1973-04-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact it was announced over two months ago that there would be an inquiry into the expropriations in connection with the second Toronto international airport, and in view of the fact that the expropriations will take place before this House reconvenes in May, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to announce before the House rises on Wednesday both the membership and the terms of reference of the Commission of Inquiry to look into the planning and transportation needs of the Toronto region in relation to the construction of the proposed international airport in Pickering.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires unanimous consent under the terms of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I solicit the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter or urgent and pressing necessity for applicants for unemployment insurance benefits.
Considering that Section 106 of the Unemployment Insurance Act has not been implemented as promised when the act was considered in 1971 and that officials of the commission seek to trip up applicants instead of attempting to assist them to return to the labour market, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That the Minister of Manpower and Immigration take necessary measures for implementation of Section 106 of the Unemployment Insurance Act as early as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimity and the motion therefore cannot be put.


JUDGES ACT
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-177, to amend the Judges Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	What grants were made under Opportunity for Youth Program during 1972 to groups in the constituency of Peel South?
2.	What are the names and addresses of each group and the names and addresses of each sponsor of each group that received approved grants in 1972?
3.	What are the names and addresses of each group and the sponsor of each group that made application for Opportunity for Youth grant programs during 1972 that did not receive any assistance under this program?
4.	What is the evaluation on the grants that were in fact made by the Minister's office in connection with the operation of those grants and the work supposedly done by the persons involved with these grants during 1972 in the constituency of Peel South?
5.	Who made the evaluation for the grants during 1972 in the constituency of Peel South?

April 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
6.	Has the Minister any audited statements of the grants made in the constituency of Peel South during 1972 and are audited statements of these grants now available?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1. A
list of all projects funded under the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and in alphabetical order of the towns and cities in which the projects were carried out, not by constituency. Information includes the project title and number, a short description of the project's activities, amount of the grant, number of participants and the name and address of the project representative. This 421 page listing can be obtained from the Secretary of State Department.
2.	Projects funded under the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program were not required to have sponsors.
3.	No tabulated records exist for projects which were not selected for funding under the Opportunities for Youth Program during 1972.
4 and 5. All groups receiving a grant from the Opportunities for Youth Program in 1972 were required to submit an evaluation of their own projects at the end of the summer. All project evaluations were reviewed by officials in the Department of the Secretary of State but are not classified according to constituency.
6. Opportunities for Youth does not maintain statistics or information according to constituency. In 1972, the Audit Services Bureau of the Department of Supply and Services did audits on all Opportunities for Youth projects which received grants in amounts exceeding $15,000 and also on a random sample of the remaining projects. In all, approximately 700 audits were completed. The information contained in the audits is of a private and confidential nature and is not to be regarded as public or official.


