1972-03-06

PRIVILEGE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I rise briefly on a question of personal privilege. In the Saturday edition of the Ottawa Citizen, in an otherwise generous statement, I am referred to as the leader of the Social Credit Party.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sure that if my hon. friend, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), were here he would support me in asking that this error be corrected. As surely everyone else in Canada knows, I am a New Democrat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, allegations of conflict of interest have been made in this House and in the media after the Canada Post Office awarded a maximum 70 million dollar contract to ITT Canada for the manufacturing of mechanized letter sorting equipment.
Innuendos have been made concerning the integrity of two of my senior officers, Mr. John Mackay and Mr. Jack Moody.
Mr. John Mackay joined the Canada Post Office on October 6, 1969, as General Manager for our Ontario postal region. This appointment came after an extensive recruiting campaign in private industry by the Canada Post Office to attract highly competent people for its reorganization and decentralization program.
Though it is correct that Mr. Mackay was then president of ITT Canada Limited, this did not mean that we should have turned down his appointment just in case at one time or another his former employer might do business with the federal Government, let alone the Canada Post Office.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to state emphatically that Mr. Mackay has no more ties, financial interests or otherwise with ITT since he joined the Canada Post Office in 1969.
On October 21, 1960, Mr. Jack Moody came to the Canada Post Office from the Armed Forces as a metalur-gical engineer. He was assigned to our Engineering Branch and in 1971 became its chief engineer.
On April 17, 1968, Mr. Moody registered with the Career Assignment Program (CAP) administered by the Public Service Commission. His application was approved by the Assistant Deputy Postmaster General-Personnel on June 8, 1970. It was then accepted by the Public Service Commission. From January to March 1971, Mr. Moody left the department to follow the theoretical part of the Career Assignment Program as required.
Unfortunately, the Public Service Commission was unable to find a suitable assignment for Mr. Moody after his three month course. This was mostly because of Mr. Moody's high classification and salary range. This is why the Canada Post Office decided in July 1971, with the agreement of Treasury Board and the Public Service Commission, responsible for CAP, to put Mr. Moody on a Developmental Program. On this basis, Mr. Moody was assigned to ITT Canada for a period not exceeding two years starting September 1st 1971 with the view of broadening his knowledge. Upon his return to Ottawa, the department will benefit from the services of a qualified civil servant who will be competent in the installation, operation and utilization of automatic letter sorting machines.
In keeping with the terms and conditions of this program, Mr. Moody is still a public service employee and is paid by the Government of Canada. ITT Canada reimburses all expenditures-wages and incidentals-to the Receiver General of Canada. In similar programs, we have another Post Office employee on assignment with Imperial Oil. Furthermore, we have had employees from Gulf Oil and Bell Canada working with the Canada Post Office on assignment. We do not have any other Post Office employee working on coding and mechanization with companies other than ITT Canada for the simple reason that it is the pnly one which entered this field with a manufacturing plant in Canada.
The Canada Post Office has not had any active research and development program in recent years in the mechanization field. It has simply studied, supplemented by published documentation, different pieces of mechanized equipment now in use and queried other postal authorities on their performance and expectations regarding their particular coding and mechanization programs. This is the responsibility of our Coding and Mechanization Branch. To be specific it is the main responsibility of Mr. Jerry Fultz. Mr. Moody never worked for our Coding and Mechanization Branch nor did he in any way collaborate

March 6, 1972
ITT Contract Award
in its work. As for Mr. Gerry Fultz, he joined the Canada Post Office on February 12, 1940. Since then he has had vast experience in the Department particularly in the operations and administration field. Mr. Fultz was named Director of the new Coding and Mechanization Branch on June 16, 1970.
On November 24, 1970, Mr. Fultz recommended that the Post Office call for tenders for automatic letter sorting equipment needed for the mechanization of the Ottawa Post Office. Twenty-seven companies which we knew manufactured such equipment were invited to submit tenders. Tenders closed January 12, 1971.
A specifications book was given to the interested parties. It was understood that the equipment was to be delivered in two stages. We knew very well that the first stage could not be built in Canada. But we specified definitely that the second stage of the contract had to be Canadian-built.
We received five bids: ITT Canada on behalf of ITT Belgium; Canadian Marconi on behalf of GEC Elliott of Great Britain; Telefunken; Plessey Canada on behalf of Plessey of Great Britain; and Plessey Canada on behalf of Plessey of Great Britain-Plessey of Australia and Toshiba.
Technical appraisals determined that the equipment proposed by Telefunken and that of ITT Canada were the best on the grounds of proven standard quality. Hence, because of costs, shipment dates and the ability to produce in Canada, the ITT Canada tender was judged to be superior. Therefore I sent a submission to Treasury Board recommending approval of the ITT Canada bid. It was approved by Treasury Board after being studied by the Department of Supply and Services and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Thus, on March 30, 1971, a $4.4 million contract was awarded to ITT Canada.
The equipment corresponding to the first stage of the contract has recently arrived at the Ottawa Post Office from Belgium. ITT Canada has already started the manufacturing process, in Canada, of the second stage.
In September 1971, ITT Canada informed the Canada Post Office verbally that it was ready to provide automatic letter sorting machines which the department needed for the other 14 Canadian centres at the same unit base price. Though I could have legally and technically recommended to Treasury Board the awarding of the contract to ITT Canada on the basis of its first bid, I asked my officials to call for another tender. My purpose was to give other companies another chance and also to see if we could get a better deal.
Tenders were called October 6, 1971 and again a specifications book was sent to the interested parties. Fourteen companies in five countries were invited to submit bids. Tenders closed November 18, 1971. Only two bids were received: Plessey Canada for Plessey-GEC Elliott of Great Britain, and ITT Canada.
Technically and legally, the department could have ignored the Plessey Canada bid. In fact that bid did not

meet the specifications of the tender call in many instances. Nevertheless, I asked Mr. Fultz to study thoroughly the Plessey Canada bid and to contact them to ask for extensive amplification, clarification and new data regarding the bid.
An evaluation of the two bids was finished by the end of January, 1972. On February 1, 1972, at the request of the British High Commissioner in Ottawa who was making a representation to us on behalf of Plessey of Great Britain, I agreed not to make a decision on the matter and to delay my recommendation to Treasury Board until Mr. Fultz met again with top executives of Plessey of Great Britain to hear their new arguments on the proposed equipment. On the same day, Mr. Fultz left for England for the fifth time in two years. He went to examine again the present status of the equipment of Plessey of Great Britain.
Following his return from England Mr. Fultz reported that, while he had seen equipment being developed which had capabilities for fulfilling the specifications should it be placed in production, as yet none of it was in the production stage. And a fair amount of development work remained to be done before it could be fully assessed. After his report, I sent my submission forward to Treasury Board recommending the contract be awarded to ITT Canada. My proposal was accepted by Treasury Board.
The reasons for my recommendations and Treasury Board's decision are as follows:
1.	The ITT Canada equipment is of the sixth generation of equipment which has successfully been in operation in many countries such as Belgium, the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany and Denmark. The proposed Plessey equipment is still in the research and development stages without even a prototype being assembled.
2.	While the ITT Canada equipment can handle 21,000 letters per hour regardless of size, the performance of the Plessey equipment, according to its own appraisal, ranges from 20,800 letters, 5| inches long, per hour to 14,100 letters, 10 inches long, per hour. These are the figures "throughput" by the machine. Throughput is maximum speed adjusted to allow for mail feed, stoppages, operator error, etc. and is the number of letters we can expect to get out of a machine in one hour of operation.
The majority of letter sizes for the government is more than eight inches in length. Thus the Plessey equipment would have allowed handling of 6,000 letters less per hour than the ITT Canada equipment.
3.	If we take into account that the average size of letters mailed in Canada is at least eight inches, it would have meant a purchase of 85 automatic letter sorting machines from Plessey while only 67 ITT Canada automatic letter sorting machines would have done the same work. Thus, if we had opted for the Plessey system, though the cost per machine would have been less it would have cost the Canada Post Office, over a 15-year period, 28 million extra budget dollars because of an increased demand for supplies and labour. Evidently with an increasing volume of mail over the years, the Plessey system would continue to cost the Post Office more money because of the ever-increasing number of machines needed.
March 6, 1972

Those three reasons should have been enough to justify awarding the contract to ITT Canada, but other reasons of equal importance moulded our decision. Let me just mention:
1.	Space needed: If we would have opted for the Plessey system, we would have been forced, because of the number of machines, to build bigger offices. Just to cite Montreal as an example, construction costs of our new proposed facilities would have been nearly $2 million more than forecasted.
2.	Canadian content: While ITT Canada guaranteed that the equipment in this contract would be built in Canada, the first seven automatic letter sorting machines and 72 coding desks of the Plessey system would have been built in England. To summarize, the ITT Canada proposal will create directly about 150 jobs in Canada this year while Plessey could not really do it before 1973.
I could also mention, Mr. Speaker, the advantages of the ITT Canada bid on future costs, on research, and the development in Canada of such an industry and its potential for export in harmony with existing government policy.
Nevertheless, I think I have proven beyond any doubt that the award of the contract to ITT Canada was in the best interest of the Canada Post Office and the Canadian people. I would have preferred, out of courtesy for Plessey, not to go into details, but circumstances forced me to do so. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I hope that, as you are now aware of the fact that I was extremely cautious in connection with these bids, you will admit in all fairness that I went further than the usual tendering procedures.
But mostly, and more importantly, I hope that any doubts cast on the integrity of Mr. John Mackay and Mr. Jack Moody have been proven baseless and uncalled for.
These two senior public service employees have had no say whatsoever in the decision taken on this matter. I, alone, have made the decision after carefully studying the well-documented information and the recommendations which Mr. Fultz made to me. On this basis I then recommended to Treasury Board the award of the contract to ITT Canada knowing very well that my Deputy Postmaster General, John Mackay, had been president of that company and that Mr. Jack Moody was on assignment from the department to that same company.
I wish to thank you, Mr. Speaker, in the name of these two senior officials of my department, for your patience.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, initially I want to thank the minister for his courtesy in giving the opposition a copy of his statement beforehand. I temper that, however, with the advice that if the statement and all statements of this kind are so long it is no wonder that the postal service is so slow.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In fact, as I listened to the minister I almost thought he protested too much. This problem does raise
ITT Contract Award
some very basic questions. I quite agree with the minister it is unfortunate that men on the periphery are sometimes caught in the crossfire. However, until the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government define a code of ethics to remove any potential stain of conflict of interest in the discharge of legislature and administrative duties, these problems are going to return to haunt all members and to take the time of this chamber.
It was only in the bright days of 1968, which are now somewhat dulled and certainly distant, that the new Prime Minister and the new government were going to proclaim, at long last, a code of ethics. I have not got all the quotations here and I will not take up the time of the House, but I know that at that time the Prime Minister said on one occasion that conflicts of interest must be avoided and they were going to search for some kind of guidelines. Mr. Speaker, they have searched for guidelines almost like the biblical characters of old, wandering and stumbling through the wilderness. I am told that two reports even got to the Privy Council office recommending certain terms of reference to take care of this problem, and still there is no action.
Let no criticism from this side of the House unfortunately fall on those who are caught in this crossfire. We do need a code of ethics to define rules of conduct and to remove any possibility of conflict of interest for parliamentarians, be they in the House of Commons or the Senate, and certainly for some of the top administrators .in government.
In this case we have a deputy minister who was a former head to ITT, the chief engineer of the Post Office now seconded or leased or lent to ITT, and we have a contract for $70 million nine-tenths of the feet, which is not just a foot in the door but both feet in the door, for future contracts for the mechanization of the Post Office and postal services. This is a large item of government business.
Last Friday the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) cast innuendoes about tendering. It does not take much of a layman to know that with a detailed definition of specifications you can chart and determine the type of tender you want. It does not excite me that 27 companies applied initially although it is interesting that only five were interested in the specifications book. On we went from there.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the continual growth of the public and private sectors and the interrelationship of the government with the private sector demand a code of ethics. I believe there should be cross-fertilization and an infusion of new blood from the private into the public sector so that the public will have an appreciation of what motivates the private sector. I think we have to do more of that. I commend the minister for trying to experiment on that basis. But this interrelationship cannot be allowed to develop so that it in effect becomes incest between government and the private sector. I suggest, on the face of the matter and on the initial facts, that until the minister stood in his place today and gave a very detailed statement there were naturally questions that arose.
I shall not say much more. I think the whole problem of ITT could and very well may develop further questions in the not too distant future. This is not the first advent of ITT in government business. A company called Raynier

March 6, 1972
ITT Contract Award
Pulp and Paper, which is interested in pulp and paper rights in Canada, I am informed has received federal funds. Some of the timing of the federal commitment for federal funds might be involved in postal problems, but when we have a conglomerate like ITT and see the problems they have south of the border I think we have to ask questions.
To avoid these matters coming up on a recurring basis it is not the minister's but the government's responsibility to define a code of ethics so that parliamentarians in the Senate and in the House and also top administrators will be able to discharge their duties without getting caught in this type of crossfire. I believe we should have a committee to look into this matter. There should be terms of disclosure of personal interest in any legislative or administrative acts. We should come at least as far as Britain has come, let alone the United States, and define very carefully a code of ethics so this will not happen again.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister has perhaps misconceived the problem. The problem is not the integrity of public servants. I and my colleagues certainly do not question the integrity of Mr. Mackay and Mr. Moody who I am sure are very decent Canadians trying to do a job as they see it. I think the long explanation the minister gave in order to try to clear these two men of any suggestion of improper action may have been necessary in his own mind, but that is not the point at all. The point is that the entire situation is such as to create doubt about what is happening in the department and in other departments. The point is that if you are going to do business with ITT it is wrong to have as deputy minister an ex-president of ITT. The point is that if the government is going to do a large business with ITT it is wrong to have a senior official of the department seconded to ITT. These are the issues.
If the minister or the government tells me this is the only source for the equipment or the only company to which to send someone I tell them that they are downgrading Canada a great deal too much. There are other areas where these people could go and there are other firms where they could be trained. This cosy connection between the government and ITT of having a senior official there at the time the specification books arrive, when the specification books have to be studied, when the tender has to be made, this coincidence of a senior official of the department being there at that time seconded to the company-that is the kind of thing that creates problems and creates conflict of interest. No detailed statement about duties and all that will wash away the fact that there is a conflict of interest.
Anyone who has studied our society has long ago abandoned the notion that the company and the deputy minister or somebody from the department sit down in a smoke-filled room and cook up something. That is not the way it is done. It is done at luncheons. It is done at cocktail parties. It is done at dinners. It is done on the golf course and it is done in the boathouse. It is that kind of association that throws doubt on what is being done. Precisely because a government department is involved and tens of millions of dollars of the money of Canadian taxpayers, action must never be undertaken in a way

which may even remotely suggest the kind of thing that this action now suggests.
The hon. member who preceded me referred to ITT Rayonier in Quebec which has been offered $13.7 million by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I think of the fact that there are two members of the minister's advisory board who are officers of companies which have been offered grants of over $7 million. I think of the remission by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the previous Minister of Finance of $6 million to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited, a subsidiary of Sun Oil in Alberta-a $6 million Christmas gift, I think of the statement of one of the spokesman for the Liberal party in Ontario to the effect that 95 corporations finance the activities of the government party between elections and at election time, and I say I am thoroughly justified in suggesting that the cosiness between the government and corporations such as ITT is a disservice to Canada and a disgrace to the democratic system. This is what disturbs me.
Despite the detailed and elaborate statement the minister has made I want to express the hope that the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications which will be studying the department's estimates will not be satisfied with the details that the minister gave. He has referred to a number of documents and you, Sir, ruled the other day that documents which are quoted or to which reference is made should be laid on the table. I hope that when the committee discusses the department's estimates it will demand that the minister lay on the table the submission to Treasury Board, the studies carried out by the two departments to which he referred, the Department of Supply and Services and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the actual contract with ITT, the specification books for the two orders, Mr. Fultz's report on the Plessey equipment, and the tenders submitted by all bidders. We have to see all these documents in order to make certain that the specifications were not tailored to ITT possibilities.



NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN TREASURY BOARD AND UNIONS- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O.43

Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I would like to move a motion on a matter of pressing necessity. I ask for the consent of the House to propose a motion without notice in this regard. The urgency and the pressing nature of this matter concern the reasonable possibility of a cessation of postal services in Canada in the very near future. We are told that talks are now going on between Treasury Board and the postal unions, but the President of the Treasury Board has admitted that the board has not made a proposal on the essential issues of wages and job security guarantees. In the public interest there is urgency and a necessity that Treasury Board negotiate in good faith. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That this House instructs the President of the Treasury Board to report to the House on the status of the bargaining and the
March 6, 1972

proposals made by the Treasury Board to the postal unions on Tuesday and on each succeeding Tuesday until a collective agreement is signed.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Hamilton West. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis), as a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which I am sure the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion will understand:
That the rejection by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion of the Port Simpson Cannery proposal, as a project under the terms of the ARDA agreement with the province of British Columbia, be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for investigation and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion cannot be put.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Crouse: Is it the intention of the government to remove, at public expense, the E.B. Eddy Plant in Hull, Quebec and, if so, when will this action be taken and what is the anticipated cost of this environmental clean up?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: This question was answered by a statement from the Hon. Ron Basford to the House on February 21, 1972 to the effect that: (a) The E.B. Eddy Company will transfer roughly 44 acres of land to the National Capital Commission including most of the waterfront land on the north bank of the river across from Parliament Hill; (b) This
Questions
transfer will be made possible by the closing down of the Eddy sulphite and groundwood mills and its newsprint machine which will take place over the next few weeks;
(c)	In exchange for the transfer of land, and the commitments by the company, National Capital Commission will pay the company $29,500,000. (d) This is the first stage of a ten year plan to move the whole Eddy complex from its present location to a new site in the environs of Hull.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-NUMBER OF PERSONNEL IN RECEIPT OF PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20 per month (b) $20 to $29.99 per month (c) $30 to $39.99 per month (d) $40 to $49.99 per month (e) $50 to $59.99 per month (f) $60 to $69.99 per month (g) $70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80 to $89.99 per month (i) $90 to $99.99 per month (j) $100 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $249.99 per month (m) $250 to $299.99 per month (n) $300 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel are receiving pensions including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired Armed Forces personnel and also the number of widows of armed forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of Armed Forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) 3,
(b) 31, (c) 303, (d) 282, (e) 367, (f) 391, (g) 732, (h) 1,005, (i) 1,478, (j) 5,702, (k) 7,270, (1) 6,138, (m) 4,656, (n) 6,931.
2. (a) 0, (b) 7, (c) 21, (d) 185, (e) 277, (f) 308, (g) 259, (h) 357, (i) 302, (j) 837, (k) 401, (1) 219, (m) 130, (n) 77.
3.	Retired Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	109	14Prince Edward Island	254	27Nova Scotia	3,033	210New Brunswick	1,047	115Quebec	3,179	306Ontario	14,577	1,301Manitoba	1,417	206Saskatchewan	423	85Alberta	2,812	182British Columbia	7,224	714Yukon and N.W.T.	62	0Outside Canada	1,152	220
4. 83; $35.72.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-SUPERANNUATION ACCOUNT
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount of money in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1969 (b) March 31, 1970 (c) March 31,1971?

March 6, 1972
Questions
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1969 (b) March 31, 1970 (c) March 31,1971?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1969 (b) March 31,1970 (c) March 31,1971?


Edgar John Benson: 1, 3
and 4. This information is tabled in the House annually in accordance with Revised Statutes, and also appears annually in the Public Accounts.
2. See reply to your question No. 72 in Hansard, page 543-4, 26 October, 1970. Interest paid since then is as follows: Quarter ending September 1970, 1.3262 percent; December 1970, 1.3427 percent; March 1971, 1.3597 percent.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-NUMBER IN RECEIPT OF PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year 1959 to 1971, both inclusive (a) how many personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces have commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (b) how many widows have commenced drawing pensions under the said act?
2.	In the same years, how many pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (a) to retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel (b) to widows of such personnel, have been discontinued because of the death of the annuitant?
3.	In each year 1946 to 1971, both inclusive, how many service personnel contributed to the pension or annuity account under the former Part V or under the provisions of the present Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?


Edgar John Benson: 1.	(a) Former	(b)Year	CF Personnel	Widows1959	752	981960	1,048	1211961	1,418	1661962	1,343	1791963	1,623	2071964	2,454	2081965	3,419	2831966	3,407	2631967	2,983	3031968	2,787	3031969	4,050	3711970	4,075	3231971 4,267 	3752.	(a)	[DOT] (b)Former	Year	CF Personnel	Widows1959	91	91960	103	121961	114	171962	127	191963	142	261964	169	281965	190	341966	208	391967	243	451968	295	561969	353	501970	356	521971	331	243. As the exact number of contributors to the C.F.S.A. account cannot be identified the following statistics are the strength in the Armed Forces as at March 31 of each year: 1946, 212,692; 1947, 36,535; 1948, 34,762; 1949, 41,676; 1950, 47,185; 1951, 68,427; 1952, 95,394; 1953, 104,427; 1954, 112,529;	1955,	118,077;	1956,	116,678;	1957,	117,092;	1958,119,038;	1959,	120,412;	1960,	119,597;	1961,	120,055;	1962,126,474;	1963,	123,694;	1964,	120,781;	1965,	114,164;	1966,107,467;	1967,	105,584;	1968,	101,572;	1969,	98,340;	1970
93,353; 1971, 89,563.


RCMP-OVERTIME PAY
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	Do members of the RCMP receive overtime pay under any special circumstances or conditions?
2.	When members of the RCMP are required to work overtime, is any sort of compensation made such as additional time off?
3.	Is there any limit on the amount of overtime that a constable in the RCMP is required to work?
4.	How do the average hours of work in fact put in by a constable in the RCMP compare with the actual hours of work put in by a constable in the Ontario Provincial Police or a constable on a metropolitan police force, such as Toronto?
5.	Are there any areas in Canada where constables in the RCMP are obliged to put in as many as 300 hours per month on a reasonably regular basis?
6.	Are there any areas in Canada, such as British Columbia where the RCMP are carrying out provincial responsibilities where constables are required to work as much as 300 hours per month?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: 1. No, however, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police currently has projects underway in several areas of Canada for the purpose of examining the amount of overtime being worked by its members.
2.	Additional time off may be granted on an informal basis.
3.	No; however, no one is expected to work overtime to an extent that would be detrimental to his health.
4.	The Royal Canadian Mounted Police do not maintain statistical data on the actual number of hours worked by other police forces.
5.	No.
6.	Yes, there have been a few isolated instances in some areas of Canada where abnormal situations existed.
March 6, 1972


&quot;LAST OAK&quot; DEVELOPMENT
Mr. McIntosh: 1.	Was the "Last Oak" Development on the four Indian Reserves in the Broadview are undertaken by DREE for the benefit of the Indians?
2.	What amount has been spent to date on the project known as "Last Oak Park"?
3.	What amount has been spent on legal fees connected with this project?
4.	What amount has been spent on engineering fees connected with this project?
5.	What amount has been paid to contractors not considered to be reserve contractors?
6.	What is the amount estimated for administrative costs by the government on this project?
7.	What amount have the Indian people received in direct salaries?
8.	What are the names of the members of the Board of Control on the "Last Oak" project?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. Yes. Under the terms of an agreement signed with the province of Saskatchewan, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion contributes approximately 90 per cent of the estimated costs of the project. However, responsibility for its implementation rests with the Last Oak Development Corporation which is composed of Indian representatives and is responsible for all expenditures and records relating to the recreation facilities planned for the park.
2.	The Department of Regional Economic Expansion has reimbursed the province of Saskatchewan $123,944.41 for claims in respect of the planning and initial development of facilities in this project.
3.	This is the responsibility of the Last Oak Development Corporation, which was incorporated under the Saskatchewan Companies Act in February 1969. The inquiry should, therefore, be addressed to the provincial government.
4.	See answer to part 3.
5.	See answer to part 3.
6.	The estimated costs, as provided in the agreement, for provincial government staff are $52,000.
7.	See answer to part 3.
8.	The members of the Last Oak Development Corporation, who have responsibility for this project are: Mr. Jack Belanger, Ochapowace Band; Mr. Alfred Louison, Kah-kewistahaw Band; Mr. Edwin Pelletier, Cowessess Band; Mr. Joseph Williams, Sakimay Band; Mr. Samuel Watson, Ochapowace Band; Mr. William Francis, Kahkewistahaw Band; Mr. Victor Sparvier, Cowessess Band; Mr. Riel Acoose, Sakimay Band.


DEATH PENALTY
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	(a) How many death sentences were imposed by the courts from January 1, 1967 to December 15, 1971 (b) how many sentences were executed (c) how many sentences were commuted?
2.	For what crime was each of these persons sentenced to death?
Questions
3.	(a) What are the names of those sentenced to death who have received a commutation (b) what was the date of the Order in Council connected with each commutation?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1. (a) Thirteen, (b) None; (c) Eleven. In two cases, subsequent to the imposition of the death sentence, the verdict was altered on further legal proceedings.
2.	Murder, in each case.
3.
Douglas J. Booth	(b) January 4,	1968Rene E. Castellani	January 4,	1968Jean-Jacques Boivin	January 4,	1968David A. DeLeon	January 4,	1968Henri Boivin	January 4,	1968Herbert M. Myers	January 4,	1968Harold A. Ortt	January 4,	1968Ovila Boulet	January 4,	1968Leonard Otto Borg	July 3, 1969	Clifford Wickett Lurvey	December !	23, 1970William R. Rosik	February	4, 1971


STORAGE OF BUTTER
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): 1.	As of October 31, 1971, what quantity of butter was in storage?
2.	Is this quantity more or less than that in storage as of October 31, 1970 and, if so, what is the difference?


Mr. Bruce Howard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada reports that: 1. The quantity of butter in storage as of November 1, 1971, was 68,761,000 pounds.
2. November 1, 1971 stock holdings were 48,805,000 pounds less than that in storage as of November 1, 1970.


NUMBER OF RETIRED CANADIAN ARMY OFFICERS
Mr. Latulippe: How many Canadian Army Officers are retired and what was their average pension during the year 1971?


Edgar John Benson: Since the amalgamation of the three elements of the Canadian Forces, separate statistics are not maintained and it is not possible to say how many Army officers have retired. However, at present there are 9,299 retired regular force officers. The number of officers who retired but who are not drawing pensions is not known. In addition, a number of retired officers are employed in the Public Service and have their pensions abated in accordance with the provisions of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act. In order to ascertain the average pension paid in 1971 it would necessitate going through the records of approximately 40,000 pensioners as ranks are not shown. The necessary expert staff is not available to undertake the, large amount of work which would be required to gather the necessary information.

