1972-03-08

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Martin P. O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose on a question of privilege and I should like to renew it at the first opportunity today. I rise to correct two inaccuracies in a report appearing on page 4 of yesterday's Globe and Mail with respect to a local initiatives project in the constituency of Scarborough East. The report indicates that I gave assurances that a group known as Scarborough Pollution Probe would receive an opportunities for youth grant. I did not give such assurances, Mr. Speaker. I did assure this group, which is an excellent one doing a lot of good work, of my interest, and I am sure I would endorse any project that comes forward.
The other inaccuracy concerns the suggestion that as part of the local initiatives project for which this group did receive some funds-I endorsed that project, as all members of parliament had an opportunity of doing in their own constituencies-there would be two taped interviews which might be broadcast on cablevision or television, using the facilities of Scarborough College to produce the tapes. I simply want to make it clear that I will not be part of any local initiatives project that I endorse.
I have no complaint about the reporters responsible for the report, but I thought it was important to clarify these inaccuracies. I may well be taped by Scarborough Pollution Probe and I would be happy to be so taped, but I do not want to be part of any local initiatives project.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister has not followed up his argument or presentation with a motion, so I assume that the Chair is not required to rule whether there is a legitimate question of privilege here. In any event, I would suggest to the minister that in my view this is. not a prima facie case of privilege and that the matter should not be further pursued.


Mr. Lundrigan:: Mr. Speaker, since the question of privilege raised by the minister was, as far as we are concerned tantamount or similar to a statement on motions, and in view of the fact that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may think it is tantamount to a statement on motions, but from day to day I hear alleged questions of privilege which in my view are tantamount to statements on motions, and I would not think they should be considered as such. I did express the view that in my opinion this is not a question of privilege. The minister sought to correct what he
thought was an erroneous interpretation of the situation. I would think that that kind of matter should not be raised in the House by way of a question of privilege, and it certainly should not give rise to a debate at this time by way of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-168, respecting cancer research.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Hubert Badanai: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to focus attention on the necessity of research to arrest the dreadful disease of cancer. The bill establishes the Canada Cancer Foundation to which any individual person or organization and governments may contribute money in a drive to find the cause and a cure for cancer.
Motion agreet to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. McIntosh: 1.	Has an invitation been extended by the Department of External Affairs to United States press and broadcasting representatives to come to Ottawa, at the expense of the Canadian public, on February 28 and 29 and, if so, for what purpose?
2.	What are their names and media affiliations?
3.	How many of the firms are presently represented in the Press Gallery and what is the name of the present representative of each in the Gallery?
4.	Is it the intention of the Canadian Government to pay their transportation and hotel expenses?

March 8, 1972
Questions
5.	Is it the intention of the Canadian Government to pay each invited guest a daily sum of money in lieu of incidental expenses and, if so (a) how much (b) for how many days?
6.	Which of the invited guests accepted the invitation under the above conditions?
7.	How many refused the invitation and the conditions?


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: In response to starred Question No. 132, Mr. Speaker, there are seven sections to this question. I will answer as briefly as possible.
1.	A group of 10 editors and senior executives of major United States newspapers, magazines and broadcasting companies were invited to visit Ottawa on February 28 and 29 for informal meetings with ministers and senior government officials in order to give these people of the United States a better understanding of Canadian problems.
2.	The members of the group were Charles Bartlett, syndicated columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, and other papers, Washington; Robert Christopher, Executive Editor, Newsweek, New York; James Greenfield, Foreign Editor, New York Times, New York; Graham Hovey, Member, Editorial Board, New York Times, New York; John Hughes, Editor, Christian Science Monitor, Boston; Robert Manning, Editor, Atlantic Monthly, Boston; Les Midgley, Executive Producer, Columbia Broadcasting System, New York; Stewart Pinkerton, Chief, Dow Jones Service in Canada, Montreal; A. M. Rosenthal, Managing Editor, New York Times, New York; Stanley Swinton, Assistant General Manager and Director of World Services, Associated Press, New York.
3.	The New York Times is represented in the Press Gallery by Mr. Jay Walz and Dow Jones News Service in Canada by Mr. Mitchell Lynch.
4.	The group was invited under the Visits Program of the Department of External Affairs. Following the practice of other countries, visiting foreign journalists are offered transportation and a per diem allowance for accommodation and meals while they are in Canada.
5.	In the case of this particular group the great majority, representing as they do large organizations, preferred to pay their own expenses.
6 and 7. Organizations or newspapers invited to take part in the visit to Ottawa accepted the invitation, although in several cases, because of difficulty in timing, the organizations asked if their visit might be deferred to a later date.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad to report that the visit took place on schedule and all concerned found it a very interesting exchange of views which will, undoubtedly, help to provide a better understanding of Canada in the United States.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker, the Department of External Affairs receives such requests from time to time. Generally this happens when the visagranting nation has some reason to suspect that it is dealing with a criminal.
However, no such request was made concerning the name used on the passpoA obtained by Yves Geoffroy.


Mr. Rodrigue: How many people are employed by the Department of Agriculture in the constituency of Beauce and (a) what are their names (b) what position does each occupy?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: (a) J. F. L. St-Onge C. Lavigne J. D. E. Marcotte L. Fillian
(b) Sub-District Veterinarian Veterinarian
Primary Products Inspector Clerk


Mr. Crouse:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Late last year I placed a question on the order paper dealing with an expenditure of the Department of Public Works. It is a very simple question seeking information from the government. The question was not answered. I again placed it on the order paper at the beginning of this session. It stands as No. 68 under date of February 18. I wonder when I may expect an answer in view of the time that has elapsed since the question was originally asked.


Mr. Jerome:: I will certainly look into question No. 68.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I raise again a point of order I raised a week ago with regard to question No. 156 on the order paper. This is the second time of asking. This question was also raised during the last session and not answered. Inasmuch as the Department of the Secretary of State issued a press release on this matter last month I wonder why there should be such an inordinate delay in answering such a straightforward question.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Mr. McCleave: Do any nations, faced with applications for visas from Canadian citizens, ask for information about such citizens from the Department of External Affairs, and particularly, did such take place with regard to the name used on the passport in the Yves Geoffroy case?


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 2, 3, 6 and 17.

March 8, 1972

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 2-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the Interim Report made in March, 1968, by Dr. A. Vennema, Director of Canadian Medical Aid in Vietnam in 1967-68 and for copies of any subsequent correspondence between him and the Department of External Affairs.
Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, all experts, such as Dr. Vennema, who perform a particular service under contract to the Canadian International Development Agency, submit reports on their respective projects as a matter of routine. These reports and other correspondence are submitted on the understanding that they will be treated as confidential and privileged documents. If these experts felt that such documents could be made public they would be reticent about making meaningful comments that would help in the effective implementation of Canada's aid program. For these reasons, I ask, with regret, that the hon. member withdraw her motion.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot accept the parliamentary secretary's reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall I put the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mrs. Maclnnis:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the report undertaken in the Department of Agriculture on the United States Internal Food-Aid Program and its application to Canada.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was informed by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) on November 18, 1970, that no formal report has ever been made by the Department of Agriculture on the United States internal food-aid program and its application to Canada. An analysis of the program referred to was for departmental use and is considered to be confidential. I would therefore respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw her motion.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to transfer this matter for debate. I do not think it should be secret.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Motions for Papers


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 6-Mr. Woolliams:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, reports, letters, papers, and statements in reference to and material to the release of Yves Geoffroy from the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and material to his wrongful escape, while serving a life sentence for the conviction pertaining to the murder of his wife.
Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, if the government were to accept and accede to this motion it would be called upon to concede certain basic premises which in the government's view in law do not exist and accordingly the hon. member is asked to withdraw the motion.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, may I just speak to that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that he cannot speak to it but can merely indicate whether he wishes to withdraw the motion, have it transferred for debate or put to a vote.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I say there has been communication between the parliamentary secretary and myself. He is unhappy about the terminology. It is important that we get these documents. The motion asks that an order of the House do issue for copies of all documents, reports, letters, papers and statements in reference to and material to the release, and he objects to the word "release" and to the words "wrongful escape". I do not know what the terminology should be. I will not agree with his terminology and he does not want to agree with my terminology, but what I am after is to have the documents produced.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has risen on a point of order. I am sure he appreciates that there is not much the Chair can do. The Chair can either put the question or the motion can be transferred for debate.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Mr. Baldwin:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have had three occasions already when parliamentary secretaries in purporting to answer particular requests have stated reasons. My submission is that under the clear provisions of the Standing Order the government may accept a motion for papers, reject it or transfer it for debate, but they are not allowed to smuggle in their reasons at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows how the practice has developed. I think that perhaps with some reason it has been felt by hon. members on both sides of the House that it might facilitate the work of the House and make it more rational if parliamentary secretaries or ministers indicated the grounds on which the motion was objected to, giving an opportunity to the member who had put the

March 8, 1972
Motions for Papers
motion to indicate whether he wanted to withdraw it, have it transferred for debate or have a vote called on it. Often it is very difficult for an hon. member who puts this kind of motion to decide whether he wants to withdraw it unless he knows why the government does not want to produce the documents required. This practice has always made sense to me. At the same time it is easy to abuse the situation and to go a little too far and argue a case. I have hoped all along that there would not be argument on the part of parliamentary secretaries or ministers explaining why a motion was not acceded to by the government, but I believe that, with the general consent of hon. members, it is a helpful practice, provided there is no argument presented by the government, in indicating why a motion is refused or acceded to.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: May I just speak to that point of order without being argumentative. If parliamentary secretaries can give reasons, surely we who are asking for the production of papers should be allowed to give our side of the story. If it is fair for one, surely it should be fair for the other. If there was not an escape in this case I have not heard of one since A Tale of Two Cities.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member appears to have given at least as many reasons for his case as the parliamentary secretary gave for his. I suggest to hon. members that the practice appears to be a good one, and I would hope there would be co-operation on the part of members speaking for the government and members moving such motions to continue the practice and not abuse what appears to me to be a very logical and helpful practice which we have developed over the years.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 17-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a description of the area which the federal government would like to see incorporated in the proposed second national park in Saskatchewan to be situated in the Val Marie-Killdeer area.
Mr. Allen B. Sulatycky (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked that an order of the House do issue for a copy of a description of the area the federal government would like to see incorporated in the proposed second national park in Saskatchewan to be situated in the Val Marie-Killdeer area. The maps and papers describing this area are under active consideration and papers relating to negotiations cannot be released until these negotiations have been concluded. As no final decision has been made, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Burton:: Lots of other people see these documents. Question, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Ricard:: Stop quacking over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These 30 seconds are not being charged to the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I hope that will not be charged either, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question arising out of the information we have had today that the index for food prices has gone up by one full percentage point in one month. In view of this increase is he now prepared to sponsor the adjustment of pensions to take into account fully the real changes in the cost of living? I ask this question particularly in view of the fact that a freeze has been in force for about a year so that even the most needy pensioners, those who receive the guaranteed income supplement, can receive a maximum adjustment of only about 1 per cent in the course of the year regardless of what changes take place in the cost of living.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: At $100 a dinner it is not surprising that the food index went up, Mr. Speaker. I must say I disagree with the interpretation given by the hon. member. When the guaranteed income supplement was raised by this government to $135 a month it was a greater increase than the cost of living increase over the years which had been covered by that increase.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, without arguing with the Prime Minister about his statement I would like to ask him whether, in view of the increase that has taken place since the change was made, and the restriction on the increase to about 1 per cent of the pensions received by those who are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement, he would make a small move at least toward justice for these people by arranging that at least the guaranteed annual supplement will be changed in line with the real increase in the cost of living?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this matter was debated in the House. He knows that when the government brought in this modified legislation it was in order to make sure that the funds were spent more on the needy people. That is why the freeze on the $80 was accompanied by a very substantial increase, much higher, I repeat, than the comparative increase in the cost of living, to the needy people. This increase to the needy people was also accompanied by a possible 2 per cent increase tied to the increase in the cost of living.
March 8, 1972


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask one further supplementary question to make sure that the Prime Minister understands me. Is it the position of the Prime Minister that a 2 per cent area of upward movement is justice for these people when in fact the cost of living goes up substantially more? In view of the fact that the money the government is spending on Information Canada would go some distance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -to do some justice to these people-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -would the Prime Minister not reassess his priorities?


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would agree that at least part of this further supplementary was argumentative. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has a supplementary question.



OLD AGE SECURITY-SUGGESTED PROVISION OF ESCALATION BASED ON COST OF LIVING INCREASES FOR THOSE RECEIVING BASIC AMOUNT

Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the cost of living has risen very greatly and is now almost 5 per cent higher than it was a year ago, would the government be prepared at least to introduce an escalator provision for those on the $80 a month which would be geared to the rise in the cost of living which has occurred since last year?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, these questions were amply debated when the legislation was brought in, and the principle that the government put forward was that, rather than pay-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You had inflation licked then.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to the aged people in this country an amount regardless of what their income was, we would use public funds mainly for people who are in need. That is the reason why we froze the OAS pension and increased, I repeat, very substantially the supplement to the very needy in this country. Once again, I say the principles involved were debated in this parliament and I cannot, without repeating the whole debate, answer the question any more fully.


Winona Grace MacInnis: As there has been a big change since that time and the cost of living has continued to mount, would the Prime Minister still say that the people who are only receiving $80 are not in need?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Egmont on a supplementary.
Inquiries of the Ministry



OLD AGE SECURITY-CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON ADJUSTMENT OF ESCALATION PROVISION TO MEET COST OF LIVING INCREASES

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the very heavy burden being forced upon our senior citizens because of the rapid rise in costs, can the Prime Minister say whether there has been consultation with the provinces or requests from the provinces respecting adjustment of escalation clause in the federal pensions so that they will be adequate to enable pensioners to meet the continuing rise in costs?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,
I am not sure if there have been consultations with all the provinces. I do know that the provinces sometimes put forward an argument that the federal payments should be increased substantially but, of course, the federal payments are discussed and submitted to the federal Parliament, not to the provincial legislatures. I cannot say how many provinces have carried the argument put forth by the hon. member or under what circumstances.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Since the Prime Minister does not seem to be clear either as to the need on the part of our senior citizens-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: -or as to specific requests from the provinces, would he undertake to the House to initiate inquiries in order that he may have up to date information and be able to give a more informed answer to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, regarding need, the guaranteed income supplement is precisely designed to be addressed to those people who are in need and not universally to all people over the age of 65 whether they are in need or not. If they are in need they can apply for the guaranteed income supplement which is indexed, as I said earlier.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: What is happening to the people now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is happening? Well, they have to listen to some of the guff of hon. members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of members are seeking supplementaries.



OLD AGE SECURITY-POSSIBILITY OF REDUCING AGE OF ELIGIBILITY

Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Is he in a position to tell us whether his government is considering lowering to 60 the age of eligibility for old age pension and to grant this pension to the spouse as soon as

March 8, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
the other begins to collect old age pension, in view of the economical problems facing those people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not
quite catch the second part of the question but as regards the first part the government obviously wishes to give as much money as possible immediately to everybody but we must manage the government taxes and revenue as fairly as possible.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Would it not be easier for the Prime Minister and his government to use the services of the Bank of Canada which has been created especially to serve Canadians?