Mr. Wagner: 1.	Does Canada export any piston engines or parts for piston engines to South Africa?
2.	Does Canada export any jet engines or parts for jet engines to South Africa?
3.	Does Canada supply any of the parts for the jet trainers (The Impala) now being built by South Africa?
4.	Does Canada have any means of ensuring that airplane parts exported to South Africa are not used in the manufacture of military aircraft?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Yes, for commercial use only.
2.	Yes, for commercial use only.
3.	No.
4.	Yes, through denial of export permits for aircraft parts used in the manufacture of military aircraft.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 507-Mr. Forrestall: (Supplementary)
How many females are employed under the Public Service Employment Act currently earning in excess of $25,999 per annum (a) what are their names (b) what are their positions?
[Mr. Blenkarn.J
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: 1. Twenty-four.
(a)	(b)
Department of External Affairs Miss B. Meagher	 Ambassador to Stockholm
Miss H. D. Burwash	 Associate Director-Scientific Relations and Environmental Problems
Miss M. McPherson	 Director, UN Political and Institutional Affairs Division.
Department of Justice Mrs. Eileen Mitchell Thomas,
Q.C	 Counsel II
Miss Edyth MacDonald,
Q.C	 Counsel II
Miss Norma Christie, Q.C.. Counsel II
Miss Elizabeth A. McFadyen Director, Edmonton Regional Office
Department of Manpower and Immigration
Mrs. Jean Edmonds	 Director General, Prairie Region
Operations Division
Department of National Health and Welfare
Dr. Marie J. Ferrari... Dr. Mary E. Habgood. Dr. Dorothy L. Hall.. Dr. Harriet F. Lettau. Dr. Martha C. Mally.. Dr. Madelaine Maykut Dr. Monique Savoie... Dr. Caroline P. Scott.. Dr. Wilma G. Steward
Medical Officer 1 Medical Officer 3 Medical Officer I Medical Officer 3 Medical Officer 2 Medical Officer 2 Medical Officer 5 Medical Officer 3 Medical Officer 3
Privy Council Office
Miss P. A. McDougall....Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet
(Government Operations)
Statistics Canada
Miss Jennie Podoluk	 Director, Consumer Finance Research
Staff
Department of Veterans Affairs
Dr. A. A. Bratjakin	 Medical Specialist (Medicine),
Ste. Anne's Hospital,
Ste. Anne de Bellevue
Dr. E. D. Gardner	 Psychiatrist,
Westminster Hospital, London, Ont.
Dr. J. A. K. MacDonell... . Senior Treatment Medical Officer, Deer Lodge Hospital, Winnipeg
Dr. M. Oesterreicher	 Specialist in Chest Medicine,
Ste. Anne's Hospital,
Ste. Anne de Bellevue
Dr. E. Pollonetsky	 In charge of Prisoner of War Claims,
Canada Pension Commission, Ottawa
April 16, 1973


Mr. Wagner: 1.	What Opportunities for Youth Program grants were paid to associations in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe in 1972?
2.	What were the names and addresses of each association and sponsors?
3.	What were the names and addresses of each association and sponsors who did not receive a grant?
4.	What study did the Minister's office make of the grants paid in 1972 in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe as to their effective utilization?
5.	Who evaluated the grants received?
6.	Does the department have any verified statements of accounts for these grants and are they available?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. A
list of all projects funded under the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program has been completed. Projects are classified by province and in alphabetical order of the towns and cities in which the projects were carried out, not by constituency. Information includes the project title and number, a short description of the project's activities, amount of the grant, number of participants and the name and address of the project representative. This 421 page listing can be obtained from the Secretary of State Department.
2.	Projects funded under the 1972 Opportunities for Youth Program were not required to have sponsors.
3.	No tabulated records exist for projects which were not selected for funding under the Opportunities for Youth Program during 1972.
4 and 5. All groups receiving a grant from the Opportunities for Youth Program in 1972 were required to submit an evaluation of their own projects at the end of the summer. All project evaluations were reviewed by officials in the Department of the Secretary of State but are not classified according to constituency.
6. Opportunities for Youth does not maintain statistics or information according to constituency. In 1972, the Audit Services Bureau of the Department of Supply and Services did audits on all Opportunities for Youth projects which received grants in amounts exceeding $15,000 and also on a random sample of the remaining projects. In all, approximately 700 audits were completed. The information contained in the audits is of a private and confidential nature and is not to be regarded as public or official.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many applications for grants to finance research projects did the Department of National Health and Welfare receive in the past year?
2.	What was the total dollar value of the projects requested from the Department?
3.	How many of the applications made to the Department were approved in full?
4.	How many of the applications were approved in part only?
5.	How many'applications for research grants were turned down in the past year?
6.	What were the reasons for the refusals?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister o£ National Health and Welfare):: All figures are for 1972-73, under the National Welfare Grants, the National Health Grants and Public Health Research Grants and the Research and Analytical Service Grants: 1.	796.
2.	$19,564,790.
3.	382.
4.	123.
5.	291.
6.	(a) Does not come within the terms of reference of programs; (b) Does not provide useful information; (c) Projects rejected on methodological grounds that is projects not meeting standards of scientific merit; (d) No national significance; (e) Other various reasons.