March 6, 1972
Questions


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-PRODUCTION OF &quot;MAIL EARLY-IT FEELS GOOD&quot; PAMPHLET
Mr. Coates: 1.	Did the Queen's Printer produce the pamphlet for the Post Office Department entitled, "Mail Early-It feels Good" and if not (a) who did produce it (b) was a contract issued and, if so (i) were tenders called (ii) was more than one bid submitted (iii) what was the name of the successful contractor (iv) what was the amount of the contract?
2.	How many colour combinations were involved in the production of this pamphlet and what additional expense would be involved in the use of the additional colours over the basic number required in the production of the pamphlet?
3.	Was the reproduction of the painting containing "Seasons Greetings produced by the Post Office Department or was it the reproduction of an artist's creation and if so, who was the artist, is he Canadian, and what fee had to be paid to the artist for the reproduction of his painting?
4.	How many "Mail Early-It Feels Good" pamphlets were produced and distributed and what was the total cost of both production and distribution?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: 1. No. (a)
Montreal Lithograph, Montreal, P.Q.; (b) Yes; (i) Yes; (ii) Yes; (iii) As stated in (a); (iv) $54,100.
2.	The basic graphic design warranted four colour process as requisitioned and contracted.
3.	Yes, the artwork was produced internally by the Post Office.
4.	2,200,250; Total cost of production, $59,854.26; Total cost of distribution, $3,957.05.


DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT-PERSONNEL
Mr. Marshall: Of the approximately 3,000 people working for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who were transferred or have left the Department in each of the past two years, approximately how many were (a) casuals (b) transferred to the Northwest Territories Government?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Approximately 1,900 casual employees were terminated in each of the past two years. Five hundred and fifty-two employees were transferred to the government of the Northwest Territories in the past two years.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-TASK FORCE REPORT ON SUMMER PROJECTS
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Has a task force been set up to review the summer projects of the Opportunities for Youth Program and, if so (a) by whose authority was the task force appointed (b) who are the members of such force?
2.	Is it the intention to publish the full report without prior editing and, if not, will a synopsis of the report be published?
3.	Is it the intention to send the report to a Parliamentary Committee for consideration?
(Translation]


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. (a) A task force was established by the Secretary of State to provide

an evaluation of the department's student summer programs. (b) The senior staff of the evaluation task force were: Mr. Andrew Cohen (Task Force Coordinator); Mr. Claude Gousse (Quebec Coordinator); Mr. Jonathan Cloud (Research Coordinator); Mr. Henry Green (Research Design & Analysis); Mr. Charles Barber; Miss Michele Lepage; Miss Bette Byers; Mr. Pierre Desrosier; Miss Louise Fortin; Mr. Peter Eddison; Mr. Lewis Levin; Mr. Brian Lewis; Miss Louise Beaulieu; Mr. Keith Aird.
Management consultants were Mr. Gilles Ouellette and Mr. George Forsyth of the University of Western Ontario. Approximately 15 technical and secretarial staff provide support services, and a number of personnel were hired on a short-term basis to conduct interviews during the month of August. The advisory board to the task force was composed of the following: Mr. Mel Green, Senior Research Assistant, Commission on the Non-medical Use of Drugs; Miss Lillian Thomson, former Director of Family and Child Welfare Division, Canadian Council on Social Development, and author of the Council's series of reports on transient youth; Mr. William Zimmerman, Assistant Director, Ottawa Social Planning Council.
2.	From the data developed by the evaluation task force, a report was drawn up by the Systems Research Group Inc., and was tabled on December 6, 1971. For hon. members who might be interested in a more detailed analysis, this should be available before the end of the month.
3.	No.

CBC-EMPLOYMENT OF INDIANS, ESKIMOS AND M&TIS


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	For each year 1961 to 1970, by province and territory, how many (a) Indians (b) Eskimos (c) Metis were employed (i) full-time (ii) part-time by CBC radio and television broadcasting industry?
2.	For each fiscal year 1969/70 and 1970/71, how many (a) Indians (b) Eskimos (c) Metis did CBC lay off for want of funds?


Gérard Pelletier: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: The Corporation does not have this personnel information. Under the Canada Labour Code, questions as to race and national origin, colour or religion are not permitted to be asked.


BUTTER IMPORTS
Mr. Rodrigue: 1.	How many pounds of butter did Canada import between April 1, 1971 and December 15,1971?
2.	From what countries was butter imported?
3.	Is it the intention of the government to import butter between December 15, 1971 and March 31, 1972 and, if so (a) in what quantities (b) at what average cost?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by Statistics Canada and the Department of Agriculture as follows: 1. Information as requested is not available, however, Canada imported 3,083,800 pounds of butter between April 1, 1971 and the end of December, 1971.
March 6, 1972

2.	In this period, butter was imported from New Zealand and the United States.
3.	Yes (a) 10,600,000 pounds, (b) 521 cents per pound f.o.b. storage point.


ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning the unpublished report, Summer 1971, an evaluation task force report, at least parts of which are reported to have been leaked to the Citizen today. The report was supposed to have been completed in December at a cost of some $400,000. Has the Prime Minister any reason he can give to the House why this task force report has not been tabled in the House or made public, although I understand that the deadline for applications for new projects for 1972 is about to expire?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Unfortunately, I have not read the Citizen yet and I am not aware of the task force to which the hon. member is referring.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I express the hope that in future-


An hon. Member:: Question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -these reports will be leaked to the Prime Minister as well as the public.


Mr. Hees:: It is a special department of Information Canada.


Mr. Forrestall:: That is a squeak, not a leak.


An hon. Member:: You know what happened to Morison.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would give the House the assurance that this task force report will be made public, as has frequently been promised by the Secretary of State, particularly in view of the highly critical nature of the task force report with regard to last summer's programs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In his supplementary question the Leader of the Opposition still has not indicated what task force report he is referring to. I asked the ministers around me and nothing is apparent from the hon. member's question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the Prime Minister and the ministers around him would listen they would know that I described the task force report at the outset of my question as being the Summer 1971, evaluation task force report. It is the task force report on the 1971 summer program. The Prime Minister can smile about it but I do not think he will smile quite as much when he sees the paper.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We did a lot of things in the summer of 1971, and I would be interested to know what this evaluation is all about.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If it will help the Prime Minister it concerns the youth program for the summer. I am asking the Prime Minister for an assurance that this task force report will be published now. Apparently it has been buried for some three months.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will gladly look into the matter now that the question is clear.



TAXATION


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Finance one or two questions arising from the question I asked about a week ago with respect to the $6 million remission of sales tax to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited. Have other companies made application for such remissions and have such remissions been made by Order in Council under section 17 of the Financial Administration Act, I believe it is, or under any other act that I may not know about?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition asked me that question last week and I undertook to ascertain whether there were any other similar applications for remissions. I am advised there are none.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the minister undertake to lay on the table a list of any applications made for remissions under section 17 of the Financial Administration Act, and any decisions to remit such money? I appreciate that I can find the Orders in Council by going through all the copies of the Canada Gazette, but perhaps the minister would table such a list for the information of hon. members and the country, say for the years since April, 1968.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will not give any undertaking to submit the applications. After all, it only becomes a valid situation when an Order in Council is passed. The hon. member has suggested that Orders in Council are public documents, but I will arrange that the public documents be collected for his convenience.



SALES TAX REMISSION TO GREAT CANADIAN OIL SANDS


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance would not have authority over other departments may I direct this supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister have someone check into the question whether Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited or Sun Oil Company, its parent American

March 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
corporation, or any subsidiary of Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited or of Sun Oil Company Limited has received grants from any other department of government, whether the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce under the various programs they administer, or from any other department?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister may wish to reply to the question, but the hon. member will appreciate that a question as far-ranging as this one is normally placed on the order paper. The hon. member is asking for very detailed information covering many departments. I respectfully suggest to him that normally such a question would be placed on the order paper, but that having been said, perhaps the Prime Minister may wish to reply to the hon. member.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I agree with you, Mr. Speaker, and my answer to the question is yes.



SUGGESTED REMISSION TO COMPANIES AND MUNICIPALITIES OF SALES TAX PAID ON PRODUCTION MACHINERY BETWEEN 1963 AND 1967

George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the government believes it is justified in making a remission of $6 million to Great Canadian Oil Sands Limited because of financial hardship incurred through paying sales tax on production machinery between 1963 and 1967, is it undertaking or will it undertake a review of all cases where companies or municipalities paid sales tax on production machinery during those four years to satisfy itself whether or not any other instances of financial hardship occurred, and in those cases will othe government remit the sales tax involved?


John Napier Turner: I can only say in answer to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that this case was treated on its merits.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have to move on. We have spent quite a bit of time on this question. The hon. member for Portneuf.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, as it appears satisfactory to make a remission to a very large company, is it not sensible to look into the cases of all municipalities and companies that might have had similar difficulties, and see if it is not worth while to pay them a remission also-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

I apologize to the hon. member for Portneuf. It was him who was recognized. The hon. member for Portneuf.
[Mr. Lewis.)



MANPOWER


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a question.
Since, in order to have access to the Local Initiatives Program, municipalities had to have architects or even engineers draft their projects, could the minister tell us whether the government intends to give special grants to some municipalities which have spent thousands of dollars to draft projects that were rejected?


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-INQUIRY AS TO INDEPENDENT AUDIT AND EVALUATION-EARLY PUBLICATION OF REPORT

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is somewhat supplementary to the first questions asked with regard to the partly leaked report of the Cohen group on last summer's youth program. It is directed to the Minister of Labour. The minister indicated this morning at the meeting with the Canadian Labour Congress that in light of the request by the CLC he would be prepared to have an independent audit of both the LIP program and the opportunities for youth program, and that a similar audit might exist for LIP as existed last summer for the youth program. Can the minister indicate if this audit study has been established, what its terms of reference are, and whether its terms of reference will allow such audit to be in fact independent and public?


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the establishment of an independent audit to do a thorough review and evaluation of the LIP program is now in an advanced stage.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Now that the Prime Minister's memory has been refreshed, I wonder what steps he may be taking, along with his colleagues, to ensure speedier performance in the publication of such evaluation and to ensure that there will be an objective report which will not suffer the early editing that the Cohen report suffered in September?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wants to ask a question that is acceptable procedurally he should not submit one that contains argument. Perhaps the hon. member may want to rephrase his question. Otherwise I will have to go to the next questioner.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry you viewed that question as argumentative. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether or not steps are being taken to provide a public forum in which there can be an objective
March 6, 1972

report on the effectiveness and the sufficiency in meeting goals of the local initiatives program as well as the opportunities for youth program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly look into that matter, just as I undertook to look into the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition once he had clarified his question.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF GRANT TO SCENE AFTER SCENE FREE THEATRE

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour regarding the LIP program. In light of the fact that a $40,000 grant under the LIP program has been given to the Scene After Scene Free Theatre in Dundas, Ontario, to produce plays that allegedly oppose the political, economic and social systems upheld by the government and intending to propagandize communism, would the minister at the earliest opportunity, preferably forthwith, look into this matter in order to ascertain whether or not this project meets the criteria of the program, what in fact were the criteria set for this group, and report back to the House immediately?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, this matter was brought to my attention this morning by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: For a very good reason.


Mr. O'Connell:: I have been looking into it and I have asked for a full review and report. The project was monitored on February 21 and will remain under continuous review. At that time it was said to be proceeding within the contract requirements. I agree with the hon. member, as we all do, that anyone who is reported in the press as being interested in agitational propaganda is of very little interest to us. We are going to review that project.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask just one supplementary question. In view of the seriousness of this allegation, since we understand that the purpose of the LIP program is to produce work, and since I believe that the grant is to be made in five payments, will the minister assure the House that further payments will be withheld until such time as he can report fully to the House on the conclusions that have been reached?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Yes, Mr. Speaker. However, I do wish to report that the first payment, which is normally just an advance payment, has been made. No further payments have yet been made, and we will be looking at the project in the meantime.
Inquiries of the Ministry REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION



ALLEGED INCOMPATIBILITY OF STATISTICS ON EMPLOYMENT PROVIDED

Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Would the minister indicate why the level of actual employment in 1971 due to "all new facilities assisted under ADIA" is 19,269 jobs in his department's publication, "Statistical Review of Regional Development Incentive Activity," dated February, 1972, compared with a total of estimated employment standing at 58,782 in the annual report of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion for 1970-71?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that this kind of question is not in order. This is debate. The hon. member is inviting the minister to debate a point rather than seeking information. Perhaps the hon. member might try to rephrase the question and ask it more directly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rephrase the question by asking the minister to explain the difference which exists in the departmental publication estimating the number of jobs created under ADIA or RDIA to April at 50 per cent less than the figure he takes credit for in his annual report, which is a public document?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, since I noticed last week that the hon. member is not able to read statistics, I will read his question carefully, check the figures and then give him an answer.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that my reading is perhaps a little better than his because I am quoting from a departmental document which he apparently has not read. I would ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a supplementary I would ask him to put it. We cannot embark on a debate between the member and the minister.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask by way of a supplementary question if the technique of his department in trying to evaluate the number of jobs created under RDIA or ADIA is to contact successful applicants across the country by telephone? Does he think that this actually constitutes an accurate evaluation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Regina East.



INDUSTRIAL INCENTIVES ADVISORY BOARD-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF MINUTES BEARING ON MEMBERS' POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of some questions I asked him last

March 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
week concerning the operations and activities of the Industrial Incentives Advisory Board, can the minister now tell us if this board keeps minutes of its meetings? Also, in view of some of the questions that have arisen, would the minister care to table the minutes of the meetings of the board or such portions of the minutes of the meetings of the board that concern matters where the possibility of a conflict of interest might arise?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware whether the council, which acts only as an advisory body to ministers, keeps any minutes. I shall inquire into the matter and inform the House, in reply to this "substantive" question, whether I can table the documents.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is making his inquiries and looking into the matter, would he also inquire into the methods of operation of the board when situations arise in which there is a possibility of conflict of interest? Does the person involved leave that meeting, refrain from discussion or abstain from voting on a recommendation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR WHEAT-REPRESENTATIONS CONCERNING METHOD OF PAYMENT

Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Welcome though the $60 million anticipated payment to Canadian farmers may be under the guise of a domestic two-price system for wheat, may I ask whether the minister has received representations from the prairie pools to the effect that the proposed method of payment does not reflect a fair proposition to wheat farmers? If so, will the problem be discussed further with farm organizations before the payment policy is finally determined?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, representations were received from certain officials in at least several of the pools which might have led to a different conclusion for distribution than the one that was adopted. However, representations from individual pool committees as well as many farmers and farm organizations favoured the formula that we actually used.



TWO-PRICE SYSTEM FOR WHEAT-DATE OF PAYMENT TO FARMERS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the government has now announced the method by which it will make the payments, when can the farmers expect these payments so they can reduce their indebtedness and thereby save some interest on long-term debts?


An hon. Member:: That's how they hope to win the election.


Stanley James Korchinski: You can forget that.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the announcement on the method of distribution, we expect the first distribution to be made in the spring.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister. Will there be a supplementary estimate between now and the end of March to take care of this particular matter?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is the intention.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Now that the honeymoon couple has been located with ease in Barcelona, and in view of reports that certain moves were made prior to the release of Geoffroy, will the minister now reconsider his position and direct the holding of a judicial inquiry?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the opposition has drawn my attention for the last two months to discrepancies and irregularities which they claim have been happening in my department and they have been unable to date, to substantiate to my satisfaction any discrepancy or irregularity. They have brought to my attention a lot of rumors and fabrications.
Until such time as a discrepancy or an irregularity has been substantiated, I do not think an inquiry is necessary and our only concern is to bring Mr. and Mrs. Geoffroy back to Canada to face trial.


J. Michael Forrestall: Nonsense.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the statement just made by the minister-he judges his own facts-I wonder if he would, at a convenient time, since the question of extradition may be involved here, make a full statement to the House once again about this matter? I do not want my question to be argumentative, but the minister said that if there were irregularities or illegalities the matter would be looked into and I submit he is judging these matters himself.


An hon. Member:: And so are you.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have never hesitated to answer any question directed by the opposition on the subject of the authorization given to Mr. Geoffroy to leave the penitentiary to get married. I have always declined to
March 6, 1972

answer the question of the opposition regarding the police inquiry and I believe I was right.
[EnglishJ



METHOD OF EXTRADITION OF YVES GEOFFROY AND WIFE FROM SPAIN

Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Solicitor General can tell the House under what treaty or other arrangement the extradition of this couple back to Canada will be sought?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think that the question should be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I redirect my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have a treaty with Spain for the mutual surrender of fugitive criminals which was signed in London on June 4, 1878.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Signed by whom?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: It must have been signed by Sir John A. Macdonald himself.



THE BUDGET


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, if I may jump from the past to the future, may I ask the Minister of Finance if he is now sufficiently comfortable in his new and exciting role and challenging job to be able to tell the House whether he is going to bring in a budget before Easter?


John Napier Turner: Not that comfortable, Mr. Speaker.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the Financial Administration Act provides that the report of the Auditor General shall be laid before the House of Commons by the minister on or before December 31 or, if parliament is not then in session, within 15 days after the commencement of the next ensuing session, and since this
Inquiries of the Ministry
is the eighteenth day of the present session, why has this report not been laid before parliament. What excuse, if any, is there for this breach of the law?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to discuss this matter with the office and look into it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You understood the question, did you?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Did you? Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear questions which, when asked for the first time, are clear as the hon. member's invariably are.


George Harris Hees: Let us have a clear answer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of noise and I do not think the Prime Minister answered the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I did, Mr. Speaker. I said that I would undertake to look into it.



MANPOWER


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Can the acting minister confirm the statement of the Acting Prime Minister last week that the $26,000 local initiatives program grant to a project of a group called the Process of the Final Judgment was endorsed by the YMCA, the Bank of Montreal, the Ontario Department of Health, the Toronto Doctors Hospital and the centre for the mentally retarded? Also, can the minister table whatever endorsations these respective institutions gave this project?


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have read the letters which, in some cases, are an endorsation of the project and in other cases from the people operating the project. I would have no objection to tabling them, but out of courtesy perhaps I ought to clear this with the persons who have submitted the half dozen or so letters. If the hon. member will see me in person, I will be delighted to show them to him.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I thank the minister for offering to show me the correspondence personally. Perhaps later this week the minister can confirm whether or not he will be able to table them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I will not make any motion at this time, but having in mind the very brilliant judgment which the Chair made on the

March 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
application of the hon. member for Calgary North it might well be that the minister might consider he has a duty to table these documents.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member says he is not making a motion now. If he reads the precedents and the ruling to which he referred, he will note that it has reference to documents quoted, and not documents to which reference is made. In any event, the question is theoretical at the present time. The hon. member knows that is the distinction.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Secretary of State for External Affairs quoted from them.



POST OFFICE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: My question is to the Postmaster General. It arises out of the statement he made this afternoon with regard to the two contracts given to ITT Canada Limited. With reference to both the first contract on which there were five bids and the second contract on which there were two bids, was ITT Canada Limited the lowest tenderer for both of these contracts?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I believe I said in my statement a while ago that, over a 15-year period, the total cost of the second contract would be lower, that is with ITT, because their equipment requires less space, fewer machines and operators, etc.
With regard to the first contract, two companies put in bids; these were almost identical but the cost of the ITT equipment was lower than that of Telefunken.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact the tenders were accepted and therefore, I presume, met the specifications, may I ask the minister if the lowest tender was accepted in each case?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: In the case of the first call for tenders, Mr. Speaker, bids were received from five companies, two of which offerred to put at our disposal equipment corresponding to our specifications. The lower of these two was that of ITT Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I again bring to the attention of hon. members that we will soon be running short of time. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley, but there should not be too many sup-plementaries if we want to proceed in an efficient manner.



CONTRACT TO ITT-POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION OF JACK MOODY IN DEVELOPMENT OF SPECIFICATIONS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: One brief supplementary. May I ask the minister if Mr. Jack Moody, who worked for the minister's department and later was assigned to ITT Canada Limited, had any part in preparing the specifications sent to the various companies?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I will have to repeat what I said a while ago: Mr. Moody has never helped to prepare those specifications. The first ones were drawn up in November 1970 and Mr. Moody joined ITT in September 1971. He was therefore not an employee of that company when the specifications were drawn up and he was in no way involved.



CONTRACT TO ITT-ALLEGED LOWER BID BY PLESSEY

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Regardless of 15 years in the future, but solely on the basis of the specifications that were sent in effect to two eventual bidders, is it a fact there was a $30 million difference between the bid that was accepted from ITT Canada Limited and the Plessey bid?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I did not refer to $30 million. I said that if the contract had not been passed with ITT, from a budgetary point of view it would have cost the Post Office Department an additional amount of $18 million over a 15-year period.
As far as the price of equipment is concerned, I think that the Plessey equipment was cheaper, but since it was much slower that ITT's, it would have been costlier to operate.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: With reference to the specifications that were sent out, is it correct to say that, regardless of the speed of putting letters through the mechanical equipment, on the basis of dollar difference there was approximately $30 million or more between the ITT bid and the Plessey bid?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look at the figures. I do not have them in front of me, but I can supply the information to the hon. member.



MANPOWER


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Finance.
March 6, 1972

It seems that, since last week, Mr. Speaker, we have been putting several questions about local initiative projects. It should be realized that this is very urgent, especially concerning projects which some municipalities have already submitted and which should normally be in force during the month of March.
This is why I should like to have answers to all the questions raised last week and, among others, this one: Do local initiative projects submitted after January 6 by municipalities stand a chance to be accepted even though there are no more funds for this purpose?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have been unable to identify this precise date or precise projects. I invite the hon. member to meet with me following the question period so that we can come to an understanding about what we are speaking.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that Her Majesty the Queen is the honorary commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the fact that this year the RCMP is to celebrate the centenary of its founding, what consideration is being given by the government or what action is being taken to invite Her Majesty to attend these ceremonies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not involved in the planning of the ceremonies. However, I know that the force itself is making plans. The Solicitor General has discussed these with me in a general way. I do not know of any indication that they have asked to have Her Majesty invited at this time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In light of the experience by the Prime Minister and other ministers with regard to the time required to negotiate arrangements for a Royal visit of this kind, does the Prime Minister not think it is time to do something about such an event?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the House may have in mind that there is a question of inviting Her Majesty for the centennial of a province next year. These plans have already been under discussion between myself and the premier of that province. It is conceivable that some idea will be brought forward to see if Her Majesty can perform any other duties at that time.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigra-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tion. Is the minister yet in a position to advise when the report of the Bryden committee, which is studying the Public Service Staff Relations Act, will be made public or made known to the public?


Abram Ernest Epp: No, I am
not, Mr. Speaker. I will make inquiries into that, first as to whether it is to be made public and, second, when.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West on a supplementary question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is a related question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is only related the hon. member may wish to give other hon. members, who have been trying rather diligently and anxiously to ask questions, an opportunity to do so.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I wish to direct my question to whoever is answering today for the Minister of Agriculture. Have the members of the Farm Products Marketing Council yet been appointed, as provided some time ago in the marketing bill, and, if this has not yet been done, when will they be appointed?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member that they have not yet been appointed but these appointments will likely be made very soon.


Robert Elgin McKinley: Can the parliamentary secretary advise us whether producers of any particular commodity have asked for an agency to be set up to regulate that commodity?


Marcel Lessard: I should like to check before answering that specific question. I know there has been a good deal of discussion of this subject, but I am not sure whether there has been a specific application.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the government presently discussing with the provinces and the municipalities the creation of land banks in the cores or downtown areas of our cities and metropolitan areas?


Stanley Ronald Basford: There is already a program for land acquisition by prov-
544

March 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
inces and municipalities with federal support under the terms of sections 40 and 42 of the National Housing Act.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Is the minister looking carefully into the new federal program in the United States under which $5 billion is being set aside for the purpose of setting up land banks of the kind to which I have referred?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister. Has his attention been drawn to the fact that nine or ten Canadian pharmaceutical organizations or companies were recently taken over by United States corporations with the result that some 90 per cent of pharmaceutical shipments are now shipments by United States controlled pharmaceutical companies in Canada? If so, is the right hon. gentleman giving this matter any attention in relation to the policy which is to be announced eventually?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, my attention has not been drawn to that situation. Therefore the answer to the second part of the question is no.


David Lewis: A supplementary question


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might ask a supplementary question, since there are only three or four minutes left before the end of the question period and I must again point out that a number of hon. members have not had a chance to ask a question, let alone a supplementary.


David Lewis: I merely wanted to ask the Prime Minister whether the last two weeks have provided him with an opportunity to decide when government policy on foreign ownership might be announced, or whether he is still not in a position to give us any indication of a likely on-or-about date when we may expect such an announcement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The latter, Mr. Speaker.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The eleventh annual Canadian hydrographic conference was held in Ottawa last week and the event attracted a good attendance of United States hydrogra-phers. Since there is some uncertainty concerning the exact position of the border between Canada and the fMr. Basford.]
United States in the area of Georges Bank off the coast of Nova Scotia, will the minister tell us whether this matter has been discussed with the Americans recently and, in view of possible oil reserves in this area, when we may anticipate a report on this important boundary?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to take notice of the question. Discussions have been going on from time to time. I am not certain, though, when the most recent of them took place, so I would ask for the indulgence of the hon. member to take the question as notice.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development I would direct this question to the parliamentary secretary. It arises out of a function which was held in Edmonton recently at which schoolchildren presented Premier Kosygin with a muskox, at which time the Russian premier expressed the intention of purchasing muskox from Canada. May I ask whether requests by Canadians who have already expressed interest in starting enterprises, or have applied for the necessary permission, connected with the raising of muskox will be looked after before we sell any of these animals to the Russians?


Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I will take notice of the question, Mr. Speaker.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister inform the House when new legislation in connection with family allowances will be presented? Since he has already admitted that the new plan cannot be implemented by the original target date, can he advise us what the new target date will be?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: We hope to bring the legislation before the House fairly soon. The date on which the new cheques can come into pay will depend on how rapidly the legislation is dealt with.
March 6, 1972



CANADIAN BROADCASTING COMPANY


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
As CBC technicians are playing the fools and the Canadian public, particularly in the province of Quebec, is quite upset by their behaviour, does the government intend to take any action in order either to give service to the people or, as the Prime Minister said, to close the shop, on the double?