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Mackenzie rising on a supplementary question?


Mr. Korchinski:: I have a question for the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member in due course. We are still on the first question and have not completed the first round of questioning yet. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on a supplementary.



OLD AGE SECURITY-STEPS TO CHECK INFLATION

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. As the rise in the cost of living during the last month maintained the same rate as during the whole of last year, namely, 5 per cent, does the government intend to take positive steps to check this rapid inflation or does it not intend to?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I disagree once again with the figures put forth by the hon. member; they are not in accordance with the facts.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we have to go to another subject, important though this one may be. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings may ask a last supplementary and I will then go to the hon. member for York South on the next question.


George Harris Hees: As the figures I have quoted to the Prime Minister were produced by Statistics Canada, would he explain why he disagrees with his own government's agency?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York South.



MANPOWER


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration can now give us the details of the saga of Mr. Jean-Paul Lefebvre?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jean-Paul Lefebvre, after consultation with the Department of Manpower and Immigration, was engaged on December 20, 1971, on a contractual basis by the government of Canada to carry out a study of the manpower policies and institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany and to draw to the attention of the government conclusions that might be useful in the Canadian federal system. The contract period ends on March 31, 1972. During the period Mr. Lefebvre will receive a fee of $600 a week. He is also entitled to the usual travelling and living expenses provided under the public service travel directive and to a total amount not to exceed $400 payable on the basis of actual expenses for secretarial services outside Ottawa. This remuneration is well within the standard range of shortterm contracts. Mr. Lefebvre has been a total of 18 days in the Federal Republic of Germany and in Europe. He expects to meet the deadline provided in the contract.


David Lewis: Can the acting minister inform the House of the basis on which the Federal Republic of Germany was selected as the place to study the manpower situation, particularly in view of the fact that West Germany has had full employment and employed two million to three million people from outside the country to fill vacancies in the labour market? In view of that situation, exactly what is Mr. Lefebvre studying in West Germany that would be useful to Canada?


Mr. O'Connell:: The fact that there is no growth rate in the German economy and they have to import people is perhaps one of the reasons he is there, but the point the hon. gentleman misses is that it is a federal system and he is looking at manpower policies in a federal system of interest to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The federal system of West Germany is about as equal to the Canadian as this House of Commons is equal to the assembly in Tokyo.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask his supplementary.


David Lewis: What a comparison! May I ask the Acting Minister of Manpower and Immigration if he has found out whether Mr. Lefebvre had been on similar investigations when he was a Liberal member of the provincial legislature of Quebec? Did he go to Sweden and other places during the years he held an office in the Liberal party?

March 8, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, I have the biography of Mr. Lefebvre and I shall be pleased to show it to the hon. member. He has a very broad experience in labour, manpower-


George Harris Hees: Just answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: -and his qualifications-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary.
Yesterday I asked a question about the delayed payment of benefits to a great many unemployed and I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if it would be possible to decentralize the offices which issue cheques to the unemployed.
Since the regional office in Sherbrooke is much too small for the number of civil servants working there, could the parliamentary secretary advise us whether steps will be taken to improve the services in that area so that civil servants would be able to work in more human conditions?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, consideration will be given to this request. I should point out, however, that in effect there has been decentralization since 1970 with an expansion of 50 per cent in unemployment insurance offices-both main centres and service centres-servicing unemployment insurance clients.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Is the parliamentary secretary aware of the fact that the Sherbrooke office staff has been increased by 25 per cent, with the facilities remaining the same?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is an argument put forward by the hon. member in support of his contention.


André-Gilles Fortin: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Since the minister is prepared to see to the well being of the Unemployment Insurance Commission civil servants, would he be now prepared to look after the unemployed who are not receiving their cheques?



INQUIRY AS TO INSTRUCTIONS TO CANADIAN EMBASSY IN SPAIN TO ASSIST CBC CREW REPORTING ON ARREST OF MR. AND MRS. GEOFFROY

Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the Department of External Affairs issue instructions to the Canadian embassy in Spain to offer assistance to Peter Daniels and a CBC crew in reporting on the arrest in that country of Mr. and Mrs. Geoffroy?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary oi State for External Affairs):: Not particularly, Mr. Speaker. We did not issue any instructions to help the CBC nor did we issue any instructions to hinder their activities.


Mr. Nielsen:: Just asked them to do it.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the minister or any of his officials have any conversation with anyone in the CBC with respect to the coverage of the Geoffroy matter in Spain?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the CBC has complained about the treatment it has received from the Spanish authorities who have placed difficulties in the way of taking pictures. This has been conveyed to us. This is a matter for the Spanish government to decide. The Spanish government laid down one stipulation, that there would be no interviews with Geoffroy and his wife. With that decision we agree.


Gerald William Baldwin: Probably you people asked them to do that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS TO SECURE RETURN OF MR. AND MRS. GEOFFROY FROM SPAIN

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have a supplementary or somewhat related question, Mr. Speaker. While the minister is dealing with this point, can he tell the House whether extradition proceedings have been taken and, if so, what is the result and will Geoffroy and his wife be returned to Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite certain whether proceedings will be by way of deportation or extradition. I cannot answer that question yet.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a minor point of order so as not to mislead the House on an answer I gave a little earlier today. I am now informed that both Mr. and Mr. Geoffroy have expressed a wish to return to Canada forthwith.

March 8, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



MANPOWER


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the number of applications that have gone to his office in connection with the local initiatives program, is the original date of application considered for the granting of loans or is it the final date which is considered as the date of application in the granting of loans? I ask this question since there apparently is a shortage of funds available for the program.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I will try to clarify the two dates that the hon. member has in mind and have a conversation with him on this.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if the government intends to devote additional funds to this program in order to make it workable inasmuch as people have become excited about the program and made applications and the program now cannot fulfil the requirements?


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Mr. Speaker, it is true that a very large response was made to this offer of opportunities for work. There is no present intention to increase the funds in the program.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-SUGGESTED ONGOING PROGRAM TO ASSIST PEOPLE IN ISOLATED COMMUNITIES

Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Since many hundreds of applications under the local initiatives program from people living in remote and isolated communities will be turned down and as this will have a detrimental effect on their initiative and morale, will the government give consideration to introducing a similar type of program that will be ongoing so these people will be given the advantage of this type of project?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to note, in looking at the range of projects, that a great number of them, particularly in Newfoundland, involved what the hon. member likes to describe as isolated communities.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. I apologize to the hon. member. Perhaps I might first recognize the hon. member for Oxford on a supplementary and then the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-Tl e Islands.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUIREMENT THAT APPLICANTS BE CANADIANS OR LANDED IMMIGRANTS

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Can

the minister tell us if one of the criteria followed in making grants under the LIP program is that the applicant or those receiving assistance must be Canadians or landed immigrants?


Abram Ernest Epp: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I believe that both those conditions are in the criteria. I will check on that, but I think I am correct.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr. Douglas:: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate is rising on a pomt of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns the question raised by the hon. member for Oxford, the response of the minister, and several projects which have been awarded grants in Toronto. I have reason to believe that certain individuals who were given grants did not meet the specific requirements. I wonder whether an investigation could be launched along those lines?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously not a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment on a supplementary question. He will be recognized for that purpose in a moment.



LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF CERTAIN TORONTO PROJECTS

John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask whether the Minister of Labour will investigate those projects in Toronto which are of a questionable nature and report to the House on whether the criteria regarding Canadian citizenship or landed immigrant status have been met in connection with the two or three projects referred to by the hon. member for Oxford?


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the hon. gentleman to be more specific in his suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is the kind of situation in which it might be best if the hon. member were in touch directly with the minister, or the minister with the hon. member, in order to find out exactly what the situation is that they want to investigate.
March 8, 1972



INQUIRY AS TO REVOKING OF DRILLING PERMITS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COASTAL WATERS

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has his department issued oil drilling permits to Petrotar Development Company Limited of Calgary, and have these oil drilling permits been revoked and withdrawn?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is referring to the west coast permits. They were permits for seismic investigation rather than for drilling, as I understand it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Have those permits covering some 2.7 million acres of the coastal waters of British Columbia been revoked and withdrawn, and are any other permits outstanding for either seismographic work or drilling? If there are any outstanding, will they be withdrawn?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is asking for a really detailed enunciation of the outstanding permits on the west coast. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to get those in tabular form and supply them to the hon. member. I cannot do this from memory.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary question, but we should try to limit the number of supplementaries asked. If each hon. member asks two or three supplementaries, we will run short of time. I will try to recognize as many of our colleagues as possible during the question period.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking the minister for detailed information. I am asking about permits which were issued by his department and which the Minister of the Environment said were going to be revoked. I am asking the minister a simple question. Have the permits issued to Petrotar Development Company Limited been revoked and does the department intend to revoke any other outstanding permits?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think that my previous answer still makes sense. A great many permits have been issued on the west coast, as I indicated to the hon. member. I will be glad to get a full description of their current status for him. I think that is the information he wants, according to my understanding.



AUDITOR GENERAL


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister who undertook on Monday, I believe, to investigate why the report of the Auditor General had not been tabled in the House within the time required by law. Has the Prime
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister been able to conduct this investigation, and what brief report can he make now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker,
I did make that inquiry and I understand that the Auditor General himself has failed to deliver the report to the minister for tabling in parliament-


Mr. Forrestall:: Why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -under the provision that the law provides.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks why. I am sure, if an officer of parliament is breaking the law, that an hon. member should not ask me why he is breaking the law. He should address his question to that officer of parliament.


J. Michael Forrestall: He has been given some help in breaking the law.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister give the House the undertaking he will make certain that the Auditor General has sufficient resources to complete this report and that it will be tabled before the next general election?


George Harris Hees: Don't be afraid, Pierre. Speak!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-I am suddenly afraid.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the investigation of this matter which the Prime Minister assured me on Monday would be undertaken, did he discover that the reasons given by the Auditor General for the lateness in tabling the report are a shortage of staff and poor morale because of low classifications of his officials?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, the Auditor General is an official of parliament and not of the government. I do not want to question the reasons he gave. If parliament wants to condone his breaking the law and not do anything about it, that is fine-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -but the government is not stepping into this matter.


J. Michael Forrestall: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must bring to the attention of hon. members that some 20 or 25 hon. members want to ask questions. We must make headway. Again I bring to the attention of hon. members that the question period will be over soon. It will end at about five minutes past three.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would look further into this matter and ensure that the Auditor General has sufficient staff of the necessary high

March 8, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
calibre in order that he can get his report in very shortly and so that in future he will be able to get his reports in on time as required by the Financial Administration Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, every minister in this government would like to have more staff. It is my job to receive these demands on behalf of-


George Harris Hees: Give them some of yours.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have even heard that the opposition requires more staff. I do not think more staff would help them. Perhaps a different kind of staff might.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether hon. members wish to pursue supplementaries on this very important and interesting subject, but I again bring to their attention that we shall be running out of time soon.

Is the hon. member for Temiscamingue rising to ask a supplementary?


David Réal Caouette: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is the hon. gentleman willing to make a statement regarding the threats against the Canadian Consul in San Juan, Porto Rico, to protest the possible deportation of the militant nationalist Pagan who is being detained in Ottawa for having illegally entered Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. I do not want to undertake to make a statement at the present time because deportation proceedings are now under way against this person and I do not believe it would be in order for me to make a statement. I am aware that threats have been made against the consulate and this, I think, is most unfortunate, because we want to see justice done.


David Réal Caouette: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate the reasons of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but since Cuba or Chili are willing to accept the Porto Rican nationalist, would the department be prepared to consider the possibility of handing him over to either Cuban or Chilian authorities?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a question which ought really to be directed at this stage to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. But perhaps I could add that there are two

kinds of procedures under way. One of them is for deportation, in which case the appeal board and ultimately the minister would have to deal with the matter. There is another procedure involving extradition. It is necessary to take both into account. This is why I am reluctant to make a statement at this time which might in some way affect the course of justice.



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: My question is for the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. In his absence perhaps the Acting Postmaster General or the parliamentary secretary might reply. It arises from the statement made in the House last Monday by the Postmaster General and reported at page 529 of Hansard as follows:
Mr. Moodie never worked for our coding and mechanization branch nor did he in any way collaborate in its work.
I draw attention now to another statement in a report on this subject, prepared by Samson, Belair, Riddell and Stead, expressing appreciation for help from various people and adding:
-but none could be more stimulating than the coding task force under the team leadership of Mr. J. W. Moodie, the department's chief engineer.
In view of these contradicting statements can a statement be made on the subject at the earliest possible moment?


Mr. Gerald Cobbe (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: I will bring this matter to the attention of the minister and make sure that the hon. member receives an answer.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I seek the co-operation of hon. members in limiting the number of supplementaries.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the suspicion around ITT government dealings on both sides of the border perhaps the Prime Minister, as captain of the leaky ship of state, could make a statement on this matter.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was not following the exchange, Mr. Speaker.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON INCLUSION OF OPTOMETRIC SERVICES IN MEDICARE

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. May I ask whether the hon. gentleman is in a position to report any progress in connection with the negotiations he has been carrying on with the provinces
March 8, 1972

concerning the inclusion of optometric care in the national health plan?


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have held discussions with the provinces, mainly on the subject of the new cost-sharing formula to replace the present hospitalization and medicare arrangements. This formula would, we believe, place greater resources in the hands of the provinces to enable them to develop a health care system more in line with their own priorities. One of the ingredients of this proposal was that in the calculation we would build in the cost of optometric services.


Mr. MacLean:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to inquire whether we can be advised who are the ministers acting in place of the eight or nine ministers who are absent today but who are supposed to be here according to the unofficial roster? I am not taking into account the seven or eight ministers who are not scheduled to be here today. Perhaps the Prime Minister could inform us who they are and assure us that there is an acting minister in every case.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be glad to help the House with that information. The Minister of National Defence, who is visiting military establishments in Victoria, is represented today by his parliamentary secretary, Mr. Comtois.

Mr. Chretien is presently in Victoria where he is holding meetings with Indians. His parliamentary secretary, Mr. Sulatycky, is here today to answer questions.
As for Mr. Pelletier, he has travelled to Vancouver where he is meeting with representatives of the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews and I think that his two parliamentary secretaries are in the House to reply on his behalf.