Mr. Boisvert: What studies were made concerning the development of the international airport in the Drummondville area?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Drummondville was not one of the many sites studied for the development of the New Montreal International Airport.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	For what reasons were professional employees on the Federal Public Service excluded from the benefits of collective bargaining under Part V of the Canada Labour Code?
2.	Is the government giving consideration to amending the Public Service Staff Relations Act to provide professional employees with a meaningful method of settling unresolved disputes?
3.	Will the government amend Section 36(1) of PSSRA to eliminate the requirement of the binding notice by the bargaining agent for arbitration or conciliation-strike as the method of bargaining to minimize the advantage it gives Treasury Board and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Will the government give consideration to (a) giving the reasons in arbitration awards (b) appointing an employee representative to the arbitration tribunal to have an input into the procedures for arbitration equal to that of the employer and, if not, for what reason?
5.	For what reasons (a) are conciliation board decisions not made binding as for arbitration tribunals (b) is there no legal provision requiring further negotiations?
6.	For what reasons are public servants denied the same rights as other citizens covered by the Canada Labour Code?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.
The Canada Labour Code, Part V does not apply to the Public Service of Canada. Collective bargaining in the federal Public Service is governed by the Public Service Staff Relations Act. Under the P.S.S.R.A. professional employees are not excluded from the benefits of collective bargaining. There are 27 certified bargaining groups in the scientific and professional category of the Public Service of Canada.
2. Yes the government has indicated its intention to improve the method of settling unresolved disputes.
3310

April 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
3.	Under the P.S.S.R.A. as it now reads, Bargaining Agents unilaterally select the dispute resolution process that will apply to the bargaining unit for each round of negotiations. This is a distinct advantage to the union. The Treasury Board, as Employer, is bound by the Bargaining Agent's selection.
4.	(a) Under the P.S.S.R.A. as it now reads, an arbitral award becomes an integral part of a collective agreement. Reasons for the award would be superfluous to such a document; (b) A person representing the interests of the employee sits on every Arbitration Tribunal.
5.	(a) In the conciliation process there are no decisions rendered by the Board. Its purpose is to achieve agreement. If there is no agreement it so reports. The Public Service Staff Relations Act provides that after seven days have elapsed from the receipt by the Chairman of the Public Service Staff Relations Board of the report of the Conciliation Board, employees who are included in the dispute may participate in a lawful strike; (b) For the P.S.S.R.A. to provide for further mandatory negotiations after a Conciliation Board Report would suspend the right to strike. In fact, negotiations always do take place after a Conciliation Board Report has been received.
6.	In essence the provisions of the statutes which govern employees of the Public Service are generally no less favourable than those contained in the Canada Labour Code.


Mr. Grafftey: Has the Minister of National Health and Welfare received representations about the dangerous level of fluoride in mineral water consumed by Canadians and, if so, what action does the government intend to take?


John Mercer Reid: Perhaps I might suggest that the answer to Question 1,280 be printed in Hansard, since the reply is somewhat lengthy. This might speed up the business of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer to the above question follows:]
Representations have been made to the Department of National Health and Welfare regarding the levels of fluorides in mineral waters. New standards for mineral water were established by order in council P.C. 1972-3074, December 21, 1972 and published in the Canada Gazette of January 10, 1973. However, because of manufacturers' and importers' operational problems, these new standards will not become effective until September 1, 1973. A news release of December 13, 1972 stated that analyses of a limited number of mineral waters carried out by the health, protection branch of the department showed that these products contained from less than one part to more than nine parts per million of fluoride. It was emphasized then that there was no evidence to suggest that the fluo-

ride levels of mineral waters represented an immediate hazard to the health of Canadians. Officials of the department are examining all mineral waters sold in Canada for fluorides, as well as initiating a survey to determine the quantities of this beverage consumed by individuals. When these data become available, action appropriate to the findings will be taken to protect Canadian consumers of this product.