Abram Ernest Epp: Perhaps I should answer that question as Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. I do not think there is any intention to intervene in the way the hon. gentleman has mentioned, but I would point out that mediators from the Department of Labour have now succeeded in bringing the two parties together for discussion of all the outstanding issues. The parties met regularly all last week and talks are continuing today.



REQUEST FROM WIRE SERVICE GUILD FOR PERMISSION TO PROSECUTE CORPORATION

John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received a request from the Canadian Wire Service Guild seeking permission to prosecute or sue the CBC for an action amounting to an illegal walk-out?


An hon. Member:: Walk-out?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: If so, what was the nature of the hon. gentleman's reply?


Abram Ernest Epp: I have such a wire. I would have to look it up in order to see what reply I made to them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Napier Turner: that Bill C-4, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from January 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972, 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
CNR and Air Canada
the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, financing and guarantee bills, including the present one, have been introduced annually with the exception of the 1963 bill which covered 1962 and 1963, and the 1966 bill which covered 1965 and 1966. The present bill is basically the same as in previous years. It sets out, in summary form, the amounts of CNR's capital expenditures for 1971 as presented in its capital budget for that year totalling $219,800,000. This level of expenditures compares with $229,000,000 authorized in 1970. The bill also states that Canadian National Railways is authorized to make expenditures not exceeding $83,000,000 between January 1 and July 1, 1972 for obligations incurred prior to January 1, 1972 and to enter into contracts before July 1, 1972 for capital expenditures not exceeding $162,000,000 for which payment will not come due until after 1971.
The bill is intended to achieve six main objectives most of which have had similar expression in previous financing and guarantee bills.
First, the bill contains provisions authorizing Canadian National Railways to borrow up to $27,000,000 for financing branch line construction. This amount includes the financing of branch lines in excess of 20 miles authorized by special statute as well as the financing of those lines under 20 miles which do not require special legislation. By covering all branch lines, the provision in the bill is consistent with the intent of reflecting in the financing and guarantee bill all the financing authorities which Canadian National Railways require.
Second, the bill provides for the continued purchase by the Minister of Finance of Canadian National Railways' 4 per cent preferred stock through to the end of the calendar year 1972. This continues the practice of previous financing and guarantee acts. The 1970 Financing and Guarantee Act extended to December 31, 1971 the expiry date of the authority granted by the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act of 1952 for the purchase of such stock equivalent to 3 per cent of the company's gross revenue.
Third, as in previous years the bill provides authority for the government to make temporary advances to Canadian National Railways and Air Canada to meet deficiencies in operating revenues up to June 30, 1972. Such advances are repaid later in the year from the companies' revenues. If these prove inadequate, the insufficiency is covered by a parliamentary appropriation.
Fourth, the bill contains an option similar to that contained in the 1970 Financing and Guarantee Act which would enable Air Canada to borrow $114 million prior to July 1, 1972 either directly from Her Majesty or by means of a guaranteed public issue. It also would renew the authority for the Minister of Finance to guarantee debentures amounting to 13 million pounds to be issued in the period May 1, 1972 to December 31, 1976 by Air Canada in accordance with contractual obligations assumed by the airline prior to July 1, 1972.

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
Fifth, the bill contains a clause to increase to one billion dollars the limit on the amount of substituted securities that may be issued by the CNR in respect of any refunding pursuant to provisions of the CNR Refunding Act, 1955. The Financing and Guarantee Act of 1964 raised that ceiling to $680 million. The further increase of $320 million proposed in this bill would make adequate provision should a decision be taken to replace with longer term financing the temporary government loans authorized under section 7 of the 1955 refunding act.
Finally, the bill would provide for the appointment of the firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. of the cities of Toronto and Montreal, chartered accountants, as auditors of Canadian National Railways for the calendar year 1972.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, once again this House is being asked to rubber stamp its approval of the expenditures of certain crown corporations during the past year. Once again we are being asked indirectly to approve the actions of these corporations during the past year, even though all members of the House know that we have little or no control over the policies of these corporations. In fact, about the only time that we hear from them is when they come to this House looking for money to pay their bills.
The fact that this annual exercise in futility has been going on for years does not make it any more valid. The fact that year after year members of the House deplore the custom of voting moneys which have already been spent does not make the custom any more palatable. Nor does it soothe the feelings of members on this side when they realize that, despite their annual objections and criticism, their suggestions for a review of the whole procedure-in fact, a review of the whole transportation policy-nothing changes from year to year. We are still being denied any effective voice in the conduct of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. We are still told by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) that the National Transportation Act is the be-all and end-all, that the government is apparently quite satisfied with it. Not only parliament but the people of this country, who after all supply the money to pay the deficits of these two corporations, are effectively blocked by the provisions of an act which sets up quasi-judicial bodies which have put themselves beyond the law. Has anyone ever been known to launch a successful appeal with the Canadian Transport Commission?
But, Mr. Speaker, hope springs eternal and the members on this side continue year after year to debate the CN financing bill and to criticize it. In fact, sometimes it seems as if everyone wants to get into the act, to take a swipe at the CNR and to offer suggestions for improvements in service. Surely, this must be the reason that we go through this exercise year after year, for we cannot change anything. The money has been spent. Even if the opposition did refuse to allow the bill easy passage, I suppose the government would ram it through anyway, since this government is quite expert at ramming through unpalatable legislation.
I suppose this exercise will continue to be one of futility until this government is prepared to examine the rationale of its national transportation policy, to set priorities and
to determine what role our national carriers must play. This government must show leadership, must designate those services that are essential and must be provided, subsidized if necessary-this applies to all modes of transportation whether it be air, ground or water transpora-tion-and then insist that these carriers provide efficient services.
Until this government does that, about the only good that can come of this debate is the opportunity it gives us to examine the operations of the CNR and Air Canada, both here and in Committee, to criticize those operations and make suggestions. This is only right, for if these Crown corporations want this House to vote them money they should be prepared to submit their operations to a thorough and searching examination. This is the only time that this House has an opportunity to examine the activities of the CNR and Air Canada, and it is the only time that hon. members can make suggestions and recommendations on behalf of the people of Canada, who are not too happy about the manner in which these two corporations carry out their day to day operations.
Surely, the government owes the people of this country the duty not only to listen to their complaints but to take some action on them. This is where the government has failed the people of Canada shamefully. This is where a good share of the responsibility lies for failing to develop a national and rational transportation policy that is based not on profit alone but rather on the concept that transportation is essential to Canada, that where necessary services must be subsidized, whether they be in the form of highway, rail, air or water transport. The profit motive is important, but it should be secondary to the concept of providing essential public services.
This bill, as the parliamentary secretary has outlined, provides financing for Air Canada. In view of this I think it only proper that I say a few words about Air Canada, and in this regard I find myself in an awkward position. Since I have been subjected to the whims of Air Canada for the past four days, in my present mood I find it very difficult to be objective, but I should like to make some general remarks, leaving my colleagues to zero in on specifics, of which I know there are plenty.
I think the nature of one of the difficulties being faced was very well illustrated by Mr. Yves Pratte, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Air Canada, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on June 22, 1971. Mr. Pratte was asked many questions about the airline's philosophy, about its rationale. Was the airline there to make money or to provide services? His reply was very interesting and I think gets right to the nub of the government's indecision on a transportation policy. Mr. Pratte said this:
The basic problem in so far as we at the management level are concerned is that we do not know what the mission of Air Canada is. We wish we knew. It is awfully difficult to manage any organization when one does not know what the purpose of the organization is: when you are told on the one hand that the purpose of the organization is to be as profitable as any private corporation and, on the other hand, that you are to provide service at all cost.
Is it any wonder that Mr. Pratte was confused as to what his duties are as chief executive officer of Air

March 6, 1972

Canada. He went on to say that he had offered ideas and made suggestions to the government, but came back to the point that the government had not laid down a clear-cut policy for him to follow. In other words, was it to be principally a profit making organization or was it to provide services where they were deemed essential? Mr. Pratte went on to say:
But this requires a definition of the role of the corporation which, I submit very respectfully, we do not have at the present time.
That was on June 22 last year. When reference was made to that statement in this House, I remember that the Minister of Transport expressed surprise that Mr. Pratte would say such a thing. However, he must have read the transcript of the evidence and realized that Mr. Pratte did indeed make that statement because in the Toronto Star of June 28, 1971 the minister is quoted as saying:
We would like to give Air Canada a clearcut mandate but it is hard to be precise. I have been working on this for two years.
The problem has existed longer than that, Mr. Speaker, but surely in two years this government could come up with some rational air policy. How much longer must we wait? When the minister and the management of Air Canada do now know what the mission of the corporation is, when there is not a transport policy worthy of the name for other means of transport either separately or in combination, it is unreasonable for this House to be asked to vote moneys to Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. The House and the public have a right to know how the taxpayers' money is being spent and the government has an obligation to define its policy objectives. The shareholders of a private corporation would laugh at directors who brought in such a request for money. The government has admitted publicly that it does not know where it is going or what its priorities are, yet it asks for another $600 million or more. I think this is completely ridiculous, but I shall let my colleagues zero in on some of the specific problems of Air Canada later.
Last week in this House, we heard speaker after speaker endorse the principle of equalization payments, a scheme designed to compensate the less affluent provinces for their unfavourable economic or geographical situation. At least one speaker pointed out the difficulties imposed upon the western and eastern extremities of this country by the high cost of transportation involved in competing in the markets of central Canada. They pointed out quite correctly that equalization of transportation costs was just as valid a proposition as transfer payments from the central government for social welfare, education and all the various purposes for which these transfer payments are used under the equalization principle.
It is an historic fact of confederation that the outlying parts of the country, both west and east, must have competitive transportation costs to and from the markets of central Canada. Not only were parts of the country cut off from their traditional markets in the United States by tariff barriers set up to protect central Canadian industry, and from those parts of the country which offer natural markets, but new problems were created, particularly in the Maritimes, by the fact that direct rail routes to the United States were replaced by a circuitous all-Canada rail line. In other words, essentially for purposes of defence, the rail line was taken by an all-Canada route
CNR and Air Canada
when the shortest route would have been through the United States. This has aggravated the problem of distance already suffered in these areas.
Is it any wonder that people in the Atlantic provinces are upset by the erosion of the Maritime protection established in the old Maritime Freight Rates Act? Under the old Railway Act, which was amended by the National Transportation Act, under the terms of subsection 326(5) no charges could be made unless authorized as follows:
"No tolls shall be charged by the company or by any person in respect of a railway or any traffic thereon until a by-law authorizing the preparation and issue of such tolls has been authorized by the Board"-
The reference is to the old Board of Transport Commissioners. This was one of the sections which was repealed, with the result that the railways or carriers do not have to get prior approval of rate increases. They simply announce a rate, allow the stated waiting period to pass and the tolls become effective on that date. It is all very well to say that there is provision for appeal to the CTC. In theory there is, but in practice no such thing exists because it is impossible for a private company to make an effective appeal. Each time a rate increase was announced, other members of the opposition and myself pleaded with the Minister of Transport to order the CNR to delay it until a new policy was devised, but he would not listen. He always said that he could not do it or, because of rising costs, the CNR must raise rates. I realize that costs are rising, but I am saying that we in the east and west have a constitutional right to have rising freight rate costs offset by direct transfer payments to the shipper or by some other means. All we ask is that the minister live up to his commitment that he would not allow reductions in subsidies or increases in freight rates unless and until some equivalent assistance was provided for the people affected.
But what has happened? We have been waiting for this government to act on some sort of national transportation policy. A recent issue of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission's monthly bulletin, Tips and Topics reports that:
For the eighth time in the past twenty-nine months, rail rates will increase on February 14, 1972.
That increase has come into effect.
The increase announced by the Railway Association of Canada on behalf of the Canadian railways, will range from 4 to 8 per cent.
The latest increase is another in what has become a pattern of an increase every six months since the lifting of the rail freight rate freeze on September 23, 1969. This succession of rail rate increases now stands at a cumulative total of 35 to 68 per cent (depending upon the rate level) for non-competitive rail rates and 19 to 40 per cent on competitive rail rates.
The minister said that, of course, there had been no increases for 10 years prior to that. That is true, but I want to point out to the House that the cumulative increase enacted following the lifting of the freeze has been more than would normally be expected in those 10 years. Those increases have exceeded the increases in any similar period since World War II, so that these freight rate increases cannot be justified by any trend in the rising cost of living or rising costs.
Why were these rates increased so rapidly? I think the answer is to be found in the fact that the railways no

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
longer have to seek prior approval of the federal regulatory body, nor do they have to justify these increases as was the case prior to 1967. Secondly, when the National Transportation Act was enacted in 1967, the railways were paid a transitional subsidy beginning in 1967 at $110 million and declining each year until its disappearance in 1974. This transitional subsidy was designed to compensate the railways in a broad way for uneconomic services which the railways were maintaining by the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission. I have no quarrel with elimination of the subsidy. I think any reasonable member of this House would realize that subsidies are not the best way to handle these problems.
But we in the Atlantic provinces are asking that the government follow the recommendation of the Atlantic premiers or of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission in 1969 when they agreed that it would be wise to phase out the subsidy but only-and here is the crux of the whole question which the government has conveniently overlooked-if the subsidies were replaced by an equivalent amount of money which should be allocated to shippers on some basis determined by an independent commission. We said, all right, phase out the subsidy but do not take it away unless it is replaced with something else. This, in itself, would be bad enough, but what we are now finding is that the phasing out of the subsidies has already started. They have been reduced by 25 per cent. Not only did the government not grant an equivalent amount of assistance to the shippers involved, but about a month later the railways raised their rates by an amount which would roughly offset the 25 per cent subsidy they lost. Here, we get it both ways.
Instead of having a new policy to replace the old one in order to give some assistance to our shippers, we now find the minister has embarked on a policy of taking away the assistance we had and at the same time allowing the railways to increase their rates. We do not know where it will end. It has reached the point where many of our major shippers are very concerned about the situation. I think I should read into the record at this time excerpts from a letter from the Secretary of the Maritime Co-operative Services Limited, which is one of the largest shippers in the maritime area. Mr. McEwen, the secretary, states:
We are further concerned that millions of dollars are being spent under DREE in the area to develop industry which has little hope of survival without a long-term transportation policy to move the products of these industries into the markets of central Canada or New England, U.S.A. The transportation factor seems to be largely ignored by the planners in the development of this industrialization.
I have heard my colleagues repeatedly take up this aspect with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand). Certainly, the transportation factor is very much involved in manufacturing in the maritime area. Mr. McEwen continues by saying:
In our opinion, it would be better to use the money to add to the fund suggested by the premiers and equalize transportation on some point, such as Levis, Quebec and then industry could develop and operate competitively.
Here again, I have taken up this matter with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and have heard
my colleagues repeatedly refer to it. Millions of dollars are being pumped into the Atlantic area to create industries which have no reasonable chance of success, because once they start producing goods and wish to ship them out of the maritime area they find the transportation costs are so high they cannot compete in the markets of central Canada which are their natural markets.
The writer goes on to say:
We have watched, over the years, various secondary industries die.
He speaks about a small manufacturing company which produced wooden step ladders which gradually over the years, because of the rising freight rates, became less and less competitive until about five years ago it went out of business. He says:
We see the same thing happening to industries that have been developed recently with area incentive grants but no consideration being given to transportation.
So, this is what is happening in the Atlantic provinces. I believe the same situation exists in the other provinces which are faced with extremely high freight rates. This is why we continually call upon the government to get off its fanny and suggest some sort of a regional transportation policy. There are many other areas I could touch on because this whole field is very broad. It would be impossible for me to cover all of them, however, even if I had all day every day or if I had a week.
I should like to mention a matter about which many people probably do not think when they consider the exorbitant cost of transportation. Many people in this House who are shippers or businessmen probably know what the term "demurrage" means. Demurrage on railway cars is a charge levied which is supposed to be an incentive to unload cars quickly. The charge is, therefore, a penalty if cars are held beyond the free period, which is normally two days. This demurrage tariff is administered by the Canadian Car Demurrage Bureau, which is supposed to be an independent body, but is owned and controlled by the various railways in Canada. The substantial revenue derived from its operation is paid back to the railways. In spite of protestations otherwise by the railways, this organization has become a source of substantial revenues, and with the free hand it now has to levy whatever charges it wishes it is carrying its mandate to the fullest extent.
We always seem to come back to the Canadian Transport Commission. The CTC seems to be always at the root of all our troubles. Until the Canadian Transport Commission was set up, the Canadian Car Demurrage Bureau had to adopt the same procedure as the railways. It had to go to the Board of Transport Commissioners to have its tariff approved, but this is no longer necessary. The result is that since the change in the act, demurrage charges have been increased drastically to the point that they are now a major item of expense to any company using railway facilities. It is easy to get a car in, turn it around and get it out in many areas of central Canada but at the end of the line, as it were, these cars may be in an area on Friday where they are required to stay over the weekend because they cannot be hauled out. Up until recently, three free days were provided. If the last free day was a Friday, there would be no charge for the weekend. Now,

March 6, 1972

by an arbitrary ruling of the board, the shipper, if the car is not unloaded by Friday night, must pay the demurrage charges for Saturday, Sunday and Monday. One might say that this does not amount to much, but over a period of years it could involve thousands of dollars for shippers in the Maritimes and might mean the difference between a profit operation and a loss. Because of our distance from the central markets, the Atlantic provinces feel the effect of these charges to a much greater extent than other parts of the country.
Indeed, the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces have always been serious. This fact was recognized at the time of confederation, but we received no protection in the terms of confederation similar to the Crow's Nest Pass rates which are applicable in western Canada. We receive no demurrage concessions such as those which are applicable at Thunder Bay. These demurrage charges are serious, but the most serious feature of this whole situation is that once again the CNR and Air Canada, and now the Canadian Demurrage Bureau are allowed to arbitrarily assess tariffs from which there is no effective appeal from them. The rapidly escalating costs of transportation are slowly strangling the development of the Atlantic region, and not only are we receiving no response to requests for change in government policy but the policies of the transportation agencies are making it impossible for the maritime manufacturer or feed producer to ship to or receive from the markets of central Canada.
Even though this is a routine financing bill such as we get every year, I still feel it is important because Parliament should tie down CNR and Air Canada until such time as the government comes up with a policy which will provide a service to Canadians in all parts of the country. Until the government is prepared to do that, we will not be prepared to grant them any further money. It is difficult to take such a stand in the House, but sometimes I think we should. At least we should refer this bill to the committee where, hopefully, we will receive some answers from the minister as to what he proposes to do and what the transportation policy for all parts of Canada is to be.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am entering the debate on this bill at this stage because my colleagues and I believe that this government, this parliament and the people of Canada, have permitted the railway and air services of this country to be contracted to the harm not only of individual Canadians but of communities of Canadians and that the time has come to call a halt to that process. We feel very strongly that the time has come to say to both the railway systems that the abandonment of rail lines, the closing down of local stations, and the dismissal of local agents must end, and that the real purpose of the transportation system must govern their actions instead of the totally false social approach which is now animating their policies.
The people of Canada granted tens of millions of dollars and tens of millions of acres of land to the Canadian Pacific Railway, and then when a number of railways failed, the people of this country paid and continue to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in debt to set up the
CNR and Air Canada
Canadian National Railways system. We built the first at the end of the nineteenth century with money and grants of land on which the CPR has built an immense financial, mineral and industrial empire, and we built the second, the Canadian National Railways, out of small railways that had failed. We did that almost immediately after the first world war.
I suggest to you, Sir, that the people of Canada spent these immense amounts of money and made these immense grants of land not for the purpose of these organizations developing some profit. They built these railways, spent this money and gave grants of land because a country the size of Canada cannot live unless there is an adequate railways system from one end of the country to the other. The people of Canada spent these moneys and gave these grants because they recognized that it is otherwise impossible to support an agricultural industry dependent on exports in large measure and on movement across the country as far as feed grains and related products are concerned. They gave these moneys and these grants of land because they recognized that all the sections of Canada's economy required a transportation system. They did that in the days when the air transportation system was not yet available. These moneys were not spent for the CPR to make profits; they make enough profits even though they may not make them on passenger railway service. The money was not given to the CNR to make profits when we took over the bankrupt railways. They were built for the purpose of serving the people of Canada. Both railways have failed in their duty and should stand condemned as failing many communities, particularly in the west. Both railways stand condemned as having failed the economic needs of regions of Canada distant from the centre by their inconsiderate and continual increase in freight rates without a sufficient change in rates to fit the situation of the Atlantic provinces or of western Canada.
This is one of the two or three points I want to make, and I make it as emphatically as I can. This is the opportunity for me to say that the Canadian Pacific Railway is an organization without conscience. Having built its strength and its power on moneys and on land given it by the people of Canada, it is now a railway, an air, a bus and a steamship organization. It has transportation systems in the air, on the water and on rail as well as on highways. It is an organization that has immense oil, gas and mineral reserves and subsidiaries right across the country. It owns large tracts of real estate and makes very large profits on the whole. The entire CPR empire makes very large annual profits, and yet they do not have the sense of obligation to Canada which established that organization, which paid for its building, and which made it possible for it to grow. They do not have that sense of obligation to Canada which would require them to continue the passenger service because it may not be or probably is not profitable.
I say the same thing to the CNR leadership, Mr. Speaker. The difference between the publicly owned corporation and the privately owned corporation is that, contrary to what the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) thought, the CNR officers can be brought before a corn-
550

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
mittee of parliament, and undoubtedly will be there to be questioned, but not the CPR officers. I say to the CN: your company is no longer accepting its responsibility to carry out its duty as a transportation service.
For a number of years, working with some of the railway unions from about 1952 to about 1962,1 had occasion to take a deeper interest in railway services across this country. I tried to learn a little about the railway services, and particularly about passenger service. What I learned was that there is no railway in the world that makes money out of its passenger service, not even those that run on the eastern seaboard of the United States where the population is great, where communities are close to each other, and where trains do not have to run across an entire continent, say from Vancouver to Halifax, Winnipeg to Toronto, or whatever it may be.
In the eastern U.S. seaboard, the railways lost money on passenger service on the whole. True, there were seasons when they made money, seasons when passenger service was profitable, but many other seasons when it was unprofitable. There just is not any railway that can make profits out of passenger service. I have not yet read an expert on railway economy who recognizes that passenger service can be profitable at all times. But any government or any country that has any sense of priorities and of purpose obliges its railways to give passenger service. That is one of the reasons for the existence of railways. This is true regardless of the fact that the provision of passenger service may be undertaken at a loss, as undoubtedly it is in Canada. I do not think the railways in Canada are making money out of passenger service, or ever did make money out of it. But they were established for the purpose of giving service to communities.
On this point I merely want to add that the reason my colleagues and I feel so strongly that the two railway systems have betrayed their obligations is not solely that there are individuals in some northern parts of Ontario, or in some small communities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta who cannot now have this necessary transportation service. This is extremely important, but it is not the only reason. In addition to the fact that people are being inconvenienced, communities are being destroyed. It is not only that individuals are being inconvenienced in not having the railway service to which they are entitled, it is the fact that when you close a railway station or an agency, and this is followed up by the closing of the elevator at a remote locality in the prairie provinces, then a whole host of other activities follow, and communities are on the verge of dying. This is where the thoughtless acts of the railway companies become most apparent.
So far as the New Democratic Party is concerned right across this country, we say that enough is enough. From now on, passenger service ought to be provided for Canadians, and local stations and agencies ought to be continued. That is the purpose of a railway.
I was a member of this House, Mr. Speaker, when the Transport Act was passed setting up the Canadian Transport Commission. I remember the then minister of transport, Mr. Pickersgill, piloting the bill through the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Piloted all right!