In the case of Mr. Laing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the Prime Minister. I think I should remind him that he ought to refer to ministers by their official functions rather than by their names, and the same applies, of course, to parliamentary secretaries.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the question period yesterday I called attention to the fact that there were at different times between five and seven ministers absent who, according to this infamous roster system, should have been in the House. You have already acknowledged the fact, Mr. Speaker, that this roster is not a legitimate or formal document of the House. We find ourselves in an increasingly difficult situation in connection with the proper functioning of the House when ministers deliberately refrain from being present. I refer again to Standing Order 5 which states:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the House unless leave of absence has been given him by the House.
There has been a continuous disregard by the administration for the importance of this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


An hon. Member:: What about your leader when he was in Guadeloupe?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please? The hon. member for Egmont is raising a point of order. He should be given an opportunity to make his point. I am quite prepared to listen to him.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Yesterday we witnessed the unusual sight of one minister responding for three separate departments, I believe, and one of the newest ministers at that. Today we are unable to tell for which particular department a minister or a parliamentary secretary may be answering. This has reduced the capabilities of the House.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that in your position as senior officer of the House you should take it upon yourself to consult with the House leaders with a view to clearing up this very great difficulty, and seeing if ministers cannot be in their places to answer questions that are important to this country.


Mr. Speaker:: The point of order raised by the hon. member has been raised before, and I have stated my position. It is obvious that any system that is not provided for in the Standing Orders is not, so far as the Chair is concerned, in operation. Whether certain ministers, all ministers or no ministers at all are in the House from day to day is certainly not the responsibility of the Chair.
So far as the Chair is concerned, the situation is that Standing Order 5 is operative. I am not sure to what extent it is respected from day to day, but it does not apply particularly to one side of the House or the other. Standing Order 5 does not apply to ministers as such but to individual members; it requires that all members should be in the service of the House.
In any event, I think much of what I am saying is somewhat theoretical and goes beyond the point raised by the hon. member for Egmont. As I say, the point has been raised before. I have reflected on it and have expressed my opinion, and I doubt very much that I can go beyond that. There are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period, but if hon. members wish to raise points of order I have to recognize them.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order which arises from a statement made by the Prime Minister. I ask for the guidance of the Chair on this question: Under what rules or procedures is a parliamentary secretary allowed to function as an acting minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot ask questions of the Chair. Other members of the House have enough trouble answering questions, and I do not think the Chair should be required to share in that difficulty.


Winona Grace MacInnis: A further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was putting my question in the form of a request for a ruling from the Chair. The question could be directed to the Prime Minister. May I ask him under what rules or
638

March 8, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
procedures he permits a parliamentary secretary to function as an acting minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Perhaps I should let my parliamentary secretary answer that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that this is debate. We have reached the end of the question period, but I think hon. members would allow the Chair to recognize a few members from the different parties before calling orders of the day. I have seen hon. members standing for 40 minutes and I apologize to them for their lack of opportunity to ask their questions. This gives me an opportunity to remind members that if we are to spend 10 or 15 minutes on the first two or three questions, which admittedly may be important there is going to be some difficulty at the end of the question period. I will try to be fair to members and see a few of them before calling orders of the day. I might start with the hon. member for Edmonton Centre. I have seen him.



HIGHWAYS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Would the minister please advise the House why his department made the decision to twin the southern part of the trans-Canada highway in Alberta leading to Banff and to discriminate against the Yellowhead trans-Canada highway, which is the northern counterpart?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that that question, though important, might well be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency to it I will be pleased to return at the time of the adjournment to enable the hon. member to have it considered during the adjournment proceedings.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister consider holding an inquiry into the complaint of the president of the National Indian Brotherhood that everything the Indians try to do is stopped at the civil service level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will refer the question to the minister, and if he wants to inquire into the matter he will tell me.


Paul Yewchuk: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the minister is absent today, would the Prime Minister consider establishing a

procedure or structure which would provide the Indian Brotherhood with easier access to a minister when they have problems to resolve?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Indians have wide access to the minister. He is out in the west meeting Indians today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Battleford-Kinders-ley.


Mr. Alexander:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton West on a point or order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: May I bring a matter to Your Honour's attention. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth has been rising for the past two days with great anxiety. I was told yesterday that he said something about a disaster in Hamilton, and since I come from Hamilton I am hoping that Your Honour will give him an opportunity to tell us what this disaster is all about.


Mr. Speaker:: I have every intention of recognizing the hon. member. I undertook yesterday to give him an opportunity, but for the moment I have recognized the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley.



POSITION OF GOVERNMENT ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR POSSIBLE NUCLEAR ACCIDENT

Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleiord-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I feel we can do with more matter and less argument during the question period. My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that the Nuclear Liability Act is as yet non-operative, does this mean that the federal government is assuming any and all risks associated at the present time with any nuclear accident in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: I have some doubt about the procedural aspects of this question but the minister might be allowed to reply quickly.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to make an investigation into the question but I hope to be able to respond to my hon. friend.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 8, 1972



ICE DAMAGE IN COUNTY OF WENTWORTH-REQUEST FOR COMPENSATION

Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. As the result of severe property damages caused by a very severe ice storm in Saltfleet and Ancaster municipalities in the county of Wentworth, would the Minister of the Environment consider recommending payment of emergency damages to alleviate the problem created?


Hon. lack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if this disaster is beyond the competence of the government of Ontario, we in Ottawa will be hearing from Queens Park about it.



COAL-EFFECT OF POSSIBLE MINING IN ONTARIO ON AID TO NOVA SCOTIA MINES

Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister say whether any recent plans have come to his attention regarding possible mining of anthracite coal in the province of Ontario? If so, would this have any bearing on his current policy of possibly extending aid to the Nova Scotia coal mines?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the mining of anthracite in Ontario has not come to my attention but I would be glad to make inquiries on the point.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Howard Lundrigan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate is rising on a point of order.


John Howard Lundrigan: This matter has been raised several times during the last year and concerns the fact that since this parliament commenced we have had a 40-minute question period. In view of the question raised by the hon. member for Egmont, it is clear that there is absolutely no way for a member of parliament to hold a minister accountable for his department. We have raised this question in the House and asked the various House leaders to get together with a view to extending the question period.
Today, for example, or rather late yesterday, there was an incident off the east coast of Canada in which a Canadian vessel was intimidated by a foreign vessel. We are unable to ask questions of the Minister of the Environment about this incident, even though it could be tantamount to the declaration of a particular type of naval war against the people of Canada. There are matters of an urgent nature respecting various regions of Canada about which my colleagues to my left along the backbenches have been unable to ask questions. If we are to continue to have a reasonable opportunity of getting through to ministers with urgent questions, I suggest serious considera-
Inquimes of the Ministry
tion must be given to extending the question period and I think that consideration should be given immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has raised this question before. I do not want to be unfair to him or to any other member, but speaking very objectively and sincerely I have the impression that sometimes a question period that lasted even one or two hours would not be sufficient for all questions to be asked. This is particularly the case if half the question period is taken up with points of order and questions of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I certainly do not want to disagree with the hon. member. Obviously, he has a point. It is obvious that from day to day members who are seeking to ask questions do not have the opportunity. There is a responsibility on the part of the Chair to try to recognize as many members as possible.


David Lewis: I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I might be allowed to finish. The hon. member has suggested that the whole problem be considered by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. I agree with this. I hope that when the committee meets it will give very serious consideration to this kind of difficulty.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe it affects all members of parliament. I am anxious to draw this point to Your Honour's attention while the Prime Minister is still in the chamber. In reply to questions asked of the Prime Minister with regard to the late filing by the Auditor General of his report, he said-I do not claim to be quoting him verbatim but this is certainly not an inaccurate representation of what he said- that if parliament is willing to let him break the law or something to the effect that if Members of parliament are willing to condone a breach of the law or the Auditor General breaking the law, it is okay with him.
I make several points, Mr. Speaker. I think the behaviour of the Prime Minister in such cases is really remarkable, if not worse than that, if not reprehensible. First, as one member of this parliament I do not intend to allow the Prime Minister to accuse me, my colleagues or, indeed, any member of this parliament of condoning lawbreaking by any servant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Second, if the Prime Minister is right, then as leader of the government, and therefore as leader of this parliament, he should have the courage to produce a resolution to deal with the Auditor General in the way in which the act provides.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
25020-41.!

March 8, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry


David Lewis: Third, it is a well-known habit of those who want to kill someone to produce discomfort for him.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


David Lewis: They amputate his arms and legs and then ask him to run. This government has amputated the Auditor General's office. It amputated the arms and legs by inadequate personnel. Now, we have this kind of statement.
I did not rise on this point during the question period because I did not want to take up any time in the question period. But I say it is less than courageous to attack an officer of this parliament in this House without giving details or considering the situation, and it is less than proper for the Prime Minister to say that members of parliament condone lawbreaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to point out, without shouting if possible, that this matter was brought to the attention of the House by way of a question from a member of the opposition. The government had no intention of drawing this to the attention of the House. It did not bring this matter before the House.
When the question was asked of the government why this illegality was being perpetrated-those were the terms that were used; I cannot quote them exactly but in the question the matter of illegality was raised-I undertook to look into the matter. I reported that it was not any fault of the reporting minister but of the Auditor General himself that the report was not with us. I answered that it was not the intention of the government to look into the motives of the Auditor General or the reasons that he might want to give.
I did not want to make an issue of it, Mr. Speaker, but the question was pressed upon the government. I just said that the Auditor General is an officer of parliament, not of the government, and that he is answerable to this House. This government does not intend to introduce the resolution of censure which is recommended by the leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he has the courage of his convictions, perhaps he will want to move such a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to both the right hon. Prime Minister and the hon. member for York South that there is not much point in pursuing this matter by way of a debate on a question of privilege. The hon. member raised a question. As is the tradition and the long-established practice of the House, the person involved was allowed to reply. There is no motion before the House. There is nothing before the House. I called orders of the day before and I have to call orders of the day again.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a personal question of privilege. I respect Your Honour's desire, but the Prime

Minister was in the House when I spoke and I do not intend to let him get away with twisting my words.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now entering into a debate with the Prime Minister. The hon. member made a statement and the Prime Minister made a statement. The hon. member for York South now says that he does not want the Prime Minister to misinterpret his statement. This can go on for a long time because the Prime Minister will again reply. I wonder where it will end and whether we are achieving any purpose in pursuing this debate.


David Lewis: I am in Your Honour's hands. If I believed, as the Prime Minister suggested he did, that the Auditor General, having the capacity to produce the report on time, was deliberately breaking the law, I would bring such a resolution. It is the Prime Minister who suggested he is breaking the law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: It was the Prime Minister who suggested-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: It is up to him-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: I, for one, will not accept this kind of dishonest twisting of words.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems we are continuing the debate between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for York South. I have no objection to allowing the Prime Minister to reply to what the hon. member calls his personal question of privilege, but it does not seem that this is a very profitable exercise as far as this House is concerned.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think there may be a solution to this. The matter of the Auditor General has been before a standing committee of the House for many months now. It can be brought back to this committee. The committee is chaired by a member of the Conservative party. I have no objection. On the contrary, I would be happy if this whole matter were once again tackled by that committee. As to twisting the words of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that I do not have to do that. His twisted mind does it for him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.
March 8, 1972



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, March 6, 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.
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, continuing from where members left off on Monday on the CNR financing bill, I should like first of all to say that the remarks of my colleagues which were placed on the record on Monday perhaps cover the major reasons members from the east coast of Canada are taking part in this debate. For the last several years, going back to about 1965, I have had occasion to travel from St. John's, Newfoundland, across to Edmonton, Alberta on Canadian National Railways and, of course, since then on dozens of occasions have indulged in trips from the Maritimes to western Canada as well as from the Toronto-Montreal area back and forth to Ottawa. I am always fascinated by the pronouncement which seems to highlight the advertisements of Canadian National. In their advertising program, they state that they are involved in building the Canadian dream.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has the floor, but there are so many conversations being carried on that it is very difficult for the Chair to follow the hon. member's interesting pronouncements.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a contradictory situation we have this afternoon. Some hon. members cannot keep quiet, and some other hon. members have decided to rest in peace. It is an unusual House. I have never known the House to be quite so lively in some respects, and quite so dead in some others. I remember an occasion on which I was travelling by train from Toronto to Ottawa. I got on the train and was escorted to one of the most luxurious cars the Canadian National has. It is a space-age car in which you have several levers to adjust your seat. It is a beautiful car with most luxurious upholstery. I was in the wrong place by the way, because my pass only permits me to travel in a second-class compartment. Without having paid the difference in the price of the ticket I was placed there.
Before getting shoved into the second-class I observed a beautiful thing. Along came a porter with hors-d'oeuvres, shrimp, mushrooms and other doodads. Then, there were drinks and a person came along with white towels asking
CNR and Air Canada
what time the passengers would like to dine. He spoke about the menu and asked whether we would like roast duckling with some kind of a sauce, an orange sauce perhaps, although I am not familiar with such things because I come from a fishing community. The service included all kinds of things which someone from the east coast would never have believed existed.
A few days earlier, I was getting off a bus in Newfoundland, also operated by the Canadian National Railways. A person needs to have a figure no larger than 34 inches in order to squat in the seats. There is one small bathroom in the rear which my colleague from St. John's West described. There is one lavatory for 39 persons. The comparison between this type of bus service and the luxurious train service is unbelievable. The fact is that the CNR provides a particular type of service for the urban parts of Canada and downgrades the service in the rural parts of Canada. The evidence of this is overwhelming.
The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Die-fenbaker), and other members from western Canada, complain daily about the elimination of substandard rail services into small towns and the difficulty this causes throughout rural Canada. I have always contended that the government, through various programs including programs of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, is involved in the downgrading of rural Canada and the encouragement of a drifting toward urban centres. I think it is quite natural for people to look to areas of opportunity but I do not believe any government or any corporation has the right to bring in programs whereby the people in rural parts of Canada are placed at a disadvantage. Basically, this is what is happening because of the attitude of the government.
The government has an unstated policy which is realized only if one is sensitive to the formal policies which destroy rural life. In my area, several hundred communities are suffering and many of them could have been viable communities if there had been specific emphasis placed on rural development. In western Canada we see tumbleweed blowing down deserted streets. We see houses closed and dilapidated buildings. This downgrading of rural Canada is contributed to by the type of assistance policies we have in this country. I recall that my colleague pointed out many examples where Canadian National especially, and CPR, have specifically eliminated rail services which has led to the early discouragement of any interest in housing for those communities.
In our province we have a very serious situation. In 1968, I believe on June 3, Order R 2673 was issued which allowed Canadian National Railways to discontinue its rail passenger service. That order was upheld by the Canadian Transport Commission. Because of a loss of $900,000 which was experienced in the last year of operation the government of this country through its official agency the Canadian Transport Commission eliminated the rail passenger service. This was one of the most tragic things which has happened to our province since it became part of Canada in 1949. This is not a matter involving only the Canadian Transport Commission. Perhaps I am exaggerating slightly, but I contend that there has been a plot between the Canadian Transport Commis-