Mr. Orlikow: How many Canadian scientists, research workers, engineers, university professors, and medical doctors left Canada to work in the United States in the last year?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: Canada does not collect any statistics on persons leaving Canada. However, the United States Department of Justice, Immigration Service supplies the occupations of immigrants admitted to the United States whose country of last residence was Canada. Data for 1972 are not available. The following data are for the year ending June 30, 1971. Scientist and research workers are not among the occupations listed by the U.S. Immigrations Service but the following could be included in that category: (Scientists and Research Workers): Agricultural scientist, 16; Biological scientist, 37; Geologist and Geophysicist, 28; Miscellaneous natural scientist, 2; Physicist, 24; Miscellaneous social scientist, 11. Engineers, 622; University professors, 128; Medical doctors (listed as Physicians and Surgeons), 474.


Mr. Hueglin: 1.	How many persons aged (a) 18 (b) 19 (c) 20 obtained social assistance on a monthly basis during the years 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	How many of those in each category had never been self-supporting prior to the collection of such social assistance?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Provincial governments are responsible for the administration of social assistance programs, and statistical data reported by them do not identify recipients of social assistance by single-year age groups. Hence it is not possible to answer this enquiry at this time.
2. It is not possible to answer this request due to the limitations noted in part 1 above.


Mr. Laprise: Under the New Horizons Program (a) what projects were submitted as at February 28, 1973 from the constituency of Abitibi (b) what projects were accepted and in each case what was the amount?


Marc Lalonde: (a) Projects received from the constituency of Abitibi as of February 28, 1973:
April 16, 1973

Order Paper Questions
Project No.	Project title	Project official4-00069	Pro jet de detente pour l'age d'or de Malartic	Mme Louise Gagnon C.P. 4110 Malartic Abitibi-Est, Quebec4-00119	Les Personnes Agees	Mme Jeannette Laflamme La Sarre, Quebec4-00223	Perspective-Age d'Or Centre Plein Air	M. Thomas L. St-Pierre 701, rue de la Paix, Malartic, Abitibi, Quebec4-00236	Transport des Vieillards Handicapes	Mme Lionel Lord 791 avenue A Amos, Quebec4-00241	Cours de danse	Mme Gabrielle Saucier R.R. 2, Val d'Or, Abitibi-Est, Quebec4-00251	Club d'Age d'Or	Mme Joseph Belanger 512, 3* rue est Amos, Quebec4-00281	Association des Pionniers	M. Gaspard Lachapelle 15, rue Mgr Chagnon Cadillac, Quebec4-00388	Serviteur de la 11' Heure	Mme Yvette Desgagnees Val-Paradis Abitibi-Ouest, Quebec4-00034	Club de l'Age d'Or	M. Georges Mercier C.P. 283, Duparquet, Abitibi-Ouest, Quebec4-00120	Les Concitoyens des personnes agees de Macamic	M. Adelard Letendre Macamic, Quebec.(b) Projects approved as of February 28, 1973	AmountProject No.	Project title	$5,7854-00034	Club de l'Age d'Or	4-00120	Les Concitoyens des personnes agees de Macamic	$4,425


Mr. Munro (Esguimalt-Saanich): 1.	What are the names of United States airline companies exercising landing rights on scheduled flights to Canada?
2.	What are the names of Canadian airline companies exercising landing rights on scheduled flights to the United States?


Jean Marchand: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. United Airlines; Western Airlines; American Airlines; North Central Airlines; Eastern Airlines; Delta; Allegh-eney; North West Airlines; PAA; TWA; Seaboard World Airways; Hughes Air West; Alaska Airlines; Wien Consolidated Airlines; Bar Harbor Airways; Inland Commuter Airways; Griffing Flying Service.
2. Pacific Western Airlines; Air Canada; Canadian Pacific Airlines; Nordair.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	How many passengers left Canada carried by United States airline companies on scheduled flights to United States airports in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	How many passengers left Canada carried by Canadian airline companies on scheduled flights to United States airports in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada
3312

April 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions
reports that: 1 and 2. The table below shows the number of passengers leaving Canada on scheduled flights to the United States in the years 1969, 1970 and 1971. Data are not yet available for 1972. These data do not include passengers on international flights originating in Canada to a country other than United States where the aircraft does make a stop in the United States but the airline does not have traffic rights between the Canadian and American cities in question.
Number of passengers arriving at Canadian airports on scheduled flights from the United States by Canadian and United States airlines
1969	1970	19711.	United States Airlines 1,142,705	1,135,773	1,200,7782.	Canadian Airlines	839,465	914,847	909,260


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	How many passengers reached Canada carried by United States airline companies on scheduled flights from United States airports arriving at Canadian airports in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?
2.	How many passengers reached Canada carried by Canadian airline companies on scheduled flights from United States airports to Canadian airports in 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972?