David Lewis: He piloted the bill through the House of Commons, and then piloted the minister of transport into the position of president of the Canadian Transport Commission. I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Pickersgill for many years but I say, Sir, that in carrying out the policies and the duties of that commission, the various parts of it are showing a reactionary unconcern for the needs of the people of Canada, are showing a reactionary concentration on the dollars and cents involved.
In my opinion, the Canadian Transport Commission is much more an agency of the railways than it is of this parliament or of the people of Canada, and that this cannot any longer be tolerated. If the railways need an agency they can pay for it themselves. We should not have to pay for it. If Mr. Pickersgill and his associates want to act for the Canadian Railway Association they are free to do so, but not at public expense. The public is paying the members of the Canadian Transport Commission in order to make certain that the public interest is served by the organizations answerable to the commission. However, that is not what the commission has been doing, whether with respect to the railway companies, the air companies, or indeed Bell Telephone, an organization that has been rooking the Canadian consumer for God knows how many years. Almost every time Bell comes before the CTC with an application for an increase, after a long falderol and inquiry, by some inconceivable coincidence it is able to get the increase. I should not say this happens always. There have been delays and changes, but eventually Bell is able to prove its case, no matter how indefensible its case may be.
I take the occasion of this bill to voice on behalf of our party our strongest protest against the philosophy and thrust of the CTC as related to the abandonment of railway services, as related to rates set by the railways, and as related to all the other agencies and bodies that come under its jurisdiction. It is my firm conviction, after watching it functioning since it came into existence, that it is not carrying out its function as a safeguarder of the public interest, but in effect is an agent of the transportation companies rather than of this parliament and of the people of Canada. That is true no matter in what direction you look.
The hon. member for Moncton was entirely right when he said that one of the main causes of inequality of opportunity, of economic circumstances, and of the level and standard of services in those parts of Canada distant from the centre, like the Atlantic provinces, like the west, and like Northern Ontario, has been the cost of transportation.
One of the legitimate, sensible, rational and just ways of assisting the disadvantaged areas of Canada-I do not say it is the only way because more needs to be done-is to set up the necessary differentials, the necessary subsidies if the case requires them, to rid these areas, particularly the Atlantic provinces, of the immense disadvantage they have in the fact of transportation distances, and in the fact of the costs of transportation. This is something that has been recognized in Canada over many years but has never become part of an integrated transportation system.
The third point I want to touch on briefly, and I do not intend to speak very long today, is to protest against the continuing and determined effort of the CTC, and obvi-

March 6, 1972

ously the policies of the government, to increase the number of private air carriers and to give them more and more of the feeder lines, more and more of the air transportation routes in Canada. At the moment when our publicly owned air transport company gets out of the red and begins to generate its own surpluses which it will need to assist in the expansion and renewal of equipment made necessary by modern developments and provide that service which, if left alone, it would continue to provide, big and little private corporations, led by CP Air, enter the field and the Canadian Transport Commission gives to these small or large transport organizations rights and privileges which, before then, had belonged to Air Canada. This means that in many parts of Canada, and most of northern Ontario is one of them, the people will not be served by Air Canada at all. They will be served either by CP Air or, more likely, by one of these other, small transport companies.
I do not object to the thrust, courage or enterprise of an individual or group of individuals wishing to set up some air company. I am not saying that such people should not be allowed to develop their business. What I am saying is that, in the long run, it is shortsighted and stupid to allow them to do so at the expense of the potential income and development of Air Canada. I am saying that CP Air particularly ought not to be given that kind of advantage. Air Canada, it seems to me from my study of it, and I might easily be wrong, may welcome this opportunity for lessened service. The company may even have desired it, because in the process it would lose some of its headaches as well.
I am never in favour of bureaucrats, whether in the public service, in Crown corporations or with private companies, who want to take the line of least resistance and fewest headaches. As I say, Air Canada may have wanted this. Yet I venture to suggest that in 10, 15 or 20 years a great many people will be sorry for what has happened as the opportunities for Air Canada grow fewer and as the demands for capital increase greatly. Then Air Canada, instead of having generated some of its own investment and replacement capital, will have to come to an increasing extent to parliament and ask for loans, grants, underwritings or what have you.
I do not think that makes sense. We had sense enough to set up a publicly owned air corporation. We ought not to interfere with the possibility of its future growth by handing out licenses without first considering what the consequences of these actions will be in future and how they will affect the people of Canada. And, instead of standing up and making these demands from the CTC, Air Canada has been acquiescing in developments which are bound to be fundamentally hurtful to it in the long run, if not in the short run. The company has cut down service constantly across this country and that, too, I regret very much.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a brief word about the capitalization of the CPR. I heard, during my recent few days of visiting to the western part of this country, that the CNR is losing money. Like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), Mr. Speaker, I made some non-partisan, non-election visits to western cities not long ago.
CNR and Air Canada


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: I did just as the Prime Minister suggested he has been doing. I felt I ought to flatter him by imitating him, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: All the time in the lobbies here, and particularly in the lobby with my friends from the Tory party who, I notice, were robbed this morning of their major election issue with the recapture of Geoffroy in Spain, one hears the refrain, as one does elsewhere across Canada, that the CNR is losing money, that here we have an example of a publicly owned corporation and it loses money. Actually, Mr. Speaker, when the CNR capital setup was changed some years ago, and I was glad then that it was changed, the change did not go far enough. The CNR continues to carry a debt which it ought not to continue carrying. It is stupid to continue loading it with that debt. The CNR capital structure ought to be changed again, to the point where the CNR does not carry the debt which was originally undertaken when we nationalized the little bankrupt railways that make up the CNR.
Some years ago I asked someone to calculate how much a person or estate, or what have you, would make if $100 were invested in one of the companies that went bankrupt in 1918, 1919 and 1920. We assumed that the original share would be changed into a share of the CNR. I forget exactly what the term for such securities is, and I forget how the matter was handled. I wanted to know what the return would be for a person or estate on an investment of $100. You will be surprised to learn that the present return would be about three or four times the amount that was invested only 40 or 50 years ago, Mr. Speaker. I ask, how much longer are you to go on making the public treasury pay for a publicly owned utility on that kind of base. Therefore, I say that the capitalization of the CNR ought to be changed so that the railway ceases to carry the immensely heavy burden of debt and interest payments that that involves.
I want to conclude by saying something that some of my colleagues have said better than I can claim to say it. The point I want to emphasize in our discussion of this bill is that the people of Canada urgently require an integrated transportation policy. I, personally, believe that a utility like transportation ought to be all publicly owned. Canada is only one of two countries in the western world in which a privately owned railway system operates. The other country is the United States. No matter whether you look at Britain, France, West Germany, Denmark, Norway, Spain, Australia, New Zealand or Japan, you will find that the railway system is publicly owned. Railway service and transportation services in general are a public service. They are a public utility and not areas out of which private profit ought to be made. They are necessary services. A transportation system is necessary not only for the pleasure of people who use it; it is primarily necessary for the movement of goods, services and people. It is necessary for the good of the country as a whole and for the building of the economy of the country. This is true particularly for a country like Canada which depends so greatly on the export market in so many economic areas. Therefore I make no apology for having said to the presi-
552

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
dent of the CPR when I was a very young man that, if I had the opportunity, I would nationalize his railway. That was said-and I know I should not admit this-in January, 40 years ago. I do not doubt that the CPR will be nationalized eventually, either by my party in power or, to judge from what has happened in past years in many areas, by some other party in power. They will finally recognize the need for it.
In any event, we require an integrated transportation policy that takes into account all four major means of transport; air, road, rail and water. It must integrate these four major means of transport in some meaningful way for all parts of this country, and place all modes of transport under one really effective control, in the hands of government and Parliament through an agency. In this way it will serve the public interest and not be the lobby for the transportation companies that the CTC now is in many respects. In order to have an integrated transportation policy, we must have the courage to take over a large part of the CPR, if not all, in order to take over the profitable as well as the unprofitable, so that we will have public control.
The CPR now has a rail company, airline, more than one bus company, steamships, hotels, trucking services, minerals, oil and gas. Every time officers of the CPR appeared before boards on which I represented labour unions and shed some tears about its awful financial condition, I thought to myself I had not heard a more amusing comedy before and never expected to hear it again. The crocodile tears which the management of the CPR is constantly dropping are just outrageous. It has been a very successful empire. We ought to take over this company and place it under public ownership and control, not for any doctrinaire reason, but in order to integrate our transportation system in all four areas. That is and has been my own personal view for many years. Only in this way can we have a transportation system that will serve the people of Canada well, both now and in the future.
If I remember the order, this bill is scheduled to be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I am sure the members of that committee will be wise and determined enough to call the officers of the CNR and Air Canada to appear before that committee this year, as has been the case in the past. I can assure the House that our members of the committee will demand much better explanations than we have had in the past with regard to the unacceptable reduction in passenger service and the closing of offices and agencies which have taken place throughout Canada, particularly in the prairie provinces. Although I have not looked into the situation, I hope it will also be possible to call spokesmen for the CTC before that committee. I hope the members of the committee from all parties will unitedly tell Mr. Pickersgill and his associates that Canada will no longer accept the reduction in passenger and other services which the railways have undertaken to the detriment of the building of communities, particularly in western Canada.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, following the debate in the House, Bill C-4 will be referred to the Transport and Communications Committee for detailed study. Earlier today, I listened to the comments of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) on the Canadian Pacific, which is a private corporation and Canadian National and Air Canada, which are government corporations.
He admitted that private enterprise makes huge profits on providing the same services as Canadian National while the latter company is calling on us for $210,800,000 to cover its deficit and Air Canada is asking for $114 million. This makes a total of $333 million, a third of a billion dollars, to support public enterprise.
Mr. Speaker, I should readily recognize that railways, Air Canada and other carriers are public services, to be encouraged, supported and improved in order that they may provide services to the whole population of Canada. However, when it comes to saying that we should nationalize private enterprise to improve services, I am not at all in agreement with the hon. member for York South.
According to his theories, to improve the administration of justice and law we should nationalize lawyers, turn them into civil servants, ciphers such as the employees of Canadian National or those of our transportation systems.
Private enterprise proves that it can operate and provide better services at a profit over a given period whereas a public enterprise must provide better service, even without profit. That is public enterprise.
Mr. Speaker, I should advise the Canadian Transport Commission to hire the hon. member for York South and appoint him president of Canadian National at the earliest. It pays better, since he would be getting $100,000 to $125,000 a year. He would be in the right place. Moreover, being so persuasive and so determined and so well informed about nationalization, state control and socialization, he could no doubt, as president of the Canadian National, improve on our present services.
I made a trip to western Canada last year. I went by the Canadian Pacific and came back by the Canadian National. The difference between the two is as great as that between night and day.
On the CP, the service is faultless: good food, good service all the way as far as Victoria or Vancouver.
I came back by the CN, through Edmonton and Saskatoon, through the north. It was completely different. The coaches were dirty; it was easy to see that those responsible were not there; the employees were like people working from 9 to 5; their work was only a job to them. The CN does not have to make profits; we need only vote them some $219 million at the end of the year to make up its deficits.
With all this, we find, as the hon. member was saying a moment ago, that some rail services are abandoned. In my area, the CN has abandoned its Rouyn-Noranda-Tas-chereau service; the run between Montreal and Quebec, to come back toward Cochrane through the Abitibi region, and Temiscamingue, brings in a profit because of the forestry operations of Domtar at Lebel-sur-Quevillon and the forestry operations in the Lasarre area. The service

March 6, 1972

was improved at the rate of approximately ten miles per year.
In any event, I have known the railway service in that area for at least 35 or 40 years and, instead of 22 hours to go from Montreal to Amos, as was the case in the past, one now needs 18 or 19 hours. That is quite an improvement! The railway track is just about impossible and we do get thrown about; a person lying in bed is sure to remain wide awake, such is the lack of comfort-


An hon. Member:: That is right, I have taken that train before!


David Réal Caouette: My colleague from Champlain (Mr. Matte) has taken this train to Abitibi and found that this was the case as far as Parent.
So, tracks are poorly maintained!
At the end of the year, the Directors of the Canadian National-the Administration office-hastened to submit their estimates to us, saying: "We need $125,265,000 for new railway property. This is for new branch lines." Some are being built to connect Rouyn to Taschereau, but others are required for an amount of $19,000,000.
For equipment $44 million are needed; for telecommunications $22,437,000; for hotels $3,026,000.
CNR hotels lose money whereas CP hotels prosper.
Since the private sector prospers, we must nationalize it at once so that it may lose money. That is socialism! That is what elimination of free initiative brings about. If you deprive someone of initiative, you kill him; he is no longer interested in business. On the contrary, if you give him the opportunity to make the most of his talents, to be creative rather than crush him, you allow him to improve the living conditions in a country such as ours. We can see it throughout the world.
The hon. member for York South told us: There is no country in the world where the communication system is not state-owned. I took a train from Moscow to Leningrad in 1965, a state-owned train; it was worse that the old train in Abitibi. Why? Because personal initiative has disappeared; it has been suppressed. No one can set up a railway company today in the USSR, in Czechoslovakia or in any other socialist country in the world. Everything is state-owned. Even the taxi transportation system is state-owned. The cab drivers are civil servants. Everyone is a government employee. The government decides in the place of the individual. This is contrary to common sense!
We should not nationalize the Canadian Pacific; instead, we should sell the Canadian National to the Canadian Pacific because the latter operates at a profit. To make up the difference, the government should, while doing its duty, ensure that the means of transport serve the public
adequately, not through state gimmicks but by setting up agencies made up of responsible human beings and not "numbers".
Mr. Speaker, I was speaking of the lines the Canadian National had abandoned. A while ago, someone told me that the same company has a reserve fund for its
CNR and Air Canada
employees; $650 million were taken out of that fund and loaned at 4 per cent to other agencies, there being, it seems, too much money in the fund. However, they forget to raise the pensions of retired employees.
The Canadian National has problems, like every body else. Workers are dismissed after 30 or 40 years of service. They are no longer useful, right. However, the pension system should provide those people with an income equivalent to their former wages, since they have already paid contributions for their years of service. Instead of tampering with their pension fund it should be used for the benefit of those who spent their lives in the service of the Canadian National or other railroad companies.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I feel that Bill C-4 is only a repetition of former bills. Indeed, the Canadian National or Air Canada never show a profit but deficits always while the Canadian Pacific always shows a profit, even with its airlines.
When CP Air was servicing my region why has it been replaced by Air Canada? Air Canada says that this service is not economical and someday it will give it up to Nordair. But why was this run taken away from CP Air if Air CAnada finds it uneconomical? There are three flights a day and the planes seem to be full each time. It is therefore an economical operation and this is why we asked them to improve the service. We are prepared to supply them the funds required provided we have the services in return.
The same thing applies to the CN. We are now voting $219 million in grants to our national railways and this company decides at a given moment to wage unfair competition against the private trucking industry by adopting exceedingly low rates precisely because it is subsidized by the government. We should grant similar amounts to the private sector if we want to have fair competition. But we should not tax the truckers to meet the deficit of a competing CN.
This is unfair and we should be able to establish criteria under which the private sector will not have to pay taxes to offset CN deficits.
To tax the Brazeau Transport Company or the Compa-gnie de camionnage du Quebec to pay CN deficits while it is engaged in the same kind of transportation-even though the member for York South finds nationalization quite fair and even commendable-I maintain this is pure and simple confiscation of private enterprise and an obstacle to normal operations of Canadian transport companies.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues will be following carefully in committee the clause by clause study of this bill so as to determine what is wrong with the operations and with the administration of our national railways and Air Canada. We are not asking for the eliminations of those services. On the contrary, we are prepared to grant the required credits provided however they are supplied. If the credits passed by Parliament are used only to pay senior civil servants or strikers we are not at all interested. These expenses will not be paid by union leaders but by Canadian tax payers.

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
Then, when we are asked to make up a $219 million deficit, we should understand that it is the result of all the strikes which cost a lot to Canada. Canadian taxpayers pay for that. The hon. member for York South may like it but I do not. That is why we say to union officials: Instead of distributing boxing gloves to Canadian workers, why not try to be peacemakers, so as to enable employees to get along with the employers? Instead of stirring up hatred among classes, why not foster comprehension between workers and employer's, who also have problems. Maybe they are not "9 to 5" people, as we call them, but they are up at 7 in the morning, still working at midnight and not paid for overtime. We do not think of that.
People like the hon. member for York South protest against exploiters, against private enterprise. Most private enterprise owners in Canada get a smaller net income than the hon. member for York South. It is easy to be a socialist at $100,000 or $50,000 a year. But when the owner of a small grocery store who works very hard to earn $15,000 or $20,000 a year is being told: My boy, the minimum hourly wage of your employees is $2, or else you will be fined, he is in danger of going bankrupt because we look upon him as an exploiter. It is easy for people with annua] salaries of $50,000 or $100,000 to tell people getting $20,000: You are an exploiter, you destroy small wage earners.
Mr. Speaker, there should be a limit to riduculing people and belittling their personal initiative, then trying to control everything through government action. Canadians do not want the government to poke its nose into all their personal affairs. The less nosing on the part of the government, the better it will be unless one is a socialist as in that case people probably lose courage. They say to the government: Make the decisions for me. Take my salary! Spend it the way you like and let me know what is left for me at the end.
As I have already said: let us continue to live in the present system. We will be heading towards socialism. Twenty years ago, I said: "Within 10 or 20 years, when you receive your pay cheques, the cheque stub will be at least twice as long as the cheque itself". This is what is happening today. The cheque Stub is at least twice as long as the cheque itself which means that so much money is deducted for unemployment insurance, so much for provincial and federal taxes, medical insurance, old age pension, union dues and super annuation, to the extent that the cheque stub is very long.
Within the next ten years, we will only receive the stub to acquaint us with the way the government has spent our pay cheque. We will then have complete socialism and the government will decide for us.
This is exactly what is happening, Mr. Speaker, because we are witnessing the establishment of programs such as this one, a nationalization program, a government system under which we are asked to pay for deficits year after year.
I agree that we pay for deficits in order to obtain services, but I notice that services are being reduced while deficits keep increasing. This is what I find unnatural. Let us increase services, let us improve them and pay for them. I quite agree, for this is absolutely natural-but let us not pretend as we are doing at present.
[Mr. Caouette.J
Mr. Speaker, in this bill we are asked to vote $333 million for the operation of our transportation system which is related to the government and is a nationalized enterprise.
As far as private enterprise is concerned, we do not hear of the Canadian Pacific Railways asking for any money to make up its deficits. No, that company makes profits. As I was saying at the beginning, rather than abolishing the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is a profitable operation, let us sell the Canadian National to the Canadian Pacific Railways; this way, it could be that next year we will have saved $219 million on what we are spending this year, and that this company will help the Canadian National to make profits.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and myself advocate solutions designed to remedy this situation. We are quite aware that we have to pay for services. We do not object to this, but let us improve services to the same extent that we have to pay for deficits. Covering the deficits will then allow for the development of real services for the greater well-being of the Canadian people.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join in this debate, which is more a discussion of our transportation problems and ills, a subject that will be explored very thoroughly by the committee. This debate is particularly well timed, since just a few days ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) and the appropriate provincial authorities announced the final decision on the location of a new airport facility for the central Ontario region, particularly the Toronto-centred region, as well as an improvement in the air terminal facilities in southern Ontario.
My riding is specifically affected because part of the new airport proper is to be in my constituency; indeed, a lot of the flight patterns will be over a great part of my constituency. In view of this I am now beginning to come to grips in a very real way with the problems that a major airport causes the residents of a delightful part of Ontario that is close to metropolitan Toronto. Some rather serious problems will have to be faced by some. Although I am sure these will be resolved to the extent that that is possible, it does not detract from the fact that wherever an airport is sited there is some disruption caused local residents.
In this particular case I think all agree, in fairness, that a wiser selection could not have been made, and I think the co-operation between the federal government and the provincial government was the key to making certain that a wise decision was made. I say that with a little bit of sadness because I, myself, am not happy, quite frankly, that the new airport is to be located in part of my riding. But the people of York North are sensible people, particularly at election time, and they realize that such a decision would affect some people no matter where the airport had been located. They are not happy that they are the people affected, but they are counting on me and many others to make certain that its major effects are mitigated.
March 6, 1972

This is a time for us to think of what we must face in terms of transportation. We cannot think of transportation in terms of airports alone but rather as a total concept, in terms of the social and economic impact that a major transportation facility has on the country.
Shortly after I entered this House in November 1968, I made a speech on somewhat the same subject as this, and I note that the other day the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) also had something to say on the matter. I have been doing some work on a more comprehensive transportation plan because I feel we should be thinking in terms of where we go from here. We have an air plan that should satisfy our needs for the next 20 years or so, but we must look far beyond that. To think that the present concept is the answer to our transportation problem is not good enough.
I should like to suggest a logical projection of our transportation requirements over the next two or three decades beyond the time when this new facility will be well in use and perhaps overloaded. I take into consideration the natural industrial development areas and the need to remove the growth pressures from our major cities. Included in this proposal, and the key to it, is the accelerating growth of air transport for both goods and people. The result of my studies would be a major air terminal approximately midway between Toronto and Montreal, serviced by high speed surface transport joining these two cities and the air terminal. Such a transportation corridor would spawn planned residential and industrial communities along its route. The consequence should be a growing interdependence between French and English speaking Canada. Its immediate effect should be to capture the imagination of Canadians and focus their thinking toward the next 20 to 30 years which would be required to complete the first stages of this plan which I propose to outline. Even this time frame would require the earliest possible commitment to the concept, not to the program but to the concept.
Ste Scholastique and the new Toronto region airport should satisfy our air transport terminal requirements for close to a generation. Projections for the future indicate a sharp increase in air travel surpassing any growth we have seen since World War II. A substantially greater growth curve is indicated for air cargo. While these projections are difficult to make, and I am trying to get some more enlightened projections, I think they are important indeed. In spite of larger aircraft, the volume of traffic itself will present problems of air and noise pollution, safety and physical handling of both people and goods which will dwarf present considerations. One answer is to provide a major facility roughly equidistant between Toronto and Montreal which will alleviate the congestion and environmental problems which plague areas within a wide radius of any major airport.
The Kingston area appears to have many advantages. It is roughly equidistant and it already possesses the basic infrastructure of a major community. To the south is Lake Ontario and to the north vast areas with relatively sparse population. The environmental consequences of increased air traffic will be minimal relative to other areas. It is possible that the existing air base at Trenton
CNR and Air Canada
has many of the same advantages and a great advantage is that it exists, if not equidistant. It could conceivably be an alternative site.
While it is difficult to project technological development in the aero-space field, it may be assumed that air vehicles will increase in size, and long range flights of transcontinental and transocean traffic will increase at the greatest rate. Indeed, it is an integral part of this concept to reduce a major segment of the short haul air traffic. The balance of short haul traffic could continue to be handled at existing airports already adjacent to the major urban areas. The key to an airport facility remote from the major cities is high speed ground transportation enabling passengers to reach the airport or their ultimate destination in the minimum possible time. For practical purposes, this should be under one hour: distance itself is not the factor, but time is.
The suggested location is in the 150 to 175 mile range for both Toronto and Montreal. It therefore follows that average ground speeds in excess of 200 miles per hour will be necessary for the ground transport. Existing technology to achieve these speeds in comfort already exists. Prototype development is under way in France, Germany and Japan, while promising research is being undertaken in the U.S. and even Canada, if one wishes to include the CN-United Aircraft Turbotrain. The Germans, particularly, have some new technology which is interesting according to my studies.
It can reasonably be assumed that satisfactory resolution of the technical difficulties involved in this development will be accomplished before this proposal is at the implementation stage. The technology is there now and prototypes are under way. It is certainly within our capacity. It is likely that the commitment to this project will accelerate development, and it is possible that Canada could concentrate a significant portion of its research and development activity in this very field.
In a country as large and as sparsely settled as is Canada, transportation is as vital to its growth as it was when our present railways were conceived. Indeed, it is the same type of vision and commitment which is called for at this time. I am just reading Pierre Berton's book on the building of the CPR, and it is interesting to see an example of this type of vision. I hope we do not experience the politics or the business practices engaged in at that time, but there certainly was a great deal of vision. However, it was not a Liberal government in office at that time, so I am sure things would be better today.
Our existing rail beds would provide the essential right-of-way. It would be necessary to improve these substantially, but as new high speed ground transport is unlikely to utilize conventional trackage, this would be an integral part of the development. The important consideration is that the right-of-way exists, though some deviation might prove necessary, and the use of elevated or underground systems in whole, or in part, cannot be rejected. It is possible that the system could involve all three levels, that is, ground, underground and elevated. Propulsion could range from diesel to nuclear, jet to vacuum, and possibly gravitational, but this I leave to the scientists.
With the ability to reach a midway point between Montreal and Toronto in less than one hour, it will be possible

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
to continue via surface transport between these cities in approximately two hours, or slightly more when intermediate stops are taken into consideration. When transport to and from airports is considered, it presently takes in excess of this time to complete an inter-city trip by air.
With high speed surface transport terminating in central areas of the cities and tying into existing and projected subway facilities, it is reasonable to assume that travellers would use the ground facility for the entire journey and at considerable benefit in time, comfort and convenience. I cannot give the precise percentages at this time, but a significant percentage of the take-offs and landings in both Toronto and Montreal are for flights between these points. By putting these travellers back on the ground, a considerable amount of air traffic would be eliminated. With the relief of this pressure on our airports, the growth of other short-haul traffic, that is, New York, Chicago, Winnipeg, Quebec, Halifax, Ottawa, Boston, Windsor, London, etc. could well be accommodated with existing facilities such as Dorval, Ste Scholastique, Malton and the new Toronto region airport.
Curfew regulations applicable at airports adjacent to cities are a major social and economic consideration. These may be substantially relaxed or eliminated at a more remote location. It is likely that noise levels will be significantly reduced or noise eliminated by the time a concept such as this reaches fruition. With or without the noise consideration, air congestion and ground facilities would be under-utilized during the hours from midnight to seven or eight a.m. The elimination of curfews would enable 24 hour operation with cargo aircraft being accommodated during the low passenger traffic hours.
It must be assumed that the airport would not be located immediately adjacent to the city of Kingston itself, but could be as close as ten to 25 miles, the latter figure being preferable. Major residential development within a radius of perhaps up to 25 miles of the airport would be curtailed.
A further development would be the use of cargo containers which could be accommodated by regular aircraft and the high speed surface vehicles. This has been done successfully for water/rail transport and could be readily adapted to air/rail. It is another area for Canadian research and development.
I see it is five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy 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 Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)- Trade; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Burton)- Health; the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)- Indian Affairs.
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 and Public Bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should initiate a national research and development program in respect of methods of proper and economic solid-waste disposal, including studies directed to the conservation of natural resources by reducing the amount of waste and unsalvageable materials and by recovery and utilization of potential resources in solid wastes; and provide technical and financial assistance to provincial and municipal governments and multi-governmental agencies in the planning, development, and conduct of solid-waste disposal programs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of once again bringing to the attention of hon. members a problem which I have pointed out on two prior occasions on a private member's notice of motion. I am pleased to see the interest that is usually exhibited when I bring it back, and I know that government members will of course have some constructive criticism to offer of this motion. They may also raise some points which have made it necessary to move in this area to a greater extent than has been the case in the past.
My motion perhaps could be broken down into three parts. I say there should be initiated a national research and development program in respect of methods of proper and economic solid waste disposal. I see nothing wrong with the suggestion made, because obviously we are all in favour of pollution control. It is pollution control I am talking about, while at the same time having the opportunity to reclaim waste and turn it into a profit. I believe this is the sort of thing we are interested in because obviously, as has been stated, the United States spends billions of dollars to bury waste materials while at the same time millions of dollars could be reclaimed if only we had a co-ordinated effort to ascertain what type of material could be reclaimed, whether it is economically feasible to do so, and whether in fact there is a market for it. Notwithstanding how small the market may be, I would still impress upon the government the fact that this is an area in which we should not be concerned about an overall profit but rather whether, in fact, it is feasible to become involved in the reclamation of waste whereby we, in turn, attempt to reduce the ever-growing pollution.
Secondly, I should like someone to indicate whether, in fact, studies are to be undertaken. I know now that, as a result of governments having had the opportunity to do much of the research in certain areas, it is time that the type of research of which I am speaking now should be undertaken by the private sector. In this way we would be able to make some use, and good use, of the special talents required for a problem which faces us now and, perhaps
March 6, 1972