March 8, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
sion, the CNR and this government to eliminate this railway service, as well as many others.
We have raised this matter from time to time with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) who has not poked his nose in the House since this debate started. He is supposed to be piloting this bill through the House. When we raise the question with the minister he says it is a matter for the Canadian National Railways and because it is a Crown corporation he cannot interfere. Then, when we raise the question with the minister again, he says the matter has been reported to the Canadian Transport Commission and he cannot interfere because the Canadian Transport Commission is a regulatory body which has a particular type of omnipotence. Then, if you go to the Canadian Transport Commission they say they have no authority because the act states that they must behave in a certain manner. Because the CNR is afraid to offend the minister, because the Canadian Transport Commission is a creature of the minister and because the minister refuses to become involved in these problems since other agencies have jurisdiction, the end result is that jointly the minister, the Canadian Transport Commission and the CNR are carrying out a process of downgrading rail services. They have already eliminated completely rail service in one province. We will fight this decision as long as we have breath.
We have already indicated earlier in the week what we have done. In 1968, when the decision to abandon the service was brought before the Canadian Transport Commission, we protested against it. Our people did so unanimously. We considered that Canadian National should have moved in, upgraded the railbed and cleaned up the cars. Nobody would have believed how calculating the CNR people were. They are not even in their usual place in the gallery today listening to the complaints, because they do not pay any attention to them anyway. The fact is that for about two years prior to the abandonment of the railway passenger service in 1968, the CNR deliberately started the downgrading process. They did not clean the cars on the outside, and the inside was repulsive to anybody who wished to get on board one of these trains. The end result was that people stopped using the service.
After a couple of years of this, the CNR decided that they had sufficient statistics to show that the number of passengers using the service was reduced, so they applied to the Canadian Transport Commission for permission to abandon that rail line and the CTC agreed. We have never been able to uncover the reasons for this decision, but I hope that one day, with a new government in Canada which will face the facts honestly and openly, we can bring the czar of transportation before a committee of the House. I am referring to the man who is now in the $40,000 a year job as president of the CTC. This person should give sworn testimony before an appropriate committee where he might admit that there was some kind of plot between the then provincial premier, the CTC and the then minister of transport to eliminate the rail passenger service. There had to be some agreement among them. Perhaps the provincial government at that time said, if you help us with the trans-Canada highway or give us a

grant of so many millions of dollars, we will not oppose the abandonment of the system.
Unless there is some skulduggery behind the scenes, there is no way in which the CTC can justify its decision in 1968 to abandon one railway system in one province which had a deficit of less than $1 million, and refuse to abandon railway systems in two other provinces which had deficits of $15 million a year. We agree that the rail passenger service which serves Nova Scotia and New Brunswick should be maintained and upgraded, because it serves as a vital passenger link with the heartland of the nation. However, you cannot say, on the one hand, that one system is to be abandoned which had deficits of less than $1 million and which served one province, while another system having a deficit of $15 million and serving two other provinces with a population a little more than twice as big as the province of Newfoundland should be maintained. Something must have gone wrong somewhere. The transportation system in Newfoundland is not a minor thing; it is of major importance. We in the Atlantic region have need of an efficient, well serviced and cheap transportation system that will link us with the central industrialized parts of Canada because we are far from central Canada and we must have good transportation.
Back in the nineteenth century Canada said that tariff systems and trade policies would be designed which would encourage the growth of the less industrialized parts of Canada. We agreed with that. At the same time, the Atlantic region was left in the position of depending basically on raw resources, so we are in great need of a system whereby our products can be brought to the large population centres of the world and certainly to the large population centres of our nation. Therefore, much more emphasis must be placed on rail transportation.
My colleagues from Nova Scotia have commented on the increased freight rates in the Atlantic region. There have been several increases in the last few years and another one is to take place in a few weeks time. There is no way in which you can carry on an effective policy of regional development in the Atlantic region in the face of this kind of discrimination. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that members from western Canada must have the same attitude because this is one of their great disadvantages. I have listened to my friends in the cattle industry, such as the distinguished and honoured member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), as well as other hon. members speak about their need for a reassessment of the freight rates and about the cost of transporting their produce to the heartland of Canada.
These are the kinds of things which we would like the CN to consider. The attitude of the people in managerial positions in the CN is rooted in the eighteenth century. They do not understand the word "service". They dislike any innovation, change or progress. If you speak to these people now you will find that they have not heard of the word "service" except in areas where they have brand new, sophisticated systems serving perhaps a few of the heavily populated central Canadian areas. These people are still treating the rail system as the traditional mode of transportation, and in many cases the only mode of transportation, but they have not kept up with the times.
March 8, 1972

My colleague, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) was telling me a couple of days ago about some of the advances in the railway system in Japan. He mentioned the unirail system with which I am not very familiar. Countries like Japan are 100 years ahead of Canada in this respect. They have integrated their road and railway systems in the phenomenal engineering feat of the unirail. I wonder if anybody has thought about adapting this concept to Canadian conditions. I wonder whether the CNR has seriously considered this phenomenal engineering feat, whether they have conducted a sophisticated cost analysis to justify putting it into operation in certain parts of Canada, such as the provinces on the east coast, an area which is fast becoming a haven for people who want to live a more relaxed kind of life in a different environment. What vision do they have?
Back in the 1870's we had John A. Macdonald who spoke about building a railway across Canada. People must have thought him a nut to be talking at that time about building a railway across uninhabitated areas, across the Rocky Mountains. In 1885 they drove the last spike and the whole country was joined together by the silver rails. But in 1968, those great promoters of the CNR decided they would abandon the whole passenger service in one province. They do not seem to be able to find ways to upgrade the roadbed and to build new coaches to attract tourists. Yet, the Ontario government did so in 1902. Perhaps hon. members will recall that the Ontario Northland railway was built then. There was prospect for development there. They opened up the great mines in the southwestern part of the Canadian shield as a result of the building of this railway which is one of the few railways in the world which makes money. The area is a great tourist attraction. Between the middle of June and the middle of September you cannot get a place on the Ontario Northland railway. I believe it is called the Polar Bear Express.
At that time, back in 1902, people with vision realized that with the beauty in that part of Canada, and with its potential, this could be a paying proposition. Today it is actually making money. If anybody would like to take the time to write to the Ontario minister of transportation he could obtain new, beautiful annual reports showing that this railway works. Why can the federal government, through its national agency of the Canadian National, not adopt such an attitude and explore such a possibility? The tourist potential is unlimited. The railway in Newfoundland would have been the only narrow gauge railway in the western world. My colleagues, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) spoke about building a wide gauge railway. Perhaps that is farfetched, but has anybody ever explored it? We have a serious unemployment problem. According to DBS statistics 18.5 per cent of our people were unemployed in January. Why cannot this be looked at as a possible way of putting thousands of people to work? Can it pay dividends? Can it open up access to resources, to our forests, to our minerals, and provide transport for those products as well as for our fisheries products to central Canada and the eastern seaboard? I do not know, Mr. Speaker. But I ask, has anybody ever thought about it?
CNR and Air Canada
All we get from the government is the reply, "we have abandoned this service in accordance with the act." We will have to wait until hell freezes over before the Prime Minister and the government display a flexible attitude to our province. They always look at it in terms that we have only half a million people and 200,000 square miles of territory. We have a vast hinterland with very few people inhabiting it. This is the main reason we cannot make a greater financial contribution to the people of Canada.
In this respect government members have a narrowminded, introverted, reactionary attitude. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and through you to the people of Canada, that during the next decade the true worth of the resources of that part of Canada will come to be realized. It is only a matter of time until using our marine resources on the continental shelf, the unbelievable mineral resources of Labrador and Newfoundland, the forestry potential of that vast hinterland, the equally unbelievable hydro development potential, now coming into effect with the billion dollar power plant at Churchill Falls, Labrador, we will contribute our full share to the rest of the country. This is all the more reason for the federal government to look at our problems in the broadest possible perspective.
I say that men like the member who for years represented the constituency I represent are betraying the people back on the east coast. They are doing that by permitting this kind of attitude to develop. Such a person becomes very popular when he can go into the Prime Minister's office and say, "In Newfoundland we have just saved you $900,000," or go into the office of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), who in effect is his boss, and tell him, "We have saved you $900,000." Wouldn't that put him in a position of prestige and authority? That type of attitude has to go, Mr. Speaker. The type of attitude displayed by the Canadian Transport Commission, the Department of Transport and the government, has to go. We need more perspective, more vision, more foresight.
Only today I was informed once more that there has been another train derailment, this time at Jasper in the northwest part of the province of Alberta. We had three derailments last week in the province of Quebec. Twice during the Christmas recess I attempted to travel by rail in Ontario, and I was impeded by derailments. Once returning from Newfoundland during the air traffic controllers strike, I was impeded by a train derailment somewhere in Nova Scotia. Every week we hear about train derailments. My colleagues who know about railroads tell me that this is the result of the Canadian National cutting back on its section men, and on the extra gangs it once hired. The end result is that the modern day, heavy trains cannot carry their loads in safety. If this trend continues, it will only be a matter of time until the Canadian National can justify the elimination of all rail lines.
If the Canadian National management are only interested in qualifying for the 80 per cent subsidy from the Canadian government, all I can say is that this is a hazardous way of going about it. They are downgrading their own roadbeds, their service on the railways, and the small railway stations. Has anybody here ever gone into a small railway station in the year 1972 and thought he was back in the year 1880? You have to bulldoze your way into the

March 8, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
small toilet. In the waiting room there is the same old hard bench that was always there. There is no telephone and in most cases no heating. Then, CN management comes to the government and says, "Here is what we have got. It's an awful mess. We have to eliminate it and close it down." But the government replies, "You don't have to do that because we will pay you 80 per cent of your losses." That is the kind of progressive management that there is in the CNR today.
I was 17 years old when I had my first opportunity to work away from the beautiful east coast haven of rest and relaxation in which I was brought up. I went to Knob Lake, or Schefferville, Newfoundland, on the border with Quebec, which is about 360 miles north of Seven Islands. I went to work on the railroad. I was driving spikes and shovelling ballast, and helped to build up the railyard that serves the iron ore mines at Schefferville. We wore our caps and our badges. We were proud of ourselves. We were railwaymen. I felt the old spirit myself, even though I was only a young fellow. But today when you talk to railwaymen across the country you find that the railways have adopted a policy of not replacing anyone who passes on. What do you call that?


George Harris Hees: Attrition.


John Howard Lundrigan: The railwaymen are all in danger of losing their jobs. Those same men who were proud builders of the Canadian nation are today the most demoralized labour group in Canada. This kind of thing must be taken seriously. Every year when we get this CNR joke, and it is only a joke, Mr. Speaker, we stand up and debate it. I note that there is nobody up there in the gallery today, although there are usually half a dozen $30,000 a year CN men there. Perhaps I should not be too harsh because I have some friends in the Canadian National. Anyway there are usually half a dozen of them up there taking notes. Then, they come before our standing committee. They have a well calculated plan to present. Members question them, then they go away, and the following year we go through the same exercise. We are getting a lot of complaints as a result of the tremendous frustration experienced by Canadian National employees. The government has to take a close look at the situation.
This is a purely personal view, Mr. Speaker, and I am not putting it forward as representing the view of my party or of my party's spokesman on transportation. I would like to see some kind of very special inquiry set up to have a look at the Canadian National, a look at their attitude, their management, their progressiveness, their vision, their plans and the programs they have in mind for this country. In this context the building of the Canadian dream was the biggest fraud ever seen perpetrated on the Canadian people, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I first want to tell you how much I am in agreement with the hon. member who just spoke. It is most unusual in the House of Commons when members on both sides are really in agreement on a particular topic. Any member of any party who has his eyes open must agree that passenger service and rail service generally, not just in Newfound-

land but throughout the whole of Canada, are in a most deplorable mess.
The previous speaker mentioned the abandonment of railway service in the great province of Newfoundland. I, who come from what many call the heartland of Canada, Ontario, can tell you that rail service there is as deplorable as it is anywhere else in the country. It is equally deplorable right in the capital city of Ottawa. About two weeks ago I had to meet a passenger coming in from Winnipeg, but because of a derailment the train was 12 hours late. Instead of arriving at a quarter to five in the afternoon, it arrived at twenty to five in the morning. In this capital city of Ottawa, the railway station closes at midnight, so if a train is delayed after that hour you can try phoning the station about it but you will not get an answer.
People are completely dissatisfied with the way the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific are operating. Only a few months ago I was in Union Station in Toronto, which the CPR and CNR are thinking of remodelling or rebuilding. But why, when they do not look after the building they have now? My friend was talking about the trains that Sir John A. Macdonald started a hundred years ago but when I was in Union Station only three CP trains per day were coming in. It is a disgrace that We let the railways of Canada get away with this.
My' hon. friend spoke about the Japanese trains. I was in Frankfurt, Germany, two or three years ago and at that time 800 trains per day moved in and out of that station. But the Canadian Pacific, which has the gall to call itself the greatest transportation company in the world, had three trains per day going to Union Station in Toronto. My hon. friend made a case to show the people of Canada that our railway system is in a terrible state, but he did not say what should be done about it. We can blame the government or the Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, but the brutal fact is that as a result of legislation passed in this House over the years, the railway companies have parliament exactly where they want it. They eliminate services, and not just passenger services. You should see the condition of some of the cattle that arrive in my area from western Canada. Sometimes a few are dead and the farmers have a hard time getting satisfaction from the Canadian Pacific or Canadian National.
We have to do something about this, Mr. Speaker, because as my hon. friend said, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways are laughing at us. It is high time that we in this House of Commons let the railway systems of Canada, and the people of Canada, know who is boss. Up to the present the railways have shown that they are.