Herb Breau: Statistics Canada reports that: 1 and 2. The table below shows that number of passengers arriving in Canada on scheduled flights from the United States in the years 1969, 1970 and 1971, aboard Canadian and American airlines. Data are not yet available for 1972. These data do not include passengers on international flights originating from a country other than the United States where the aircraft does make a stop in the United States but the airline does not have traffic rights between the Canadian and American cities in question.
Number of passengers departing Canadian airport on scheduled flights to the United States by Canadian and United States airlines
Carrier	1969	1970	19711.	United States Airlines 1,146,853	1,135,728	1,197,9902.	Canadian Airlines	818,709	891,281	906,932


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs receive a letter dated January 11, 1973 from the Member for Leeds on the subject of meat prices in certain areas and has this letter been answered by the Minister?
2.	Was an acknowledgement of this letter made to the Member for Leeds by an Executive Assistant to the Minister and, if so (a)

on what date (b) was an answer from the Minister promised in the "near future"?
3.	If no answer has been sent by the Minister and if an answer was promised in the near future, what period of time does the Minister consider to be the near future?
4.	What is the average length of time for the Minister to answer regular routine mail from Members of Parliament?
Hort. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): 1. Yes, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs received a letter dated January 11, 1973. This letter has been answered.
2.	Yes. January 18, 1973.
3.	Not applicable. Letter sent on March 16.
4.	The Minister attempts to respond to mail from Members of Parliament within 10 working days. A reply may take a longer period if that time is required for research purposes. In the case of the letter referred to in part 1, unfortunately a clerical error also contributed to the length of the delay.


Mr. Masniuk: 1.	Who was responsible for the publication of the 1973 Post Office calendar?
2.	For what reason was Dominion Day and other significant religious statutory holidays, such as Good Friday, ignored, and non-statutory holidays more emphasized?
3.	Was it the intention of the Post Office not to include these major statutory holidays and, if not, what action has been taken to correct this oversight?
4.	Was there a nation-wide tender for the Post Office calendar publication and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Was the total cost of the publication $270,000 or were there other costs involved, such as art work etc., which is not included in the total cost?
6.	Is the intention of the Postmaster General to issue a Post Office calendar for 1974?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. The calendar was sponsored jointly by the Public Affairs and Marketing Branches of the Canada Post Office.
2.	The holidays identified were mainly those calling for an exchange of gifts and greetings through the mail. This was done to emphasize the requirements for mailing deadlines.
3.	Other holidays could be included should the Post Office decide to produce a 1974 calendar.
4.	Tenders were called for printing by the advertising agency, Agence Canadienne de Publicite. The agency chose a local bid because of the tight deadlines set and the requirements for close supervision and quality control.
5.	The total cost was $269,866.20.
6.	No decision taken yet.


Mr. Reynolds: 1. How many Canadian youths are presently being held in prisons outside Canada and the United States?
April 16, 1973

