thus we will have at least solved his problem so that he may continue to live decently.
Therefore, it is extremely important to consider all viewpoints with regard to a truly human solution to such a problem.
Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Moose Jaw-sports, 1976 Olympic games; the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants-finance; the hon. member for Broadview-housing.
[Translationl
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Estate Tax Act to provide that taxes, interest, penalties, costs and other amounts due and payable under that Act in respect of an estate may be paid in whole or in part by the transfer or transmission of government of Canada bonds or other securities of Canada to Her Majesty where such bonds or securities form part of the estate and were acquired by the deceased at least five years prior to his death; and that payment so made shall be deemed to be payment at the face value of such securities with interest, if any, accrued thereon.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the motion you have just read from the Chair asks the government to give consideration to introducing legislation to amend the Estate Tax Act so that Canadians who bought government bonds or other securities in good faith should be able to cash those bonds at face value for the purpose of paying off their succession duties.
In order to take care of any speculation that may be involved in such legislation I have suggested that provisions be included to the effect that these bonds or securities must have been in the hands of the deceased five years prior to death. Of course, it also makes provision for any interest or coupons that might be attached to the bonds or securities. This is the first time that such legislation or a suggestion of this kind has been made in the House, and I think it has some urgency and necessity. In view of the fact that more and more Canadians will be required to pay succession duties, this amendment is of great importance.

February 8, 1971

If I may quote from Taxation Statistics, in 1969 in the $50,000 to $75,000 bracket there were 2,455 estates from which was collected $5.3 million. In the $75,000 to $100,000 bracket there were 1,697 estates from which was collected $8.2 million. In the $100,000 to $125,000 bracket there were 1,008 estates from which was collected $9.3 million. The total for the year 1969, representing approximately 8,000 estates, paid succession duties amounting to a total of approximately $207 million. It would seem only fair to give people the opportunity to use these bonds to pay succession duties. The original purchasers paid $100 for them, but at the death of the individual they may be worth only $80 or $85. Under the present regulations these securities are valued at their market value when the individual passed away. My argument is that they should be taken at their face value when used for paying off a debt to the crown. They were purchased in good faith from the crown and if they are used for paying a debt to the crown they should be valued at their face value of $100.
What do the trust and corporate concerns think about such a plan? Let me read from some of the comments made by officials of these organizations. The President of the Canada Trust Company has said:
I believe the proposal has much merit. Indeed it parallels existing policy in my own Company-and I am sure other financial institutions that issue term instruments-whereby we cash outstanding obligations before maturity at par in the event of death.
Let me quote what the president of the Montreal Trust Company has said:
-proposed bill is commendable in principle and probably the qualification that bonds must have been owned by the deceased for at least five years was reasonable protection,-
Let me quote what the president of the Canadian Council for Fair Taxation has said:
I am quite sure, however, that in order to prevent trading in these bonds, it would be necessary to restrict this privilege to any bonds in the possession of Canadians before say January 1, 1972.
The president of the Canada Permanent Trust Company stated:
The proposed Motion would certainly be advantageous to many estates and, as a corporate executor, we would support it.
Those are some of the comments made by people engaged in this field.
I do not propose to take any more of the time of the House at this stage. I think I have put forward the idea as clearly as I can. In respect of perpetual bonds, I should like to make one or two comments. People purchased these bonds at $96.50, yet on today's market they are perhaps worth $42 or $44. The bonds have been in their possession for 35 years and have been paying only 3 per cent interest. Indeed, I know of a widow whose husband had purchased about $50,000 of these Canada perpetual bonds bearing 3 per cent interest. If we look at the situation in a very fair and reasonable light why should these bonds not be accepted by the crown at their face value for the purpose of paying estate taxes? Admittedly this would allow some capital gains, but that
Estate Tax Act
would be a much smaller amount in relation to the over-all benefit provided to long-term holders whose estates would have the opportunity of gaining the face value for the payment of succession duties.
Let me conclude my remarks by giving my reasons for suggesting this legislation. It is only fair and reasonable that these bonds should be accepted at face value for the payment of a debt to the Crown. More and more people are involved in succession duties. This legislation would be useful to a greater number of Canadians at a cost not too great so far as the government is concerned.
As I said earlier, the government collected only $207.1 million in 1967, in the form of succession duties, from approximately 8,000 estates as compared to $5 billion in personal income tax. The adoption of this proposal would give a tremendous advantage to widows and senior citizens. The inflation allowed by this government has cost these people a great deal, and through the adoption of this legislation the government could pay back much of the loss incurred as a result of inflation.
Several trust companies in Canada cash outstanding obligations or debentures before maturity at par in the event of death. If an individual owns a debenture which is due sometime after the death of that individual, many of these companies will accept it at par. I suggest the government should do likewise as this is only fair and reasonable. I will be most happy to hear the views of other members of the House in respect of my proposal.
I hope hon. members will not talk out the bill before six o'clock. I should like it to come to a vote. It is my hope that the government will see fit to have this motion referred to the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs at which time officials from the Department of Finance, the Bank of Canada and others could give their views. I feel it is a fair and reasonable proposition put forward on behalf of Canadian citizens.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am glad to be able to participate in the debate on this very interesting question. I regret that I may not be able to be as brief as was the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) who presented the resolution. I would like to read the resolution because I think a misunderstanding has developed initially about its import. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to amend the Estate Tax Act to provide that taxes, interest, penalties, costs and other amounts due and payable under that act in respect of an estate may be paid in whole or in part by the transfer or transmission of government of Canada bonds or other securities of Canada to Her Majesty where such bonds or securities form part of the estate and were acquired by the deceased at least five years prior to his death; and that payment so made shall be deemed to be payment at the face value of such securities with interest, if any, accrued thereon.
The hon. member suggested in his remarks that this would imply that the bonds were acquired by the decedent at face value. But in fact, when you read the actual text of the resolution, it is apparent that all a person has to do is buy the bond more than five years prior to his death to qualify for this special treatment. One can pick

February 8, 1971
Estate Tax Act
up bonds in the market today, some of the least successful bonds, at 40 per cent or less of their face value. Presumably, therefore, such bonds could be acquired at this enormous discount and could be used by a person five or six years later at face value to discharge his estate tax obligations. I do not think the hon. member in his statement faced up to the possibility of that taking place. Certainly, the language of the resolution would permit it.
However, I do not want to deal solely with the technicalities of the resolution. In general, it is a recognition of the important fact that inflation is a fact of life, and that it is an unfair factor. Second, in addition to a recognition of the evil of inflation, the objective of the proposal, apart from the technicalities, is to produce equity for a certain class of victim of inflation. The resolution has that objective, but I do not think it has that result. I would like to deal in turn with these two aspects: first, the recognition of inflation as an evil in our society, and second, the proposal to compensate one very small segment of our population for the impact of inflation.
I do not think there is any doubt that while some people benefit, and have benefited in the past from inflation in our society, by and large it is a general evil of which all of us eventually become victims. Not only that, it is a danger to society as well as to our economy. From the point of view of the evil that it represents to the individual it is apparent, when you look at it and consider the cases to which the hon. member himself referred, it is en evil which preys more on weaker members of society than on strong members. People whose savings consist of bank balances, of annuities, of pensions contributed during the working period of their lives for their retirement, are those who are hit most hard. These tend to be the assets of the less wealthy members of society, and these are the assets which are hardest hit by inflation. I think it was with this in mind that the late President John F. Kennedy referred to inflation as a cruel tax on the weak. Indeed, it is that. It is a tax which strikes those least able to pay it, those whose assets are of a fixed nature.
Viewed from the point of view of society as a whole, inflation can, and indeed should, be regarded as a transfer of wealth. It is a transfer of wealth from lenders to borrowers. It is a way in which, over a period of years, those who have lent their money transfer a part of their wealth in real terms to those who borrow it. From the point of view of the government's responsibility, it can be seen that, at least in the short run, the government is one of the greatest beneficiaries of inflation because it is the largest debtor in the country by far. So, one should regard inflation as a transfer of wealth from the private sector to the public sector. Not that it is an object which the government seeks to achieve because we have recognized that inflation is not in the interest of the government any more than it is in the long run in the interest of any particular individual.
The hon. member's resolution comes to terms with the fact that bond holders are victimized by inflation at accelerating rates. But there are other victims of inflation
in society, and one wonders why this resolution is so narrow that only the interests of the smaller group are taken into consideration. I sat on the committee which heard representations about tax reform. One of the proposals for tax reform was the establishment of a capital gains tax, and a number of representations were made asking for mitigation on behalf of those whose position was worsened by inflation.
I would like to cite three completely different ways in which inflation can damage the individual. First, we received representations on behalf of those whose assets go up in value over a period of time because of inflation. They buy land or stocks, and inflation is taken into account in the market price. When their assets are sold, the government's white paper proposed that a tax be imposed on the full capital gain, with no recognition being given to inflation. Representatives on behalf of these interests urged us to permit inflation to be taken into account and to make adjustments so that they would not have to pay taxes on anything more than an inflationary gain.
But when you look more deeply into the matter, you consider the interests of another group which is affected just as seriously by inflation. These are people whose assets decline in real value. One could take the example of the bond holder, or the example of an annuity holder. He buys a ten year annuity for, say, $1,000 which pays $60 a year to him. Every year for the ten years he receives the $60 as income and pays income tax on it. At the end of the ten years period he gets back $1,000 when his annuity is redeemed and finds that its real value may have declined by as much as 40 per cent. This is the case of an individual who suffers from inflation just as severely as a man who realizes the capital gain, who pays a tax every year in the form of taxation of his interest or annuity income, and at the end of the period may find himself worse off. What of the equity of doing something in the way of inflation adjustment for the man with the capital gain and doing nothing for this second individual whose real assets have declined in value and who has had to pay tax every year?
A third group are people who are on fixed salaries for a fixed period, for a two or three year term. These individuals have bargained for a certain level of real income to last for a given period, and they find that over that period they are victimized by inflation as well, with no account being taken of it by the Income Tax Act. Mr. Speaker, all of these are people whose situations suffer because of inflation. But the point I want to make, by using these three examples of extremely different kinds of economic activity that suffer from inflation, is that everyone in society suffers from inflation in the long run. The solution, surely, is not to give special benefits to a small group but for the government to take whatever steps are necessary, and to obtain the co-operation of all segments of society where that has to be done, to ensure that inflation will not continue.
I would like to look again at the specific benefits that would result from the proposal of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales). Who are the people who are to

February 8, 1971

benefit? First, Mr. Speaker, they are people who pay estate taxes, and that is a very small sector of our society. Even though $50,000 may seem like a small amount to the hon. member, there are very few people who die with an estate that large, although I agree with the hon. member that there will be an increasing number. The real victims, the weak who suffer the cruel tax of inflation, may not have a taxable estate. They suffer from inflation with no adjustments proposed, because they are too poor. So, you have to have a certain status, a certain economic position, before the benefits which are proposed by the hon. member would apply.
Secondly, you have to have invested in government bonds. Now, Mr. Speaker, there are all kinds of bonds. I do not think it is in the interests of the government to try to corner the market for loan capital. I do not think it is in our interests to see government bonds very much more desirable than other bonds because I think it is important that bonds offered by the private sector are also attractive investments. However, only those who have chosen to invest in bonds of the government are to get any benefit from the proposal put forward by the hon. member.
A third factor to be kept in mind is that bonds do not only decline in proportion to inflation. The value of bonds is also affected by their interest rate, so that as they may go down in value because of inflation taking place they are also affected by the particular interest rate at which they were contracted. It very often happens that bonds can be declining or increasing at the same time as the interest rate is going one way or the other, so that their value is not only related to the amount of inflation taking place but related to the changing interest rate. For example, in the last few months government bonds have been sharply increasing in value, but I do not think the opposition would be willing to acknowledge that inflation has disappeared or is declining in a proportionate amount.
The five year rule which the hon. member has proposed not only compounds the unfairness of the proposal but adds an element of Russian roulette because it is an arbitrary number, and based on an arbitrary number one's estate tax liability is to be determined. I think for a rule along this line here to be considered it would surely be inappropriate to attach some arbitrary qualifying period to it.
I would like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by simply pointing out again that the appropriate strategy, in my opinion, for dealing with inflation is not to go around creating loopholes for particular individuals to escape from the effect of inflation. Everybody suffers from inflation. The appropriate solution is for the government to seize upon a policy of monetary control and policy of fiscal control which assures that inflation, if it is to take place, will take place at a steady rate rather than an arbitrary unanticipated rate, or to a constantly accelerating rate.
Since I have a few minutes left, I might refer to the excellent suggestion which the hon. member made when referring to the illustration of those trust companies which agree to redeem bonds at face value regardless of their market value at the time that they may be tendered
Estate Tax Act
for redemption. This is an excellent idea. It is nothing more than an insurance feature of a bond. I would urge the Department of Finance to consider offering bonds which do contain an insurance feature, that is to say, which contain an assurance that when tendered on the death of the purchaser they will be redeemed at face value. The interest rate paid on them will have to be proportionately less because this is an actuarial problem which would have to be included but, if I may use the Bay Street term, it is certainly a sweetener which will make the bonds far more attractive. In that connection I am glad to have that suggestion brought to my attention, and I hope it will also come to the attention of the government.