Mr. Horner:: Tell us about Pickersgill and his job.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The railways have an obligation, not just to the House of Commons but to the people of Canada. When I watch a football game on television and see the Canadian Pacific advertisement about trains going across Canada-"Another Way in Which the Canadian Pacific is Serving You"-I say it is nonsense. The only people they serve are those at the head of the CPR and the stockhold-
March 8, 1972

ers. There is nothing wrong with being a stockholder. The CPR is a great organization and in many instances has done a good job.
However, both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific have failed the people of Canada by not providing proper railway systems. They have obligations. They made a deal, not with the government of the day but through the government with the people of Canada, the people in my riding of Bruce and in the provinces all across Canada. The Canadian Pacific said "We will give you perpetual service for X number of dollars and X millions of acres of land". In its wisdom, the federal government gave the Canadian Pacific Railway $25 million and 25 million acres of land. That is a lot of land and today the Canadian Pacific has oil wells, gas wells, big hotels and everything imaginable, the returns from which go to swell the coffers of the company. The railway company signed agreements with little municipalities across the country. These little municipalities, such as the one I represent, gave $10,000 or $12,000 in return for a guarantee perpetual service. But that service is not being given, Mr. Speaker.
If the mortgage on my house were held by a private individual and that individual were to die during the term of the mortgage, would that mean that I would not have to pay his heirs? Of course not; I would have to pay. The Canadian Pacific guaranteed perpetual service for so much money. But if I did not keep up the mortgage payments on my house, the house would be taken back. That is the way in the free enterprise system. The Canadian Pacific Railway is one of the largest free enterprises in the whole world. They guaranteed a service which we did not get, so let them give back the money and give back the land. Let the municipalities go to the Canadian National Railways and get their money back, plus the interest. You may think this is a foolish idea which could not be implemented, but the only thing these money barons understand is a dollar bill. If we demand the return of the money because their signature is on the deal, then I think they might attempt to give the service that is required.
We do not need rail lines in every part of Canada, of course, but there is no reason for not having service into the city of Toronto with two million people or Montreal with around three million people. I am sure that my hon. friends from Newfoundland are not asking that the railway serve every village and town. What we all request is a reasonable service. When the railway service was eliminated in the area I represent, the railway companies and the bus companies were in cahoots. The bus companies guaranteed to the public and the Canadian Transport Commission that they would look after transportation for the area. As far as the bus companies are concerned nothing has been done and the railway companies have stopped giving service.
I will go as far as to say that the deal the railways have given to the people of Canada is just legalized robbery any way you look at it. If I were head of either the Canadian Pacific Railway or the Canadian National Railways, I would not be able to face the people of Canada after what they have done in this great country of ours.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: When speaking on Monday on this bill the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. CNR and Air Canada
Thomas) said that this is the annual exercise in futility. I do not know if I would go that far, but certainly it is the annual bite placed on the people of Canada for funds for Air Canada and the Canadian National Railways. Every year we go through this process and deal with this kind of measure, the only difference in the script is the amount of money involved. Every year we see the spectacle of the Parliament of Canada bailing out the CNR with respect to debt charges that the railway should not be expected to carry. Ever since its formation in 1923, the deck has been stacked against the CNR. The government of Canada bailed out entities that operated as financial and economic pirates between 1900 and 1920. When the small railways that now make up the CNR went broke, we bailed them out by buying them up; and we are still paying.
Some of the money provided by this bill is for the payment of a deficit resulting from the interest incurred on the original debt, a debt that has been charged to the CNR, quite improperly in my view. I submit that the original mortgage indebtedness of 1923 ought to have been refinanced, for I submit that the original mortgage debt has been paid off. The Canadian National Railways system has been in debt long enough. It has been kept in debt all this time under the present set-up. I submit that the system ought to be permitted to show a profit, so that it need not come to parliament for help. Parliament should not have to bail out that system as a result of deficits incurred by reason of interest paid on debt.
May I mention the speech made the other day by my friend, the hon. member for Moncton. He was the lead-off speaker of the official opposition. If he has always believed what he said, I am proud of him. If he is newly converted to the ideas of the NDP, I am even prouder of him, for in the course of his remarks he enunciated a philosophy with which we have concurred for many years. What he said we have advocated in this chamber ever since my party first sent members to this place way back in 1935. I should like to quote one paragraph from the speech of the hon. member for Moncton. He said, in part, as recorded at page 546 of Hansard:
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.
The last sentence in the paragraph reads, "The profit motive is important, but it should be secondary to the concept of providing essential public services." I agree. I submit that so long as we maintain a rail transport system that is partly publicly and partly privately owned, a system whose primary concern is the making of profits and whose secondary concern is the provision of service, we will continue experiencing the kind of grief with regard to rail operations that hon. members of this House have been complaining about for 30 or 40 years.
646

March 8, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
I was also interested in the remarks of the Leader of the Social Credit Party, the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette). Last Monday in his remarks he brought out some of the old shibboleths and myths which have been bandied about by those who for many years have opposed public ownership of transport facilities. At page 553 of Hansard he is reported as saying:
Since the private sector prospers, we must nationalize it at once so that it may lose money.
He went on to say:
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.
May I remind that hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, that he has conveniently forgotten a few things. Of course, the CPR operates at a profit, and for a good reason. It started out with a grant of 25 million acres of land and $25 million in cash from the people of Canada. It started out with that kind of advantage. The dice were loaded in favour of the CPR. When it was established, it did not bear an unfavourable financial burden. It started out in a way that is exactly opposite from the way the CNR started out. When the Canadian National Railways system was established, that system took over the debt, amounting to some $1 billion, of several bankrupt railway companies. Yet, the hon. member for Temiscamingue has the nerve to say that the CPR always makes a profit and that, therefore, it should take over the CNR because the CNR loses money.
What kind of logic is that? If the hon. member were to look at the financial statement of the CNR, he would find that the facts are opposite to those he has suggested. Canadian National Railways has been showing profits. As I say, all the hon. gentleman has to do is look at page 46 of the 1970 Annual Report of Canadian National Railways. That report shows the performance of Canadian National Railways during the past 25 years, between 1946 and 1970. And, Mr. Speaker, for the edification of that hon. gentleman and anybody else who thinks that the CNR is always operating at a loss because it is a publicly owned system or who thinks that in the last 25 years the CNR has shown only deficits and not profits, let me say that in 22 of those 25 years the system has shown net operating profits. The record year was 1956, when the system made $57,860,000 in profits. However, Mr. Speaker, when the interest on the debt was charged against that $57 million operating profit, the net result was a deficit and the parliament of Canada had to vote another $26 million to cover additional interest on that debt. This has been the situation for the past 25 years. I suspect that if one were to go back and examine the record between 1923 and 1946, one would find that the system enjoyed operating profits comparable to those of any other rail system in North America and, in most cases, better than those of any other rail system in Canada.
I submit there is ample evidence to show that the one publicly owned railway of any consequence in North America, Canadian National Railways, has set the best example in terms of operating efficiency and operating profits. Those who continue to oppose blindly public ownership of any kind like to bring forward half-truths in support of their argument. They leave out some of the facts relating to the Canadian National Railways system.

I, myself, have many criticisms of that system. The one brought forward by the hon. member for Temiscamingue was not justified and was not truthful.
The whole issue of public and private ownership of transportation has been debated for the last 50 or 60 years in this country. The CNR became a publicly owned railway system, not because any government showed any desire to acquire a publicly operated railway system, but simply because at least three privately owned railways went bankrupt and the government, having provided guarantees to those entrepreneurs, to those fancy free-enter-prisers, was stuck. The people of Canada have been stuck ever since. That is how the CNR was established as a publicly owned corporation. It was established, not because of any essentially good principle involving the public ownership of essential public services, but only because the government of the day had no choice.
One of the railways of that day was the Intercolonial Railway, which was publicly owned. Its operation was carried on from the office of the minister of railways and canals with an extravagance of partisanship in the granting of rate preferences and in the giving of employment to party friends that was considered scandalous even by the relaxed standards of the time. By 1910 people were beginning to wonder whether some kind of insulation against the grosser froms of political pressure could be devised. One of the arguments for the creation of Canadian National Railways was that it would do just that. People wanted to do away with pork barrelling and the granting of special rates to friends.
The National transcontinental line was built by the dominion government to very high physical standards and with a great deal of plain and fancy graft for friends of the party in power. Nominally, it was to be leased to the Grand Trunk Pacific, after completion. In fact, the parent Grand Trunk had an interest in getting a connection between its lines in Ontario and Quebec and those of the Grand Trunk Pacific running west from Winnipeg. Therefore, the whole of the line east from Cochrane through Levis to Moncton was a purely political job. Whatever else can be said of it, no part of this line can be laid at the door of private enterprise. Even in those days, public construction and ownership of railway lines was not undertaken because it was held to be a good principle that the public should own an essential public service. It was done for political purposes and for political purposes only. The Grand Trunk Pacific was financed finally on the basis of government guarantees. The manner of construction and the price of the Prince Rupert terminus were both decided by the government. It is perfectly true that the management of the parent Grand Trunk was not good; but even a good management might not have been able to create a viable enterprise under two such handicaps.
We listen to speeches made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue and others suggesting there is something fundamentally good about private enterprise and something fundamentally bad about public enterprise. He and his friends support the free enterprise theory, the theory that you make it on your own, put up your own money, show initiative, and so on. If you succeed, well and good; if you go broke, well, you have taken your chance, it is too
March 8, 1972

bad, try again. That is the theory. What happens in practice is illustrated by the case of the Canadian National system. It has happened many times in the practice of the mythology of private enterprise. The entrepreneurs start on their own. They "con" people into buying shares in their ventures. Their friends buy bonds and shares. Large corporate financial institutions invest in those bonds and shares. The company gets government guarantees and then goes broke, as in the case of at least three of the railways in the early part of this century. They don't lose, they get their money. The groups who bought stocks and shares get their money, and the public pays.
This is what happens too often in practice. The people I am talking about are the first to yell about the value of initiative and private enterprise. But when they are in trouble, who runs to the government to be bailed out? They are the largest welfare recipients in the history of this country. When I hear some dinosaur complaining there is too much welfare available, too much public assistance, I cannot help being amazed, because the amount spent on public welfare is infinitesimal compared with the sums handed out to corporations who run to this government and who ran to the previous Conservative government to be bailed out. Any damned fool could be a private enterpriser under that kind of a deal, and a lot of people in Canada have been made damned fools of by bailing out these bankrupt corporations. And we are doing it now. The government to this day makes grants in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars to private corporations, the officers and boards of directors of which decry socialism and state intervention. What a bunch of nonsense! They are the first to go pleading for help. This applies to all the social aid cases who reside in boardrooms and have done so ever since this country started.
Canada's rail operations are handicapped because of the kind of national transportation policy under which they are working today and under which they have been operating since confederation. I wish to illustrate this point by drawing attention to some of the areas in which rail service has deteriorated or ceased altogether. All these things have gone on-the closing of railway agencies, the cancellation or curtailment of branch line services, or ceasing of schedule train services, which means the railways can run a train whenever they feel like doing so. With respect to certain types of freight and express traffic, railway services have virtually disappeared. As I say, all these things have gone on, particularly since the end of the second world war. The private enterprise railway was not interested. It wanted the gravy. It did not want to give a service. In the case of the publicly-owned railway, it had no choice because of the financial arrangements under which it had to work and the unfair competition which it faced. It had no choice but to decrease services; it was necessary in order to show members of parliament and the public generally that an operating profit had been made.
May I give a few examples? I suppose the most horrendous and the most recent was the application to close a total of 76 railway stations in Saskatchewan and Alberta in one fell swoop. Four members of parliament, an hon. member from the other place, mayors and town councillors from dozens of communities and representatives of
CNR and Air Canada
the province of Saskatchewan all appeared at three successive hearings in Saskatchewan opposing that application. The Canadian Transport Commission Railway Transport Committee handed down its decision a week or two ago. It chose to ignore or discount the representations which had been made to it, and granted permission to the railway to close these 76 agencies by the middle of this month. When I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) whether he would get his cabinet colleagues to intervene and disallow this order, it was evident that he did not even know whether he could do so or not. I hope the parliamentary secretary will remind him that according to the act itself, the cabinet has authority to overrule the Canadian Transport Commission. This is the most recent example of the decisions we are getting from CTC, decisions which fly in the face of the needs of the Canadian public.
I want to be so brave as to read a little of the brief I presented to the Commission, outlining what I thought should be done to continue to provide service at those agencies while, nevertheless, reducing costs and improving efficiency. I am not suggesting for one minute that all 76 of those agencies should or could be kept open, but when one sees the railway wanting to close agencies in towns of 500, 1,000 or 3,000 people, it is obvious something is wrong. And when we see a docile transport commission agreeing to this proposal as rapidly and as easily as it did, here is more evidence that something is fundamentally wrong.
The claim by the Canadian Pacific, and latterly by the CNR, that the so-called customer service centres are giving better service and are resulting in more business is not borne out by any evidence which I, or any member of this House or the Canadian Transport Commission have been able to get. I submitted in my brief at the hearing at Wynyard, Saskatchewan, that if the Canadian Pacific Railway, for example, was correct in its assertion that in other areas of western Canada where customer service centres had been inaugurated dozens of agencies were closed, the customer service centres were in fact providing better services and resulting in more traffic, it was incumbent upon the railway to provide to the commission, to the public and members of this House the revenue earnings at each of the stations for forward and received, carload, less than carload, freight and express, number of telegrams sent and received, number of tickets sold and passenger revenue, before those stations were closed.
Then, what we would like for the Canadian Pacific customer service centre in Regina, for example, is the revenue earnings, number of shipments for each of the stations now closed, what the revenue has been since they were closed and served by the so-called customer service centre. These figures can be obtained. It would mean that Canadian Pacific would have to put a lot of people to work going through every single waybill and ticket stub issued since the customer service centre opened. But I suspect very strongly that the Canadian Pacific railway have not kept those figures separate, that they cannot at this point in time tell us what the revenue is at each of the stations. This is very convenient from the company's point
648

March 8, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
of view. It conveniently disposes of the kind of evidence that we need. It is the kind of evidence that I submit CPR does not want to present. All the revenue from stations like Milestone, Yellow Grass, points north, south, east and west of Regina, is lumped into one bag at the customer service centre at Regina.
I and many others will continue to oppose these applications. Canadian National has one now pending to close a large number of stations in Saskatchewan. We will oppose that application as hard as we opposed the one made by Canadian Pacific during the winter unless they can present evidence to show that those customer service centres are in fact providing better service and earning more revenue than they provided prior to making the application to close these agencies.
As one who was a station agent for 15 years and worked in the CPR's dirty old stations under their archaic rules, watching the day to day operations of the railway I can only say it was a "helluva" a way to run a railway. In my opinion, since the second world war the CPR, followed by the CNR, has pursued a deliberate policy that has had the end result of relieving the company of any responsibility for providing carload or less than carload, passenger, telegraph and other ancillary transportation and communications services for hundreds of communities along dozens of branch lines in western Canada. One can only come to that conclusion having watched first hand the CPR's attitude over the last 25 years, its failure to modernize its buildings and re-equip its stations in scores of communities.
I remember that for years after electricity came to the town I was living in when I was a station agent, the CPR was still burning coal oil lamps as well coal in old heaters. And they expected the public to rush to give them business when they had those kind of facilities. Why should they? That sort of thing helped to drive people away. The infrequency of trains, or for that matter truck service, coupled at the same time with rates that were always higher than their trucking competitors, resulted in a fall in business and this in revenue. The company then comes to us and pleads poverty, says it is losing money, and can they close agencies and branch lines? I submit there is, call it a compromise if you will, but I submit a better way. I hope Canadian National will follow it instead of adopting the same buccaneer attitude shown by the CPR toward the Canadian people over the years.
While I agree that there is no point in trying to maintain open agencies at little villages and hamlets of 50 or 100 people, there are viable communities of significant size of 300, 500, 1,000 people that will support an open transportation agency. I should like to suggest that for these middle and larger sized rural communities, not only on the Prairies but right across Canada, there be established a transportation and communications service centre that would provide a completely integrated service for local communities and neighbouring smaller communities.
I suggest that a community transportation and communications service centre should offer the following: loading and unloading facilities for carload and less than carload freight and express, both rail and truck. It could also be the bus terminal. If the particular community is on a bus route of one or more bus companies, it could also be

the bus terminal. It would have rail and bus express facilities, telex and telephone service. Have you ever driven into a small rural community in the middle of the night, Mr. Speaker, and been unable to find a telephone or even a pay booth? Do you realize that with the exception of the nine cities and the handful of larger towns there is no place else in the whole province of Saskatchewan where you can send or receive a written message? This community transportation and communications service centre could also offer a fairly large selection of freight, express and passenger tariffs for all modes of transportation, be it air, rail, bus or truck. If any tariffs were not to hand, the agent at that transportation and communications service centre could quickly obtain access via telex or telephone to the tariffs he did not have.
The public would be able to ship anything they wanted. The public would be able to buy any ticket they wanted, whether bus, rail, steamship or air line. This transportation and communications service centre would be staffed by 2 or 3 people, of even one man, who would serve not only the public in that community but would be required to visit neighbouring small communities to solicit business, look after claims and call on customers, as opposed to the attitude that is presently being shown by the railways. At the moment if you ask them to ship an article weighing 1,000 pounds, the railway treats you as though they are doing you a favour, mostly because they do not have either sufficient facilities or service. In addition, they have rates that scare you away. I recall one time when the CPR was going to put a minimum rate of $4.85 on a five gallon can of cream. I was a station agent at the time, so I looked up the tariff and found I could ship that can of cream on a lower berth much cheaper.
Such transportation and communications service centres in these communities would be part of the local scene. They would have the advantage of being closer to and more readily available to the public. The businessmen of the area would know where to go to forward and to pick up shipments. At the present time packages are dumped on the street or in front of a general store, which is closed, or beside the railroad track. If you are lucky you will receive a postcard telling you there is a parcel waiting for you at the side of the ditch in Gopher Gulch 15 miles away.
At a transportation and communications service centre the public would be able to make reservations. They could purchase passage tickets for any mode of transportation. They could send or receive a written message, which in most parts of rural Canada they can no longer do. They could enquire and obtain information primarily about rates and conditions of carriage. These are a few of the many facets of services that could be provided with a real public service rail transportation system in Canada.