2.	What steps, if any, are being taken to assist these young people in obtaining either release or legal assistance?
3.	What is the present status of Mary Howard-Brown, 18 years of age, at last report being held in an Athens prison and have authorities had any success in locating any of her friends or relatives?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. This statistical information is not available to us. There is no obligation on the part of foreign governments to notify the Canadian government when a Canadian citizen is arrested. Although some Canadian citizens detained abroad do contact the nearest Canadian Consular representative for advice and assistance many do not choose to do so.
2.	The Canadian government cannot intervene in the normal administration of justice in a foreign country. Upon request Canadian consuls abroad assist Canadian citizens in obtaining legal counsel by providing names and addresses of reputable local lawyers, by contacting relatives and friends on their behalf for financial assistance when required and by advising detainees to apply for free legal aid when funds are unavailable from private sources. Canadian consuls do what they can to ensure Canadians are brought to trial as promptly as possible and that bail is granted when local laws permit it. Efforts are made unofficially on humanitarian grounds to obtain suspended or reduced sentences for young offenders whenever circumstances warrant it.
3.	This young woman erroneously reported to be a Mary Howard-Brown was identified as a Canadian citizen and arrangements were made for her hospitalization in Athens until she was well enough to return to Canada escorted by a member of her family in October 1972.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Was a dealer purchasing potatoes by contract from producers eligible for a subsidy under the subsidy program lor the 1971 crop; (a) if not, were the producers who had sold their 1971 production by contract eligible for the subsidy; (b) if so, what was the procedure to be followed?


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: The Potato Price Stabilization Program, 1971 was open to all producers but excluded others such as processors who acquire potatoes only by having them grown under contract or other arrangement. Participation in the program was initiated through application to the Fruit and Vegetable Division of the Canada Department of Agriculture.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	What were the specifications required by the government when placing a contract through the Post Office Department for 800,000 1973 calendars as produced by Metropole Litho Inc.?
2.	What are the specific specifications which were not met by the two lowest bidders for this work?
3.	(a) Were tenders called for the production overrun which increased the original contract from $173,790 to $269,866.20; (b) how big was the overrun; (c) for what reason was it required?
Order Paper Questions


André Ouellet: 1. Specifications for the printing of the calendar were established and determined by Agence Canadienne de Publicite who were charged with the responsibility of producing a calendar on the basis of the concept and pro forma presented to the Department.
2.	According to Agence Canadienne de Publicite (a) St. Lawrence Lithograving Limited did not quote on first quality paper; (b) Ashton Potter Limited included in its bid a reserve clause on the preparation cost. This made the total printing cost uncertain.
3.	(a) $173,790. was the tender price for printing only. $269,866.20 was the total cost of the publication, including printing and production (artwork, colour photography, colour transparencies, typesetting, processing, lettering, writing expertise, agency fee, etc.); (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs make a reply to the letter dated January 11, 1973, from the Member for Leeds on the subject of meat prices in certain areas before or after the Member for Leeds placed Question No. 1,694 on the Order Paper on March 21, 1973?
2.	Did the Minister's reply bear a date of March 16, 1973?
3.	On what date was the Minister's reply actually mailed at the House of Commons Post Office?
4.	Did the Minister's reply bear a postmark of March 26, 1973 and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The letter sent to the member for Leeds was with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for signature the day Question No. 1,733 appeared on the Order Paper. An interim reply was sent January 18, 1973.
2.	Yes.
3.	It is not possible for the Department to know the date the House of Commons Post Office stamped the letter. The letter left the Minister's mail room in the departmental office on March 23.
4.	This information is not known by the Minister's office.


Mr. Matte: What was the total amount of Old Age Security Pensions paid in Canada and in each province, during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973?


Marc Lalonde: April 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions Fiscal Year 1972-73*
Old Age Security	Guaranteed Income Supplement	Total$	$	$Newfoundland	... 33,172,201	21,336,760	54,508,961Prince Edward Island...	... 12,410,875	7,256,467	19,667,342Nova Scotia	... 73,939,984	36,780,017	110,719,911New Brunswick	... 56,704,271	27,331,306	84,035,577Quebec	... 429,387,961	198,767,841	628,155,802Ontario	... 653,874,936	228,344,490	882,219,426Manitoba	... 97,485,228	43,960,448	141,445,676Saskatchewan	... 98,004,161	40,959,673	138,963,834Alberta	... 122,475,044	51,539,455	174,014,499British Columbia	... 208,326,819	81,598,474	289,925,293Northwest Territories...	... 898,124	622,263	1,520,387Yukon	... 516,720	273,141	789,861Total	...1,787,196,234	738,770,335	2,525,966,569
The figures for February and March 1973 are estimates.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): Does the government provide information to the public about charitable organizations concerning (a) program (b) assets (c) liability (d) directors (e) membreship and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: Because of the secrecy provisions of Section 241 of the Income Tax Act, it cannot provide any information to the public concerning the information contained in the files of charitable organizations.