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carlefon):: At
the outset, Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), in whose constituency it was once my pleasure to live, for putting this very thoughtful and practical notice of motion before the House. In particular, he suggests that the Estate Tax Act be revised:
-to provide that taxes, interest, penalties, costs and other amounts due and payable under that Act in respect of an estate may be paid in whole or in part by the transfer or transmission of Government of Canada bonds or other securities of Canada to Her Majesty where such bonds or securities form part of the estate and were acquired by the deceased at least five years prior to his death; and that payment so made shall be deemed to be payment at the face value of such securities with interest, if any, accrued thereon.
I wish to direct attention to two phrases in this notice of motion. The first is the five year provision to which the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) has alluded. If we are going to pursue this suggestion should we not think of a period perhaps double that length, say eight or ten years, because in its present form it creates the loophole that has already been articulated by the hon. member for Don Valley. There is that weakness in it.
Mainly, Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the next part of the notice of motion which says that the bonds or securities shall be deemed to be payment at their face value, etc. Here we come, I think, to the social costs of inflation, the social costs that have fallen upon all segments or our society including-and this factor has not been yet introduced in this debate-governments. The one segment of society that must pay part of the price, or indeed the lion's share of the cost of inflation, is government itself.
But it is the government which through such issues as government of Canada perpetual bonds has been able to devise through the years an instrument whereby it is able to dole out this cost to be borne by individual citizens on behalf of the country as a whole. In other words, the cost of inflation falls on government just as it falls on every citizen in society. However, through such techniques as perpetual bonds the government is able to pass on to individuals the cost of that which should really be borne by the government itself. This, it seems to me, is basically unfair.

February 8, 1971
Estate Tax Act
I think, therefore, that the gist of the hon. member's motion is that it seeks redress, in the sense that government ought to take upon itself this hardship or some segment of it. Obviously, this motion is not a panacea for solving all the problems that infest a culture as a result of significant inflation. It merely suggests that the government ought to take on itself a portion of the burden that is caused by inflation and climbing interest rates because the money raised by the original issuance of those government bonds was for government financing.
Many Canadians, many of whom unfortunately are now of advanced years, are finding themselves in the position of one person who wrote to me some months ago on this subject. I quote from a letter that I received. I realize that I am bringing this question down to the personal level. This person wrote:
I am writing you a letter re perpetual bonds which are paying 3 per cent interest and have a base market value of 49. I am stuck with $7,000 worth and I need more income. I managed to save that amount when teachers' salaries were very low and am now on a small pension-
I understand that Mackenzie King had instituted these bonds on a trial basis. Each bond was labelled ''Can be called in September, 1966." As you know, Mr. Sharp committed what I consider legalized robbery when he refused to call them and added 30 years to their duration.
Now, how many holders of these bonds will be living in 1996- very few, and we need our money now.
This situation is a gross injustice-
One woman ... is 89 years of age and holds $5,000 in perpetual bonds. Several others of my acquaintance are stuck with them.
Surely the point is this, Mr. Speaker, that the interest rate is not only low but that the value of the money has gone down as well. The value of the dollar has been eroded, while the value of equal amounts invested in most stocks or real estate over the same period of time has increased dramatically. Thus, people with bond investments have suffered doubly and many are now in the poorest position to defend themselves against this insidious erosion of their savings, as the writer of the letter pointed out.
It therefore seems to me that, above all, the motion of the hon. member for Wellington demonstrates in a stark and simple fashion the evils of inflation and how the average Canadian suffers thereby. But beyond those considerations, I for one think that the nation as a whole must lift a portion of this crushing burden from the shoulders of men and women who did nothing wrong except to believe in Canada enough to invest in her future. They have been stung, and stung badly as a result of their confidence in their country.
I recognize that the writer of the letter from which I quoted harbours some impressions that are basically wrong. There are abroad some basic misunderstandings about those bonds and the government's obligations in issuing them. In order to be fair, I quote from a letter dated March 12, 1969, from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). He wrote to me in part as follows:
In 1936, the government of Canada issued $55 million of those 3 per cent perpetual bonds at a price of 96.50 per cent to yield 3.11 per cent in perpetuity. Since the bonds were offered at a relatively attractive yield and gave investors an opportunity of
purchasing, in effect, an attractive annuity, the issue was broadly distributed and received a good market reception. While this was the first issue of perpetual bonds in Canada, similar bonds had long been an important part of the United Kingdom's debt structure. In fact, in 1935 about 60 per cent of the U.K.'s marketable outstanding debt was in the form of perpetual or undated bonds.
The next paragraph concerns a number of investors in Canada including, perhaps, the constituent who has written to me on the subject as well as others who have written to hon. members. The statement continues:
Unfortunately, a number of investors misunderstood the nature of these bonds and apparently still do. The bonds-
This is the important point.
-have no maturity date, as their name implies, though they did become callable at the government's option on September 15, 1966. This is a normal feature of such bonds. The well known UK. 2\ per cent consols, for example, which became callable on April 5, 1923, are still outstanding and have a market price currently within a range of 32 to 35 per cent of par value.
The hon. member for Don Valley said that some of the less attractive issues stood at around 40 per cent of par value. The particular bond issue that was referred to in the statement was callable in 1923. The letter goes on:
In fact, this callable option protects the government in the event that interest rates decline substantially. However, the last coupon on the bearer bond and the coupon-registered bond certificates also became payable on September 15, 1966, the date when the government's option began. A number of Canadian investors incorrectly assumed that the bonds matured on this date. Furthermore, an issuance of a new certificate with an additional supply of coupons attached thereto, sufficient for the next 30 years-
That was the point to which my constituent's letter alluded.
-does not mean that the perpetuals have been issued for another 30 years. The perpetuals continue to have no maturity date.
These bonds are marketable bonds and their price is determined in the bond market. Since the perpetual bonds were issued, their market price has generally reflected changing levels of interest rates in Canada. Their market price for several years after the war exceeded the original issue price. Sellers of the bonds at that time could have obtained a capital gain from the original issue price. In recent years interest rates in Canada and elsewhere have risen to higher levels and the market prices of perpetual bonds and many fixed interest obligations have, as a consequence, declined substantially below issue prices.
From correspondence I have received I am aware that there are a number of perpetual bond holders who can ill afford the capital loss that would be involved in selling at current market prices. A good deal of consideration was given to this problem including possible ways in which some of these hardships could be alleviated. Unfortunately, all such proposals carried with them the implication of protecting investors in marketable securities from the vagaries of the market. To accept this principle, even in circumstances designed to alleviate hardship, would lead to demands for similar treatment by all other investors in government of Canada marketable securities selling below issue prices.
It is cold comfort for the average citizen to learn that the traditional callable option exists not to protect the citizen from a future shift in interest rates but to protect the government. If the going interest rate should decline

February 8, 1971

substantially, the government can recall the bonds and presumably issue new ones at lower interest rates. If, on the other hand, interest rates rise dramatically, the government has in effect obtained cheap money at the expense of the citizens and there is nothing the citizens can do about it. That is the nub of the matter and that is the cause of the grievance.
It seems to me the hon. member for Wellington has drawn attention to a legitimate grievance when he places this question before us today. The injustice built into such a system must surely be self-evident to most members of the House, especially so in a day when all of us in public life are, or at least ought to be, sensitive to the need to protect individuals against the colossal power of the state. In addition, our role as private members requires that we decry this dead-end street in which a portion of our constituents have found themselves. Indeed, our present role of ombudsmen which amounts to such a large slice of our function as members of the highest court in the land, if not common compassion alone, requires us to air this serious social grievance.
Allowing the face value, plus interest accrued, of such securities as payment of tax on settlement of estate duties would permit the financial loss to trickle back into government financial coffers, but this is hardly an adequate solution as far as those who hold such bonds are concerned. It is hardly sufficient for people to be told that when they are dead and gone and when their estates are being settled, then, and then only, will the bonds be worth what they say they are worth on their face. Such an arrangement will only benefit the heirs, not the people who need the benefit.
The main contribution I wish to make to the discussion today is to point out that this load falls most heavily on the shoulders of those who are least able to carry it. In other words, there are thousands of citizens across our land, most of whom are now elderly, who are caught in the trap about which I read in the letter I quoted earlier.
In conclusion, I want to quote a couple of sentences from the final report of the Special Committee of the Senate on Aging which was completed a few years ago. It draws attention to the financial difficulties in which elderly people so often find themselves. I quote:
We deplore the tendency to confuse economic dependency with social or psychological dependence. To assume that one who needs financial help must be an inadequate individual will help to make him feel unworthy and preclude satisfactory solution of his plight. The elderly are particularly sensitive to any implications of that kind.
They are particularly sensitive when they have in fact long since put by considerable sums of money, especially taking into account the conditions when their earning power was at its highest. Then they find that because of inflation on the one hand, and because they got into buying the kind of bonds we have been discussing, they are forced, in spite of having savings, to live in meagre circumstances or in ways that require them to ask for assistance, when they feel strongly that they ought never to have been obliged to seek that kind of assistance or to suffer what amounts to a financial loss.
Estate Tax Act
This reminds me of a blunt statement which appears to sum up the position in which these people find themselves: It is no disgrace to be poor, but it is damned unhandy. In this sense, if we can find a way to improve the situation of elderly people as suggested by the hon. member for Wellington, we ought to seek to do so by every avenue available to us.