Mr. Gleave:: Which we had at one time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I agree we did have such services at one time. This situation has only developed since World War II when the private enterprise theory in particular was put into operation by our railway system.
March 8, 1972

Another thing this transportation communication system would do would be to serve all inter-line traffic. If both railways went through the same town, one facility would serve both railways, and the local trucking companies and trucking companies from neighbouring cities. All modes of transportation would use that transportation and communication service centre, including telephone, telex and teletype. I believe this would make sense, particularly in a country like Canada which is 4,500 miles wide and only has a population of 22 million. It is more necessary for a country like ours than a country which is densely populated.
No doubt much of what I propose is not new. I am sure it is not. It was presented in a formal way to the Canadian Transport Commission which did not even have the courtesy to inquire into or look at it. When questioning me, the fancy-pants Canadian Pacific lawyer asked me if I hated the CPR. Even if I did, I do not know what that would have to do with it. I replied that I did not hate the CPR, but I was thoroughly disgusted and fed up, not only with the CPR, but with the government and parliament of Canada for continuing to try to operate a railway system on the basis of profit first and service second, if at all.
There is something else that is necessary in a country like Canada which has millions of square miles and only 22 million people. A freight rate equalization system would do more for our economy than almost anything else we could do. A manufacturer of stoves in the Maritimes, with its head office in Quebec, closed down. This was a good make of stove. I bought one when I got married. In fact, I burned CPR coal in it. It is not only logical and in the national interest, but it should be a deliberate policy of the government and parliament, to provide that if it costs $25 to ship a stove from Halifax to Vancouver and only costs $5 to ship it from Halifax to Moncton or whatever part of Canada that stove is shipped, the rate should be $12.50. By operating the freight rates in that manner, we won't decrease revenue, but we will certainly decrease the disparity in the far regions in Canada, the east and west coasts as compared to central Canada. I submit that equalizing freight and passage rates is essential to the success of a good transportation system in all parts of Canada. It is cheaper to fly to Europe from Toronto or Montreal than from Toronto to Vancouver which is in our own country. The airlines operate for profit but not for Canadians.
In the whole area of research and development, the government and the taxpayers of Canada have expended hundreds of millions of dollars for the aid and comfort of private enterprise, whether it is in the defence industries or in terms of building terminals worth hundreds of millions of dollars for the benefit of private airlines. However, in areas of research and development for the railways, we have done nothing. A few private companies, as well as the Canadian National Railways, have been desperately trying to sink funds which they can ill-afford into research and development in order to modernize and update our train systems. For example, we have the Turbo. I hope the CNR succeeds with this. They will not be able to thank the government of Canada for very much help. We kill and injure tens of thousands of people on the highways every year, and pollute the air in our cities and on our highways, while rail lines sit idle.
CNR and Air Canada
Our grain is not being moved fast enough. I was fortunate to have a discussion last week with a senior officer of one of the largest grain handling companies in Canada. He told me that he hopes somewhere in the CNR financing bill the item for equipment, which I believe amounts to $42 million, will include some provision for hopper cars. He suggested, and I agree, that we now need 5,000 more hopper cars which are capable of carrying 3,000 to 4,000 bushels each. They are needed now. We are still loading old 40 and 50-ton boxcars out west. They are 30 to 40 years old. This is another real complaint.
I have talked to elevator agents in my constituency and in other parts of the prairie provinces. Do you know who is repairing their boxcars? It is not the railway companies. The amount of unfit cars being spotted for loading is a disgrace, yet men in CPR shops are being laid off. There are cars patched with boards and cardboard. Grain is leaking out of them. The farmers are stuck with this. There are thousands of bushels of lost grain due to leakage. This is not only incompetence, but ridiculous.
In building a case against a publicly owned rail transportation system, the hon. member for Temiscamingue found it convenient to refer to the Russian railway system. He talked about the poor service and the dirty cars. I do not doubt his word. I have never been on it. He conveniently forgot that that railway system was totally demolished by 1945 as a result of the war and has been completely rebuilt since that time. That is not such a bad record. He also conveniently forgot to talk about the railways in western Europe, such as those in England and France, which are all state-owned. The hon. member who spoke earlier this afternoon also referred to West Germany in connection with state-owned railways. The government-owned railways of France are providing fantastic service in the movement of goods and people. The turbotrain which travels from Paris to Caen averages 82 miles per hour. They are now working on developing an even faster system. If and when the tunnel under the English Channel is built, the train will travel from Paris to London in two and one-half hours.
The state-owned railways receive funds for research and development. It does not matter whether they make a profit as long as they provide good service. Travellers using the sleeping car service in France and other European countries know that, with the purchase of a special card, their berths cost less each time they travel up to 50 trips in one year. On the 50th trip they travel free. That is an example of the use of imagination with regard to selling rail passage tickets. There are special offers. The French railways offer a particular trip for two people at a cost of $112. The train leaves the Paris station at 5.55 p.m. The passengers are provided with sleeping compartments. The train arrives in Madrid the next morning at 8.48. This train travels at a high rate of speed and is always filled to capacity. This is not the type of short haul one expects in a small densely populated mid-European country. This trip is a long haul.
I notice that Your Honour is about to inform me that my time has expired. In conclusion, it is the opinion of the New Democratic Party and the CCF before it, that Canadian railways should be publicly owned. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company and all of its opera-

March 8, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
tions should be taken over by the people of Canada. I refer to the entire rail transportation system and the auxiliary systems, such as telecommunications, hotels, steamships and truck services. We could provide an integrated transportation system that would have the admiration of many countries of the world. We could set an example. If they should lose money, so what? I submit we can set up this kind of a transportation system which would be a credit to the people of Canada and would provide the type of service to which they are entitled.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. [Translation]


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, while we remember that railways in Canada were built to connect the various parts of this vast land and thus help to melt in steel this unity that had been conceived by the architects of confederation, and also to open new frontiers and extraordinary opportunities to the Canadian economy, it is normal and natural in my opinion for all members of the Canadian family to contribute to their expansion, improvement and maintenance.
It is true that transportation has made huge progress since the first spike was driven to fasten tracks in the late 19th century to bear the first transcontinental train in Canada. Indeed, it took about 10 days at that time to go from Halifax to Vancouver, whereas this distance can now be covered in less than six and a half hours on an Air Canada DC-8 or 747.
Even though air transport companies offer ever lower rates, it remains that this means of transportation may be too expensive for some people. Moreover, operation costs and the remoteness of airports adequate for the various needs of industry and the population throughout the country make it unrealistic in the present context to consider replacing a good and efficient railway system, both for passengers and for merchandise, and equipment, by an air transport system.
The consideration of this bill since Monday by this House gives me an opportunity to make a few remarks which I consider very important on railway transportation.
I decided to take part in this debate and to make the following remarks because the people of Canada and particularly those I represent are tired of the constant threats, whether by way of rumours or otherwise, of abandoning passenger services, reducing services, in my region and throughout the country, which are forever being dangled over our heads.
Long before my election to this House, Mr. Speaker, I had occasion, whether in such agencies as the Chamber of Commerce or as secretary of my municipality during ten years, to gight continually with the management of Canadian National to retain and improve services in my region although the railway was the only public transportation system available.
Progressively, by dint of perseverance, of representations and sometimes even of vociferation, some improvements I shall call major were brought about. Among

others, since I came to the House, the best achievement and the most highly appreciated in the field of railways or common transportation was the implementation of direct passenger train service between Gaspe and Montreal in 1967.
Incidentally, I feel it is proper to ask the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) or his parliamentary secretary (Mr. Duquet) who is present, to inform the management of Canadian National that the schedule of the train operating between Montreal and Gaspe should remain the same in winter and summer instead of being adjusted to the needs of the Maritime provinces, which I certainly do not blame for this.
However, Mr. Speaker, any concession made by the CN authorities was inevitably followed by worrying decisions on their part, such as threatening to close down stations, reducing the number of key employees responsible for railway maintenance, transferring employees and services from the Gaspe Peninsula-and particularly from my riding-to New Brunswick, to the city of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube), and so on and so forth.
I would not like, Mr. Speaker, to create the impression that I am opposed to development and progress as materialized by certain steps proposed in the last few years, and which are about to be realized by the Canadian National for greater efficiency of the services it provides for the public. We have to make sure, however, that the objective pursued is not lost and upset because of overcentralization. Anything that can help improve passenger and freight service for Canadian taxpayers and for the people I represent will always get approval from the hon. member concerned-and I am sure that my colleagues would support this statement.
The authorities have to understand, however, that the break from traditions established for half a century or more cannot be effected without some pain and without a certain regret. Human beings cannot be knocked about- or at least they can no longer be knocked about the way they used to be in the past. In this connection, I want to give credit to the officials of the "Chaleurs" area for the co-operation which they have always given to me as well as to the representatives of the people in my area whenever major decisions concerning railway transportation in the Gaspe Peninsula were involved. We must admit that there have been isolated and sometimes unfortunate omissions, but on the whole our relations are excellent.
Briefing sessions and meetings were held periodically to explain to us the guidelines, the programs and the intentions of the company as well as the difficulties encountered.
Although it is not easy for my constituents to do so, I must recognize that the railway companies do face today greater financial difficulties than ever before because of a diminishing number of customers due to fierce competition by other means of transport which are more modern and faster.
Furthermore they are obliged to take those unpopular steps because of an act of Parliament forcing them to become efficient. Thus, in recent years both the CN and
March 8, 1972

the CP have been concentrating their efforts on profitearning freight traffic.
I know full well that the CN freight service is profitable along the Gaspe shore, and elsewhere. In the face of such facts, one would be inclined to ask: Why then should this service be cut down since it is profitable? To that the authorities reply that it would be unfair, for freight customers and, generally, for the population, to make up the deficits of the passenger service with the profits of the freight service. Freight costs would then have to be increased; this would finally be detrimental to the consumers whose already high cost of living would go up further.
To give an idea of what that deficit represents, I shall refer to a document put out by the Transport Commission, dated February 25, 1972 and entitled "Passenger service in the Maritimes". It seems that when the CN speak of the Maritimes, they include the Gaspe Peninsula. The study of the commission on cost prices mentions the possibility for the railroad of maintaining its operation. Deo gratias! That study establishes that the railroads lost $14,834,298 in 1970, through providing passenger service in the Maritimes and the Gaspe Peninsula. Those figures are rather impressive and no less eloquent.
The act of Parliament alluded to a while ago provides for operations at a loss-and this is one-by allowing federal Treasury subsidies of up to 80 per cent of the true losses. Some hon. members will recall the stormy sittings of the railway committee a few years ago, when the annual reports of the CN were studies and considerable losses were reported which Parliament was asked to make up. They will also recall the bitter remarks addressed to the officials. There are some who object to the granting of subsidies to make up 80 per cent of the losses incurred by the passenger service in the Maritimes and the Gaspe Peninsula.
I know less about the transportation problems in the Maritimes, but being aware of those in Gaspe, I say it is the duty of the state, toward our people who have no other adequate means of public transport, not only to make up the deficit, but indeed to maintain a service that is essential to our people, and even to improve it, by allowing the CN to modernize its cars, most of which are obsolete, and to maintain the services that those trains offer to travellers. Let us improve the reservation system by making enough cars available in order to be able to face any situation and to carry all passengers who wish to travel, especially during peak periods.
And I believe, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian National authorities know that at Christmas, New Year, Easter and other holidays, a large number of people from Gaspe visit their families in Montreal and other areas of Quebec. Furthermore, students spend their vacations in Gaspe and must return home afterwards. Each year, despite the many representations that have been made, there are never enough cars to carry those travellers. I believe there is at least a certain miscalculation and a lack of foresight which it is worthwhile to point out.
I know this is a difficult situation for the company which has to compete with an increasing number of vehi-cules, but thanks to sustained publicity on the part of the company's management, those who have never boarded a
CNR and Air Canada
train, though they criticize at every opportunity, will end up using it because, in my opinion, it is the safest means of public transport and could become one of the speediest considering the advances of modern technology. It would be a mistake on the part of railway companies to drop passengers services. As for me, and I was pleased that the hon. member who spoke before me pointed it out, it is the means of transport of the future and the least expensive.
When one considers the enormous amounts the governments have and will have to invest in the future to maintain a road network which is obsolete before it is completed, besides the agricultural land spaces which are gradually phased out from our heritage and the many lives that are lost every year and even every day on public roads, compared with the cost of construction of a railway which requires relatively less replacement and maintenance, then governments and railway companies should urgently and seriously consider, not to drop railway passengers services, but rather to modernize them and make them speedier and more attractive. Tremendous amounts of money will thus be saved at all levels of government to the advantage of taxpayers who will be also able to travel safely on an almost pollution-free road.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I suggest to the government and to my colleagues that it is about time that we take off the CN's back the notorious debt which this company has been compelled to assume when it acquired various railway companies. Thus, we will have helped dispel a nightmare that needlessly haunts the Canadian National, that eats up a great deal of its budget and too often, compels us, taxpayers and members of Parliament to be called upon to vote certain sums of money to make up the deficit. Were it not for this heavy load, we might some day see more encouraging results and, perhaps, some profits that would enable the railway companies to develop at home a better public transportation system.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, sitting here this afternoon and listening to the sometimes emotional rhetoric used in the discussion of transportation, I am inclined to think that the field is wide open. This bill legalizes the granting of money which is perhaps already spent by the CNR on property, branch lines, equipment, telecommunications, hotels and other investments. The debate has ranged across various problems in our country, and certainly transportation is of vital importance in a country as diverse as Canada.
I was inclined to look up the National Transportation Act which was passed by the House back in 1967. I was interested to hear the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Which-er) this afternoon condemn the CNR and its operations, and say that it has now become completely divorced from any responsibility to the elected representatives. I wonder what position he would have taken on that government legislation which was implemented back in 1967. I suppose that like all good trained seals he, too, would have found plenty of reasons to support it, as did many of them at that time.
I was also interested to hear the hon. member for Regi-na-Lake centre (Mr. Benjamin) speak about socialism. I always like to hear the socialists talk about socialism. I