at the same time, relieve the unemployment situation as it relates to those of higher learning at this particular time. When I receive letters from persons who possess Ph.D's who tell me they cannot acquire work, then I believe there is something wrong with our system. They should at least be given an opportunity to further their education by attempting to bring about solutions to problems which at this particular time have been practically untouched by the federal level of government. I say this with a great deal of respect because I feel that, in order to pacify those who believe we are not involved with this matter, the federal government must step in, even though someone will tell me it is a provincial matter, in order to give us some idea whether or not this is a matter of high priority.
The last time this subject was brought to our attention, I asked some questions which were placed on the order paper. I asked which department, if any, bears primary responsibility for the development of research or demonstration projects to deal with solid waste disposal. Then, as a second question, I asked on what dates and by whom were recommendations made to the Department of National Health and Welfare advocating research studies into the problem of solid-waste disposal as indicated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance on December 14, 1970 in Hansard at page 2026-2027. As I understand the answer, it is anticipated that the new Department of the Environment will bear primary responsibility for the development of research or demonstration projects to deal with solid-waste disposal. This reply was tabled through the courtesy of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) on January 25, 1971. I should like to know, in fact, what the department is doing in terms of the suggestions I have placed before it. In Hamilton we have tried to make strides in this area by having a form of pulverizer which, as I understand it, has been a welcome addition to the waste disposal facilities.
Let me point out that in 1960, as reported in the Hamilton Spectator sometime in 1971, Hamilton threw away about 185,000 tons of garbage. In 1971 there were some 285,000 tons. This is an increase from 625 pounds per person in the 1960's to 700 pounds per person at the present stage. I think what I am concerned about is the lack of appreciation of the problems being faced by municipalities, because obviously they do not have the money to make the capital expenditure required for the type of project necessary to ascertain just which type of solid-waste disposal method is acceptable, feasible or economical. It is in this area that my motion indicates we should be providing technical and financial assistance to provincial governments, municipal governments and multi-governmental agencies in the planning and development of solid-waste disposal programs.
Lately, the province of Ontario has commissioned people of some expertise on this subject. They brought out a report in February of 1971. The authors of this report were Professors Clark and Brown, the former a chemical engineer and the latter a mineral engineer, both of whom are pursuing their professions at Queen's University in Canada. I was very impressed by the conclusion reached in the report regarding the recommendations. One of their recommendations should perhaps solidify our thinking in terms of the importance of the need for
Pollution
action. The report is entitled Municipal Waste Disposal, Problem or Opportunity. It reads in part:
The current problem of solid waste disposal should be regarded as an opportunity for Canadian originality and foresight to develop the means for conserving natural resources, preserving the environment and demonstrating that organizations, communities and individuals can effectively co-operate in a common cause.
I find that the conclusions reached in this very candid and very important expose are very disturbing because it was just published in February 1971. With your patience, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote at some length from the report. It reads:
It is found that Canada has lagged the United States both in terms of legislation and the investigation of the disposal and treatment of municipal wastes. Data on the nature and quantity of municipal wastes is not available and no methods other than the traditional means of burial or incineration have been employed in Canada. Furthermore there is no organization in Canada which currently serves as an authoritative source of knowledge; neither is there a centre of research and development in this field. The newly created Waste Management Branch in Ontario has the authority to develop and provide these services but it is so understaffed and inadequately funded that its work is almost solely concerned with the immediate and urgent problems associated with the implementation of the Waste Management Act. Such is the state of the art in Canada.
The "art" is developing very rapidly in the United States and in other countries. Many new processes are being developed and the phenomena of solid waste generation and its implications are receiving considerable attention.
That is my point, and I will repeat the last sentence I quoted:
Many new processes are being developed and the phenomena of solid waste generation and its implications are receiving considerable attention.
Is this the position in Canada? My motion seems to be well accepted by members on both sides of the House. This is not a political matter, but one about which we should show deep concern to the point where members on the other side of the House are ready to make recommendations to the government, particularly with respect to the assistance that is required by municipalities and provincial governments to enable them to conduct more research into this problem. Then, at least we would not be waiting for conclusions to be reached by other jurisdictions in order that we could move into the area ourselves.
It has been stated that we are burying ourselves in our own garbage. I note, too, that an article has been written by Mr. Gordon Sutin entitled "The Case for Pulverization of Solid Wastes" printed in October, 1970 in "Public Works, City, County and State". I was impressed with what he had to say and, with the indulgence of my colleagues, I should like to quote as follows:
While incineration appears to offer the ultimate solution to the problem of disposing of solid wastes, it is a fact of life that many smaller communities cannot generate the capital to build the necessary facilities. This suggests, of course, that smaller communities should band together for the construction of one large regional incinerator, one plant to serve a number of municipalities. However, this again poses the problem of capital investment to establish and operate transfer stations.
What I am attempting to do this afternoon is to bring home the importance of the need for our continual involvement and appreciation of the problems of pollu-

March 6, 1972
Pollution
tion, which are increasing because of our increasing population, and because of the fact that many people, rather than saving things and using them over and over again, are now discarding all materials of consumption in an accelerated fashion. I should like to point to three recommendations which Messrs. Clark and Brown brought to the attention of the Ontario government. I do not think that we can differentiate between the jurisdictions because the problems that they have brought to our attention and on which they have made recommendations apply equally to the federal government. The first one reads as follows:
Immediate attention should be given to the co-ordination of the activities of all branches of the government concerned in the solid waste field, recognizing that integration of the processes to treat and dispose of these wastes might be achieved and that investigatory studies may have implications and benefits of common concern.
Another one reads:
Every attempt should be made to concentrate the research and development activities so as to provide for the eventual establishment of a centre for study and research.
One may think that this would be under the jurisdiction of the provincial government, but it is not in fact. I think we have a role to play in terms of leadership, money, research and assistance to municipalities and provinces.
Another important recommendation that was made is one which I hope the government has pursued in the past, and I hope we will hear about it from some members on the government side. It reads:
Data on the requirements, limitations and potentials of the various waste disposal systems should be made available to the public and to municipal officers on a continuing basis.
Another recommendation reads as follows:
Appropriate prototype facilities for a reclamation process should be established in such a location that the development of the process can be fostered and studied and under such conditions that the knowledge generated can be made readily available to all communities.
It seems to me that those recommendations can certainly be understood, accepted and implemented by the federal government, if in fact we are concerned about what is becoming a problem of ever increasing importance.
This is the third time that I have risen and spoken on this matter, and I will continue to do so. I know that the government has attempted to pay lip service to the motion that I have put forward on three occasions, but I do not think we have been doing enough. I think that pollution in all its aspects is an extremely serious problem. I am ready to accept that our young people are looking for answers to the various aspects of pollution which they find so unacceptable.


Mr. Cullen:: The old people, too.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Let us say, everybody. Perhaps I should not have singled out any one group in the country, because I think all of us are extremely concerned about the adverse effects of the different kinds of pollution of air, water, noise.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The hon. member wants to be included.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Yes, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lamb-ton (Mr. Cullen), who is the parliamentary secretary to some minister who is not quite doing his job, wants to be included. It is always nice to have his interjections.
In conclusion I would like to state that the over-all nature of the problem is such that attention should be drawn to it. I should like to point out two or three other recommendations on which I am sure the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton will wish to comment eventually so he might as well start writing now. Attention should be given to:
The improvement of organization and systemization of the waste material outflow portion of our consuming society,
The improvement of technology dealing with this outflow and with the separate steps of collecting, processing and disposing, and
The adoption of practices and policies that will close the loop between the materials consumption and the waste production parts of our society so that decisions relative to consumption will consider the waste product problem.
I do not think I can add any more at this time except to express the hope that when members rise to speak, particularly members on the other side, they will not turn this into a partisan issue since I did not until the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton interjected, but rather will offer some constructive criticisms and an appreciation of the intention behind this third attempt to bring this subject before the House for the consideration of hon. members.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: History may well record that the beginning of the decade of the seventies marked the turning point in man's use and abuse of the precious planet earth. In Cana'da, governments at all levels are becoming more and more aware that the biosphere is a closed system in which all things are recycled and re-used in support of the life process. Man, as a part of this closed life system, is dependent on it for his survival. Of all the living things, man alone is capable of consciously co-operating with nature to ensure his survival and progress.
Environmental modifications, which have accompanied our good yet shortsighted intentions of minimizing the spread of disease and maximizing the consumption of our raw resources, have had a global impact on human health and welfare. This has led our society to the discovery that we are dependent on, and part of, an ecosystem that we did not invent and must not destroy.
In this respect the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has given a very interesting, provocative and intelligent presentation to the House today. I commend him on his choice of subject matter. But as is usual, although the problems were raised, no suggestions for their solution were really presented. I intend to present what I believe are constructive suggestions that will help to solve the problems.
The hon. member suggested that we establish a research council of some kind, and that we spend many millions of dollars, at least that is what I believe it will cost, to gather civil servants and representatives of universities and industry together in such a research institute. I do not believe this would be an answer to the problem, for the simple reason that we live beside the

March 6, 1972

most powerful nation in the world, the most industrially advanced, and the most technologically advanced nation in the world.
I submit that there is a germ of a good idea in the speech made by the hon. member for Hamilton West, but I repeat that I do not think the real solution lies in establishing the kind of research institute he advocated. I believe we should be gathering information from the United States, a country which has many large, burgeoning cities that are coping with pollution problems. In this respect I think of the cities of Pittsburgh, Detroit and Buffalo. I believe we should ask them to share with us the knowhow that they are developing in solving these problems because they have more cash to work with, and more expertise available to them than we have. In addition, they have ten times as many people working on these problems as we could afford. I believe that at this stage we would be well advised to pick the best advice we can get from our great neighbour to the south, and I believe our great neighbour is ready to help us, particularly in light of our good relations with the United States.
I believe that we could send a small task force to the United States to gather information there. Pollution is a continental problem. The Americans are friendly to us when dealing with such matters. When presented with a joint problem such as we had during the Second World War, the Americans co-operated with us. They co-operated with us in the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and I am confident that thanks to the good neighbour policy that still exists between Canada and the United States, they will help us in coping with the enormous problem of pollution.
Canada has taken constructive action in attempting to clean up the Great Lakes, in co-operation with the United States. However, I believe we must extend our efforts to reach across the border and create dynamic dialogue, not only with congressmen, senators and mayors in the border states, but also with the people who reside along the Great Lakes in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, 1972 is the year that the great environmental conference is to be held in Stockholm. In my opinion, it is vital that Canadian views be expressed at all levels of contact with the United States of America, and dialogue should proceed immediately to achieve an exchange of views with people in Buffalo, Detroit and other large U S. cities, dialogue that will encompass people in Canadian cities like Toronto, Sarnia, Sudbury and Hamilton.
The Great Lakes can be saved for present use and for future generations. The time has come for instant and immediate discussions. I welcome the action taken by the federal government to date in substantially reducing pollution on the Canadian side of Lake Erie. The challenge now is not to attack the U.S. people but to persuade our giant neighbour to the south to take action at all levels of government, management, labour and the public. I believe that a conference attended by the heads of our two nations would be beneficial to this cause. I urge that serious consideration be given to the idea of establishing a system to curb pollution of the Great Lakes. I suggest that the International Joint Commission be given power, by international treaty, to recommend anti-pollution direc-
Pollution
tives, to be delivered and publicized to polluters on both sides of the border.
I believe in the principle that the polluter must pay. I also believe that on both sides of the border we have been lax in finding a means of sending the polluter a bill for payment, with the alternative of an injunction order backed up by international agreement to enforce such measures. This could all be worked out under the aegis of the International Joint Commission.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I was rather in despair during my first year as a member of the House of Commons. We questioned officials of the International Joint Commission who appeared before the Standing Committee on External Affairs when it was considering the estimates of the Commission. I gathered the impression from them that they did not want to rock the boat. I gathered the impression that they did not want to accept any real responsibility. They simply wanted to express opinions on how things could be changed, but they did not want the responsibility for cleaning up the Great Lakes. They did not want the responsibility of sending a bill to anyone for payment. I believe they should be engaged in drawing up a constructive program to stop this pollution. I want in some small way to accelerate the process because we simply cannot allow the pollution of the Great Lakes to continue.
I believe that when the United States finally gets around to doing something about the matter, it will proceed to do so very rapidly. I believe that our role should be that of a catalyst, pumping enthusiasm into the great nation to our south, discussing this question at all levels and all ages.
The greatest factor causing pollution in Hamilton harbour is waste from the city. The secondary stage of its sewage treatment system has been reached in Hamilton, thanks to co-operation at all levels of government. Part of this system has been paid for by federal funds. Once the system is fully developed, a great percentage of the pollution in Hamilton Bay will be removed for all time. Industry is partly responsible for the pollution, but industry is playing a large part in anti-pollution measures. Both the huge steel companies there, the Steel Company of Canada and the Dominion Foundries and Steel Company are spending vast sums of money on pollution control. I believe they should be encouraged.
Further, Mr. Speaker, it is necessary that all parties realize that the residents of Hamilton Beach must be protected from continuing pollution hazards. I am confident that they will soon see happier days with the possible development of park lands for the use of people in that immediate area.
In closing I reiterate that the hon. member for Hamilton West has raised an extremely interesting matter. I think he was deficient in presenting solutions. I think the Canadian role today should be that of a catalyst, to inspire and work with the Americans in bringing about reforms in the field of pollution.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I think the notice of motion before the House is a good one. It deals with a request to set up more research facilities in Canada in an effort to overcome some of the severe pollu-

March 6, 1972
Pollution
tion problems facing the nation. Although we are able to discuss only briefly some of the many things which ought to be done to remedy this situation, I nevertheless am pleased because the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) has brought this matter before the House and thereby has given us an opportunity to say publicly a few words on it.
To begin with, I presume that the motion is drafted in its present language because not sufficient research has been done in Canada or any other nation along the lines suggested by the motion. I could not agree more with that presumption, Mr. Speaker. Here we are, asking for a research development program to be set up with definite guidelines. In that connection may I say that my party has for a long time proposed the setting up of an environmental council of Canada. Such an environmental council should, in my view, be established along the lines of the Economic Council of Canada. They would be non-political. We would pick some of the most able people in Canada to sit on the council. They would report to Canada-every year, I presume-and outline the environmental problems which Canadians should meet. They would criticize, if necessary, any lack of program or policy on the part of the federal or provincial government-those governments which are supposed to be taking care of this problem.
I suggest that the need for research in Canada is urgent, just as it is in many nations of the world. A large number of articles and books have been written by people trained in this field. Some of them are biologists who have spent their lives studying the food chain, and so on, and they have indicated that we cannot continue along the lines we are following today and that we must take drastic action. Mr. Speaker, the proper action must be devised by those who have the expertise and training necessary to give us guidance in this field.
The notice of motion mentions solid-waste disposal. Although there is a host of pollutants in the world, I should like to deal briefly with solid-waste disposal and demonstrate the need for a plan to recycle all these solid wastes so that we can obtain from what is now waste material minerals and other materials which will assist in the industrial processes of the future. May I point something out before I go any further. I believe that three factors are invariably involved in research into pollution. One of those is population, the other resource development, and the third, of course, pollution itself. You cannot separate those factors, Mr. Speaker.
Canada, in common with other nations, will in the near future need to formulate a population control program. We must sit down and discover what will happen if the world in which we live becomes overpopulated. Information currently available tells me that by the year 2000, which is just 28 years from 1972, the population of this world will double. What will this mean? It means this: If the population doubles, the volume of material goods which the people of the world will need will also double. We shall need many more motor cars, colleges, schools, doctors, and so on. Vastly increased amounts of raw material will be dug out from our store-house of treasure in the earth, a store-house which the world holds, if the burgeoning population is to maintain standards of living
that we currently enjoy. Many say that we cannot indefinitely go on as at present: there is a limit to how much food we can raise in the world and to the resources which can be made available for the use of individuals. Before we reach this limit, what must we do? First, I think all countries of the world, perhaps through the United Nations, will have to set out some kind of population policy and try to stabilize world population through a host of processes which I will not go into now.
If I may return to the subject of minerals, Mr. Speaker, a number of minerals throughout the globe are already in short supply. So far no plan has been made by Canada or by any country of the world, that I know of, to ration the mineral resources of this world so that those who come after us will have something to use. So far, nothing has been done to establish a program for reclaiming certain waste materials. This notice of motion suggests that more research be applied to the subject we are considering so that we may return to the economy-return to society, if you like-many minerals which today are wasted. I could think of all kinds of garbage dumps where minerals are being wasted. Commodities made of minerals are just thrown to one side, covered over with dirt, and left. Sometimes they are dumped in the ocean or the lakes and are destroyed.
Not only Canada and the United States, but other nations of the world are conducting research into this question in an effort to determine which materials can be recycled. We can all learn from these efforts and we should pool all this knowledge and the results of research. Perhaps an agency for receiving and disseminating knowledge in this field should be set up through the United Nations.
This spring, Mr. Speaker, there is to be a meeting in Sweden sponsored by the United Nations. All nations belonging to the UN organization will be invited to look into the problem we are now discussing-pollution and its effect on the ocean, air and life in general. I therefore hope that we will devise a plan of action for undertaking the necessary research in this field in order that we may solve the problem of solid-waste disposal and attempt to put most wasted materials back into use.
To show the seriousness of the problem, may I quote a few figures. It is useless ducking our heads in the sand and saying that eventually, if we dump wastes and solids somewhere, nature will look after them and break them down into their original elements. This will not happen, for pollution has become too serious a problem in Canada and every other nation of the world. The survey I am about to refer to was made in 1969. One might say that a survey taken two years ago was taken long ago, and so it was. Nevertheless, the situation is even worse now, simply because the so-called standard of living of people is rising rapidly. We have reached the stage where people can buy goods in containers that can be thrown away or discarded. This just adds to our pollution problem.
In this article they stated that the experts felt the problem of pollution and recycling required a radical change in patterns of consumption and disposal. I do not think anyone in this House would disagree with that statement.

March 6, 1972

They stated they checked with a number of large cities in the United States. Time does not permit me to give all the data. However, this is very interesting and is something which I think closely parallels the Canadian way of life. In talking about the United States, they said:
Every man, woman and child in the country, on average is now generating more than five pounds of refuse a day-household, commercial, and industrial ... but excluding ... agricultural waste.
We find that in 1969-two years ago-every individual in the United States had every day of his life five pounds of refuse credited to him. When you multiply that by the over 200 million people in the United States, it represents a vast tonnage of refuse per year that has to be thrown away. The problem has become almost insurmountable in so far as municipalities and local agencies are concerned. Again talking about the United States, the waste includes, and I quote:
That adds up to more than a ton per person per year ... It includes 30 million tons of paper, more than 4 million tons of plastic, 48 billion cans and 26 billions bottles and jars.
That is what they are trying to get rid of each and every year in the United States. The problem of pollution has become so immense that it is no wonder there is talk about recycling. The article continues:
Collection and disposal facilities already are staggering under the load, which is increasing rapidly.
"The major metropolitan areas are standing in front of an avalanche" .. . and it's threatening to bury them."
The article points out that some of the larger cities are now planning to carry their refuse by train hundreds of miles away from the city centres. In fact, one city is planning to haul the garbage over 250 miles by train and dumping it in a desert area away from the burgeoning populations of the future. All they are doing is transferring the problem from one area to another. The answer to this question is not to take the refuge and dump it on somebody else's doorstep or in another area, although this might stall the problem for a short period of time. The answer is to find some method of recycling all the materials we have. This would be achieved by the type of research which the hon. member for Hamilton West indicates in his motion.
There is much more I would like to talk about, but the time allotted to me is running out. I am certain other hon. members want to speak on this subject. In conclusion, I would like to say that one of the weaknesses of this administration-and I might say that this is political-is that we have never had an environmental policy put to this House or the people of Canada. We need this type of policy. We must know what we intend to do about pollution. What shall we do about resource development, population, and management in the future? What are the plans for development of urban areas? Shall we concentrate more and more on the bigger cities and bypass other areas of Canada? If the plan is to set up a mid-Canada corridor or create cities and industries outside the current, large urban centres, now is the time to do it.
We have not had such a prediction from this government. At no time has there been an environmental policy concerning what we shall do and how we will conserve our resources. I add to the motion that I think research
Pollution
can solve this problem and at least give us a goal or goals toward which the municipalities, provinces and the federal government can aim in the years ahead.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, unhappily, this motion puts the truth to the criticism with which lawyers are always charged, namely, the motion is too verbose, it does not hit the point and grammatically it leaves a lot to be desired. Fortunately, the hon. member who moved the motion had an opportunity to spend 20 minutes explaining what he was trying to say in about ten lines of the motion. Also, it seems he feels we are entering into a political atmosphere, because when one endeavours to make a polite interjection to indicate that not only the young people of Canada but all people of Canada are concerned about pollution, this is a political interjection. If the hon. member is so thin-skinned, he had better thicken his skin because the interjections will get rougher from this point.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You can say that again.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member may have a lot more time after the next election to be worried about the situation in Hamilton and to be a little more parochial. I do not think anyone can argue with the position put forward by the hon. member. The point he is trying to make is good. However, I would have liked him to have zeroed in on one area. In the limited time we have, it is impossible for him or any member of this House to do justice to this motion.
The disposal of solid waste is one of the great problems that faces each municipality, province and Canada as a whole. On a more parochial level, there were two gentlemen who did not wait for government grants or initiative. They saw the problem locally and decided to do something about it. The problem was the disposal of solid chemical waste. Mr. Stanley and Mr. Harry Goodfellow tried to find some method of disposing of chemical waste. They were successful.
When the hon. member for Hamilton West talks about coming up with something that is not only good for the standpoint of pollution control but economically feasible, he makes a good point.
The gentlemen to whom I have referred formed a corporation called Goodfellow Enterprises. Subsequently, Canadian Industries Limited looked into this project, saw that it was good and would be a money-maker. They recently purchased this company and will be getting into this field. It is that kind of initiative that has made Canada great-not the handing out of government loans and government grants all the time, but seeing the problem and doing something about it.
I have done a fair amount of research on this subject. One always hesitates to put forward his views because I am sure the hon. member will agree that when you rise in the House of Commons to talk about pollution control the tendency is to say, "No wonder he talks about this: he is from Sarnia," or, "from Hamilton." In this way we give our communities a bad name which they do not deserve, whereas in point of fact we can see the problem developing and are trying to nip it in the bud. In Sarnia we welcomed the Lambton Industrial Society which is look-

March 6, 1972
Pollution
ing into all areas of pollution. They endeavoured to put their collective brains together to see if there was some way in this area to cut down air pollution caused by coal burning which has a higher sulphur content.
There are four general categories of solid waste- municipal, industrial, agricultural and mineral. It is my impression that major studies have been concerned primarily with municipal waste, the refuse produced by households and commerce which eventually finds its way to the public dump. Because this waste is so visible, attention is focused on it and other wastes do not receive the same measure of attention. However, it should be noted that in terms of tonnage, mining and industrial waste is astronomical by comparison with municipal waste. For example, in Canada in 1970, mining operations produced 440 million tons of solid waste, and agricultural waste totalled 150 million tons. Municipal waste accounted for only 17 million tons during the same period. I use the word "only" because of the huge amounts produced by other sources.
Municipal solid waste-garbage, in plain language-is anything that is deposited in a garbage can and a good many items that are not. It includes, in addition to everyday refuse such as potato-peelings, paper, rags, packages and old clothing, items such as junk furniture, worn out appliances, the refuse of industry and the debris from construction projects. Attempts recently have been made in Ottawa to recycle the discarded paper which accumulates in household waste. I hope they continue and that they will prove successful, because while the composition of refuse by weight varies from city to city, a typical Canadian or American municipal refuse accumulation contains 59 per cent paper. The remainder would be in roughly the following proportions: 10 per cent wood, lawn and garden waste; 9 per cent food waste; 8.5 per cent glass, other ceramics and ash; 7.5 per cent metal and 6 per cent clothes, rags, plastic, rubber and leather.
The hon. member who spoke before me suggested we should explore more vigorously the possibilities of deriving some benefit from waste. We might, for instance, find some use for tailings which are piled up around mining communities. Perhaps we could find a way of getting iron out of the slag dumps. This can be done at the present time but it is not feasible from an economic point of view. It is not right to suggest that no research work is carried out in this field. Before the war, research was being carried out in this connection, to my personal knowledge.
Who generates municipal waste? Everyone is responsible for generating refuse. It is produced constantly, day in and day out. It is produced by office workers, homemakers, factory workers, shopkeepers, farmers-virtually by everybody. The affluent produce more trash than the poor. The amount of garbage generated by Canadians in 1970 averaged 4.3 lbs. per person per day, a total of 1,580 lbs. per person per year. It is estimated that the average United States citizen generates 1,800 lbs. of solid waste per year, while in backward India the figure is about 200 lbs. Generally, everyday household trash goes into the garbage can for collection by the city through the agency of private sanitation companies. Business and industry usually arrange for a special refuse removal at their own
[Mr. Cullen.J
expense. Regardless of how or where it is produced, virtually all refuse ends up as land-fill or in the incinerator.
It has been suggested, and the motion before us suggests, that the problem of dealing effectively with solid waste has now reached crisis proportions. Even if this is not the case at the moment, the stark statistic introduced by the hon. member who preceded me, namely, that the world's population will double by the year 2,000, is enough to convince anyone that the time to begin working very hard to eliminate the pollution threat through recycling and other means, is now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: So it is not a bad motion after all.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is not a bad motion. It is poorly worded and it is hard to know where the hon. member is placing his emphasis. Maybe the next time he brings it forward he will concentrate on one or two particular areas.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Read my other speeches which contained more statistics.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I did. The hon. member said we should not lay blame in any one direction; that we should not be attacking the government but that we should examine all the areas involved. Yet when his remarks were interrupted by a polite interjection he sank to political partisanship which is unbecoming.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We are not faced with a sudden crisis. Garbage has been around as long as mankind, ever since the Stone Age. The difficulty is that in the more congested, more sophisticated societies, it is not so easy to avoid the problems it creates. We cannot avoid it or walk away from it. Some time ago members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development had an opportunity to visit an Indian community which was established in the Northwest Territories at about the turn of the century. As a result of the build-up of hunting and household wastes during all those years, a pollution situation had developed. The department concluded that the population of the village ought to be moved from that particular site and consultation began with the Indians to see how their removal from this unhealthy site could best be arranged.
So it is not only modern cities which build up pollution through an accumulation of household waste. In times gone by it was possible for communities simply to walk away and find new sites for their homes. But this is no solution for people living in cities like Sarnia, Hamilton or Madawaska?
Recognizing we are faced with a problem we must act as all Liberal governments have acted, that is, we must devise satisfactory solutions. And the present government has come up with some splendid solutions-the clean air act and the clean water act, to name two examples. Some people say they are not enough-but they are important steps forward. I, personally, would like to see the International Joint Commission be given more money and greater power so that it could do what needs to be done to clean up the Great Lakes.
March 6, 1972


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-4, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from January 1, 1971, to June 30, 1972, 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.
Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying prior to private members' hour, the whole question of containerization in air transportation has, in my opinion, an increasing role to play. We were talking about cargo containers and I should also like to speak of the possibility of passenger luggage containerization which might be developed within similar parameters. In either case, the object would be to load cargo and/or passengers in a container and an aircraft according to their ultimate destination. Thus, a container for Montreal, Toronto or other points serviced by the central airport facility could be loaded on the same aircraft but quickly unloaded on to the ground transit vehicle with the minimum of handling for the balance of the journey. Packaging passengers in that way may sound somewhat inhuman, but we are thinking of larger units, which might be a whole vehicle or aircraft, or a significant portion of it.
It can be seen that such a system could eliminate a number of costly and time-consuming steps in any long air journey. It would seem logically to follow that the ground vehicle, or a section of it, would be stationed immediately adjacent to the unloading aircraft and simply joined to the main line track, or other right of way hopefully going in the right direction. As the major part of the initial system would parallel the St. Lawrence Seaway, further possibilities for integration with water transport exist. This is in addition to the availability of
CNR and Air Canada
fresh water for the industry and population to be served by this industrial transportation corridor.
Such a centrally located facility would immediately serve smaller cities whose travellers must presently find their way to cities served by major airports. For longer journeys they would have the Kingston airport, and for shorter journeys they would have the surface transport to the airports handling short and medium haul flights. It should take more than a footnote to indicate that the ground transit would have to be tied into the existing airports for connecting short-haul passengers and cargo.
The addition of tie lines to the ground transit system would be logical even in the early states. The most obvious tie-in would be the nation's capital, not only providing it with better air service but, again, eliminating a significant amount of short-haul air traffic between Ottawa-Hull and the country's two largest cities, Toronto and Montreal. This should reduce air traffic movement, according to my figures, by a further 5 per cent in Toronto and 6 per cent in Montreal, at today's rates. Communities such as Belleville, Brockville and Valleyfield would be served by the main line. Cities such as Peterborough could be conveniently tied in by a number of alternative methods. Northern New York state cities, such as Rochester and Syracuse, could be serviced by hovercraft or hydrofoil vehicles.
A natural extension of the ground service would be to cities such as Quebec and Windsor,serving intermediate points such as Trois-Rivieres, Sorel, Hamilton, Kitchener and London. This would service existing population and industry and encourage the economic growth of regions now not economically or conveniently accessible. It would create an industrial corridor extending some 750 miles with convenient interchanges of people, industrial components and goods.
Ultimately further tie-lines could be extended to regions such as Lac Ste. Jean and the eastern townships, and northward from Toronto as far as Sudbury, allowing commercial access as well as providing a transportation system which would take people from the crowded urban centres to some of the most beautiful recreation areas in the country.
I previously mentioned that time rather than distance is the key factor in transportation of people. With highspeed surface transport, people could enjoy the benefits of country or smaller town living while being able to work in the major cities. This provides a better life style for some while at the same time taking the pressure for growth off the already strangling large urban communities. One could conveniently live in Cobourg, Ontario, and work in Toronto. With a northern line one could live in his year-round home on Lake Simcoe, or even in Muskoka, while one's means of livelihood was in Toronto. I am sure similar examples could be drawn for Montrealers.
It has been estimated that a major airport requires a community of 100,000 to 150,000 people to service it. I notice that these are just about the figures being used in conjunction with the new Toronto region airport. This includes not just those employed at the airport but their families and the multiplicity of services they require, such as shopkeepers, barbers, travellers, doctors and lawyers, plus the recreational and administrative needs of all.