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) for again bringing before the House the subject of inflation. I think it is regrettable that no one from his own party or indeed from any other opposition party should have seen fit to support him in this very worth-while endeavour. This is attributable, however, to the economic tunnel-vision that hon. gentlemen opposite enjoy. Now that they have discovered unemployment, they have forgotten inflation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are waiting for your words of wisdom.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I was trapped into being unprovocative last Friday and I welcome the opportunity this afternoon to stimulate some interest at least in some of the other dimensions of the Canadian economy. The hon. member for Wellington raised a number of questions in his speech, and I would certainly be prepared to resume my seat for a few moments to give him an opportunity to answer some of them. He refers, in his resolution, to "other securities". Before the House could properly deal with the issue he places before us he might wish to give us some idea of what he has in mind when speaking of government securities other than the bounds he specifically mentions.
Other speakers have dealt with his five-year proposal as protection against speculation. I have grave doubt that the holding of these bonds for five years-to use the perpetuals as a specific example, in the light of their tremendous discount today-would ensure against speculation. The hon. member also suggested in his speech that trust companies redeem their debentures at par. I should like to know whether this is a matter of policy or one of contractual obligation on the issuance of these debentures.
The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) commented the insurance feature of government of Canada bonds for the consideration of the finance committee in cases of future financings. However, I would point out that Canada Savings Bonds do indeed have this feature, and the parity feature is not dependent on the death of the registered holder. The insurance of parity feature, to use the term of the hon. member for Don Valley who is familiar with Bay Street jargon, is a sweetener that the government of Canada has used in the case of some bond issues and I am sure will use in others.
Another question raised in my mind relates to his suggestion that the finance committee of the House might profitably have an opportunity to consider this matter. The resolution before the House does not embrace that

February 8, 1971
Estate Tax Act
concept and again I am wondering whether it was the intention of the hon. member that a general reference of this kind should be made to the House of Commons.
Therefore, on the question of other securities, on the question of the adequacy of the five-year holding provision, on the question whether trust companies' redemption of their debentures at par on death regardless of market value is a question of policy for the companies concerned or a matter of contract, and on the question of reference to the finance committee I would be quite prepared to yield the floor immediately and let the hon. member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. I have been following the hon. member for a few minutes, and it is not in order for him to choose an hon. member and ask him questions or to intersperse his speech with questions to any hon. member. The hon. member may accept questions, but I must insist on following the rules. If the hon. member sits down he will have released his right to speak further.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I would be very happy to answer the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: I am sorry. We have breached the rules badly in the past few years. There is too much verbal intercourse between members on both sides of the House at the wrong time.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: I very much regret even attempting to allow this matter to degenerate from the making of set speeches to a debate.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Talk about oil, Pat.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Surely the promoters of the just society have all these answers.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: We have had the opportunity to consider the matter of inflation for the first time in a long while. Regrettably, hon. members opposite have not chosen to be drawn into the debate, but perhaps they will. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Wellington will not have the opportunity to elucidate further his comments, and I apologize to the Chair for not raising the question when the hon. member himself had the floor.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon.
member accept a question?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of his desire to hear once again from the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) who proposed the motion, does the parliamentary secretary realize that if he were to sit down now the hon. member, by virtue of his having moved the motion, could get the floor again to close the debate?


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Yes, I am quite aware of that. However, I should like an opportunity to finish my remarks and this presents us with the dilemma we now face. The question of inflation which is raised by this motion is one
that has been of very major concern to the government over the past many months. The hon. member is aware that the consumer price index dropped in December by
0.4 per cent, which is the first such decline between the months of November and December in more than a decade. He will also be aware that the year to year increase in December amounted to 0.5 per cent, the smallest increase since December, 1954. By contrast, the year to year increase in the consumer price index in the United States, taken December to December, amounted to 5.6 per cent. For the year as a whole, consumer prices went up an average of 3.3 per cent in 1969 in Canada compared with an increase of 6 per cent in the United States.
I think that the battle the government has waged against inflation over the past year and a half is one that has been successfully waged. While the hon. member's resolution is well worth considering-and he may rest assured that I will commend it to the finance minister for his consideration-it is one that perhaps is not as timely now as it was a year ago. In fairness to the hon. member, I would be quite prepared to have him answer my questions, but I think the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) has a few comments to make and the hon. member may not have the opportunity.


Mr. Barneit J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I see the time is short and perhaps I should have spoken on the railway financing bill, which might be a more satisfactory vehicle for expressing oneself. I think the motion of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) is motivated by grave concern and deep compassion. Similar sentiments were expressed by my colleague from Renfrew-Lanark-Carleton (Mr. McBride).
The whole quetion of perpetual bonds in particular is one that concerns all of us. It is a subject on which many of us have received letters from senior citizens who have bought these bonds in good faith and now find their investments are not as worthwhile as they thought at the time. It would be nice to find an easy solution to the problem, though easy solutions usually come from gentlemen on the opposite side to my far right. However, they are not here to speak to this matter. Perhaps this is one of the difficulties in reaching solutions to inflation, among others that have been mentioned during the debate.
One suggestion I had from a correspondent as far back as May, 1969, in regard to these bonds was to allow senior citizens who have held them for a number of years to use them as a deposit on government annuities to supplement their old age pension. From the point of view of compassion I think this is a noble suggestion. If people express the wish to do this and are prepared to accept a discount of 25 per cent or even 30 per cent-


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

February 8, 1971



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. 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.
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed for a few minutes more to explain why I am participating in this debate.
It is obvious that the Canadian National is intent on pursuing, at any cost, the centralizing of all its operations. We are being assured that it will thus give better service. We have some doubts regarding this.
Direct transportation of goods from Quebec to Montreal, for instance, will keep several communities or municipalities from growing. Montreal will become still more monstrous, and companies which might have become interested in investing in economically weak regions will not be so anymore, because of difficulties brought about by a lack of railway transportation. There are also numerous other consequences which may sometimes be disastrous.
Good maintenance and operation of railways require the presence of employees in all places. For instance, last year, CNR employees discovered, while going their rounds, that a rail length was cut. So as to avoid accidents and disasters, it is important to decentralize services.
If the revenue of the Canadian National is insufficient, the situation will not be corrected by abolishing such important positions as those of stationmaster or telegraph operator. We must not forget that it is by providing better service that we will increase traffic and make the company's operations more profitable.
The carelessness and unconcern of the Canadian National tend to discourage the population. How perplexing is the fact that roadmen travel by truck on already congested roads rather than move from one place to another by rail. This is all the more inconsistent that in travelling by train, the roadmen could detect and correct minor troubles. Otherwise, the Canadian National just acts as if it were not interested in railroads any more.
Canadian National Railways
What about, for example, the employees who only work eight months a year, while others are hired and paid time and a half and double time and may that way increase their income substantially?
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I come to the conclusion that it is necessary to think it over before making any change which might prove inefficient and useless. If in spite of all, we are to make them, we shall have to take into account the need for finding a fair and just solution for all the employees who have spent part or the whole of their lives serving the Canadian people through the Canadian National Railways. They have worked hard, toiling strenuously and conscientiously, often risking a little and sometimes much of their health.
Trying to get rid of them off-handedly by doing something which to them would mean that they have become useless, or still worse, by sending officials to tell station masters: "Find yourself a job, this station may be closed", that should never be done.
There are two alternatives: freeze these employees' jobs until they reach retirement age or give them the opportunity of retiring after 20, 25 or 30 years of service, whatever their age. Retraining is no longer possible at a given age and depreciating the dignity of these people by using them at odd jobs without any consideration for their qualifications, is absurd and degrading.
Furthermore, the minimum pension, after 20 years' service, should be approximately $500 a month. It is often said that companies are like a body without a soul. In this case, it would be all the more absurd to act inhumanly that it is the Canadian people who pay the cost, and I am convinced that my fellow citizens would be delighted if the problem were solved in a fair and reasonable manner.
Mr. Speaker, we must not forgo human dignity for technological progress, and in the changes considered by the CN, we must examine their human effects, and this is why we must find an immediate solution to this problem, in order to promote good will among all the employees of this Crown corporation.


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorklon-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words before this bill goes to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. In general I agree with many of the remarks that were made in the House today by members from all parties. If the CNR and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) would heed some of these remarks, we would be very much further ahead.
I would be remiss if first of all, I did not express a great deal of happinness at the announcement made by the Minister of Transport last Friday that CNR pensioners will be getting a raise in pension which they fully deserve. I am sure that day will go down as one they will long remember. The only thing with which I am somewhat disappointed is the length of time that it took to convince the CNR and the people who have the power that an increase in pension was needed so badly. For

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
many years we saw some retired employees of the CNR living in conditions that were absolutely unnecessary, on a pension that was highly inappropriate, before the CNR realized that something should be done.
The recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with regard to people who are already on pension has now been accepted. I, along with others, congratulate the committee for making this unanimous recommendation and for being able to convince the CNR and the Minister of Transport to make the increased pension a reality. Under the new scheme the retired employees will enjoy greater pension benefits. The same will be true with regard to the widows of deceased CNR employees.
I should also like to say that in the future I hope the CNR will be more responsive to the wishes of and recommendations made on behalf of its employees and pensioners than they have in the past. This is something of which they should take heed: they should set an example to other corporations both private and public in dealing with their employees. I think that once senior citizens retire from work they should no longer have to worry about financial problems and they should be able to live in security. These are the people who have laid the foundations of this country, and in western Canada they are the pioneers who opened up the west.
As I said before, I welcome the increase in pensions and the decent break that CNR pensioners will finally have. Many people have suggested that much of the credit should go to the committee which came out with a unanimous recommendation to this effect. I too would like to add my voice to those who have congratulated the committee. But first and foremost I must congratulate the pensioners and employees themselves who for so many years have been determined to put their case forward and have finally convinced the CNR and the minister that they have a case.
In my own constituency there are some 600 CNR employees who have for years petitioned and prepared briefs which they have sent to the CTC, the CNR and the minister. Finally these efforts have paid off. I know that when the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was meeting and considering making recommendations on the pension, these people were there submitting their briefs. I think they are largely responsible for finally convincing the CNR that they have a case. I would like to join other hon. members, such as the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg), in congratulating these people for their determination.
The CNR is a Crown corporation that should be operating to serve the people of this country. A debate such as this gives us an opportunity to look at the different things the CNR is doing or perhaps should be doing to broaden its service in Canada. In the speeches made by hon. members earlier today and on other days many shortcomings have been pointed out. For example, the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) informed the House of many things to which people who sit in the seats of power should listen and take heed.
I myself, coming from Saskatchewan, am very concerned about many of the pressures that are put on the
[Mr. Nys+rom.l
CNR and indeed on the CPR. I am very concerned about the many pressures upon the transportation systems to centralize. Here, of course, I am talking about pressures to abandon rail lines and railroads which are not used as much as are some of the main lines. I am very concerned about the pressure to abandon passenger service in many parts of the Prairies. I am also concerned about the pressure being exerted by the CNR on the CTC to eliminate the station agents in small centres, towns and cities of Saskatchewan.
I am concerned about these things because I think it not only creates a great deal of difficulty for the employees but also the people in rural Saskatchewan and other parts of rural Canada, because it is only expediting what is happening in rural Saskatchewan, that is the movement of people from farms and small towns into cities. All of us who are from that province agree that there are already too many ghost towns in Saskatchewan. What is happening is that a whole way of life is being challenged, and moves such as those contemplated by the CNR or indeed by the CPR only expedite that trend in our province. I think this is a trend that should be reversed.
I would like to spend two or three minutes talking about our general transportation policies and perhaps making a few suggestions as to what should be done. As I watch the people in charge of transportation in Canada today, I cannot help getting the impression that they do not really have an over-all transportation policy. What I see is a piecemeal, ad hoc approach to transportation. We do not have the over-all planning that I think is so necessary in a country as large and as diverse as Canada. I think we must have a national transportation policy with a top priority of being of service to the Canadian people no matter where they live, whether it is in Newfoundland, the Prairies or western Canada. Our transportation policy must be responsive and sensitive to the needs of people in all parts of Canada.
e (8:20 p.m.)
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, we must have an efficient transportation system and one that can operate cheaply so that every Canadian, no matter where he lives or what type of money he makes, can use the system any time he so desires. When we evolve a proper transportation system in this country we must keep in mind things such as pollution. The automobiles on the road today are one of the greatest contributors to pollution. When we evolve a proper transportation system it must be one that lessens pollution and not increases it.
It is the duty of Members of Parliament on both sides of the House to keep pressuring the government, the CNR and the CTC to formulate immediately a plan that will intelligently organize and co-ordinate national transportation services in Canada. This must include all types of transportation, not just the railways but automobiles, airplanes, bus transportation and what have you. Perhaps I could spend one or two minutes talking about the problems that are involved in some of these other areas.
The bill before us concerns Air Canada as well as the CNR. In the Prairie provinces a great deal of the air
February 8, 1971