March 8, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
become a little worried when they tend to stray away from the subject, because then they become more dangerous political foes. However, I was pleased to hear him answer my question. When he spoke about taking over the CPR I asked him, what about the smelters? He said we should nationalize them also. I was pleased to have that answer put on the record because it shows how strong the waffle movement within that party is. Although quite often they profess to have no wafflers in the House of Commons-they are all straight NDP-ers, none of them really follow the Laxer doctrine-here we find one who is pretty close to being a full-blooded waffler. I always like to hear socialists speak about socialism because one knows what they are thinking, but when they get away from the subject, perhaps they become more dangerous.
Section 1 of the National Transportation Act reads:
It is hereby declared that an economic, efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the users of transportation and to maintain the economic wellbeing and growth of Canada, and that these objectives are most likely to be achieved when all modes of transport are able to compete under conditions ensuring that having due regard to national policy and to legal and constitutional requirements-
Many people have attempted from time to time to find out what the Liberal party's national policy is with respect to transportation. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) did not say anything about it in his speech in the Throne Speech debate. But looking over that paragraph, I well remember the fight that we had to add the word "adequate". There was a heated debate in the Transport Committee, but we finally got agreement on the words, "an economic, efficient, and adequate transportation system" is needed in Canada.
That is really what the debate is all about today. Is the present system adequate? We can all question whether it is efficient, and whether it is to be efficient in the interests of revenue or in the interests of the people? But is it adequate to serve Canada? Without a doubt the hon. member from Newfoundland who spoke this afternoon said it was not adequate in his province. He said they needed a wide gauge railway there. From my experience of travelling in Newfoundland, I certainly believe they need the track straightened out. There are 500 miles of track across the province. It winds around every little hill and every little swamp. If the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, then it is the furthest thing from a straight line. Therefore, it is difficult to serve the people of that province adequately. I agree with the hon. member that The "Bullet" could have been made an attractive tourist promotion. Certainly, tourism is one of Canada's biggest industries. It is disappointing that the Minister of Transport, who comes from Newfoundland, neglects that province so badly in transportation matters.
What is the situation in western Canada? A lot of members have visited Vancouver. In the latter part of February I, too, made a trip to Vancouver to find out why our grain was not moving as efficiently as it should have been. I can honestly say that I found the system inadequate. We were about a month behind in grain deliveries to Vancouver. There were about 25 ships waiting in the harbour, with only about 8 million to 10 million bushels of grain in

the terminals. Another 20 million bushels were needed. I was told it was on the tracks on its way to Vancouver. One can pick up any newspaper and see these facts reported. Here is one. The Manitoba Co-operator of March 2 has an article headed, "Grain Loading Catastrophic at Vancouver."
There has been much talk to the effect that because of the Crowsnest Pass rates, railways don't want to move grain since they do not make any money moving it. Recently, Mr. Speaker, the CPR wanted to move coal to Roberts Bank from three points in British Columbia, for the Kaiser Coal Company. In order to stop the contract from going to an American line south of the border, the CPR had to set a rate which in effect is lower than the Crowsnest Pass rates. The rate set is $3.69 per ton. For moving grain, even from Alberta, the CPR and the CNR receive a higher return under the Crowsnest Pass rates.
The Crowsnest Pass rates cannot solely be blamed for the delay in moving grain. Some hon. members say that if the railways got more money they would look after the business better. Mr. Speaker, railways charge an awful lot of money for moving cattle from western Canada to eastern Canada. But last fall we heard all kinds of complaints about the manner in which the railways treated that trade. In some cases in my constituency boxcars, loaded with cattle, sat on the tracks for almost 24 hours before a train came along to pick them up. It was no wonder that when they reached eastern Canada it was found that as many as 20 to 30 calves had died in the cars. No other form of transport can move bulk traffic over great land distances. The railways know this. Grain has to sit on the prairies waiting for them to move it. In effect, they move everything else first, and finally move the grain.
The whole railroad complex has to be changed. The National Transportation Act did not inject any new spirit of service into the railroad business. Section 3 of that Act reads:
-each mode of transport, so far as practicable, carries traffic to or grom any point in Canada under tolls and conditions that do not constitute
(i)	an unfair disadvantage in respect of any such traffic-
(ii)	an undue obstacle to the interchange of commodities between points in Canada or unreasonable discouragement to the development of primary or secondary industries or to export trade in or from any region of Canada or to the movement of commodities through Canadian ports:
The railroads have not lived up to that. I doubt very much whether the Canadian Transport Commission is trying to encourage the railroads to live up to it. When you appoint a board to look after the railroads it may immediately become the servant of the railroads. That is the danger in appointing boards and not making them responsible to the elected representatives of the people. The railroads have certainly not tried to provide an adequate transportation system. Through their freight rates, they have created undue obstacles to the interchange of commodities between points in Canada. They have discouraged the development of primary and secondary industry.
I wish the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Harries) were present, Mr. Speaker. He made a big speech in Calgary on this very subject. He is never in this House, but he seems to attract some press from time to time. I do
March 8, 1972

not know whether he practices what was commonly referred to as the Horner theory in getting good press coverage, but I think his voice in this debate could assist tremendously in encouraging the development of an adequate transportation system.
We see all kinds of money spent on pretty frivolous subject matters and inquiries. Yesterday's whole debate dealt with that. Why can't the government invest a little money in a Canadian boxcar construction industry? As the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) said, we are still using boxcars that are 50 years old.
But, Mr. Speaker, as soon as the potash industry became viable in Saskatchewan, the railways acquired new potash cars. As soon as the Kaiser Company came up from the United States and said it would develop coal in British Columbia and ship it to Japan, the CPR had a whole fleet of new cars built to haul that coal to the coast. For some reason or other we cannot build, buy or even steal a boxcar to haul grain. Surely, the government could arrange for the construction of more hopper cars for this purpose.
The port of Vancouver handles less than 600 boxcars of grain per day. It should handle 700 and it is six months behind now. The target is 800 but this has not been attained. The reason is obvious-the snowslides in the mountains. But the mountains have been there since the beginning of the North American continent and pretty nearly every winter there is snow in the mountains. Why can you not build more tunnels through them so that trains can be diverted?
There is provision in this bill for $125 million for the construction of roadbed and $19 million for branch lines. I would suggest that there should be a branch line west of Kamloops, from Ashcroft to Lillooet. In the event of a snow slide, this would allow for a diversion between Kamloops and Boston Bar. Cars could be sent across to the PG&E railroad and on to the port of Vancouver. On the map this is a distance of 30 or 40 miles, but even if they had to bend around a mountain or two it would only mean the construction of about 50 miles of railroad. Perhaps it would only be used in times of crisis, but it would be another way of overcoming the hazards of winter and the summer rock slides. During this past fall and summer there were some very bad rock slides in the Boston Bar area. My investigations convinced me that no attempt was made to maintain the telegraph signal line in that area. If a rock slide occurs the line is broken and a red light flashes on. The engineer of the approaching train then has enough time to stop the train. This telegraph line and signal system has not been maintained and one wonders why. Many accidents are reported and I do not think this is the fault of the workmen.
The trackage of the CNR used to be divided into sections and a sectionman was responsible for a certain area. In the last five or six years, each section has been doubled or tripled in length and the same man may now have three or four times as much trackage to look after. This could be because of greater efficiency or perhaps the dollar bill, but it does not contribute to an adequate transportation system.
CNR and Air Canada
The Vancouver harbour handles about 37 per cent of the tonnage moving in and out of Canada and over 50 per cent of the grain. Most of the tonnage of grain and other commodities used to be moved through the south side of Burrard Inlet. The trackage is all there, but the city of Vancouver built right up to it and so caused congestion. A good port has to be adequately protected from the winds and the ocean, and it must have depth, but it must also have an approach from the land side. The south side of the port of Vancouver is certainly congested. The north side is a little better but there is only one track there. Vancouver harbour and Burrard Inlet have been there since the beginning of Canada, but there is still only one track. There has been talk of building a causeway across Indian Arm and a second railroad to run into the north shore of Burrard Inlet. This is where the Saskatchewan pool elevator is situated. It can handle over 65 cars and has trackage for that number as it is the most modern elevator.
The unit train concept has recently been developed. Such a trainload of grain was picked up at Moose Jaw, moved to the north shore of Burrard Inlet and unloaded on the continual loading system at the Neptune terminal. The Vancouver wharf people want to get into the business of handling grain, but they need more trackage to serve the north shore of the Burrard Inlet. This could be achieved by the use of imagination and the expenditure of a little money; it would help the economy of this country. We are a trading nation and we must facilitate the movement of goods in and out of our harbours. The port of Vancouver is one of the 15 largest in the world. We are not proud of it and treat it like some old discarded woman, but we should be proud of it. We should spend the money to put enough trackage there to keep our commodities moving in and out. We certainly have not made any real move toward building an adequate transportation system.
I should like to refer now to section 23 of the National Transportation Act which deals with the question of captive shippers, as well as the definition of a carrier in the movement of goods in the public interest. It states that railroads must set rates for the movement of goods and the servicing of the country in the public interest. There have been three court cases because of this section but no decisions have been handed down yet. The act provides that if one is a captive shipper he can appeal to the transportation commission to have his rates set. However, no one has yet been able to declare himself a captive shipper under the act. Since the act is so poorly worded it is no wonder it is difficult to understand section 3(d)(ii) which reads:
-tolls and conditions that do not constitute-
(ii) an undue obstacle to the interchange of commodities-
The section goes on to provide that tolls must not be unreasonable and not discourage the development of primary or secondary industry. Certainly, freight rates on manufactured goods have discouraged the development of primary and secondary industries. To use carrots as an example, the rate on a boxcar of carrots moving from Toronto to Alberta is less than half the rate on a boxcar of carrots moving from Alberta to Toronto. That is the same product moving over the same trackage in the opposite direction. Why should the rate be double on products

March 8, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
moving from western Canada to eastern Canada? A rate such as that automatically hinders the development of primary and secondary industry in western Canada.
There is the old argument that the rates were set in 1921 when the demarkation line was the boundary between Saskatchewan and Manitoba. That was used as a guide in the setting of freight rates back in 1921, the theory being that it was cheaper to move goods to Vancouver by water so the rates were set accordingly. Certainly, under the present system, it is cheaper to move goods from eastern Canada to Vancouver than to Calgary. This hardly makes sense. It is cheaper to move goods to Calgary than to Medicine Hat from eastern Canada, and that hardly makes sense, because Medicine Hat is that much closer to eastern Canada and Calgary is closer to eastern Canada than Vancouver is; it is something like 800 miles closer.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is free enterprise for you.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My learned socialist colleague suggests that is free enterprise. I suggest, no, that this situation has arisen from the decisions of an inadequate regulatory body and from the provisions of a poor piece of legislation, because one cannot prove that one is a captive shipper.
I can remember when the present incumbent of the Chair was a member of the transport committee, and I can remember the heated debates that took place at one time. Those debates made the debate in the previous session on Bill C-176 look like a pale shadow of the real thing. Many hon. members complained about the time we took to discuss Bill C-176 involving agriculture. I say that that debate did not take overly long, not when you remember that the debate on Bill C-237 of the previous parliament went on from January 9 to January 31, following the earlier debate on that bill which lasted from about November until Christmas of the previous year. Mr. Pick-ersgill said that the bill had to be passed because he had made some sort of commitment to the CPU.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we kept on talking and advocating changes. We made changes. We told the government of the day that the captive shipper clause was unsatisfactory and that paying the railways a subsidy equal to 80 per cent of their losses on certain routes would lead to the elimination of passenger service. All the railways need to do is prove they are losing money on passenger service and a subsidy will be provided. The more money they lose the greater will be the subsidy provided by the government. That is a poor formula, that is not private enterprise. The government set up a poor regulatory body and passed poor legislation. The railways deliberately downgraded their passenger services and increased their losses so that they could go before the board and ask for huge subsidies.
As I say, the greater was the loss, the greater was the subsidy that the railways could claim. This provision encouraged the railways not to provide the people with efficient or adequate transport facilities. There must be changes. I have talked to friends in the Canadian Transport Commission-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Friends!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, I have one or two. They tell me the government would like to bring back that transport act and make some changes. I urge the government to bring the act back as quickly as possible. Let it introduce a bill in the present session, before the next election, because our transport system needs help. We, on this side of the House, will do our best to change that law, so that the railways will be encouraged to provide adequate service and fair freight rates across Canada, not freight rates that discourage the development of primary and secondary industries in certain areas.
I will close on that note. I urge the government to bring that piece of legislation back and, on my side, we will do our best to remedy the errors made in 1967 when we originally passed that legislation. I was particularly interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Bruce. He condemned the operation of the Transport Act, because the railways now need not answer to the government or, in essence, to parliament. We should alter the law and, in principle, make them answer to this place. The Minister of Transport who is responsible for our transport system cannot forever attempt to hide behind the Canadian Transport Commission and say, "I cannot do anything about freight rates; you will have to talk to the Transport Commission." There are three test cases now before the Transport Commission, and no decision has been handed down. I again urge the government to bring back that legislation. We, on this side, will put our heads together and suggest changes which will benefit all Canada.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to take part in this debate. It is always nice to follow my hon. friend, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). It is very difficult to do so, also. This routine bill which is to authorize for the government owned Canadian National Railways capital expenditures totalling $219,800,000 for 1971 and another $83 million on July 1, 1972, and which is also to authorize government loans to Air Canada in the period from January 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972 for the purpose of helping that organization pay its debts, really gives us the opportunity to say to the people of Canada, and particularly to the people of my constituency, that the CNR has one thing only in mind: the public be damned. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the railway employees have absolutely no control over their own pension plan; that the three union officers on the CNR pension board are not employees of the CNR, are not covered by the employees' pension plan and therefore cannot be accepted as representing the interest of all the employees of the CNR; that the four officers of the company on the CNR pension board are appointed by the board of directors of the CNR and do not represent the interest of the employees? Let me also say that Alberta has no representation on the Canadian National Railways board of directors. How shameful that is.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that the chairman of the CNR pension board is appointed by the CNR board of directors from among the four officers of the company on the CNR pension board and does not represent the interest of the employees; that even this non-employee pension plan representative has no power over the decisions of the employee pension plan; that this pension board, completely controlled, as it is by the CNR can only make recom-
March 8, 1972