[Stage Direction]
Question No.' 1,813-Mr. Neale (Vancouver East):
1.	Has a coasting licence been issued to the foreign flag vessel Pampero and, if so (a) on what date was it issued (b) what is the expiry date (c) will a renewal be granted?
2.	If a valid current licence has not been issued, is it the government's intention to issue a licence for this ship if an application is received?
Robert Douglas George Stanbury: 1. Yes. (a) May 3, 1972; (b) Cancelled November 18, 1972 when vessel cleared for foreign port; (c) Application for a new licence will be required.
2. Provided all statutory conditions are fulfilled, the Collector of Customs at the port concerned is authorized to issue a coasting licence to the applicant.


Mr. Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay): What was the total amount of excise tax received from the sale of tobacco for each of the years 1960 to 1972 inclusive?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Fiscal Year	Amount
1959/60	$185,502,518.97
1960/61	193,648,658.18
1961/62	207,550,498.66
1962/63	217,807,694.87
1963/64	226,938,710.05
1964/65	218,343,945.15
1965/66	238,080,357.48
1966/67	251,434,852.54
1967/68	266,686,509.66
1968/69	304,176,478.99
1969/70	295,845,228.63
1970/71	319,413,605.26
1971/72	330,120,737.21


Mr. Harney: 1.	For each of the years 1970, 1971 and 1972, how many persons from other countries were exempted from "Manpower clearance" on a temporary basis for the purpose of carrying out work in Canada?
2.	In how many of these instances of exemption did the Department of Manpower and Immigration check with the relevant labour union body or local to see whether or not there were qualified Canadian personnel available for the work for which exemption of "Manpower clearance" was required?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Prior to the introduction of the employment visa regulations on January 1, 1973, there was no legal basis for enforcing manpower clearances and no statistics were maintained on the number of workers who were subjected to a form of clearance in previous years or on the sources utilized to effect the clearance.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72 by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
4.	What are the names and addresses of outside persons and organizations who were awarded contracts for research, development and other consulting services in the current fiscal year, what
April 16, 1973

are the amounts of money involved in each case and what is the purpose of each contract?
Return tabled.



RATE OF CANADIAN EXPORTS

Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	For each country to which the government has granted interest free loans or loans bearing an interest rate of less than 4 per cent, what was the rate of Canadian exports each year since 1960?
2.	In how many of such countries by name, has Canada's balance of trade shown a deficit since 1960?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past five years for development assistance in each one of the Latin American countries?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in each one of these countries?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO BANGLADESH

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Bangladesh?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO PAKISTAN

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Pakistan?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO INDIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in India?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return Tabled.
Order Paper Questions FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO SRI LANKA

Question No. 1,101-Mr. Paproski:
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Sri Lanka?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO FIJI

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Fiji?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO HONG KONG

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Hong Kong?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO KOREA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Korea?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



&quot; FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO MALDIVES

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Maldives?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO W. SAMOA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the past five years for development assistance in W. Samoa?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.

April 16, 1973
Order Paper Questions FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO PHILIPPINES

Question No. 1,107-Mr. Paproski:
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Philippines?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO MALAYSIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Malaysia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO TURKEY

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Turkey?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO IRAN

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Iran?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO INDOCHINA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Indochina?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO THAILAND

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Thailand?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO INDONESIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Indonesia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO SINGAPORE

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Singapore?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO BURMA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Burma?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO NIGERIA AND SIERRA LEONE

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Nigeria and Sierra Leone?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO GHANA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for developement assistance in Ghana?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO GAMBIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Gambia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.
^*
April 16, 1973



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO LIBERIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance to Liberia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO KENYA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Kenya?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO MALTA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Malta?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO UGANDA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Uganda?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO ETHIOPIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Ethiopia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO SOMALIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Somalia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.
Order Paper Questions FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO CYPRUS