transportation service is provided by regional carriers. I look again to my own constituency for a good example of this. Yorkton is served by a regional carrier. It provides a service, not once a day but maybe four or five times a week. The schedule often changes every three or four months; it is irregular and limited. When you have a whole series of unplanned regional carrier services, you are only asking for inefficiency, you are only asking for something that does not take the needs of each community into consideration. A community the size of Yorkton should have regular, cheap, efficient air service. It doesn't have that today. We should work as rapidly as possible to integrate the regional air carriers with Air Canada. In that way better services could be provided to all communities regardless of their size. We should have one air transportation system in the country. When we have several we are only asking for inefficiency and inferior service.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, my impression is that transportation in Canada today is badly planned. It is provided by different companies on an ad hoc basis. There is a general lack of government control over transportation planning. As I said before, we must evolve a national transportation plan in which the government has influence and where it can take into account all factors and all types of problems. I think we must have a transportation system that is publicly-owned. One transportation system would be more efficient than present arrangements and it would be more responsive to the needs of people. Again I say that I am talking about a publicly-owned transportation system that could be orientated to the service of the people. In that way we could plan according to social priorities and needs.
Once again I welcome the announcement made the other day by the Minister of Transport, bringing into effect the recommendation of the Tranport and Communications Committee pertaining to the pensions of retired employees of the CNR. I suggest to the minister once again that he do something about long-range transportation policy. This is badly needed, not only for the railway system but for the airlines as well. Smaller communities should not be penalized. It is time to integrate the regional carriers into a national system and let Air Canada service the whole country.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to be brief because I know the Government House Leader is anxious to get this bill on its way, and by the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mahoney) I can see that he is probably anxious too. I hope he will be influenced by that anxiety and so restrain himself from his usual observations from his seat.
This is a very important bill, a very important event in the legislative process of any session of Parliament because it gives us an opportunity to voice our frustration at the CNR. I am sorry that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is not here tonight. I do not see his parliamentary secretary in his seat either. I am sorry because what we have to say about transportation in Canada, especially as it applies to the CNR and Air
Canadian National Railways
Canada, should be of importance to them. After all, the minister does have the statutory responsibility of reporting to Parliament for these two Crown corporations.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada are very important to the Atlantic provinces, and especially important to my province because transportation in Newfoundland in general is Canadian National. Right from the outset of this Parliament we have been concerned following the announcement that rail passenger service in my province was to be eliminated and replaced by road service. We have been pressing for a statement of policy from the government and from Canadian National as to the exact nature of their future plans for Newfoundland, but I am sorry to say that we are still as much in the dark as ever.
Surely it is not too much to expect that Canadian National, which is so important to my part of the country, should be in a position to announce its long-range intentions with respect to the many services it provides. We hear suggestions from the Minister of Transport that continual discussions are taking place with respect to the coastal service in Newfoundland. Indeed, just a few days ago he said he would like to see the coastal service replaced by a more efficient method of transportation. Certainly that is a desirable objective, one with which we all agree, but whether or not it is an attainable objective is something else again. I suspect, and I have long held this belief, that there is a plan within the CNR a plan with a definite time limit, to eliminate the coastal service in Newfoundland and indeed to eliminate railway service in Newfoundland entirely. The events of the last few years certainly indicate this to me.
The railway in Newfoundland today is not as efficient as we would like to see it, yet it still occupies a very important place in the over-all transportation set-up of the province. The coastal service is still very important; it has a vital role to play in providing our people with goods that are so necessary to their way of life around the coast of Newfoundland. Of necessity, these services require substantial public subsidies and will continue to require them. These subsidies should be granted for as long as they are required, provided we as Members of Parliament discharge our obligation during our annual examination on the CN annual report and our annual consideration of this bill to determine whether the service is as efficient as it should be, whether we are getting value for our money and whether we are getting the service that we need. I do not think we are, Sir.
It is a well known fact, for example, that the ferry link between the province of Newfoundland and the mainland is not what it should be. We have often experienced frustration as a result of not having enough accommodation to provide passage for the many tourists who want to visit Newfoundland or for people who either want to visit the province or leave it in their day to day activities. Now, after making repeated representations in this regard, additional ships are to be provided during the peak months of June, July and August.
23786-59J

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
It is only now that that suggestion, repeatedly made in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, has been given serious consideration. In this respect we were encouraged a few days ago when we heard the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) say in a speech in St. John's that a plan was being devised whereby extra accommodation would be provided during the peak tourist months when the service was not able to cope with the demand for traffic. He did not elaborate exactly what the government has in mind. Perhaps when this bill comes before the committee we shall have an opportunity to question the minister.
I hope the minister will be present in committee. He has not honoured us with his presence in the House during the second reading debate on this very important bill. We want to know what he has in mind with respect to the Newfoundland ferry service which is the life link between Newfoundland and the mainland of Canada. This service is very important to our province from the point of view of the tourist industry, which is assuming greater importance yearly, as well as from the point of view of providing an adequate service for the shipment of goods on a year round basis.
Although we experience peak tourist traffic during the months of June, July and August, the normal traffic still has to be carried across the gulf at the same time. Often this traffic has had to be turned back because accommodation has not been available. We shall wish to question the minister on this question. In this respect, Sir, we were encouraged because the minister told us that the authorities concerned expect to obtain a replacement for the Patrick Morris, a ship which sank in the gulf a few months ago under tragic circumstances. The replacement will have to be brought into service quickly because the tourist season is approaching once more.
May I now say a few words about the m/v Ambrose Shea. How many times have we, both in the House and in committee, had to impress upon the CNR the absolute necessity of promoting this service which could be vital to the tourist industry in my province and which could be a vital transportation link in the over-all structure? We have urged the railway and the minister to promote this service by an imaginative advertising campaign as well as by a reduction in rates. They finally got around to doing just that.
We are gratified that patronage of the service has increased substantially to the point where the service is now certainly justified. Nevertheless, we had to endure three frustrating years during which this service was not advertised. It was not promoted and the fares charged were too high. Even now there is still a case to be made for reducing rates on this east coast of Newfoundland service between Argentina and Sydney for truck traffic, because the rates charged discriminate against trucks. The rates obviously are designed to protect the CN monopoly. That, I think, is unfair and the matter deserves to be considered again.
There are other matters that we are concerned about. One of them is the road cruiser service which has replaced rail passenger service. It is not what it should

be. Certainly the buses are providing a service. Statistics indicate that many more people are being carried across Newfoundland by Canadian National buses. The fact remains that it is still a hazardous business to cross Newfoundland by bus in winter, as events of the last few days have dramatically illustrated.
That prompts me to ask this question: Why cannot that CN road cruiser service be supplemented with a rail-liner service? Rail-liner service is to be provided in northern Ontario. There is rail-liner service between Sydney and Truro, Nova Scotia. Why cannot the bus service in Newfoundland be supplemented with this type of rail service, utilizing the tracks across Newfoundland and providing a much more reliable service during the winter months? I offer that as a serious suggestion which I think ought to be examined when this bill is before the committee.
The question of freight rates, Mr. Speaker, is a cause of continuing concern. Since the freeze was lifted, freight rates have continued to rise. The continuing rise in freight rates, naturally, has been passed on to the consumer. The consumer in Newfoundland is already burdened with the highest cost of living in the country. In the final analysis it is the consumer who must pay. We are wondering where this will end and when these increases will level off at a point at which we can say, "This is what we have to cope with." We want assurance from the railway, when this bill is before the committee, that they are not contemplating any additional increases in freight rates to the province of Newfoundland.
Then, Mr. Speaker, there is the question of Canadian National hotels. This matter has been raised on a number of occasions in the House. Canadian National hotels are not operating under the minimum wage laws passed by this Parliament. They refuse to recognize the jurisdiction of Parliament with respect to minimum wages. This matter, I understand, is now the subject of a court hearing in one of the provinces of this country. That the minimum wage laws of this country, as defined by Parliament which has jurisdiction in this area and which has set the minimum wage at $1.65, are not recognized by Canadian National hotels is, to me, a cause of great concern. I think this matter ought to be reviewed by the Transport Committee. I know it is a matter of great concern to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey) who has taken great interest in it.
A serious situation has developed across the country which affects unions involved with the CN hotels system. At this time of year the unions are normally negotiating new contracts. At present they find themselves in the position of saying, "Well, we really cannot sign any contract because we must await the decisions of the court and the federal government in the matter of the minimum wage laws of the country." In my province, Newfoundland, CN operates a hotel. In St. John's, the employees of the CN hotel are receiving less and in some cases, considering the number of hours they have to work, considerably less than the minimum wage of $1.65 an hour that has been established by Parliament. This area of concern I think is most serious.
February 8, 1971

These hotels are, in effect, owned by the people of Canada and they should be governed by the minimum wage laws of Canada. We shall expect the officials of the railway, when they appear before us in the committee, to tell us why this cannot be done. I understand the Chateau Laurier hotel has recognized the minimum wage and that as a result of the new contract arrangements none of the employees are receiving less than the federal minimum wage of $1.65 an hour.
If this can apply to the Chateau Laurier hotel in Ottawa, why cannot it apply to CN hotels across the country? Rates are very much the same; the traffic is very much the same. In the case of the hotel in Newfoundland, I know for a fact that it is operating at capacity most of the time. I do not know what the situation is at present, but I recall that for a period it was one of the few CN hotels across the country operating in the black. I shall want to hear good arguments on the part of the company in support of its contention that it cannot pay the minimum wage in all its hotels.
Perhaps the officials will tell us that the whole matter is sub judice because it is before the courts. I am not prepared to accept this argument because the matter before the court concerns only one hotel in one province of Canada. I want to know about the situation in all the CN hotels, not only in Alberta where CN is currently contesting the right of the unions to expect the company to honour the minimum wage law.
Before resuming my seat I should like to refer to our national airline. Service is not as it should be. Generally we are proud of Air Canada but there are regions where service has deteriorated. We shall place before the airline evidence which I think will show that there has been in some regions a falling off in service. A contributing factor is the morale of the staff which today is at an alltime low. The ground personnel are insecure; they do not know from one day to the next whether or not their jobs will be there. In my own province of Newfoundland-and I speak from personal contact with these people-they are discouraged and demoralized. There have been lay-offs and there are rumours that there will be additional layoffs. How can people who have chosen careers for themselves with Air Canada operate efficiently in such an atmosphere and contribute to providing the service for which the airline had a unique reputation? Hon. members will note that I used the past tense-"had".
I do not believe the argument that the reduction in staff stems from a general appraisal of the airline industry throughout North America is a valid one. Air Canada is not an airline like the others. It is publicly-owned; it belongs to the people of Canada. The people have the right to expect the good service they always had from Air Canada, and I believe they have the right to expect the airline to treat its employees fairly and not to hold this cloud of uncertainty over their heads. I have tried to get the Minister of Transport to reassure us in this regard, and we shall endeavour in committee to get some assurance from the airline that they have reached the end of their lay-offs.
Canadian National Railways
One does not have to leave Ottawa to know what is happening. Ground personnel are being moved from Ottawa to Montreal ostensibly to centralize the reservations and ticket service and make it more efficient. I wonder if efficiency is not being used as cover to justify further staff reductions. A number of those employed by Air Canada are not bilingual, just as there are many millions in this country who do not have the advantage of speaking both of Canada's official languages. I am wondering exactly how serious this factor is in influencing the decision to move the reservation and passenger service from Ottawa to Montreal. A definite statement should be forthcoming from the airline making clear what its intentions are and explaining how it proposes to justify this move.
Finally, a case could be made for eliminating some of the costly services. For example, I find it difficult to justify the first-class service provided on domestic lines. I think this is a useless appendage and a waste of money. Most of the airlines flying domestic routes in North America have eliminated first-class service. A case can be made for it on transAtlantic, transpacific or transcontinental routes, but in the case of domestic runs within the country it is ridiculous to maintain two-class service. This is one way in which the airline could reduce operating costs and increase its revenues.
I say once again that it is a frustrating experience to have to go through this exercise once a year. As Members of Parliament in the discharge of our responsibility we are bound to voice our concern, make our recommendations and offer our criticisms of the airline and of the railway in the process of examining this financial bill. After all, this is what we are here for and this is where it should be done, while we are in the process of voting funds for the operation of these two important Crown corporations.
It is a matter of regret that neither the Minister of Transport nor his parliamentary secretary are here. They should be here. They should listen to the observations which Members of Parliament have to make in the course of this debate. They should themselves take part in the debate, examine the observations which have been made and where possible make announcements of the government's intentions with respect to these important matters.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, every year we are faced with the problem of bailing the national railway out with this finance bill. It is funny that no one has suggested that the debate be curtailed just to financial matters.
An hen. Member: Don't give them ideas.