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
Existing centres would develop, but it may also be necessary or desirable to inaugurate new planned communities, perhaps 25 or more miles east and west of the airport site enabling airport personnel to commute in minutes-a great opportunity for the planning genius of a Buckminster Fuller or a Moshe Safde or any number of excellent Canadian planners!
One of the key considerations would be air and noise pollution. This factor is one that makes the Kingston region a logical one, assuming that the facility is not immediately adjacent to Kingston. It is likely that any major housing development within a 10 to 25-mile radius of the airport would be forbidden. An extension of this would be expropriation of land and the establishment of a national park or wilderness area. This provides an apparent contradiction because one would hardly think of a wilderness area beset by air and noise pollution.
Normal traffic patterns would have considerable bearing on the land use. Industrial development could be quite satisfactory, even complementary in some areas. Other areas might prove quite suitable for wildlife, while others for camping. Considerations for permanent living are quite different from those for industrial or occasional use. The need for nature preserves and lands for recreational use will grow, as does population and leisure time. Not all will choose to live in less dense areas and commute. Even if such an area were to serve just the Kingston region, the growth of that city as the hub of the transportation network would be sufficient justification.
I mentioned previously that the ground transit would have to connect with existing airports serving Toronto and Montreal. In so far as passengers are concerned, there may be a case made for interconnecting air shuttle service. Similar services may be provided for other communities, particularly those not served by the ground transit system. Canada's STOL development might well provide the proper type of aircraft for such service.
It is further possible that traffic volumes might justify interconnecting flight schedules with other major cities in the medium haul range, such as Winnipeg and Halifax. These services would apply to incoming and departing long-range, international and transcontinental flights of the Los Angeles-Kingston type.
Frequency of schedules for the surface transit is an essentia] factor. All of the time advantage could be lost if infrequency of schedules required passengers to take the "ten o'clock", arriving at 11 to catch a noon or 1 p.m. flight. Conversely the arriving passenger might have to wait an hour or more for a departing train or unit. The growth of the corridor would ultimately justify frequent arrivals and departures, but any frequency which could require waiting periods of an hour or more would seriously impair the total concept.
Technology, again, can provide the answer to this problem. Smaller groupings of surface vehicles can provide part of the answer. Economic, self-propelled modules are another possibility. Perhaps the best solution is a continuing or perpetual power source into which the module or unit is connected with schedules and the number of

modules in a transit unit is contingent upon demand. But this is another problem for the scientists, Mr. Speaker.
As one thinks in terms of the emphasis Canada should give in the areas of science policy, research and development, it would seem natural that transportation should rate high on any list of priorities. There is no reason, however, why we should have any natural advantages, in spite of the fact that we have natural potential and problems. Without a project to give focus and thrust, as well as market, we could wander in the never-never land of unapplied research. This project would be the catalyst for a national scientific effort which could have significant international market potential.
An international centre for transportation studies could be established, perhaps at Queen's University in Kingston. Other Canadian universities could be participants covering specific areas of concentration. At the same time, international dimension could be provided by encouraging visiting specialists from other countries to participate. Not only would we achieve the results of research, but we could also train specialists to administer our transportation systems.
The broader aspects of transportation should be intertwined-the sociological ramifications, the industrial development, urban styles and the unifying effects on a nation so diverse in all its aspects. The economic consequences could be substantial, resulting in the sale of technology and much of our hardware abroad.
The regional economic benefits are obvious-efficient transport of goods within a major market; components from a tool shop in Windsor delivered rapidly to the major assembly plant in Sorel or Quebec city; greater mobility of labour; a direct tie-in to the automotive heartland of the Detroit area and adjacent to the Boston, Washington, Chicago triangle, the largest market concentration in the U.S. and perhaps the world.
The project itself develops its own market. The rolling stock, containers, the switchgear and complex electronic systems all feed high technology, labour-intensive Canadian industry. With developed know-how we would have immense export potential in a field in which we could be pre-eminent. Examples of subsidiary economic benefits are virtually endless.
Mr. Speaker, you might ask about the cost of such an operation. That is difficult to project but I think there are certain trade-offs. This is of greater value to eastern Canada than the economic well-being of western Canada. Western Canada might ask, what is in it for us? I would suggest any improvement in our transportation system and the economy in any part of the country is good for all parts of the country. I would suggest that we also think of pipelines for gas and oil to serve our eastern markets. There are those who ask why we should spend more money for western oil or gas when we can bring in offshore or foreign product? Well, Mr. Speaker, I think this is part of the price of belonging to the club, part of the price of being Canadian. For many years westerners have paid a higher price for consumer goods produced in the eastern industrial centres in order to protect the economy of eastern Canada and this, in turn, helped them. It works both ways, and I think this is the trade-off. I do not know
March 6, 1972

what the cost would be-say about $100 billion. No one can argue with those figures.


An hon. Member:: Billions.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Whatever the cost, it would certainly be outweighted by the benefits and would be substantially less than the ultimate cost of laissez-faire development or lack of purpose. This is the greatest danger we face.
The Kingston airport itself is not the key to the whole concept. I think it is a major component in a vital plan. The whole transit system is important and I think the Kingston airport could be the cornerstone.
All this came up, Mr. Speaker, because of the subject of our debate and the recent announcement of the major airport which will take up a large segment of my constituency. I mentioned the effects on my constituency earlier, which are not all pleasant, but this is the price of what I guess we call progress, or a type of progress. The economic benefits for my region are considerable, but many of my constituents are concerned about the possible selling price of their homes. However, past experience indicates that this price rises in such circumstances. There is a tremendous amount of economic fall-out from an airport facility-new industry, new job opportunities, new business opportunities and excellent transportation, so the cost of existing properties should increase.
But that is not my sole criteria, Mr. Speaker. The economic benefits are great but I think we should consider the human benefits, particularly as we talk of the longterm. I like to think what might have been decided 20 or 30 years ago if politicians then had been talking about the type of future, the type of cities, the transportation networks which we would require today. In its initial stages, I think this is the type of thing that could be a priority task for the recently established Institute of Public Policy Research. This may be the sort of thing it is designed for- to look well into the future and do the type of forward thinking for which we in this chamber do not have time. Regrettably, our system is reactionary-we react to events, political pressures and economic pressures. But the Institute of Public Policy Research is a non-partisan vehicle supported by all levels of government and the private sector. It should be able to look at long-range goals and perhaps give guidance to politicians like ourselves so that we may more realistically base our policy.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I hope that what I have suggested will be raised in committee with the officials of the railways, the airlines and the various departments involved. Now that we have made the decision for current needs for the next 20 or 30 years, for the next generation, it is time to start thinking beyond those years because the potential for our country is considerable. If we are wise now and look ahead, our children and grandchildren will thank us-but if we do not, they will damn us as some damn our forefathers today.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the interest in this bill, which is perennial, is about proportionate to the influence of what we say during the course of this debate to the CN and its operations in the next year. As a matter of fact, I know of no other Crown
CNR and Air Canada
corporation or agency responsible to this Parliament which is less responsive to the wishes or the influence of Parliament than is Canadian National Railways.
However, we nevertheless welcome the opportunity provided us every year through the vehicle of this financing bill to place on record our views and grievances. I come from a province which perhaps-yes, without a doubt-is more dependent upon Canadian National Railways and the services of CN than any other province in Canada. We are totally dependent upon CN both from the point of view of Air Canada and the service provided to our province by Air Canada and the ground service provided to us through the railways and the ferry services operated by CN.
Just about three years ago Canadian National was permitted to suspend rail passenger service in Newfoundland as a consequence of an application placed before the Canadian Transport Commission. I refer to the order of the CTC of July 3, 1968, No. R.2673, which gave authority to Canadian National Railways to discontinue its rail passenger service in the province of Newfoundland. Since that time our province has been without rail passenger service, the only province in the country so deprived. Consequently, we have to suffer the shortcomings of what is at best a most inadequate public transportation system.
Perhaps this is the most opportune time-indeed it will probably be the only opportunity we will have in the course of this Parliament-to review what has transpired since that decision of the Canadian Transport Commission of July 3, 1968. I would point out that I was very happy to join my colleagues in the submission to the CTC dated February 15, 1972, in which we asked the commission to reconsider its order of July 3, 1968, permitting CN to withdraw rail passenger service in Newfoundland. Our reason for doing so was prompted by a decision of the commission on February 8, 1972, in which it issued a decision requiring the railways, CN and CP, to continue operating rail passenger services between Montreal and the maritime provinces. The railways had applied to the commission for permission to withdraw this particular rail passenger service, which included the main line operations between St. John's, Moncton, Halifax, Sydney and Montreal as well as the various connecting services to the maritime points and the Gaspe regions of Quebec. The commission, in its release announcing that decision, said: Cost studies carried out by the commission in connection with the February 8 decision identified a total actual loss on these services of $14,834,298 in 1970. Under the law, the services now are eligible for federal subsidies of up to 80 per cent of annual losses. At the 1970 level, this could cost the taxpayers almost $12 million a year or $1 million a month.
I can think of no better way than to continue quoting from the release of the commission:
The decision, by the Railway Transport Committee, saw no evidence that the services could be rendered profitable with current schedules, operating practices and equipment. It added: "Hence, given the actual losses incurred and the demands and traffic patterns, the committee is of the opinion that it is possible through imaginative improvements to develop a maritimes passenger-train system which will satisfy the needs of the travelling public and, at the same time, justify whatever cost there may be to the federal treasury.
In this decision the committee identifies the basic rail passenger network as it presently exists in the Atlantic region east of Mont-

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
real. Pending the achievement of its objective as just stated, the committee determines that all the passenger-train services under consideration should not be discontinued. As time goes on, and suggestions or proposals for improvement are analyzed and accepted by the committee, it may be necessary to require alterations in the services as presently operated, having regard to the needs of the travelling public and the cost to the Canadian taxpayers".
That is the end of the quotation which in effect is the judgment of the commission in response to the application by the two railways to discontinue the service between Montreal and the Maritime provinces. As I indicated, this rather momentous decision by the commission prompted the submission my colleagues and I made to the commission on February 15, 1972, to which I shall refer in a moment. I should like to quote from this release because I think it is very relevant to my remarks. The committee stated in its release:
In order to ensure that all possible methods of improvement are considered, the commission invites suggestions from the public. Such suggestions, dealing with mainline or local aspects of the services, should be submitted in writing-
Then the address is given to which one should write. Persons making submission are asked to give consideration to the following points:
1.	Routing, including possible combinations of service on CNR and CP Rail lines.
2.	Frequency of service on the resulting route or routes, with possible variations in summer and winter schedules.
3.	Train departure-arrival times.
4.	Connecting services by rail, road, air and water.
5.	Methods and costs of providing meals.
6.	Methods and costs of providing sleeping car service.
7.	Fare levels for coach services.
8.	Improved reservation procedures to reduce the "no show" problem.
The commission hopes to obtain responses from the appropriate departments of provincial and municipal governments, the railways, trade unions, travel agencies, public bodies and individual citizens. It is particularly interested in the views of those members of the public who have actually travelled on the trains in the last two years.
We fee] that the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission is very relevant to the arguments we have placed before the House since the commission in its judgment of July 3, 1968, allowed by its order No. R. 2673 Canadian National to discontinue railway passenger service in Newfoundland, hence depriving our province of a total, comprehensive public transportation system.
Now I should like to quote from the submission of the Newfoundland members of parliament to the commission, of February 15, 1972, which reads in part as follows:
We submit that the bus service provided by Canadian National as an alternative to the train service does not now, and probably will never, fulfil the needs of the travelling public. Service has been anything but adequate; even more alarming, service is less than safe-as statistics recording the number of accidents will attest.
My colleagues and I will present arguments to support that contention during the course of this debate. Our submission continues:
0- ofCN's own vice-presidents, J. A. McDonald, has said publicly that "anyone who has experienced the miseries of peak 
congestion on even the most modern 12-lane super highway will recognize that road transport is incapable of providing adequately for all the needs of the travelling public". In Newfoundland, we have no 12-lane super highway: it is a two-lane, and the miseries and agonies of travelling by bus along the nearly 600 miles can be documented at length.
My colleagues and I will attempt to do just that-document our case in this respect. We feel that the poor service in Newfoundland during the past three years-the "road cruiser service" as CN styles it-is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the travelling public. Buses are uncomfortable and less than safe. In fact, they do not meet the demands of the public travelling over such long distances in order to make necessary connections with the mainland transportation system.
Why have we arrived at the state where we have an inadequate bus service which is supposed to be superior to the rail passenger service which it was to improve? It is a fact, as we have indicated during past debates on bills similar to this, that the CN deliberately set out in Newfoundland to downgrade the passenger service so that patronage would fall off to the point where they could successfully file an application with the commission pointing out that the service was no longer being patronized to an extent to justify continuing the service and that the operating deficit was increasing to the point where CN felt that it was no longer able to carry on.
They took a five-year trial period for purposes of their application. During that five-year period they took one year by their own accounting procedures which are incomprehensible to most people. They were able to show that the rail passenger service in Newfoundland for that particular year operated at a deficit of $900,000. Yet, the service in the maritime provinces is going to cost $1 million a month, whereas our service for the entire province during its most difficult year was only able to arrive at a maximum deficit of $900,000. Service was downgraded and deliberately slow. There can be no doubt about that. It was downgraded to the point where patronage fell off and where, as I have said, they were able to successfully appeal to the commission through the collusion of the then provincial government-and, I might say, the collu-1 sion of the Canadian Transport Commission and the government of Canada-and argue a case for the discontinuance of rail passenger service. Presumably they were able to satisfy the commission that a bus system in Newfoundland would not only meet the needs of the travelling public but would also be more economical to operate.
What is the case? For the year 1970-71 the bus service in Newfoundland, the CN road cruiser service, operated at a deficit of $400,000, plus considerable inconvenience and discomfort to the travelling public the like of which was never known during the days of the rail passenger service. What about the safety feature of this new bus system? I will not say too much about that because my colleagues, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) and the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Peddle) who represent constituents who are much more familiar with the bus service than I am, will I am sure outline the unsatisfactory safety record. Suffice to say, however, that there is growing concern in the province of Newfoundland among the travelling public
March 6, 1972

about the growing number of accidents involving the CN road cruisers.
The inadequacy of the system was dramatically underlined and sharply driven home during the recent strike of the air traffic controllers. The province of Newfoundland which, as I said, is totally dependent upon CN services, found itself totally dependent upon the CN road cruiser service for connections with the mainland. The people had to try the bus service because no other alternative was left open to them, and they found out for themselves the discomfort, indeed the hazards, of travelling across the 600 miles of Trans-Canada highway in Newfoundland to get to the mainland via this means.
We believe that the time has now come when the government agents, the Canadian Transport Commission, should reconsider the decision that it took in July of 1968 in light of the operating experience of the past three years. If they do that in an objective way by having public hearings, calling witnesses and having the kind of examination of the service which will bring out the facts, we believe that in fairness they can only come to the conclusion that they erred in their decision of July, 1968, in allowing Canadian National to discontinue rail passenger service in the province of Newfoundland.
I am not arguing for a return of the system, as we knew it, for a return of the Newfie "Bullet" of fame, but I do suggest that since we do have an inadequate system and we are totally dependent on this road cruiser service operated by the CN monopoly in Newfoundland-since this service is operating at a substantial deficit which is increasing and, I submit, at a considerable inconvenience to the public-the time has now come when it is incumbent upon the government to consider the advisability of providing the province of Newfoundland with standard gauge rails.
I realize that this is something that should have been done 22 years ago when Newfoundland became a province of Canada. But it was not done then. I think a case can be made for it now. What better way could there be for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which is so involved in substantial expenditures in Newfoundland, to provide a so-called infrastructure? What better could it do than provide funds whereby Canadian National and the government of Canada would standardize the rail lines in Newfoundland to link us with the rail network of North America? This would make eminently more sense than some of the infrastructure expenditures that have been undertaken by that department during the past two years. It would have the effect of making transportation to Newfoundland considerably more economical than at present.
In the first instance, it would provide the people of Newfoundland with a direct connection with the rail lines of the continent for passenger service. And, probably even more important, it would provide the province of Newfoundland with a direct link with the continental rail network for the purpose of freight transportation, which is so important to my province which is totally dependent upon imports of consumer goods from the mainland of Canada. We feel there is a case to be made for such an
CNR and Air Canada
expenditure by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.
I regret that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) is not present for this debate. I am sure he has a very good reason for being elsewhere, but the fact remains that he is not here, able to hear or respond to the arguments presented by hon. members during the course of this debate. Hopefully, we will have another opportunity to present these arguments and to question the minister during committee stage of the bill.
I feel we should now take a long, hard look at the situation in Newfoundland with regard to Canadian National. I believe it is difficult, if not impossible, to justify CN bus service in the province of Newfoundland which is unable to meet the demands of the travelling public and must operate at a growing annual deficit.
As I indicated at the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, we are short-changed in that we do not have adequate public transportation service in the province of Newfoundland but have inadequate transportation service which hampers resource development. It also hampers tourist development and causes considerably inconvenience to the travelling public. For these reasons alone a case can be made for reopening the whole application and the whole area of the decision which was made by the commission in 1968. In this respect it might be advantageous to quote from the MacPherson commission report. This commission made its report in 1961 but it is the only report we have. We feel it is still relevant. As recorded at page 72, volume I, the commission stated:
Locational and resource disadvantages are well known in Canada. Remedies for overcoming them have been built into national policy. Transportation has been used as one instrument for mitigating locational disadvantage . . . Locational disadvantages can still be ameliorated by national transportation policies.
I do not think that we have a national transportation policy. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) referred to this question during the course of his remarks. I think the way he put it was that there is need for a more integrated transportation policy. The leader of the NDP made the same point during the course of his remarks, which I substantially support. We can refer to the recommendations of the MacPherson commission as supporting argument for our contention. But there are also other data which will support our argument. If transportation in Canada is to make sense, then transportation decisions, as the leader of the NDP said, will have to be made on the basis of public need and not on the basis of political expediency.
It was political expediency that brought about the decision of the commission, in the first instance, which allowed CN to withdraw railway passenger service from the province of Newfoundland. Decisions should not be made on the basis of some sort of simplistic approach, the kind of simplistic approach advocated by the Minister of Transport. It is interesting to examine what he said before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications at its hearings on February 25, 1971, dealing with this matter. He said:
Where it is feasible it is still the objective of the ministry to provide services on a cost-recovery basis to the maximum extent possible.

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
If we are to have a transportation policy based on that philosophy, then it is my contention that the people of Canada will be shortchanged. It is my contention that if we are to have a public transportation policy based on a pay-as-you-go philosophy, then we will not have an adequate transportation system in this country. Certainly the facts, as I have tried to lay them on the record, indicate that this is so in Newfoundland today, because the arguments used to support the decision to disallow rail service in Newfoundland were purely on the basis of cost-recovery or on the basis of operating deficits.
No public transportation service can operate on a break-even basis, let alone a profitable basis. The public will have to underwrite the cost of public transportation. It seems to me that the difficulties we are experiencing are a direct consequence of the attitude of the government of Canada and of the Minister of Transport, whose philosophy I have tried to outline in the quotation I have given. The minister would be well advised to heed the words of his cabinet colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Development (Mr. Marchand) who, when he was president of the Confederation of National Trade Unions in 1961, said:
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.
Public transportation must flow from a direct, integrated government policy on transportation. We do not seem to get that from the government. I submit that until we have a definition of the government's policy on transportation, we will have this ad hoc, hit or miss attitude of the Canadian Transport Commission carrying out what they interpret to be the philosophy of the government of the day. We need only add that until we have such an integrated and adequate transportation policy from the government we will continue to have conflicting decisions by the commission which, under the scrutiny of examination, make no sense at all.
Therefore I appeal to the government, and in particular to the Minister of Transport, to enter into discussions with the president of the CTC with a view to at least having public hearings into the service provided by Canadian National in Newfoundland since the momentous decision of the commission in July, 1968, by which it allowed Canadian National to withdraw from railway passenger service in the province. Such an examination in my view, Mr. Speaker, can lead only to the conclusion that Newfoundland is inadequately served by the public transportation system of this country. That inadequacy must be met by this government. We feel it can only be met by serious consideration being given to providing the necessary funds whereby the province of Newfoundland, in keeping with the latest technology, can adopt the standard, gaugerail line. That would at least link us with the continental rail network and thus give us half a chance to get goods in and out of the province and provide our people with decent rail service.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us is one in which Parliament is being asked to vote money for the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. Naturally, the debate on this

bill becomes one in which Members of Parliament state their views as to improvements in various areas that ought to be made by both these transport agencies.
The leader of this party, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) spoke this afternoon in a general way, indicating our view with respect to transport policy in a broad sense. He also said that a number of us in this party would be dealing, one by one, with specific issues. I intend to confine my remarks, therefore, to the matter of further improvements that must be made with respect to the pensions of the Canadian National Railways. I am very conscious that a little over one year ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) stood in his place in this House and announced a significant and deeply appreciated improvement in the pensions of Canadian National employees already retired. I am happy to underline today the appreciation I expressed on that occasion. I refer to the minister's announcement of Friday, February 5, 1971, to be found at page 3102 of Hansard for that date. However, Mr. Speaker, a year has gone by and, as it is popularly put, those concerned are asking, "What have you done for us lately?"
Despite all the good things we were able to say about the announcement of a year ago, we also pointed out then that there were two or three notable shortcomings with respect to what was done at that time. Now we must add to that that one year has gone by, the cost of living has gone up and many CNR pensioners whose position was improved a year ago now find that they are back where they were.
Sir, I said a moment ago that I would confine my remarks tonight to the matter of Canadian National pensions. May I add that I want to divide what I have to say into two main areas. First I want to talk about what can be done to improve further the lot of Canadian National pensioners already retired. Having done that, I shall turn to a second area, namely, the one major improvement, amongst others, that I think ought to be made in the Canadian National pension plan, an improvement affecting those who are still in the service of the CNR.
Going back to my first concern, that of pensioners already retired, may I indicate that the announcement made one year ago was that there was to be provided an increase in the pensions of those who had retired on or before December 31, 1969, and that that increase would amount to 2 per cent for each full year of service. That increase was made effective on January 1, 1971. The pensioners concerned got their first payment of the increase in April of last year, and they have been getting ever since the increase so provided. However, the principal shortcoming of that increase was that it was a one-shot proposal: the increase was granted then, but there was no provision for an additional increase in 1972; there is no provision for another increase in 1973, and so on. Thus, although the cost of living is going up at between 4 and 5 per cent a year-and I think that is a conservative estimate for me to make-these people do not even get the 2 per cent increase in their pensions that quite a number of pensioners under other jurisdictions now receive.
I said on February 5, 1971, that that was one of the main shortcomings in the announcement made at that time. I pointed out that it was a one-shot proposition and that
March 6, 1972