mendations and cannot, on its own, make any decisions of any consequence; that all recommendations or decisions of the pension board must be submitted to the CNR board of directors for ratification before such recommendations or decisions become effective; that the CNR, under the 1959 employees' pension plan, does not match the employees' contributions month by month; that, because of their system of not immediately matching the employees' contribution, they have accumulated an unfunded liability to the employees' pension fund of $671 million. Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that through a quirk- a clever or cunning evasion, a twisting of meaning-in the Pension Benefits Standards Act, the CNR was able to reduce its unfunded liability to $300 million, which represents a loss of $371 million to the employees' pension fund?
I wanted to put some of these matters on record, Mr. Speaker, because some of these things have been raised in many meetings in my area. People are concerned about pension plans. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has mentioned difficulties connected with pension plans. These people, under the direction of Mr. Wilf Macdonald and Mr. Jack Pickett, have sought diligently to bring to the attention of the CNR the many problems which have arisen in our area. I believe there has been a neglect on the part of the CNR to pay any attention to those meetings.
I should like to read into the record this afternoon a statement by the Canadian Railway Labour Association with regard to the elimination of some of the services which is presently taking place in Alberta and across Canada. The statement reads:
Many of the basic assumptions upon which the National Transportation Act is founded date back to the MacPherson Royal Commission in the 1950s. We are very strongly of the view that many of the conclusions of the studies done for that Royal commission are not consistent with contemporary views. The act contains a built-in bias toward using economic viability as the over-riding criterion for determining railway passenger transportation needs. We suggest that the assumptions upon which the act was based are not a sufficient basis for contemporary policy and that these assumptions are in contradiction with many of the government's other policies.
The assumptions of the act are insufficient today because the Canadian people and their government have increasingly realized that while economic criteria are important, perhaps the most important criteria, they should not be the over-riding consideration in all cases. This is especially true when one considers the long-term results of any given action. We have realized that while the gross national product may be a reasonably satisfactory aggregate measure of the Canadian people's wellbeing, it is a poor measure of the quality of life.
Increasingly also, economics and the other social sciences have placed renewed emphasis upon a vastly broadened concept of cost, realizing that public costs and benefits can, and frequently do, outweigh private costs and benefits. To consider only costs and benefits in a narrow sense is to accept a short-term and unrealistic framework for policy. It is not sufficient for the Canadian Transport Commission to look at the costs and revenues as submitted by the railways for such a service and merely weigh those arguments against the views of the public at a hearing.
This government has increasingly demonstrated its willingness to view problems on a long-term basis and to do so within the framework of a broadened concept of costs and benefits, especially with respect to environmental questions. But its willingness to be farsighted on some environmental issues contrasts sharply with
CNR and Air Canada
the underlying assumptions of the National Transportation Act, which is the basic element in Canada's transportation policy.
There are numerous ways in which the National Transportation Act conflicts with current policy. We wish to mention only two. With the elimination of rail passenger service the public's ability to choose among different modes of transportation is being restricted. This would not be such a serious situation if the various methods of transportation were perfect substitutes. They are not. They are in many ways complementary but not substitutive. Therefore the mobility of the public is being lessened and the cost of maintaining the same amount of mobility is being increased.
Secondly, the elimination of rail passenger service is promoting the increased use of automobiles at the same time as the public and various levels of government are becoming concerned about the increasing costs of pollution, congestion, etc. The current policy is encouraging the elimination of rail passenger service despite the knowledge that such service is the most acceptable means of moving large numbers of people on an urban, interurban and national basis. We submit that the aims of the present policy of the National Transportation Act are outdated, inadequate, and inappropriate and should therefore be immediately revised.
We continue to be greatly distressed by the prevailing inequity as regards the assistance provided to one mode of transportation as opposed to another. This situation can only serve to exacerbate the problems discussed above and at great length in our previous submissions. We note that our view that the inequity of the assistance works to the disadvantage of the railway passenger systems has been supported by others, including the Canadian Transport Commission in its order of January 29, 1971, concerning the discontinuance of the 'Canadian'.
Such an inequitable policy is tragic. It leads to policies based on the short-run rather than the long-run and is, in our view, in conflict with Part I of the National Transportation Act.
Anyway, there it is. These are my feelings, too. There is another letter here which I should like to read into the record. These are from my colleagues and many of my friends who are railway men in my constituency. I have a lot of respect for them because I used to be on an extra gang banging away with a 12-pound hammer. They were tough days. This letter comes from John L. Pickett, President of the Edmonton Council of Railroad Unions:
Dear Sir:
During the last few months, much has been said and written about moving grain to the west coast for export by rail. But how about the rank and file railroad men, the people who actually do the work and keep our railroads running? Railroading in western Canada during a winter such as we are experiencing is not easy. Temperatures dropping to as low as 40 below. Traincrews switching, spotting and picking up cars, mostly at night; trainmen and conductors often tramping through four feet of snow, putting in 12 or 14 hour shifts to get over the road, often on a thermos of coffee and a few cold sandwiches; the men in the yards, the switchcrews, making up trains, blocking grain, the carmen, checking and fixing bad order cars, walking freight trains, fixing air leaks so that we get the proper brake tests. The signal maintainers who get called out in the middle of the night, to go and fix some break in the signal system. The sectionmen, who are out there in all weathers, doing the 101 things they have to do, to keep the railroad running and, of course, the countless other railroad workers who contribute their share. No, railroading in the winter months in western Canada is no picnic.
We know we need more locomotives, cabooses, cars, radios, better storage facilities at the west coast, bigger storage yards so that when the weather is good we can move cars faster and cheaper. Why can we not have 4,000 or 5,000 cars of grain stored at the west coast in early December so that if we have snow slides or derailments in the winter, the grain is there where we need it?
Give us the tools and the facilities and the Canadian railroad men will move all the bulk commodities we need for export to make this great country of ours thrive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 8, 1972
CNR and Air Canada


Steve Eugene Paproski: One does not have to say much after reading a letter like that. I say to the Canadian National Railways: Have some consideration; look after your pensioners. You might also take some of the money you have stored away and use it to build homes at a cheap interest rate for the people who work for you, or else lend it out to them at 5} per cent or 6 per cent. This would be a wonderful idea on your part. Other than that, I have nothing further to say at this time.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, when this subject had been debated last year, two questions were referred to the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications. Each was of great importance. Only one of them was solved, or partly solved, by the committee. The conclusion reached was not, of course, a satisfactory one, but it was a step in the right direction. It showed that members of parliament can, if they wish, bring about improvements in the areas we are considering. The benefits of the change which occurred as the result of that last hearing were considerable in terms of pensions to retired employees of the CN-something like a 42 per cent increase for the old timers. This was a step in the right direction. It was parliament at its best. We held a gun to the head of the government of the day, and they reacted, as is usual, with half a loaf. I say that in this case half a loaf was much better than no loaf at all. If it had not been for members of parliament, nothing of any use would have been done.
Having had the government make the concession of paying a retroactive cost of living payment over 21 years, this kind of escalator, in the retroactive sense, was applied to lesser degree by the CNR and paid by a number of other government and private agencies who also saw both the advantage and certainly the justice of such a payment to pensioners who had provided them in the early days with the wherewithal to make their enterprise a success.
Another factor, which in a sense is more important to the general public and to the orderly operation of any railroad-I presume that Air Canada will find itself in a similar position unless some changes are made-is the long-term debt of the Canadian National Railway. It has been said jocularly, and sometimes even seriously, that the Canadian National Railway was nationalized. That is only partly true. We nationalized it when we bought the assets of a number of railroads of that day. However, we also took on the liabilities of those railroads in the form of long term perpetual bonds and other debts, and these have been carried on the books for many years.
You will probably gather, Mr. Speaker, from my remarks that I am not a financier, but my contention is that if you buy something you should hope eventually to be able to pay for it. Even farmers, who often borrow more money than they should to carry on their farming operations, are of the opinion that eventually not only will they be able to pay off the interest but will pay something off principal as well. Since they have been able to add to their operations they will probably make some profit from their labours. If not, there is no point in embarking upon such an exercise.

Faced with this situation, perhaps we should not have bought Grand Trunk or Northern whatever it was. Though some of my colleagues may have been here at the time, I cannot remember the names of some of the railways which were amalgamated into Canadian National. Perhaps we should have decided to let those railroads go bankrupt and then take them over. But we did not do that. Perhaps we were generous to the shareholders of some of the railroads of the day. You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that in the early days of railroading in Canada you did not play the stockmarket in Toronto or Montreal but played the bond game, in which you bought up railroads. We had on paper more railroads and lineage laid out than probably any other country in the world.
Ottawa was one of the main centres of activity in this regard. There were eight or ten railways going from Ottawa to James Bay at that time. Why, I do not know, but people like O'Brien were able to sell stocks in railways and he made a considerable profit doing so without ever considering just what was at James Bay, even if he had been able to build the railway there. Buying railroad stocks was quite a game in those days. When these companies were taken over by Canadian National, we also assumed that the liabilities were too, and as a result Canadian National has been saddled for many years with a huge and elaborate debt.
The last time this matter was before the House it was generally agreed by hon. members that this question should be referred to the committee. The committee looked at the matter but was unable to come to a conclusion, I hope because of lack of time. The committee settled the other important question of pensions but left the question of debt.
The financial statement of the railroad appears in the Auditor General's report to parliament for the year ending December 31, 1970. It appears from the report that interest on the debt in 1961 had raised the total debt to $62.5 million, but by 1970 it had grown to $75.5 million. So it appears we are not paying anything off principal; we are only paying off the interest. In 1970 the total deficit of Canadian National was $29.7 million, though in fact the company made a profit of $40 million odd-if I use the wrong arithmetic my colleagues will correct me. If we had to buy a new aircraft for the armed services or a supply of rifles, the cost would be put into the national debt if we did not have the money to pay for the equipment. Then when we did have some money available, as has happened once or twice in my experience, the government would be able to pay part of this debt and reduce it. But debts increase rather than decrease most of the time.
In this case the debt becomes not that of the railway but of individual Canadians who own the railway. This is why we should retire the debt. Let us pay off those people who held the original bonds or their successors, and put the deficit into the consolidated debt.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Would the hon. member permit a question?


William Arnold Peters: Surely.


Martin Patrick O'Connell: Would he be able to say whether the debt of the CNR has actually increased in principal
March 8, 1972

amount or decreased, and trace the relationship between the preferred shares, which are increasing, and the debt?
I have not looked at the report, but the debt ought to be decreasing. The technique of getting out of debt is to issue preferred shares on which you do not need to pay dividends. It is not like interest.


William Arnold Peters: I am quite happy to admit to the minister that he has lost me. I am certainly not that competent in the subject of finance. All I know is that the committee should take a look at all these factors and should, in my opinion, conclude that the debt is not the debt of the CNR. There is also the fact that we have accumulated some debt by issuing stock for purchases the railway has made in its own right. We probably added that on as well, and then went into the bond field from which we raised money as well. I suggest that on the debt, which has been accumulating for a number of years, we have been paying a great deal of interest. We have long lost whatever advantage we had from borrowing the money.
The money we originally spent to buy all the railways that went into making up Canadian National was put into the national debt. The railway can be operated in a much more orderly way. If Canadians think they need this railway, they should be willing to pay for it, whether by adding to our national debt or in some other way such as stock promotion. We should eliminate the huge interest payment from the financial structure of Canadian National Railways because it distorts our whole railway tariff structure. Everytime we consider an application by Canadian National, we look at the amount of their expenditures, the payments they have to make and the money which parliament has to raise to pay these operating expenses. By using that kind of structure, Canadian National is able to go before the Canadian Transport Commission and justify almost anything. Canadian National does the justifying and Canadian Pacific, which does not have that kind of structure, gets the gravy because of the necessity of maintaining uniformity of the tariff structure between Canadian Pacific and Canadian National.
I agree with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Laing) who has shown a great deal of interest in the last few years in the high Arctic. He has shown great interest in buying into the high Arctic and getting the Canadian taxpayer involved. In a previous portfolio, he was able to establish Panarctic of which the Canadian public owns 45 per cent of the stock. Oil is not the only resource in the Arctic. There are many kinds of minerals. When he appeared before the transport committee the other day, the minister stated that in his opinion there was more wealth in minerals north of the 69th parallel than in all the rest of Canada. He may well be right.
If this is so, we will have to consider in the very near future what type of transportation facility we are going to put into the high Arctic. I suggest we will be considering a number of methods. Probably the most economical will be the type of facility that will bring in all the necessary materials and take out all the ore and finished products developed in that area of the Arctic. In order to do this, we will have to raise a lot of money. It will probably make
CNR and Air Canada
the amount given to Canadian Pacific, probably the largest give-away of the Canadian parliament, look small. I hope this money is given to Canadian National to put a line into the high Arctic to develop that area for Canadians in an orderly way, with proper regard for the ecology of the area, and the ability to service the needs of the population in that area.
Pipelines will bring out materials, but they will not take in the goods necessary for production. It is my guess that we will have to consider rail transportation. Large sums of money will be required to build a line. I hope some cabinet ministers will avail themselves of the opportunity to appear before the committee and indicate how we can get out of this financial problem, a problem that has been with us for 50 years.
Canadian National says that this problem cannot be solved. I talked to some of the senior officials. They said that we do not have the guts or the know-how to solve this problem. I think that is wrong. We can if we so decide. A lot of this is just a bookkeeping proposition, transferring from one column to another. We will have to pay interest on the debt, but it will be the Canadian public rather than the railways that will be paying it. We will have losses in rail transportation.
We should be looking at the new systems of transportation. Canadian National should be given the credit it deserves. It is the only railway company in North America that has worked on developing new trains for passenger and freight service. I am sure it is safe to say that Canadian National is many years ahead of any other railway on the North. American continent.
I agree that the Canadian National Rapido did not work. However, there are good reasons for this. One is our inability to develop a full-fledged railway component to handle our present trains and at the same time withstand the conditions with which we are faced. Trains cannot be brought from England because our conditions are different. Although the Rapido froze up and had other problems, it was a step in the right direction. In fact, it has been the only step.
Are we being sensible in spending millions of dollars building airports 15 or 20 miles away from cities such as Toronto and Montreal? In my opinion, that is throwing money away as if it were going out of fashion. As an hon. member stated the other day, we should be building a major jumbo trans-Atlantic international airport north of Kingston with a ground transportation system that will get people to Toronto faster than the time it now takes to travel by bus from Malton Airport. I am sure the same situation will apply to Montreal. A major hotel in Montreal still maintains a facility that connects directly to the trains. People staying at that hotel will be able to get on a Rapido train and travel to an airport that will eventually be built in the Kingston area in 30 or 40 minutes. They will travel in ideal surroundings and in complete comfort with all the facilities that can be provided in a modern transportation system.
At the present time people spend 15 or 20 minutes on an airplane, 15 to 20 minutes getting out of the airport, 15 minutes waiting for bus transportation downtown and an hour to one and a half hours to get to the centre of the city. Because of the large land mass in this country, there

March 8, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
is a need for a rapid transportation system. We have the technical know-how and the interest to develop it. In order to accomplish this, we may have to get rid of Canadian Pacific. If that is necessary, I am all for it.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday. March 9, 1972