William Arnold Peters: Changes have been made which are advantageous. I do not wish to discuss those changes except to say they are long overdue. We are all pleased that there has been a change in the pension plan. One of my hon. friends asked why the government had waited so long. He has been here only a year or so, but my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has been here forever, says this is a matter he has been raising here forever. So the wheels grind very slowly

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
where the CNR are concerned. They could probably look to us in the same way because their financing has been long delayed.
The cost of operating Canadian National Railways has always been influenced by its freight and transportation structure. I recall that last year Parliament financed the payment of interest of $40 million due on the original purchase price of the railway. Although Canadian National Railways can legitimately look to Parliament to do something about getting its house in order, I suggest that the money that has been paid CN should be transferred to the national debt account rather than remaining a liability in the financial structure of the railway.
I am sure that as Your Honour listens to the speeches made by many members you ask yourself why we are paying $40 million in interest. A few weeks ago all the members from northern Ontario stood up in the House and asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to give consideration to hearing representations from people in the communities of northern Ontario whose rail service was going to be curtailed. The minister said that this was a good idea and that he would consider the matter; but a couple of days later he had to come back to the House and tell us that he was sorry, it could not be done because he really did not have authority to do it. Nevertheless, he said, he had been assured by the CTC that they would consider the matter.
Since we are paying this kind of money, Mr. Speaker, is it not time that we had control of this transportation facility? I have said many times that really we do not own it, it is not nationalized. We are now debating the debt structure of CN, a matter that the government has reluctantly but finally decided to examine. If the government does not, then I am sure the bill will not pass Parliament; that one day Canadian National will be left with the burden of a $40 million debt, they will not be able to operate their lousy railway and Canadians may find they can get along without it-which is what people in many areas are doing now.
Since I have been a Member of Parliament I have travelled from North Bay to Ottawa on trains Nos. 7 and 8 which were recently withdrawn. These trains came into northern Ontario with a sleeper and went as far as Swastika, where they picked up passengers from Noran-da and northern Quebec. Then they serviced the Timmins area, Cochrane and Hearst. At that point they picked up a sleeper of Ontario Northland and then went on to Montreal.
These trains 7 and 8 offered good accommodation and were well patronized. But then CN began charging Ontario Northland too much money to haul its sleeper and the railway considered that it was not worth while. Whatever the reason, they decided the proposition was too expensive. As a result you had to sit up travelling across northern Quebec and northern Ontario until you got to North Bay. You arrived there at around one or two in the morning, depending on weather, and then you could board the sleeper which would get you to Ottawa
about seven o'clock in the morning, in time for you to shave and even have breakfast.
I remember when there were meals available on the train. Then they only offered lunches and finally there were no meals available and no beds. They almost got to the point of having no seats. The train consisted of coaches that came out of the ark. I remember saying at the time that the train would soon be withdrawn because it would not pay. The train had nothing to offer; there was no accommodation to sell.
Many of the communities of northern Ontario were built along the railway and depend upon it for their very existence. The Minister of Tourism and Information of the province of Ontario, hon. James Auld, had this to say in regard to the dropping of these two trains:
In our northwestern Ontario administrative district there are a total of 56 establishments located along the line. Six of these are primarily dependent on CNR rail service.
In northeastern Ontario, there are 208 establishments along the line. Eighteen of these are heavily dependent on rail service.
If the rail service is reduced or discontinued, the majority of these 24 establishments which depend on the trains for transportation of guests and supplies will find it very difficult to survive.
Some of the establishments which are adjacent to the line but are less dependent on the rail services may also find their businesses damaged. These tourist camps are more fortunate in that they have other means of access with most of their clientele arriving by road or air.
My field staff has also noted that cottagers and tourists use these rail services for transportation to and from Parry Sound and Toronto.
The department is making the strongest recommendation that the CNR must recognize and fulfil its responsibilities to the tourist establishments and communities along the rail line.
I suggest that will get the minister nowhere, Mr. Speaker. If rail service is gradually withdrawn, then the number of passengers using the service will decrease by about the same percentage. It is Parkinson's law in reverse. I presume that if you do not offer the accommodation you will not get the passengers. Certainly that is true of transportation. I suggest there are very few people who do a lot of travelling who would not think twice about travelling by train if the accommodation were adequate and they were able to reach their destination at a reasonable hour. They would prefer this to travelling by automobile or aircraft.
This afternoon one hon. member told the House about getting on a train to go to Montreal and not being told that the line had been closed as a result of an accident further up the line. What does the railway care what the passengers think? The railway get their money just the same-provided the passengers do not walk, of course. If they do decide to walk and have paid for their ticket, then there is no station at which they can reclaim their money anyway. The railways could not care less. But surely some Members of Parliament care. They know that rail transportation can be provided in many areas much more economically than building additional highways.
In northern Ontario the roads are crowded with transports towing a trailer, and in some cases two trailers,

February 8, 1971

loaded with lumber. It would be much easier to load this lumber into freight cars and dispatch it by rail. The other day I was talking to a buyer from Boston and he told me that he thought lumber supplies would be scarce in about a year's time. As a result, he was going out to British Columbia and also visiting northern Quebec and Ontario in order to cement his business relationships. He had his wife with him and was touring around. During our discussion he told me he never considered rail as a method of transporting lumber unless it had to travel a long way-for example, from British Columbia. But he would not think of sending it by rail from northern Quebec. I think the railways should reflect on the fact that here is a buyer of lumber, a broker who orders hundreds of thousands of carloads of lumber but does not consider shipping it from northern Quebec by rail.
I suggest that the rail transportation system has got into disrepute because of the way the companies treat the people. They treat them in the same way they treat freight. Recently a number of members from northern Ontario were asked to meet officials of Canadian National Railways. I attended the meeting. Those officials told us that everything was going to be all right and that the problems were going to be solved. We were informed that a service centre was to be established at Barrie. They did not tell us that as a result of the establishment of this service centre nine people employed at Capreol were going to be out of jobs.
We were informed that the CNR intended to establish a computer centre in order that reservations could be made through the computer system. We were not told about the lay-off of the nine people in that community, which cannot afford lay-offs because it depends upon the CNR for its economy. Anyone who has attempted to make travel arrangements through a computer system knows that such a system is not as good as it is made out to be. In spite of that fact, the CNR intends to remove these nine people from its service in the area. I suggest that if those nine people spoke French, they would not be removed; they would be given a grant in order that they might stay there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Arnold Peters: Hon. members may laugh, but I can tell them that in my area there is a small cafe which has received a government grant of $2,500 on the basis that its employees speak only French. I suspect that if those nine individuals spoke only French they would be given a grant to keep them in Capreol.
Not only should this House be considering the finances of the CNR but it should be considering nationalizing Canadian Pacific Railway. It is my opinion that these two railway companies cannot supply two separate passenger services across this country. I suggest they will be very hard pressed to provide passenger service on the basis of one operation. Let me refer to a letter from Alan Lawrence in which he suggests that the Ontario Northland Railway take over passenger service in Ontario. I suggest this as an alternative. It may be a good one. I realize that
Canadian National Railways
this is a little beyond your area, Mr. Speaker, but the Go train is a government train which moves out as far as Pickering, and I expect it will move to the Kingston area and eventually connect up with Montreal. It will be a streetcar type of operation.
I suggest that the service which is being provided on both sides of Toronto is very effective, and it is not being provided by the CNR but by the Ontario government. For years we have been trying to buy one of the Canadian National lines but they have been asking an exorbitant price. This is little like the story of the dog in the manger. The CNR does not want to operate it itself, and it does not want anybody else to operate it for fear someone else might make it a success.
A man in Toronto can charter a train to North Bay. He can make enough money on sales in that area that he can pay for the cost of that service and make a contribution to a charitable organization. If Canadian National and Canadian Pacific do not want to operate a passenger service, let the officials come before a parliamentary committee and say so. In that way we can find an alternative. Let us find such an alternative before we have no passengers.
Had it not been for the centennial year service many of our young people may never have known what train service is all about. Many of these young people travelled on the trains on which customary accommodation was made available. Those trains operated satisfactorily, and I believe there is still a sufficient number of travelling public to make such service effective and efficient. We set up the Canadian Transportation Commission to perform this service, but it has failed. That commission has been seduced by the officials of Canadian Pacific and Canadian National and we are paying for that seduction.
I am sure many members of this House represent communities which are dependent on rail service. Surely they have suggestions to improve efficiency. If the CPR and the CNR do not want to operate passenger services, let us set up a transportation facility that will operate those services. We will not expropriate their lines; we will damn well run over them and they will maintain them. I am sure they will maintain them in a condition safe for freight transportation. In that event we can run passenger trains over them without derailment, because passenger trains do not carry the same weight. Let us set up the passenger service. I am sure it could be operated efficiently.
What I have said about the CNR and the CPR applies equally to air transportation in this country. The computer system works very well for Air Canada, but if I want to be sure of a reservation-I admit this is pretty stupid-I get in touch with the small airport at Earlton, Ontario, where two men handle the whole operation. They used to have a little box in which they dropped a card to confirm my reservation on a flight. I think that system has been removed in the last few months because Air Canada has gone honky-tonk in this area. Even if I get in touch with the special people in Parliament who look after air travel reservations, I often find myself on a flight where two extra passengers are booked. The powers that be in this case offer a free meal to anybody