there was no provision' for these increases to be granted on an annual basis. May I point out, Sir, that that is what is done with respect to the pensions of retired public servants. The increases that were provided for them a year or so before that were reasonably comparable to the increases provided for retired Canadian National employees. Actually, they were better, because there was a compounding element in those increases that Canadian National pensioners did not get. Not only did public servants get the first increase; they have continued to get the increase of 2 per cent on the gross amount they are receiving every January as the cost of living has continued to go up. That applies also to those on old age security who are also receiving the guaranteed income supplement.
I regret that it does not apply at present to those receiving only the basic old age security pension. However, it also applies to all sorts of other people who are retired under federal auspices. It applies to retired Members of Parliament, and so on. If any one of us leaves this place and goes on pension he will find that, provided he is over 60, his pension will increase by 2 per cent per year if the cost of living has gone up by that much. History seems to suggest that it will continue to go up by at least that amount.
My point is that- although there are these other groups which not only get pension increases but which also get these increases every year, the increase for Canadian National pensioners was a one-shot proposition and there was nothing after that. I think that is grossly unfair and something ought to be done about it. Not only have there been no subsequent increases for these people; in addition, any employee of Canadian National Railways who retired on or after January 1, 1970, is not covered by the scheme that was announced one year ago. Those Canadian National employees now retiring are retiring on what I regard as the worst kind of pension, namely, a pension of fixed amount with no provision for that amount to be increased.
Sir, this whole matter was discussed at length in the session previous to this one. Indeed, it has been discussed for a great many years. During the third session of the present Parliament we had the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications for a very thorough study. That committee made a report, to be found in Journals of the House of Commons for 1969-70 at pages 1290 to 1296. The report was tabled on October 5, 1970, and is found in the pages I have indicated.
I also point out that this report, which was a unanimous report as far as the committee was concerned, became the opinion of this House of Commons because later, as noted at page 1425 of Journals for that same session, that report was concurred in on a motion made on behalf of the committee by the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner). The recommendations of the committee to which I have referred became, as I say, the recommendations of this House of Commons.
As I have indicated, the report covers a number of pages. I am not going to take the time to read them all. I
CNR and Air Canada
am not even going to read all of the seven recommendations with which the report concludes. Instead, I draw particular attention to three of those recommendations. I mention the first one because it is a case where I can extend my compliments to the Canadian National Railways. I am referring to the third recommendation, which was that the Canadian National pension board should be restructured. Its powers should be increased substantially. In particular, we asked for equal representation, as we put it, between the unions and the company. The old set-up was that the board consisted of seven persons, three appointed by the employees through their unions, three appointed by the company and a chairman appointed by the company. That is a strange brand of equality. In effect, it became a seven-man committee with the company having four men on it.
This was responded to rather generously by the Canadian National in that the pension board now consists of ten members; five from the management side and five from the employees side, with the chairmanship alternating. I forget the period of time for which each chairman presides over the committee. At any rate, the chairmanship alternates between a representative of management and a representative of the employees. That is good. In addition, although I do not believe this is written into the rules of the pension board, there is an understanding that each of the two sides will ensure that one of its five representatives is a pensioner so that the viewpoint of those now on pension will have some representation on the board.
The whole question of how much power that board has is another matter. I will not take the time to go into it now. However, I wanted to refer to recommendation No. 3 of our committee which, as I say, called for the restructuring of the pension board as well as for its democratization, and to say that I welcome the action that has been taken. I can also say that many pensioners and employees of Canadian National take heart from this change. They hope that beneficial results will follow from it. The other two recommendations to which I draw special attention are Nos. 4 and 5. I quote No. 4 as follows:
At the outset, this committee wishes to point out that the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan adopted the principle of adjusting pensions for cost of living increases. Furthermore, a second important principle has been adopted whereby Parliament in the name of all Canadians applied the cost of living adjustment ,on a current basis, but more important, retroactively to all public service pensioners.
The committee strongly recommends that these principles be adopted on a broader basis and that other major employers, including Crown corporations, recognize their obligation to follow the lead of Parliament in this regard. The committee specifically recommends that the Canadian National Railways implement these principles forthwith.
Let it be very clear that what we were recommending in that fourth recommendation in our report was that the Canadian National Railways should do what was done by Parliament for public servants and what has been done in the Canada pension plan and the Quebec pension plan, namely, that the escalation of pensions should be put on an annual basis. In other words, every year in which the cost of living goes up, pensions should go up accordingly. There is a 2 per cent ceiling there which I do not like or accept, but that is another issue.

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
Welcome though the announcement of the Minister of Transport on February 5, 1971, may have been, it was only one portion of what the committee recommended. It was only a one-shot increase with no future increases provided. I contend that one of the things that certainly needs to be done is to make it clear to Canadian National that, good as this was a year ago, it is not now good enough. Even if we have to live with this 2 per cent ceiling for a while, until we get rid of it in the Old Age Security Act, the Public Service Superannuation Act and so on, surely we could at least provide the same benefit for Canadian National pensioners who are retired, namely, an escalation of their pensions every year in which the cost of living increases. I believe very strongly that this should be done.
When we get this bill to the committee, I believe the Canadian National officials should be asked to come before the committee and answer the obvious question: When you accepted our recommendation, why did you accept it on only a one-shot basis? Why did you not accept it on the basis which we proposed, namely, that it be an annual increase as is the case with public servants, the Canada pension plan, the Quebec pension plan and so on?
We will have to remind the Canadian National officials when they come before us that because of the motion made later by the hon. member for London East, which had the unanimous support of this House, that recommendation was the recommendation of the House of Commons.
The other recommendation in this report to which I would like to draw attention is No. 5. It is rather lengthy. Perhaps I might be permitted to summarize it, hoping that I will not do violence to it. It is one of those recommendations that gets all-involved in amounts of money owing to the fund, amounts that are paid, amounts that are not paid, interest on those amounts, and all the rest of it. Those on the committee will remember we had long and involved arguments about all this. The company was accused by some witnesses of running away with money and so on.
Even when you boil all this down to a minimum, and even when you deal only with what the committee could support unanimously, we came up with the recommendation that there is an amount of $7 million annually that Canadian National should be putting into the pension fund and that that annual debt of $7 million arises because of what we call in our report the oldest contributions in the fund. We say that this $7 million that is owed annually should be used for the benefit of the oldest employees. I quote:
For these reasons, the pensioners appear to this committee to have a prior claim on any surplus designated by the company.
The committee accordingly recommends that the benefits arising from the allocation of this surplus should be separate from and prior to the cost of living adjustments referred to in paragraph 4.
Now may I try to put that, if I can, into plain language, or at least into language which is plain to me? What we have said is that we think Canadian National pensions should be escalated on an annual basis as is the case with public service pensions. But, we added, before this is
[Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).)
done, before the annual escalation arrangement is started, there is an annual amount of $7 million which should be used to bring up the low pensions of those who have been retired for many years.
The company may say that it raised the $25 pensioners to $50 a month. But how can one expect anyone to regard $50 a month as a pension on which one can get along at all nowadays? I suggest it bears no relation to what we feel should be done with that $7 million. Therefore, I believe I am expressing the view of the committee when I say that though we are grateful for what was done, not enough was done and we think the Canadian National should review the whole matter.
I have done most of my talking in this whole area about the need to place this escalation on an annual basis. But I also believe that this question of the proper use of that $7 million a year for the benefit of those whose pensions are in the lowest categories needs to be reviewed, and I should have thought that what we asked for needs to be implemented to the full.
These are the views I have in respect to the CNR pensioners already retired. When we talk about pensioners already retired, as far as the announcement of last year is concerned the only people who got any benefit from it were those who retired not later than December 31, 1969. With regard to any who have retired since and are on fixed pensions, they have received no increases. I do not think this is good enough. Of course, if the business before us had to do with the Canadian Pacific I would probably be holding up what the Canadian National had done as an example and saying that the Canadian Pacific had really given its pensioners a lousy deal. That is terribly true. But though it can be argued that the CN arrangement is better than that handed out by the CP, I suggest that the Canadian National arrangement is not good enough for all time. It may have been good enough for the year in which it was announced, but it does not measure up to what was asked for in the report we tabled in October, 1970.
I want to emphasize the importance of this matter and I hope the committee will go at it seriously and with a sense of responsibility. Canadian National pensioners were heartened by the increase a year ago. They have been heartened by the fact that two of their number, one an employee and the other a management type, are now on the pension board. I urge that this sense of progress not be frustrated by nothing further being done. The Minister of Transport said last year that these other matters could be left to collective bargaining. That is not the way to treat persons who have already retired on pensions. It is important that we provide for our Canadian National retired employees at least the same kind of treatment as is provided for retired public servants, retired Members of Parliament and others.
The other area to which I should like to address myself is the question of improving the Canadian National pension plan for those still in the service of the company. Here again, I speak as strongly as I can. When one gets into these pension matters the complications and involvements are many and one can soon get lost in them. But I will stick to one point. I think the time has come when the factor for computing all pensions by the Canadian
March 6, 1972

National should be set at 2 per cent. Not many years ago the plan was so complicated that some service was computed on the basis of 1 per cent, some at 11 per cent and some at 11 per cent.
Over the past decade things have improved until the over-all factor is now 11 per cent. In other words, a CN worker trying to work out what his pension will be has to multiply the number of years of service by 11 per cent, and that total percentage is applied to what might roughly be called his average earnings in his five best years. By the way, in order to get this 11 per cent factor the employees had to accept an increase in the amount they pay toward the plan. First it was 51 per cent, then it was 6 per cent and finally it was raised to 61 per cent. Of course, this is modified to the extent the plan is related to the Canada pension plan. I will not go into that, now; I mention it only so that no hon. member will think I am not aware of this aspect. 1 point out that again this is grossly unfair. Public servants get a pension based on 2 per cent per year of service. A public servant who works 35 years gets a pension of 70 per cent of his salary in the five or six best years of his service. But a CNR employee will get only 521 per cent of his salary during his best five years.
In the case of Members of Parliament, we did a little better for ourselves. Our plan provides 31 per cent for the first ten years, 3 per cent for the next ten years and 2 per cent for the last five years. So we can reach a full pension of 75 per cent in 25 years. A Canadian National employee cannot do that: he cannot work enough to reach that level.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: You have been here that long?


Gerald William Baldwin: He asks if you have been here that long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am just getting started.


John Napier Turner: Take a good look at this place. Jed: I want you to remember it.


Gerald William Baldwin: I will have a better view from over there next time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I enjoy listening to this chit-chat. I don't know how much of it is getting on the record, but that doesn't matter


John Napier Turner: We are listening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To me, or to
each other?


John Napier Turner: To both.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, I thought that if I mentioned the MP's plan I would get attention. I did so in order to make a comparison. By what standard of fairness can we say that in our own case we should have the benefit of these higher factors, 3 i per cent and so on, that in the public service the factor should be 2 per cent, and deny these levels to others? How can we say to CNR employees, "The most you can get is 11 per cent for each year of service"?
I shall place another argument before the House in this connection. It is one which has come into the picture only
CNR and Air Canada
recently. I have here a copy of the pension rules for Air Canada dated September 30, 1967, but also, thanks to Air Canada officials, a copy of a statement issued by the management of that company's pension and retirement program from which I learn that on November 1, 1971, a number of changes were made in the Air Canada pension plan, the most significant of these being an increase in this basic factor about which I have been speaking. The result is that as far as Air Canada pensioners are concerned, service is now computed on a 2 per cent basis.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that from a technical point of view the CNR owns Air Canada-in the name, it is true, of the people of Canada, but nevertheless that is the technical set-up. So here we have the CNR owning Air Canada, and Air Canada providing its employees with pensions at the rate of 2 per cent for each year of service, while the CNR itself provides pensions for its own employees on the basis of only 11 per cent. I do not see how this can be allowed to continue. I know someone will want to tell me that Air Canada's change was made only recently, and that is correct; it was made effective November 1, 1971. Around this place one does not get overly excited at a delay of a few months. Only when things go on for 10, 20 years does one get excited about delay.
However, I do plead that if just about every other group coming under the aegis of the federal government has a pension arrangement that is based on a 2 per cent factor, then it is a case of gross discrimination and is, indeed, a gross insult to Canadian National employees to say that their pensions must continue to be based on a factor of 11 per cent.
I could go into some of the other details and the combinations that exist between age and years of service. Indeed, I could go into many of the improvements that need to be made in the Canadian National pension plan. I could speak favourably about some of the arrangements for early retirement, though I think they could be greatly improved. But I believe it is the part of wisdom to stick to this one issue which I think is terribly important, namely, that the basis for computing all pensions for those now in the service of Canadian National should be raised from the present 11 per cent to 2 per cent.
So as I said at the outset, I have spoken about two main areas of Canadian National pensions. I am concerned for the well-being of those who are now retired; I am also concerned for the future well-being of those now in service. We can do something really worth while for those who are now retired if we put the escalation of their pensions on an annual basis and if we carry out the recommendation I referred to earlier, namely, seeing to it that those in the lowest pension categories have their pensions brought up to current levels even before we talk about their escalation. For those in service who have their pensions to look forward to, we can do something worth while if we introduce into their pension plan the 2 per cent factor, which is the factor used by Air Canada and by the public service and is pretty generally used by a great many pension plans.
I say again that I was one of those who was happy on February 5, 1971, to welcome the changes that were then

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
made. As all of us said on that occasion-and I think we had the right to say it-one of the reasons that those changes came about was that the committee had pushed very hard for them. The committee had made a unanimous report and that report received unanimous endorsa-tion on the floor of this House.
Therefore, I ask that the members of this House again speak clearly on this issue. The way to do that, of course, is for the committee to consider these matters, have the Canadian National officials before it and bring back a report to this House. When that report comes back, I hope it will call clearly and categorically for an annual escalation of the pensions of those who are retired, and for increasing the basic factor in calculating pensions for those who are still in service to 2 per cent, as I have suggested. If we do these things, the committee will have done a good job, and it is a job we must do.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it was not
my intention to participate in this debate, but something has come to a head which I think should be mentioned in this forum. This is why I have risen to say a few words.


Gerald William Baldwin: A great many speeches are made under that heading.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I hope this will be another great one. However, when one follows the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), particularly on the subject of pensions, about the only thing one has left to say is "Me, too". Because he does a tremendous amount of research work and the points he makes are so well made and presented, I know he will have the support of the House. At least, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre keeps them honest as far as pensions are concerned, then the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) keeps them honest as far as their work operation is concerned.
I should like to start on a happy note by dealing with Air Canada, followed by what I hope is a hopeful note in regard to the CNR, and then make a very quick conclusion. For four years I have been travelling almost exclusively with Air Canada, and being an incurable voyageur I would have to say that the stewardesses of Air Canada are perhaps the most gorgeous, pleasant and efficient group of stewardesses that I am happy to have had serve me. I hope that, with that comment, all stewardesses will read my remarks and will give me an extra lump of sugar in my coffee next time I travel with that airline.
More seriously, I should like to deal with the circuitous route that we make Canadian National and Canadian Pacific travel when they apply to abandon a service which actually they have no intention of abandoning in order to qualify for a government subsidy. I refer to an application to abandon a passenger service which has as its only aim to secure a subsidy from the government because the particular line is not paying. In most instances, when the CNR makes application to abandon a passenger route the people in the immediate community are up in arms and wonder why the action is being taken. This means that the public relations image of Canadian National-or it may be Canadian Pacific-takes a complete nose-dive.

I believe there are between 35 to 50 applications for abandonment now before the Canadian Transport Commission. In many of these instances, as I say, the railway company in question has no intention of abandoning a stretch of line but has to follow this circuitous route in order to secure a government subsidy. I am sure a minor change to a regulation or section of the act would eliminate this procedure. Not only would the railway company benefit as a result, but they might find that instead of antagonism from the municipalities they hope to serve, those municipalities would assist them.
Let me give an example. In my area we have excellent bus and air services. It is a short distance by road from Sarnia to Toronto and this means the CNR faces a tremendous amount of competition. If CNR simply applied for a subsidy, the citizens of Sarnia might be prepared to assist the company. However, when they apply to abandon a stretch of line, it does raise the hackles not only of the chamber of commerce but of everybody else in the community. As I say, a minor change to a regulation or to the act might eliminate this, to the benefit of the railway company and the communities affected.
Railways are obliged to maintain their services even if they are run at a loss. The managerial decision that must be made is how much loss the railway can afford and still carry on the service on which it is losing money. Where a railway can make a good case for abandonment, I think a second look should be taken at the property rights and privileges granted the company when the line was built in the first place. If the railway company had to surrender a valuable piece of property fronting a river or a lake, then it might take a long, second look at any application to abandon a passenger service before proceeding further.
I also think there is a role to be played by both CN and CP working together, as is the case with CN-CP Telecommunications. I think there is a role to be played in the passenger transportation field where they are not competing with each other but complementing the services provided. I am not going to usurp the role of management, Mr. Speaker, but this is an area they have to look at. Another area is the trans-Canada trains that come to Montreal and Halifax. The same train seems to come all the way across the country and if it has difficulty in the western provinces with weather, a person in central Canada could be left waiting five or ten hours or even a day. I believe that some thought should be given to what might be called a shotgun approach so that if this kind of problem occurred it could be overcome by running several trains and the people would not have to wait for service.


An hon. Member:: Those storms start in the east.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Well, they can't start out west, Mr. Speaker, with all the hot air we have on the other side of the House.
These comments are made in a constructive way and in the interests of improving passenger service. I hope the government and the powers that be will have a long look at the section which requires railways to go through this circuitous route if they are simply looking for a subsidy.
March 6, 1972

I should like to make one more pitch, Mr. Speaker. Some thought should be given to providing free passes on passenger trains for senior citizens. The trains have enough room. I recognize that there are almost two million senior citizens in Canada, but I think they could be phased in. Try it with people 75 years of age and over first and find out what the passenger load is, and then work it down. This is the sort of service that a national railway, particularly a Crown corporation railway, should be prepared to offer to our senior citizens.


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues from the Atlantic region, I am unable to allow this bill to pass without saying a few words about the transportation policy in our region, especially in the province of Newfoundland which I represent.
As my colleague from St. John's East has pointed out, Canadian National has most certainly failed in its obligations to the Newfoundland people. I am referring, of course, to the decision made in 1968 and supported and approved by an order of the Canadian Transport Commission which allowed Canadian National Railways to discontinue its rail passenger service in our province. This has been an unpopular decision. I think I might say that as long as Canadian National and the federal government insist on forcing upon the people of Newfoundland a grossly inadequate bus service, members from our prov-' ince will object to the passing of the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada financing bill. And rightly so, Mr. Speaker, because we are reflecting the feelings of the vast majority of people in our province.
Newfoundlanders will not accept the second-class transportation system that has been imposed upon them by Canadian National with, as I say, approval of the CTC. Over the past three years the bus service has proven to be inadequate, unsafe and a very inferior type of ground transportation. This decision is all the more difficult to accept when one remembers that just a few months ago the Canadian Transport Commission refused permission to Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway to discontinue rail passenger service in the Mari-times area. As my colleague from St. John's East pointed out, that service will cost the Canadian taxpayer approximately $12 million a year by way of subsidy, or $1 million a month.
The basis upon which permission to discontinue rail passenger service in Newfoundland was granted was mainly that it was costing too much money to operate and losses were too great. Mr. Speaker, the loss incurred by the rail passenger service in Newfoundland came to less than $1 million a year-less than one-twelfth what it will cost the government to maintain the service in the Mari-times region. I do not want to give the impression that I oppose the CTC decision with respect to the maritime provinces, but I believe that part of Canada is as entitled to a modern, up to date rail passenger service as any other part of Canada. However, it makes it seem worse because we in Newfoundland have to tolerate a grossly inferior, unsafe and unsatisfactory transportation system.
The arguments advanced by the CTC with regard to the application of CPR and CNR to discontinue the Maritimes rail passenger service could be advanced for the reinstatement of the rail passenger service in Newfoundland. My
CNR and Air Canada
colleagues and I have petitioned the Canadian Transport Commission to reopen the case and to allow us to appear before it to advance an argument for reinstatement. Scarcely a day goes by that an editorial or article does not appear in one of the Newfoundland papers dealing with the inadequacy of the so-called road cruiser service. We find that in the past three years there have been more than 40 accidents, some of them very serious. Buses have actually been blown off the highway.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) has either deliberately or otherwise misled the House, because there have been over 50 accidents with the Canadian National bus system. I think the record should reflect the fact that there have been 52. I want to challenge that statistic and I hope the hon. member will correct his remark in this regard.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I apologize but I have not been in contact with Newfoundland for the past four or five hours! I appreciate the hon. member correcting me on the number of accidents because this is very important. If it were not so serious it would be laughable to read of buses being lost in a snowstorm with 30 or 40 passengers on board and of buses being blown off the highway.
Early in the winter I had occasion to drive over the trans-Canada highway through part of my riding. I noticed a CNR bus off the side of the road which had just been blown off by a very severe storm. Then I had quite an interesting experience during the recent air controllers' strike. My wife and I had to get back to Ottawa, and the only way to travel was by road cruiser as far as Port aux Basques, then across on the ferry service and then by train to Ottawa. I must say that the bus trip was quite an experience.
The Canadian National have the nicest, the most shiny, most beautiful water-cooler of any bus in Canada. There was only one problem-no water. They have a shiny, chrome-plated dispenser for cups-a credit to them-but no cups. In the toilet there was a lovely, porcelain sink but no water and no plug. This Mr. Speaker is the type of service we are expected to tolerate in our province, a service which would not be tolerated, I submit, in any other province of Canada.
As I say, so long as this land is represented in this House, and so long as Canadian National insists on imposing on the Newfoundland people this secondary and inferior service, Newfoundland members will have to rise in their place to oppose and object to the services and the passing of the Canadian National and Air Canada financing bill. There are a number of problems I could raise in respect of the Canadian National and its operations in our province, but first let me say an argument will be advanced by Canadian National and by others, such as engineers and editorial writers, that in Newfoundland the
574

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
only satisfactory answer would be to have a wide-gauge railway service provided in the province.
Engineers say that with a narrow-gauge railway it is almost impossible to run a smooth and efficient rail passenger service. I cannot think of any better way for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to put its money where its mouth is, as it were, than to provide perhaps a wide-gauge railway service for the province. This is essential for the future development of our province: it is essential in so far as the movement of people is concerned. As a matter of fact, when I think back to 1948 or 1949 when the Terms of Union were being negotiated between Canada and Newfoundland, I sometimes wonder why the Fathers of Confederation, the people charged with responsibility for drafting the terms, did not insist that this be one of the terms of union-that is, that a wide-gauge railway be provided in our province. Certainly, if it is needed now it was needed at that time. This is one thing I believe the people who negotiated the terms will have to answer for in years to come.
Canadian National, as I say, has failed in its obligation to the Newfoundland people. I feel the recent increase in freight rates has already been reflected in an increased cost of living. St. John's, the city I represent with my colleague from St. John's East, has probably the highest cost of living in Canada. It is continuing to rise. I think 4.6 per cent was the figure for last year. Of course, the increase in freight rates will most certainly be reflected in the cost of living index for St. John's.
Then we have the matter of ferry rates. The only line between Newfoundland and the Canadian mainland, unless one travels by air, is by the Port aux Basques-North Sydney ferry service. I contend that this 100 miles of water separating our province from the mainland of Canada should be treated like any other 100-mile stretch of the Trans-Canada highway. I see no reason why people travelling to and from our province should be penalized because Newfoundland is an island. I feel the rates on that ferry should be reduced to a point where they would compare with any 100-mile stretch of the trans-Canada highway. A man, his wife and perhaps three children travelling across the gulf would pay almost $40 for that 100-mile stretch, whereas to travel the same distance on the trans-Canada highway would cost $15.50, or less than $20.
I believe that in Newfoundland, Canadian National is failing in its obligation to the people in that it has not given serious consideration to the potential of the Canadian National dockyard operation in St. John's. St. John's has been referred to by people as the service station of the Atlantic. I feel Canadian National has ignored the potential of the harbour and its facilities, to the detriment of people working at the CN dockyard and to the economy of the city generally. As a matter of fact, its policy in respect of its dockyard operation in St. John's is a very miserly one. If there is a slack period of a month or two or three weeks because ships are not coming in, rather than trying to place the employees in other jobs within its operation the company lays off these men. I feel this is very unfair. I think if the CN were to give more thought to its planning, these lay-offs could be avoided.
fMr. Carter.]
Therefore, I would strongly suggest that Canadian National undertake immediately a study of the potential of its dockyard operation in the harbour. I am quite confident that once such a study was completed a need would be shown for upgrading of the docking facilities in St. John's harbour, to the advantage of the people who work for Canadian National and to the economy of the city generally.
I could speak further on the failings of Canadian National in the Atlantic region and especially in Newfoundland, but I think I have made my point, especially in respect of rail passenger service, the inadequacy of the road cruiser or bus service and the fact that our people are subjected to a grossly inferior, inadequate and unsafe service.
I would strongly recommend and urge the government, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission to pay heed to the submission made in February, at which time we requested an opportunity to meet with the commission and, hopefully, have reopened the case for rail passenger service in our province. I believe that if they are prepared to listen to what we have to say, bearing in mind that we reflect the views and thoughts of the vast majority of Newfoundlanders, something will be done. Certainly, something must be done because I do not think our people, any more than the people in any other Canadian province, deserve to tolerate this type of ground transportation service.


Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: Mr. Speaker, once again Parliament has been called to its yearly exercise of rubbert-stamping expenditures of the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada for the coming year. Most of this money has already been spent, and it is of deep concern to me that regardless of the amount of money we pour into the hands of these companies we as Members of Parliament are constantly being told of the poor passenger and freight service that CNR and, quite often, Air Canada are providing.
The National Transportation Act of 1967 comes from the Royal Commission on Transportation known as the MacPherson commission. The preamble of the act reads:
-an economic efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation.
The principle of subsidization for any service that is uneconomical but is required in the public interest is embodied in the legislation. Politicians past and present have, so far as I can find out, assumed that the CTC and the railways were talking of passenger service only. Mr. T. W. G. Macdougal, executive vice-president of the CNR, in a speech to the Canadian Railway Club said:
-at last we are making sense out of the railway passenger business and may, in the near future, begin to make similar progress toward rationalization of the grain gathering and distribution system which is so important to the Canadian economy.
If the same pattern is used in the grain industry that has been used in the passenger service we can well imagine that, in the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), "somebody is going to get hurt". In trying to understand and to make sense out of the practices of the CNR, we
March 6, 1972

consulted the American Everyday Dictionary, the Consolidated Webster Encyclopedia Dictionary and, finally, Colliers Standard Dictionary, international edition, where it says:
The act of bringing an industry into accord with up to date methods of organization and operation-
Even then one must stretch one's imagination to come to grips with the term "rationalization." The CNR has apparently applied this interpretation only in the business sense. The reasoning here was verified by an official appearing on television and saying that they are not really interested in cattle transportation as it is a marginal business, and by an official of the CTC saying that the Canadian railways are much better off because of permissive legislation allowing the railways to diversify, and that in Canada they would never have eliminated 50 per cent of passenger business in one sweep as has happened in the U.S.A.
It would appear that the CNR is diversifying its assets if more profit can be made in some other area. This policy can have no other effect but to force more and more trucks on our highways that are already overloaded. The truth of this can be seen in the poor service provided to cattle shippers this past fall and winter. What has happened here is already a well established and recognizable practice of the downgrading of service until those involved seek other modes of transportation.
If the government is happy with the present operation of the CNR and the CTC, and if we are satisfied with their interpretation of the legislation, then many Canadians are sure that the management should be congratulated because we are sure that according to their ideas they are doing a first-rate job. If you are not, I would suggest that as a first step toward rectifying the situation we put more common sense railway men on the CTC and indicate to that body the kind of railway service which the people of this country want and deserve.
In my opinion, transportation in Canada, especially passenger service, is badly planned. It is provided by many companies on an ad hoc basis, and the general idea is that the public, who in all cases are called upon to pay the bills, are not considered in any way. For example, train 154 arrives at London from Sarnia at 12.45 p.m., and 146 from Windsor at 13.35, so if you are coming from Windsor and wish to go to Stratford or Kitchener you have lost your train connection when you arrive in London. You have two choices, either to remain in London until 20.05 at night or go to Toronto and come back by the other route. For many years these trains met in London, but today the CNR has made changes so that the connections are no longer possible.
I have attempted to show the members of this House some of the results of the short-sighted policies followed by the CNR. Successive federal governments have paid lip service to the need for a rational transportation system in Canada. By "rational" they meant a system in which the basic transportation needs of the population in each region would be supplied by whatever mode of transport was most efficient and economical.
The MacPherson royal commission was supposed to recommend the rationalization of Canada's competing and overlapping transportation service. The new trans-
25020-37 J
CNR and Air Canada
portation act of 1967 was supposed to have enacted policies to reach that objective, and the new Canadian Transport Commission was given a mandate to implement these policies. What do we find today? Our transportation system is in a worse mess than it ever was. How the CTC can pay lip service to rationalization and ignore the need for transportation between Montreal and Ottawa is more than we can understand. One can drive or travel by bus over the worst, most dangerous stretch of the trans-Canada highway, go by rail, by CN, CP or by air: there is no doubt that the fastest, most efficient, most economical and safe method of transportation is fast, up to date rail service.
The more one examines the federal government, the CNR and CPR transportation policies, the more confusing they appear. All the various agencies are pulling at crosspurposes, each launching contradictory projects that have nothing in common except that they all cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. On the one hand we have the CNR, a Crown corporation, systematically trying to scuttle its passenger service with the encouragement of the CTC, and while the CTC is permitting the railways to kill their passenger trains another government branch is paying half the cost of producing a high-speed rail passenger coach.
Meanwhile, the Department of Transport is not satisfied that travel service between Ottawa and Montreal is sufficiently diversified, so the department has extended more subsidies to the Air Industries Association of Canada to provide another mode of transportation between the two cities, that is, the short-landing and take-off aircraft scheduled for operation in 1973. This money would be better spent in upgrading the rail service in Canada.
Canadian citizens who in all cases are called upon to pay the shot find very confusing the continuing insistence that the CNR is in business to provide a service. Not one politician is happy with the CNR and only the CTC and the top officers of the CNR seem satisfied.
The basic idea of the founders of this great country was to unite the east and west and all parts of the expanding country with a rail line for the purpose of transporting people and goods across this nation. Therefore, we can assume that their idea was to create a service industry, and this is the only type of product the CNR has to sell. The CNR was created by the federal government of the day by taking over a group of bankrupt railways. Was the basic idea of the merger to run a railway for a profit or break-even point, or was it to provide a service to the people of Canada? I believe that the provision of service is the answer. Today the CNR has a group of academics and even specialists, and their new ideas are causing undue problems with the employees and shippers across this nation.
Although there are undoubtedly many good recommendations in the MacPherson report, many Canadians consider that the basic philosophy of the report is wrong, that to embrace the free enterprise system and the pursuit of profit to cure the ills is wrong. The CNR came into being for a different reason and should be required to provide service at a reasonable cost. The interpretation of this could be either that all service must perform at a profit or that service should be provided at a reasonable cost to the

March 6, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
taxpayer if necessary. To require the railway to operate on profit alone is to set them apart from all other industry engaged in transportation, such as the trucking industry, air lines, bus transportation and ships. Perhaps the permissive legislation allowing the railway to diversify is wrong if the policy of the CNR is designed to have the company use some other forms of transportation owned by the CNR.
All tax money comes from the same pocket and many people either recognize or ignore this fact. Therefore, we the people of this nation are entitled to and require a modern, up to date railway service for both passengers and freight in addition to other forms of transportation. There is plenty of room for all modes of service and there is no reason why all services cannot be tied into a modern system using the railways as the key link.
I find it refreshing that one of our cabinet ministers has finally come to view the CTC as a rubber-stamp for the railways. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) recently said-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member-


John Napier Turner: Finish that quotation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I would not want to take it that the House wishes to go beyond ten o'clock on the recommendation of one hon. member or a few hon. members. However, if the House wants the Chair not to see the clock for a few seconds, I am ready to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Robert Turner: For that reason he said he would like to see the "public interest" lawyers represent the people-the traveller, the radio listener, the TV viewer, the consumer, at agency hearings of all kinds. The "public interest" lawyer's job would be to appear before an agency and make sure that the views of ordinary citizens who would be affected by its decisions were fully presented.
"Let's take a situation where one of the railways goes before the Canadian Transport Commission to ask for an increase in fares," Mr. Turner said. "At present the railway makes its pitch. Its competitors appear along with the air lines, maybe truckers, certainly boards of trade, sometimes different cities and so on. But surely there ought to be evidence submitted by some one representing the travelling public, the people who pay the shot."
I agree 100 per cent with the minister, Mr. Speaker, and I sincerely believe that he is on the right track. New servo-centres have been established in many key cities in Canada serving large areas of shippers, and after talking to many employees I find that in their opinion this service is not as good as the old system. Stationmasters, station agents and assistants are no longer employed, and thus passengers and freight shippers are robbed of the personal touch.
Service agents and their staff lived in the communities and therefore had a constant dialogue with the shippers. Today this service has been replaced by salesman and their assistants working out of the servo-centre offices. Many employees tell me that the CNR has lost contact with the customers because this new service is not provid-

ing the personal touch which for many years was the key to obtaining business.
Recently a cattle shipper was informed that his cattle shipment would be in the London yard at such a time. Naturally he drove to London to pick up his stock, but due to the fact that the freight service does not run daily to his area, the stock was routed via Stratford and therefore it was waiting for him in Stratford instead of London. This caused the shipper undue delay and extra driving costs. It is my understanding that the company is reassessing its position on servo-centres at St. Catharines, Kitchener and Windsor. If this is true, Mr. Speaker, one would think that perhaps the new system is not doing the job it was set up to do.
I now turn to the question of the morale of the employees of the CNR. In some areas during the past few months the management has begun to do something about the situation and is having a little meaningful dialogue with various groups of workers. Recently meetings were held on the subject of company discipline. Some of the discipline recently handed out by officials has been rather severe. They take the rule book and state that the person involved violated such and such a rule. They do not take into consideration today's length of trains, new triple valves, new brake-shoes and the general idea that no two trains handle alike. Today, Mr. Speaker, a crew can have a short, heavy tonnage train and next trip have a long train with less tonnage.
Many of these officials who are handing out discipline have never had the experience of running a train and therefore do not know what the men are up against. Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to read it out of a book and tell a man how to do his job, but it is a different thing if that same man cannot sit down and show you how to do the job. The employees of the CNR once were a proud group of employees. They were a quite happy group who enjoyed going to work and were sorry to see retirement date appear. Today most employees can hardly wait for retirement date; they are not the same group of happy employees.
I now refer to the pensions of CNR employees and of former employees. About a year ago one change was made and pensioners who were then retired received an increase in their pensions covering the years they had been retired. To me this was very good, but why we did not tie in a 2 per cent increase every year as long as they live is beyond my comprehension. Retired public servants get their 2 per cent increase yearly, and I contend that the pensions of retired CNR and CPR employees, and of the employees of all railways, should be escalated and increased on an annual basis in the same way as the pensions of retired public service employees. The CNR is a Crown corporation and CNR employees are not inferior to civil servants and should be treated in the same way as civil servants.
I believe that employees of the CNR and CPR are entitled to a new deal as far as pensions are concerned. Today, when an employee does not receive sufficient pension on retirement he must seek other employment to provide the additional money required or he must provide a bank account to assist him until the benefits of the Canada Pension Plan and Old Age Security program are
March 6, 1972

available to him. It would, therefore, be appropriate if the federal government and, industry, in conjunction with Canadian National pensions and the Canada Pension Plan, were to provide the means and funds for increased pensions so that older employees could take advantage of early retirement. We should do that instead of paying unemployment insurance benefits to the less fortunate; thereby we should be increasing job opportunities for younger graduates coming into the labour force who have found it increasingly difficult to find suitable employment.
It would appear that the CNR management is of the opinion that if the full increase in pension benefits as requested were granted to employees, or if a compulsory retirement age of 60 were provided, the result would be that a large segment of senior supervisory staff would be removed. These supervisors are not irreplaceable. Mr. Speaker, this is a hot issue with the CNR, no doubt it is with the CPR as well as with all railway companies. Employees are requesting that pension benefits be based on 2 per cent of salary per year of service and that the age be reduced to 60. If this cannot be accomplished at once, they should be given a complete financial statement as to the types of investment the pension fund has made. As of December, 1970, the reserve in CNR pension trust funds amounted to $1,160,488,477. There are no moneys out on loan, but investments are made in bonds, mortgages, stocks and short-term investments.
Of the total reserve, only $818,203,051 is represented by investments, cash and accounts receivable. The remainder, $342,283,426 is an unfunded liability, or a bill which the company has to pay. About $299,732,674 is being amortized over a 60-year period and $42,550,752 over a 25-year period, in accordance with the Pension Benefits Standards Act which was passed by the federal Parliament, effective as of October 1, 1967. Mr. Speaker, all Canadians would like a deal like this giving them 60 years and 25 years to pay their debts. Net earnings on investments during 1970 were $23,984,003.
The CNR pension fund supplies each employee with a T-5 slip which states the amount of money he has contributed for the year. For many years during the war they were supplied with nothing. For a time we also received a slip stating the total amount accumulated on our pension account. This has not been done lately. Thousands of employees are pouring money each year into a pension fund and they receive very little information as to the type of investment the money is invested in. Surely the employees are entitled to an annual statement giving them more information than they now receive. If the fund will not generate enough money to lower the pension age to 60, they should be advised of the percentage increase in contributions that would be needed to make the necessary change.
The employees of the CNR, CPR and of all railway companies are patient people who are willing to listen to facts and figures produced by the pensions board. However, if they are not supplied with the necessary information soon on the lowering of the pension age I predict that we will see serious trouble in the railways of this nation. No single issue has grown in importance more rapidly during the past year than that of pensions, largely
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion because of lay-offs and the faster introduction of technological change. All trade unions and their members are making pensions the single, most important issue in collective bargaining.
When a machine is worn out, Mr. Speaker, we replace it with a new one. The workers of all companies in Canada are entitled to a decent pension at an earlier age. They should not be thrown out of work without adequate pensions that are tied to the cost of living. I urge the railways and all industries to update their pension plans and meet the personal needs of employees and retired employees in a fast changing society.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on February 25 I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) a question concerning the tariff rebate on Commonwealth Caribbean sugar, and I was somewhat surprised at his answer. It was to the effect that the rebate extended to December 31, 1971, had not been cut off at that date. It was my impression that such was not the case and that the rebate had lapsed.
As I have often said before, Mr. Speaker, the abrupt, unilateral termination of this rebate was one of the most regrettable blunders in our dealings with the governments of the Commonwealth Caribbean. The most excellent report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Senate of Canada also referred to this matter. Page XVI of the foreword to their report states:
Serious misunderstandings have recently arisen, due in part to the manner in which decisions were unilaterally arrived at.
We recall, too, that the government leader of the Senate made a long, good will tour of the Caribbean area. This was followed by the government's change of heart with the announcement that the rebate which was to terminate on December 31, 1970, would continue until December 31, 1971. This announcement made front-page headlines in the press of the Caribbean countries of the Commonwealth. But prior to that there were comments in the Caribbean press which were far from complimentary to Canada. As the Trinidad Guardian editorialized on December 24, 1970:
It is no use pretending that relations between Canada and the West Indies have not been soured this year by the harsh realities which came to the fore.
Here in Canada, the Globe and Mail said:
Sometimes those closest to us are the ones we understand least. The rule applies to nations as well as individuals.
The cancellation was made at a stroke, without any consultation with the governments involved. It showed a clear lack of under-

March 6, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
standing of the feelings of those nations with whom we are supposed to have a special relationship.
It also noted:
We also buy twice as much sugar from South Africa as we do from all the Caribbean countries.
I can say that this question of heavier purchases from South Africa than from other areas might some day be discussed in the House. But my concern is not to belabor the blunders of the past. Rather must we try to avoid such errors in the future. I am somewhat concerned about the degree of consultation. I wonder if we are not a bit short on consultation but long on confusion. Of course, in some areas of the Caribbean the facts of domestic production make the rebate question somewhat academic, but in other areas it is far from academic. It matters and matters greatly. I hope the parliamentary secretary can bring the House up to date on what is happening. What is contemplated and what is the nature and extent of consultation and discussion?
The Commonwealth Caribbean is an area of great importance to us. Our ties have been close and can and should be closer. We must not through carelessness or casualness fracture a longstanding friendship which has of late been somewhat shaken. These neighbours with parliamentary institutions similar to ours deserve a high priority in our foreign policy consideration. We must not take their friendship for granted. We must be ever alert to opportunities to broaden the base of amity and good will. I express the hope that the blunder of 1970 will not be repeated in 1972 and that we will not through halfhearted lack of negotiation have to send my very good friend, dear old Senator Martin, down to the Caribbean to exculpate the blunders of a most insensitive government, as we did two years ago.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that I can assure the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Mac-quarrie) that the value of our friendships in the Caribbean with our fellow Commonwealth members and with others is fully appreciated. I will just briefly review the history of this matter.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) told the House on Friday, February 25, which the hon. member mentioned, that the government has not entered into any discussions concerning a possible extension of tariff rebates on Commonwealth Caribbean sugar. The hon. member will recall that the government decided to terminate the sugar rebates paid to sugar producing countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean at the end of 1969, following the successful negotiation of an international sugar agreement. As a result of representations from the region, an extension of the rebates was agreed for 1970 in order to provide the industry with a longer period to adjust to the new circumstances. An additional extension of one year was made following lengthy consultations which Senator the Hon. Paul Martin had with Commonwealth Caribbean governments during his special mission to the region in late 1970.
Announcing the latest extension in December, 1970, the Secretary of State for External Affairs stated that it was for the year 1971 and that the situation would be reviewed

when the government had considered the report of the tariff board on sugar which it was anticipated would be available early in 1971. This report was received by the government last autumn and was tabled in the House on November 10. The recommendations in that report are under consideration by the government and I can assure hon. members that the views of all those who might be affected by its recommendations, including the governments of the Commonwealth Caribbean, will be carefully considered before decisions are taken on the report.
As far as payments of these rebates are concerned, the amount is based on sugar imports from the Commonwealth Caribbean during the calendar year. At present, final figures for 1971 are not yet available; when they are, the payment for 1971 will be made. The payments for 1970 were made in March, 1971.



HEALTH-PROPOSED PAYMENT BY GOVERNMENT OF HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CARE PREMIUMS FOR ALL INDIANS

John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, on February 28 I addressed the following question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) who was unavoidably away from the House:
Is the government considering the problems created as a result of differences in the way hospital and medical care premiums are paid on behalf of the Indian people in various provinces, and is the government considering taking steps to pay the health taxes on behalf of all Indians as is the case in Alberta?
The Prime Minister was so interested in my question that I had to repeat it for his benefit and when he finally came to attention and took note of it he said he would take notice of the question on behalf of the minister. Later, I sent a note to the Minister of National Health and Welfare drawing his attention to the fact that I had asked this question and that I intended to place it on the list of subjects to be discussed at the time of the adjournment, and he thanked me for that note. I would like to discuss this question tonight.
I believe it is recognized by all that the federal government has responsibility for providing health care for the Indian people. What is the situation with respect to the payment of premiums, and of medicare premiums in particular? In 1969, Alberta introduced a medical care insurance plan. As I understand it, the federal government registered all Indians residing in Alberta and paid personal health tax on their behalf. Included were all Indians whose names appeared on band lists regardless of whether they resided on an Indian reserve or not. The federal government has continued to pay the health tax in Alberta on behalf of all Indians as defined in the Indian Act whether they reside on or off a reserve. I understand there is some provision for reimbursement from Indian people who are considered to be self-supporting. How this arrangement is working, I do not know.
What is the situation in other provinces such as the neighbouring province of Saskatchewan? The federal government does not pay the hospitalization or medical care tax on behalf of Indians residing outside an Indian reserve though it makes such payments in respect of
March 6, 1972

Indians residing on a reserve or who have been outside a reserve for less than 12 months.
Two questions arise. The first is this: How can the federal government justify handling this program in such a way in one province and in another way in another province? This is especially so with respect to health programs where standards and quality of service or care are given such high importance.
How the government got into such a mess only the minister can explain, and he will have to do so. Can the minister expect any respect for his programs when the government does this sort of thing? There will be justifiable friction and irritation with the provinces, for one thing. Can the minister expect the Indian people to have any respect for his programs, or for the government, when this is what is being done? In such a delicate area that also involves federal-provincial relations, how does the minister justify treating one province differently from another as a matter of policy?
The second question is: What is the justification for treating off-reserve Indians differently from on-reserve Indians or, for that matter, some self-supporting Indians compared with non self-supporting Indians? Does not the federal government have a responsibility here which it accepted under treaties and through various programs over the years? I think the question must be asked: Is this the first step in a process whereby the government is trying to back out of its commitments and programs?
I think present policy discriminates against those Indians who want to join the urban trek to the cities. It discriminates against Indians who try to help themselves by adjusting to changing conditions. Often enough, people complain of Indians not showing sufficient ambition or initiative. What incentive is there for a person of Indian descent to help himself, if this is the approach that is taken by government in the handling of programs that affect him?
I urge the government to treat Indians in all provinces in the same way. I urge the government to accept its responsibility in this area and to pay premiums for all Indians under the Indian Act regardless whether they are on or off the reserve.


Mr. David Weatherhead (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, while there is no statutory or binding authority obligating the federal government to provide free health care to Indians at public expense, the federal government has accepted the moral obligation for more than 100 years of ensuring that no registered Indian suffers from lack of medical attention, either due to inability to pay or inaccessibility to adequate care, particularly if there is no other agency to which he can turn for assistance.
Indians should have the opportunity to achieve standards of health which are comparable to those of the rest of the country, and the federal government has maintained a policy of being willing to assist them through the arrangement for, or the provision of, basic public health services and essential treatment, not necessarily always at public expense.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Prior to the implementation of the two major national health insurance programs-hospital insurance in 1958 and medicare in 1968-there were many Canadians who could not purchase hospital insurance or medical insurance or, at best, could only obtain limited coverage or had to pay an unfairly high premium. It will be recalled that the private insurance industry in that era frequently denied health insurance coverage to Canadians on account of age or previous health, and in some cases, regrettably, even because of racial origin, such as Indians.
Consequently, in both of these Canadian health programs, one of the requirements which each corresponding provincial plan has had to meet in order to receive federal financial support is that the provincial plan had to make available uniform coverage to all eligible residents of the province, including registered Indians. This means in effect that a provincial plan cannot charge a particular group of residents a higher premium or give them less coverage than other residents in similar circumstances.
It is not considered to be a violation of the "uniform terms and conditions" concept when a province waives all or part of a health insurance premium on account of age or limited financial resources of the beneficiary, provided that all residents of the province who meet these requirements are treated equally. Where a province wishes to waive health insurance premiums for its residents who have reached the age of 65, for example, this is permitted as long as all residents of the province are entitled to the same privilege on reaching that age. In point of fact, this is the case in Alberta and Ontario-


John Stratford Burton: And in Saskatchewan. Come on, get up to date.


David Bennington Weatherhead: -and in both of these provinces the premium for Indians on reaching 65 has been waived as for the other residents.
In a similar way, when a province establishes an intermediate scale of health insurance premiums based on income class, this is permitted under the "uniform terms and conditions" requirement of federal legislation as long as all insurable residents of the province receive the same consideration. Thus, in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, which are three provinces with scaled premium subsidies for those residents with limited incomes, the registered Indian who is a resident of one of these provinces receives exactly the same consideration as any other resident of his province on applying for premium assistance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but the time allotted for his reply has expired.



INDIAN AFFAIRS-DEATH OF SANDY LAKE WOMAN FROM MALNUTRITION-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON HEALTH SERVICES IN NORTHERN ONTARIO OR PUBLIC INQUIRY

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last I asked the Minister of Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro) if he was aware of the tragic plight of Indians on the Sandy Hill reserve, 400 miles north of Kenora. The

March 6, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
minister mentioned a few improvements in the situation but did not answer my question on whether he would agree to initiate a public inquiry into the deplorable condition of health services in the area.
A 50-year old Cree woman died on February 24 en route to hospital by plane. Cause of death was officially given as malnutrition and double pneumonia. I maintain that the true cause of her death was bureaucratic neglect and ineptitude.
This woman was 5 feet 81 inches tall, but at the time of her death she weighed only 85 pounds. The circumstances of her death are a source of great bitterness to others in her community. She had spent ten years in a sanitorium where she was treated for tuberculosis and had part of one lung removed. Her medical history clearly indicated the need for close medical supervision during illness, but she was prevented from getting that attention either in her own community at North Spirit Lake or in a hospital until it was too late. This woman lay ill-severely ill-for several days without medical attention. Proper medication was not available, and so she was given two aspirins by a local, lay dispenser. Twenty-four hours later she was dead.
Fifteen hundred treaty Indians live in three communities on the Sandy Hill Reserve. Two of these communities had only lay dispensers; the third had a nursing staff, all employed by the Department of Health and Welfare. The closest doctor is 300 miles away. Details of the woman's illness had to filter through the lay dispenser to the nurses, and through the nurses to the doctor who was the only person with authority to have the woman sent to a hospital. The procedure took a week, and the woman died.
The coroner's jury made five recommendations: home visits by medical personnel should replace radio contact; all personnel performing medical duties in remote settlements should have nurses aid training; medical personnel in remote communities should be permitted to authorize flights of patients for treatment; additional nurses should be stationed in each isolated community; and, finally, a medical practitioner should be stationed in the Sandy Lake area to treat the 1,500 inhabitants.
To further illustrate the need for better medical services in such areas, let me mention that an influenza epidemic afflicted 350 people in the area from mid-December to mid-January. Nine people died. During the whole period of the epidemic, I am told, the Indians at North Spirit Lake received only one visit from a doctor, and he stayed for only two hours. Field workers from the Ontario Union of Indians had 27 people flown to Red Lake hospital. All were admitted, at a cost to the Union of $2,000. I am told that the bill will be sent to the Minister of Health.
The Indians of the Sandy Hill Reserve have several questions to ask of the Minister of Health. They want to know if the minister intends to implement the recommendations in the coroner's report. They want to know why lay dispensers in their area are white instead of Indian. And they want to know why lay dispensers are permitted to administer antibiotic and narcotic drugs to Indians who have not been seen by doctors.
The minister has told the House that steps are being taken to improve Indian health services. Would the minis-
ter agree to tell the House what these steps are, so that the House and the Canadian people can judge the extent of the government's commitment to improving the life of our native people?
On behalf of these people I must urge that the minister not wait until starvation and disease put an end to the problems of the Sandy Hill Indians and Indians in other remote communities, but that he launch a full public inquiry into health services in the north.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Medical and public health services in the bush country north of Sioux Lookout have been greatly expanded in the past few years through an extensive program made possible by co-operation between the Department of National Health and Welfare and the University of Toronto which deploys medical consultants, physicians and residents making available the highest possible standards of care. Improved communications have been developed between nursing stations which have been built by the department in the larger communities and the base hospital at Sioux Lookout, and between nursing stations and health stations in the small satellite communities which are staffed by community health aides who work on a part-time basis. The department has an active program for training community health aides, and some of the individuals doing this work are qualified as registered nurses or licensed practical nurses. The community health aide on duty at North Spirit Lake was qualified as a licensed practical nurse.
No medical service, however sophisticated, can prevent deaths during epidemics of influenza. Influenza is an acute infectious disease due to a virus for which there is no known specific treatment. Of importance is the rapidity with which epidemics evolve, placing heavy demands on health personnel who must adapt their activities to render assistance to the greatest number and to those who in their opinion need care the most.
It is the minister's view that the recommendation of the coroner's jury at Sandy Lake to the effect that medical authorities should give consideration to requests for home visits is difficult to reconcile with the facts of the case because the patient's death was being investigated and is being investigated. The patient was visited frequently at home along with many others in the community. The home visits at North Spirit Lake were made by a community health aide who is a licensed practical nurse, and also by a registered nurse who responded to the community health aide's request for assistance. Unfortunately, it is not always possible to predict which persons suffering from influenza will develop complications. The large number of persons who become ill not only increases the problems of surveillance but makes routine evacuation to hospital or to a nursing station impossible.
Complications, however, can be serious, develop suddenly and as a rule require care in hospital. The subject of the coroner's inquest was to be flown to hospital December 23, 1971, the same day her condition suddenly deteriorated as a result of a new complication, but the weather prevented this. Evacuation, unfortunately, was not possible until the next day. The existing procedures for chart-
March 6, 1972

ering aircraft are regarded as satisfactory. They are, of course, subject to the availability of aircraft and to the weather.
I understand that the minister has received a full report on the inquest and the matter of the provision of medical
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
services from the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) in whose riding Sandy Lake is located. I understand he attended the inquest and prepared a long memorandum on the matter for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Munro).
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.
583

Tuesday, March 7, 1972