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
who will get off and wait for the next flight. This is the type of service we get from the computer system and this is one reason for the trouble in which airlines find themselves today.
Many airports in Canada can accommodate small aircraft of the type Air Canada will apparently be operating in five years. These airports should be servicing air transportation to many communities. Obviously they cannot accommodate the stretched DC-8 jet. We should have better air service. If we are to improve the service we should not start by subsidizing the kind of service now in existence. Let us bring all the airlines in Canada under one agency to provide the best service possible. We have only 21 million people in this country, yet we probably have more internal flight routes than any other country with the exception of Russia. We cannot carry on he type of air service the people of Canada demand, ,vith the proliferation of airlines that we have. We should not have an increasing number of regional routes.
Having in mind this entire transportation problem, we must look at the over-all picture. There is no more logical time to look at transportation in Canada than now, when we are discussing the finances of Canadian National Railways. Last year every Canadian paid $2 in subsidy to this system. Most of these Canadians could not go down to the station and buy a ticket on a train because a train did not run through the local station. The government can play around, as it obviously does, but it will eventually have to face up to the need for efficient transportation in this country. Perhaps it will not face up to this problem on an over-all basis, but I am sure the people will not wait much longer before raising a great fuss. They will not wait until trains Nos. 7 and 8 are taken off, and they will not wait until the transcontinental passenger service is done away with before making a fuss about the system.
I think we should sit down and design a new transportation facility for the rural areas which will meet the conditions of the 1970s. Hopefully, we will be smart enough to develop the kind of transportation policy which is required to meet the needs of the 1980s. I suggest that rail travel in Canada will be required for years. Air transportation will become more important as the years go by, but we will find that as air transportation increases there will be a resurgence of need for ground transportation. This will represent an economic means of transportation to the major centres of population.
We will need that kind of transportation and we in parliament are not doing anything about it. We are letting the CNR make small deals and arrangements where they say, "Never mind the nine people. We will be working toward efficiency. We will drop these people or move them to a major centre and thus provide a better service". If 1 am being billed for freight that I have received, I as a consumer am not really interested whether my account comes from Capreol or from Toronto, and I am not really interested whether I get it this week, next week or even next month. I think that CN economists are
not producing anything for the Canadian people and they are certainly not reducing the size of the debt that we are discussing.


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, the CNR and Air Canada are asking Parliament to approve, according to my calculations, some $500 million to take care of the service that they intend to offer to the Canadian nation in the next year or so. I find it difficult to think nationally, for two reasons. The first is that Newfoundland has only been part of the Canadian nation for 21 years, and the second is that we have so many problems in Newfoundland that they tend to occupy our full time. So I will speak very briefly on the CNR and Air Canada as their services relate to Newfoundland.
My opinion of how these services treat Canada's newest province is already on the record. I spoke in the same debate last year and the year before, when the whole matter was regarded pretty unanimously as a joke. But I think the message is getting through to many of our colleagues, including many of our Liberal colleagues who at that time did not regard the matter too seriously, that these Crown corporations are using us as guinea pigs and that now the sore is festering all across Canada. As I said, I am on record in the House as well as at the meetings of the Committee on Transport and Communications and in the files of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson).
In Newfoundland today, as everybody is aware, there is no rail passenger service. But we have a bus service which in no way fills the need for public transportation. The bus service is not safe-this has been proven; it is not comfortable-which anybody who has driven any distance can attest to; and it is certainly not dependable-which can be affirmed by many people who set out on Wednesday and did not get to their destination on Friday and maybe not even then.
After a couple of years of operation, this service does not even offer the amenity of a drink of cold water during the course of a 550-mile journey. I would not like to be accused of making puns or playing on words, but I do not think it would be unfair for me to say that the evidence is piling up that this service is not suited to the travel needs of Newfoundlanders, at least during the winter months. To substantiate my point that the evidence is piling up, I have here a press story of April, 1969, with a picture which shows the Expedo, the cream of the crop of the CN bus transportation service in Newfoundland, lying on its side, almost over on its back, over a six-foot embankment. That happened within a month or so of the commencement of the bus service. The driver cannot be blamed. The story says:
A spokesman for the RCMP said the bus apparently met another vehicle while rounding a turn in the highway and in swerving to miss the other vehicle slipped off the road and overturned down a six-foot embankment. It was snowing at the time.
There is lots of snow in Newfoundland and there are lots of curves and embankments. However, this is not the only example and it makes me fear for the safety of the many Newfoundlanders who are using this
[Mr Peters.]
February 8, 1971

service. This service has only been in operation for two years at the most. Another press items reads:
Extensive damage was caused to a Canadian National bus early Tuesday when it skidded off the Trans-Canada highway near Notre Dame junction. The driver and five male passengers were uninjured.
It becomes all too evident as we go along that the CN is operating and has operated this service in Newfoundland since its inception on pure, sheer, absolute luck-and thank God for their luck. There was an interesting little editorial in the Daily News following the last accident. It is headed "The Bus that Overturned" and reads:
It is both natural as well as inevitable that any accident to a Canadian National bus must cause some comment and anxiety. This is particularly true among those who are far from convinced that the substitution of buses for passenger trains meets all the conditions for safety that is desirable in public transport, particularly under winter conditions.
There were only the driver and five adult male passengers on the bus that overturned near Notre Dame junction and all came out unscathed. But it might have been another matter if the bus had been fully occupied.
Statistics indicate that buses have become a popular means of travel and, to the extent that valid comparisons are possible, have been carrying twice as many passengers as the passenger trains in an equivalent period. They are faster and operate on more convenient time schedules.
But public safety is the primary consideration and road conditions at certain times are far from adequate. When an accident occurs, an inquiry should be held immediately to determine causes. At the same time the transport authorities ought to have a good hard look at the means by which recurrences of this kind of mishap can be prevented.
Apparently that editorial did not do much good, because despite many requests from me and my colleagues to the minister to have these bus accidents investigated, I think I am safe in saying that I have not received a report although they were always promised. I was told, "We will look into this and that immediately". I have heard my colleagues ask the same question but I doubt that they have received any answers. I do not have a file of all the accidents. These are just some I happened to pick up. This is a headline from the Western Star of April 4, 1970, "Storm Hits West Coast; Buses, Truck off Road." In part the article reads:
Two CN buses-515 westward and 502 eastbound-were blown off ice-coated roads between Port aux Basques and Tompkins early Friday, but a company spokesman said no one was injured. Three other buses made it through without damage despite winds of 80 miles an hour, gusting to 100, that lashed the stretch of road leading to Port aux Basques.
Passengers from the ditched buses were transferred to other vehicles, and one of the buses eventually got back on the road. The other, however, was still in the ditch late Friday afternoon.
Two transfer trucks and a number of automobiles were reported also off the road because of the high winds.
It is not the fault of the drivers; it is not the fault of the buses; it is the fault of the CN that would inflict this sort of service on the Newfoundland people.
A CN spokesman said that no thought had been given to cancelling services but added that late night buses would not pass over the dangerous stretch unless winds had subsided.
Canadian National Railways
Bully for the CN! Here is another clipping from just before Christmas. The headline reads "Two CN Buses Involved in Separate Accidents." The story appeared in the St. John's Evening Telegram of December 21, and reads in part:
Two Canadian National road-cruisers received only slight damage during the weekend in separate traffic accidents.
There were no injuries and both buses are back in service.
A CN spokesman said an eastbound bus was blown partially off the road Friday morning on the Trans-Canada Highway at V/reckhouse, about 20 miles east of Port aux Basques. The 80 miles per hour winds blew the front end of the bus into a ditch but the rear of the bus stayed on the road.
The second accident occurred Saturday evening near Rushy Pond, just west of Grand Falls.
The spokeman said the driver of the bus was forced to strike two cars, parked on the side of the Trans-Canada Highway. He said the two cars which had a snowmobile between them were parked on the side and the driver was unable to swing out around them because of oncoming traffic.
By sheer luck, some of our Newfoundland people were not injured or killed. One of the most recent accidents concerned a bus carrying 28 passengers. I referred this story to the Minister of Transport and hon. members thought I was joking. On December 3 a bus with 28 passengers ran over an embankment. Any hon. member who wants to see a photograph of what occurred can come to me and I will show him one. Luckily, there were a few birch trees there, and the photograph shows this bus suspended over the majestic Exploits River in Newfoundland. Just a few flimsy birch trees saved it from falling into the river. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, this is not a joke. In answer to my question the minister said that he once had been held up in a train for three or four days. I asked him if he had ever been held suspended over the Exploits River in a train. Those 28 people had a miraculous escape.
Many of these incidents are never reported in the press. I know of some from my own personal knowledge. I was at the CN bus station at Grand Falls not too long ago when a driver came in from the west coast with a bus full of passengers. I do not blame the driver, but he was terrified. The Trans-Canada Highway is very narrow, especially in wintertime, and he had just lost a mirror from the side of the bus. He was driving at 60 miles an hour when a big transport truck whizzed by at 70 miles an hour and cleared the mirror clean off the side of the bus. The truck didn't stop. The driver was terrified. A matter of a few more inches and there could have been disaster. Mr Speaker, anyone who makes light of this account that I am giving should make himself known in this chamber.
The Minister of Transport, our so-called Newfoundland representative in the cabinet, just a couple of weeks ago treated very cavalierly the last incident which was brought to his attention. A CN bus had been lost for some 12 hours in a Newfoundland snowstorm. The passengers had no water aboard, no food, no chance to sleep and no communication with the outside world. The story had it, although it is not included in the press report, that another bus went next morning to look for it and it, too, became lost for three or four hours.
3180

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
I do not look forward within the next month or few months to being in the position where I stand in this House, point my finger across at the Minister of Transport and say, "I told you so." But I very much fear that if this bus service is continued during the winter months regardless of weather conditions, we in Newfoundland will be faced with a tragedy and somebody will have to answer to the Newfoundland people, bearing in mind that during 70 years of operation by the Newfoundland Railway, and later Canadian National, they never lost a passenger. So far the bus service has not lost a passenger, but this is by sheer, absolute luck.
When we raise our voices about this matter to our own Newfoundland minister he accuses us of being antiquated. I forget his exact reference, but he said we were back in the days of Noah and very glibly and blandly referred to the ark. He said we were advocating the retention of an antiquated train service. We were not supporting the retention of an antiquated train service; we were suggesting that the service be upgraded. The minister told us that we were out of step with progress. The photographs and the news stories I have here-is that the progress we are supposed to accept? If this is progress, then somebody has his wires crossed and I suggest it is the minister. We do not have any objection to a bus service. Of course we want a bus service. But when it is the only means of public transportation for a 550-mile journey across our province, we say that although it may do a fine job in the summer, during winter it is extremely perilous, and if continued will end in tragedy.
Just a few days ago on January 29 we received a report from the Canadian Transport Commission. This one is signed by Mr. Pickersgill himself, Jolly Jack. He did not sign a similar order agreeing to the discontinuance of our passenger service, but he did sign this one. It concerned an application from Canadian Pacific to discontinue "The Canadian". In the report appears this line "...that this historic service could not be abruptly discontinued." They turned down this application, Mr. Speaker. "The Canadian" is a historic train. They said they could not think of its being discontinued summarily or abruptly; that would not be good enough. I ask, what about the historic trains in Newfoundland that served the people so well? Canadian National have provided a bus service that will kill half the people of Newfoundland if they ever use it. That proposal is just nonsense.
Since the bus system was instituted it has become apparent that Canadian National have allowed railbeds to deteriorate in Newfoundland. That is pretty well recognized. I cannot quote all the instances of derailment of freight trains during the last year or so. Recently I personally have seen more freight cars and the merchandise they contain strewn over the Newfoundland countryside than I have ever seen in my life. It seems that the attitude has been something like this: Well, passengers are not using the service anymore; we need only worry about five, six seven trainmen or enginemen.
There does not seem to be very much regard for their lives. I have clippings before me from last year's newspapers. One says that four 175-ton CN diesels were derailed two miles east of Deer Lake. Another asks, "Is this a parking lot?" It says that four tank cars were strewn across the railway tracks and that 300 feet of rail were torn up. Another says there was a large derailment near Corner Brook. The local St. John's newspaper has taken the cry up in an editorial. Since the editorial sums up what ought to be said, I shall read it in its entirety:
Last week the CNR had a bad derailment near Deer Lake with 11 cars, including four diesels, going off the tracks. As things go at the railway, this was not an unusual item of news, for derailments are fairly common with the CNR in Newfoundland. What was different about this accident was that it came so soon after the change in the method of maintaining the tracks.
In January, the railway announced that it was laying off 67 sectionmen in favor of a new mechanical system of doing their work. The sectionmen were employed on the old method of a detailed and constant survey of the track, using speeders to cover the part of the track assigned to them. The men were available at all hours of the night and day and during or after a storm they would be out on the line making sure that everything was in order for the trains coming through.
In many ways the sectionmen were the unsung heroes of the railway, for with them lay the responsibility of keeping the track up to safe standards, regardless of weather or time. But now the railway has turned to a new system which puts track maintenance on a more centralized, directed process, using special closed and comfortable maintenance cars to move the work gang to the areas needing repairs.
This may be in keeping with modern technology but as far as things like track maintenance are concerned, it is hard to beat the devotion and individual attention of the totally involved workers such as the sectionmen were reputed to be.
The run-off near Deer Lake will probably cost the CNR over $250,000 in parts, repair work and time lost by the diesels, an amount which would have paid a lot of work hours for the sectionmen. It will also help to reinforce mainland opinion that it is not economically possible to run a railway in this province. And that kind of thinking may lead to the abandonment of the entire system.
The CNR is a Crown corporation and gets a lot of its money from the public purse. In accidents of this kind the enquiry should be public. The railway may not always be as lucky with its accidents; another accident of this kind may lead to the deaths of the engine gang. That is why it is essential that the public have the full assurance that everything is being done to maintain the tracks in a safe condition. A public enquiry into accidents is one way to see that this is being done.
It is useless asking for a public inquiry. We have asked for it and have been told, "Yes, it is coming." My colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has already referred to the ferry service betwen North Sydney and Port aux Basques and I see no purpose in repeating what he said so well. I should, however, like to mention the CN coastal service which serves the Labrador coast and parts of my riding. Just before Christmas a CN coastal vessel loaded with 300 tons of supplies for the Goose Bay area became blocked in ice that was not anticipated, and had to return without delivering the merchancise.
I maintained then, and I still maintain, that although Canadian National might not have been under a legal obligation to deliver the goods, it ought to have assumed its moral obligation in the same way Air Canada accepts

February 8, 1971

its obligation to deliver its passengers. Sometimes you may leave the aircraft and spend a night in a hotel at the expense of Air Canada. You may end up on a bus or on a train but you will arrive at your destination. They will get you there. I think Canadian National was obligated in this regard to deliver merchandise that had been accepted in good faith from shippers, that had been shipped in good faith and that had been ordered by the consignees in good faith. That moral obligation to deliver was completely ignored. Now, just because it happens to be election year in Newfoundland, the government in Newfoundland has decided that it will take on the obligation of delivering such merchandise and it will deliver it, if you like, via Air Canada; they will use Air Canada. The Newfoundland will pay that airline to fulfil the obligation which had rested on Canadian National.
I can only say that I will not say anything about Air Canada at this time. May I add my voice to those who are urging the Minister of Transport to start making decisions and to come up with his regional air policy. Let him enunciate the policy that he is always referring to, so that we shall know where we are going and by what means. I cannot urge the minister too strongly at this point, especially since he has talked about this policy so long, to make his decision and bring forward his policy. Let us have it.
If it were not a gesture-and I have no desire to delay the House-I would move an amendment. I will not do that. Nevertheless, the amendment that I would have moved if my moving of it were not a gesture, would be that the amount requested by CNR and Air Canada be reduced to $1-if I had my way it would be even less- and not increased until such time as CNR and Air Canada decide to live up to their responsibilities in Canada's newest province.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss in my duty if 1 were to allow this debate to end without making a few comments on the operations of the CN in my province and specifically in my riding. My riding of St. John's West is very much concerned about the operations of the CN; a large number of people in the area depend on employment with the company to make a living. Of course, the story of the great train robbery in Newfoundland in 1969 has been told many times in this House. Indeed, tonight my hon. friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) spoke at length concerning the system with which we now have to contend in Newfoundland, that is, a bus passenger service inaugurated by Canadian National to replace the traditional passenger service which we enjoyed in the province for so long.
Certain aspects of the story of the abandonment of rail passenger service in Newfoundland bear repeating. Most hon. members, I am sure, will recall that during the debate on the railway financing bill in 1969 members on this side of the House urged the government and the CTC to reconsider the abandonment of rail passenger service in Newfoundland. My hon. friends and I, support-
Canadian National Railways
ed by the vast majority of our fellow Newfoundlanders, objected very strongly to the proposed bus service on the grounds that neither the terrain nor the climatic conditions of the province would lend themselves to such a service. Today, with just two winters behind us, we find that our fears were justified. My hon. friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador pointed out that there have been several accidents, several near-tragedies. On one occasion a bus disappeared with all its passengers for some 12 hours.
When the debates took place concerning the abandonment of our rail service we were the butt of jokes by hon. members opposite who were amused by our antics, as they called them, in our efforts to retain that which was our own.


An hon. Member:: Even the Minister of Transport.


Walter C. Carter: Even the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). We now find they are laughing on the other side of their faces because hardly a day passes when we do not hear complaints from them about the proposed abandonment of rail passenger services in their own provinces. This is extremely serious. We in Newfoundland were the guinea pigs in a plan by the CN to abolish its rail passenger service.
I endorse the comments of my hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) when he referred to the efforts of the CN to downgrade the coastal boat service in Newfoundland. It is obvious to even the smallest child in Newfoundland that Canadian National is deliberately downgrading this service and discouraging patronage with a view to eliminating the service. I would not be at all surprised to learn that this is their intention also with regard to the hotel service in St. John's. I should like the minister to give us an assurance in the committee that it is not intended to downgrade the hotel service in Newfoundland or to downgrade the coastal boat service. I want him to assure us that the company will make every effort to improve these services, thereby assuring their success.
I should like to refer now to the CN dock facilities in St. John's. This dock is a major contributor to the economy of my riding; indeed, it is a major contributor to the economy of Newfoundland generally. But I feel that the full potential of this dock and the full potential of St. John's as the so-called service station of the Atlantic is not being realized because of inadequate facilities at the dock. We have tradesmen working at the dock who are second to none in Canada, men of long service and training who can take their place alongside any in the country. But they are handicapped because of the antiquated system employed and the indifference shown by the CN in the docking facilities.
I have been told by officials that almost weekly a large volume of business is turned away from the facility, enough to give full employment to all the people working there plus a large number of others who could be engaged. I urge the Minister of Transport, and Canadian National, to realize the full potential of the St. John's

February 8, 1971
Canadian National Railways
harbour and take advantage of the strategic position we have as the service station of the Atlantic, so as to maintain full employment there all the year round and, indeed, to increase employment thereby improving the sconomic position of the area as a whole.
I am not satisfied with what is happening in my province with regard to Canadian National; I am not satisfied with what is happening in Canada. I get the impression that the only role a member of Parliament has to play with regard to Canadian National is as a rubber stamp when they come to this House asking for financial assistance. But when it comes to representations for a better service or for a service to be maintained, our pleas fall on deaf ears. I do not enjoy being a rubber stamp. I think the railway company has a responsibility to pay more attention to our pleas in this House. When we make a legitimate complaint or a considered suggestion, I believe it is incumbent on the company to study that complaint or suggestion and, if possible, to implement it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter C. Carter: I am not too happy with the method Canadian National is using in the city of St. John's to dispose of damaged goods arriving at the terminal. I am sure I echo the views of a large number of people, especially CN employees, when I say that a new system should be devised instead of the present monopolistic method of disposal. These goods in the course of a year amount to a very considerable sum and should be disposed of in a more equitable way than at present.
In closing, I strongly suggest that the minister appear before the committee where we shall have a lot of question to ask him. As my colleague from St. John's East has already said, we shall be asking him questions in relation to Hotel Newfoundland, CN coastal services in the province, their bus passenger service and other aspects of their operations in our province, indeed in all of Canada.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part briefly in this debate. I shall keep my eye on the clock and I assure the government House leader that I will leave time for the second reading that he is so anxious this bill should receive. Bill C-186 provides financial assistance for the operations of CNR. One of the operations that will be financed is the servocentre program and I rise to speak about this since it vitally affects parts of the area I represent. A new servocentre is to be established in the city of Brantford and will serve my area. When this centre is completely in operation, all the present station facilities at Courtland, Delhi, Simcoe, Jarvis, Cayuga, Hagersville and Caledonia will be discontinued, with consequent loss of employment.
The first concern I have is for the quality of service that will be available to municipalities formerly served by these stations. Much has been said this evening about computers. The servocentre is to be a streamlined service, much of the work being done by computers. A few nights ago one member of the House spoke about results
produced by computers, which were pretty well summed up in the phrase "Gigi", which means "Garbage in-garbage out". In view of the results produced by the computer of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, I am sure we would all agree that a great deal of garbage comes out. Members on both sides of the House are continually trying to unravel the mistakes made by this computer. I have the same reservations about a computer that will allocate railway cars and answer questions asked by people using railway facilities in the area about which I have just spoken.
Station masters, station agents and assistants will no longer be employed and thus passengers will be robbed of the personal touch. After all, who can better solve passengers' problems than the man on the job who is familiar with local situations? Now these problems will be solved by a clerk sitting in an office in Brantford, 25 to 30 miles away, and one can imagine the snafu that will result when he tries to locate a railway car that should have been let off at the town of Delhi but ends up at Caledonia, 40 miles away. We can all see the shipper concerned biting his nails, wanting to get the car loaded and his product on its way.
The other cause for concern is the fate of the men who will be displaced by this new program. We want to know what is going to happen to the railway station agents. Will they, as I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) a few days ago during the question period, retain their seniority, their pension privileges and so on?
I suppose the answer will be yes, that work will be found for them somewhere. But let us remember that they have established homes in the municipalities they now serve. These men are going to be asked to drive up to 40 miles to sit at a desk if they want to retain their employment with CN. These are the two problems I see arising from the servocentre program: first, the quality of service to the community; second, the effect of the program on present employees.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) said to me that if I can convince the House, and particularly the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, that rail transportation is still a realistic and basic ingredient of the transportation system of this country, I should run for the leadership of my party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leroy Skoberg: As long as the present incumbent is chairman of the commission, I realize that this would be impossible. With that I take my seat.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
[Mr. Carter.)
February 8, 1971

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, could we have the business for tomorrow from the government House leader?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to call the
government organization bill. After consultation with House leaders tomorrow it may be possible to make arrangements to complete the export development bill. In any event, we will call the government organization bill tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, on January 20 I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) the following question:
Considering the firm decision of the International Olympics Committee to adhere rigidly to the principle that there shall not be racial discrimination in sports, can the minister give some indication to the House of the position to be taken by the government on that principle so far as the 1976 Olympic games are concerned?
I suggest it is very necessary that Canada make its position on racist and apartheid policies very clear to the rest of the world, and with that thought in mind I posed the question to the minister. I feel confident that human rights are being violated in many countries. Although we are quite aware of this, it is only in South Africa that these policies are sought to be justified on racial grounds. Canada's disengagement from South Africa should be positively encouraged at all levels by whatever means is open to us as Canadians.
I am sure that the people of the world who are dedicated to upholding the declaration of human rights would like to know what is our position, and I feel we should make our position quite open and clear. Every means should be utilized to make known our convictions against racism and apartheid. One way of doing this is by inconveniencing and embarrassing the white regimes of countries that practise apartheid and racism until they realize that somewhere along the line they must change their policies. We must make our position abundantly clear in so far as racism and colonialism are concerned. One way Canada can do this is to insist rigidly on the principle of non-racial sport.
We have the decision of the International Olympics Committee regarding South Africa, which no doubt will leave Canada in the position of only having to reaffirm this decision. I would suggest that a pronouncement be made by our government stating categorically that we will adhere rigidly to the principle that there will be no racial discrimination at the 1976 Olympic games in Mont-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion real. If this is not possible, I suggest that no federal money should be made available to the 1976 winter games in Quebec. In this way we will be in a much better position in respect of nations of the world. I believe that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will agree to a firm acceptance of this basic condition of non-racism. It will be of interest to all freedom loving Canadians dedicated to the eradication of apartheid, discrimination and racism to refer to the answer this House will, hopefully, hear from the minister tonight.
A news article suggests that the business hangman in the world is in Pretoria, South Africa. I suggest we should make sure that those responsible for these racial injustices do not have the opportunity of joining our 1976 Olympic games. I will be most interested in hearing the response tonight and I am sure all of us are waiting for a reaffirmation of policy in respect of non-racial sports in this country.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the federal government rejects all forms of racial discrimination.
With regard to the summer Olympic Games to be held in Montreal in 1976, the federal government believes that such Games are a very important means of bringing together peoples and nations. By asking for and obtaining the 1976 summer Olympic Games, Montreal has tacitly accepted to obey the rules of the International Olympic Games Committee, that is not to tolerate any racial discrimination.
For this reason, the federal government sees in the 1976 Olympic Games in Montreal an occasion for all Canadians to show that they have no prejudices for reasons of race, colour or religion.
Let us hope that this answer, Mr. Speaker, will sink into the minds of all Canadians, including the hon. member for Moose Jaw.



FINANCE-PROCEDURE FOR PRESENTATION OF TAX REFORM LEGISLATION

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, what I like about this "late show" is the sense of expectancy that falls on all members of the House of Commons and those people who have rushed in from this, that and the other thing, including the full attendance, I am sure, of the National Centre for the Performing Arts, all of whom have come from hither, thither, to and fro to see if they can find out anything at this late hour. On occasion I have felt that perhaps the question I had in mind should have been asked and answered during the question period. However, I thought I should not put it at that time but should wait for a couple of hours until the country was really agog and alive.
I find myself here at this hour with a rather simple request of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson). I realize he has more important things on his mind than a simple

February 8, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion answer to the question which I ask in order to satisfy my own curiosity. As a matter of fact, I do not even see him here tonight. His parliamentary secretary is in attendance in a fresh, pink shirt-


An hon. Member:: It is red.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He is here in a fresh, red shirt, and since this is a good colour I am emboldened to press on with the question that brought me here this evening. Earlier in the day, during the question period, I asked the Minister of Finance whether he intended to proceed with tax reform on the basis of a budget or on the basis of a separate bill. He was able to pick his way through that question like nobody's business, because really I should not have asked it in that form. I should have asked a longer and much more complicated question. Anyway, I will give him the benefit of his answer which was that if it is carried out in a budget, it will involve a separate bill anyway. This is quite true. But, Sir, I wanted to ask a brief question without bringing everybody back tonight. I did not want this huge crowd around me tonight. All I was asking was how he was going to do it.
The country is also asking the question, the group that has been floating full-page advertisements in the newspapers of this country. They have been asking how the Minister of Finance will proceed with his tax reform. Will he have the same crowd-I think that is the expression-that wrote the original white paper? Is that crowd going to be doing it again, will it be another crowd or will the Minister of Finance descend from the heights of Olympus to do it? All I was trying to find out was how and when it will all happen. Perhaps it is unreasonable to ask such deep and fundamental questions at this hour, but this was what I was trying to discover earlier in the day, and nothing came back.
However, seeing the parliamentary secretary here, an old friend of us all, and knowing he will take our question seriously, we can rest assured that we will be told when this tax reformation will take place.


Thomas Miller Bell: Don't count too much on it.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Saint John-Lan-caster (Mr. Bell) is a friend of mine, but we know he is somewhat cynical. I expect we will hear the whole thing unfolded. Anyway, I will give the parliamentary secretary the chance to do so.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance on numerous occasions has indicated his intention to introduce the legislation implementing the tax reform in April. 1 would refer the hon. member to the minister's most recent statement in the House in this regard, made in response to an inquiry by the hon. member's leader last Wednesday as recorded at page 3031 of Hansard. The minister stated:
I expect to introduce legislation for tax reform some time toward the end of April.
The question was not, as the hon. member appeared to believe during the oral question period today, whether or
not tax reform will be introduced by a separate bill or by a budget speech. Evidently the hon. member has had an opportunity to get that matter straightened out since the question period. A bill amending the Income Tax Act will be introduced in any event. The only question is whether the introduction of that bill will be preceded or accompanied by a budget speech. It is not possible at this time to indicate which of the procedural options will be followed.



HOUSING-SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF MUNICIPAL LAND BANK

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the attendance here of the minister in charge of housing. He is one of the hardest working members of the House and I will be very happy when he becomes a full minister and receives the full pay that he so richly deserves.
On January 29 I asked the minister in charge of housing a question with reference to an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram, written by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) in which he stated that the Canadian housing situation is bad and is getting worse. He said that the government missed an excellent opportunity in the setting up of a municipal land bank and providing all the necessary moneys so that the cost of housing, especially the cost of land, would be sharply reduced. Mr. Speaker said that my question was in the form of a submission and that he assumed the minister would consider it as such.
If I can give you a little history concerning this matter, Mr. Speaker, I will go back to 1967 and the Dominion-Provincial Conference on Housing. The then Prime Minister set forth the problem in very clear and concise terms. He issued a press release and on page 1 this passage appeared:
The broad facts and forecasts about urban growth are well known to all of us.
Almost three quarters of our population now live in cities and towns.
By 1980 nearly two-thirds of all Canadians will live in 29 major urban communities; one-third will live in Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver.
At least 500,000 acres of new land, including much of our best farmland, will be needed to accommodate the physical expansion of these 29 urban centres by 1980; three or four times that much if we don't make more efficient use of land in the future.
On page 11 there were these words:
It is true that housing costs have increased by about 50 per cent between 1951 and 1966.
This is more than for most other costs and must cause concern-
Land costs, however, will be an increasingly significant and disturbing factor in housing costs, unless appropriate action is taken to reduce or at least limit further increases.
On page 15 the then Prime Minister was reported as saying the federal government was going to attack the problem on four main bases. I shall quote two which he considered to be part of the answer:
Federal financial participation in comprehensive planning of our urban regions and in the advance acquisition of land for

February 8, 1971

transportation corridors and open spaces for recreation and similar community purposes.
Federal financial suport for land assembly and development of comprehensively planned new suburban communities within urban regions.
That was in 1967. Then in January, 1969, the hon. member for Trinity issued his task force report. What he said could be summarized as follows: the present system of assembling and servicing land in much of urban Canada is irrational in concept and inefficient in practice. He then referred to the grand practice followed in the city of Saskatoon. That city acquired a great deal of land during the thirties as a result of default on payment of taxes. It used that land in the proper planning sense. The land was serviced and lots were sold. Further land was acquired in the suburbs and the city now has 5,000 acres, which will meet its needs for the next 20 years. He said the lesson to be learned from this was that municipalities or regional governments should acquire and service substantial portions of land within their boundaries and the federal government should be prepared to make loans to municipalities for this purpose. He also set forth the example of Mr. William Teron, creator of the Kanata development in Ottawa, who said that there is no use dreaming about planning a city unless you own the land.
From January, 1969, we have had very insignificant government action. It has been very much like giving a starving elephant a peanut, very much like giving a starving man a handshake. There have been two methods by which the government has acquired land for housing purposes. Under one the federal government pays 70 per cent of the cost of assembling raw land for residential purposes and the balance is borne by the province and the municipality concerned. From 1948 to 1969, 25,568 lots were authorized for development, but I would point out that in 1969 only 960 lots were authorized for development. The second method is a federal-provincial agreement under which the federal government pays 90 per cent of the acquisition costs and then it recoups its money by having the municipality take out a loan which is repayable within 15 years. In 1969 we spent the small amount of $7 million on land acquisition.
On the issue of the land bank there was a great confrontation between the hon. member for Trinity, when he was responsible for housing and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). As a result the minister, who is now the hon. member for Trinity, resigned his cabinet post. Notwithstanding what happened between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Trinity, the present minister has not acted. Is it any wonder that the hon. member for Trinity wrote an article in the Toronto Telegram in January, 1971, in which he said that housing in Canada is bad and is getting worse, and that the government missed an excellent opportunity by not providing funds for municipal land banks in order that we could reduce one of the main costs of housing in Canada? He said that the cost of land and the servicing of land is ont of the main elements in the cost of housing.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
The hon. member for Trinity also said that he could see no reason, financial or constitutional, why this could not have been done. We in the New Democratic Party have said the same thing for many years. We continue to preach the gospel to the minister but he continues to be deaf to our requests. We ask the minister, why has he not accepted the excellent recommendations which the hon. member for Trinity made in the Toronto Telegram?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as always I welcome the constructive suggestions of the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert). I always have respected the recommendations and suggestions of my predecessor and close friend and associate, the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). The fact of the matter is, however, that the situation is not quite as it was presented. I am sure that the hon. member had no intention of being incorrect.
We made a change in the act in June, 1969, with regard to land assembly. I believe that the hon. member for Trinity had suggested 100 per cent loans when we were dealing directly with municipalities. We considered that seriously. There were no ideological considerations attached to it. However, the fact is that the municipalities, whether we liked it or not, operate in part under the jurisdiction of the provinces and any loans to the municipalities would sooner or later, directly or indirectly, have to be approved by the provincial governments under their municipal acts.
There was really no indirect way around that. However, we amended the act to permit loans to municipalities, with provincial approval, for amounts of up to 90 per cent of the cost of acquiring and servicing land, as the hon. member pointed out. We changed the breadth and scope of that provision from what it was before, because it was restricted to assembly of land for public housing purposes. We widened it to general housing purposes. That is a fairly large hole through which many endeavours can be brought in.
I cannot tonight, off the top of my head, correct the hon. member precisely with regard to the amount of money spent last year, but I think it was closer to $30 million than to the $7 million that he mentioned. When the CMHC budget is laid before the House, I hope within the next very few days, he will find that we have given increased attention to that program under the National Housing Act. Rightly or wrongly, last year we chose to devote a very significant portion of our capital funds under the CMHC budget to the provision of housing for fast starts and, particularly, for low-income housing.
If I may now refer to the article of the hon. member for Trinity stating that housing in Canada is bad and is getting worse, which the hon. member for Broadview

February 8, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion mentioned, I think that that is an overpessimistic view of the situation and interpretation of the facts. Last year, despite the disastrous forecasts from many corners of the House, and some articles, there were more than 190,000 starts during the year. Far more significant than what I call the numbers game is the fact that in excess of 50,000
of these starts were financed for low-income housing through CMHC.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the minister but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.22 p.m.

Tuesday, February 9, 1971