Question No. 1,125-Mr. Paproski:
1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Cyprus?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO ZAMBIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Zambia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO MALAWI

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Malawi?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO RHODESIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Rhodesia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO NAMIBIA

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Namibia?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO TANZANIA AND MAURITIUS

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Tanzania and Mauritius?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in these countries?
Return tabled.
3318



FEDERAL FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE TO TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO

Mr. Paproski: 1.	What financial contributions have been made in the last five years for development assistance in Trinidad and Tobago?
2.	What major long term development projects are now being sponsored by Canada in this country?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS- MONEY CONTRACTED TO EACH OF FIVE REGIONS OF CANADA

['Agreed.']
Mr. Broadbent:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, concerning a number of questions I placed on the order paper on or about January 4 this year, just over three months ago, a period of time which I would have thought was ample for obtaining answers. I ask the parliamentary secretary whether, in particular, I can have an answer to question No. 152 which contains a list of 95 corporations. I want to find out what grants and other forms of financial assistance have been made available to these companies by a variety of government departments and agencies. Can the parliamentary secretary let me know when I may expect an answer to this question?


John Mercer Reid: I shall be glad to look into this matter. I would remind hon. members, however, that questions which require answers from a variety of departments often take a good deal longer to answer than those which request information from one department only.


Mr. Harding:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to question No. 180 which was placed on the order paper on January 4 requesting information as to the cost of purchasing an installation of office furnishings. I should like to point out that the same question was placed on the order paper last session and remained unanswered. A period of many months has gone by during which the answer might have been provided. Surely the departments concerned can provide the information requested. I ask the parliamentary secretary to tell me when I may expect an answer.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this question asks each office and department of the federal government for specific information that is not easily obtainable. All records of the federal government have to be searched in order to provide this information.


Mr. Reynolds:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to question No. 230 which, as I mentioned last week, has been on the order paper since January 10 and was also placed on the order paper almost two years ago by the previous member for my riding. It has to do with for which insur-
Order Paper Questions
ance companies Air Canada acts as agent. I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary when I may expect an answer to this question.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: I hope it will be soon, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, may I ask the parliamentary secretary when I can expect a reply to about 40 questions I put on the order paper on January 4 asking for information on the amount of money spent on publicity and/or information, as well as the amount of money spent on outside contracts by various government departments?


Mr. Grier:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to try your patience but I have two questions on the order paper in particular, one which has been on the order paper since January 25 dealing with government grants to Bell Canada and its subsidiaries, and a straightforward starred question which was put on the order paper on February 22. Can the parliamentary secretary indicate when I might have a reply to one or both of these questions?


Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Speaker, I also rise on a point of order relating to two questions that I have had on the order paper since January 4, Nos. 171 and 172. Both questions deal with the objectives and evaluation of subsidy programs offered by the government. I have not received an answer to either of these questions yet.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Lachance:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lafontaine is rising on a point of order.


Georges-C. Lachance: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to enable me to present the first report of the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-Mr. Georges-C. Lachance (Lafontaine)
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
3320
[Stage Direction]
April 16, 1973
[ English]
Oral Questions


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, since it is now two and a half years ago that the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women was presented and evidently less than 2 per cent of the positions rated at $26,000 a year or more are held by women, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to take any significant measures to remedy this situation, over and above the assurance of the President of the Treasury Board that rules and regulations will be reviewed to ensure that there is no discrimination against the female sex?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I regret I will not be able to answer this question in detail, but there was a statement and answers given by the Minister of Labour to questions on this subject. I am sure that he will be able to give further details if the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask him.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has established any precise targets for or a definition of equitable participation of women in senior government posts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly take note of the question on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Labour.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have asked these questions because I thought they would be of general concern to the Prime Minister and the government. I should like to ask whether the government has dismissed out of hand the establishment of precise targets in this area of senior positions for women in the Public Service? In view of the rejection by the President of the Treasury Board of any quota system, has the government rejected the establishment of precise targets to be achieved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we dislike the quota approach to any of these problems. We would hope we would not have to use it in the case of women. This being said, every effort is being made by the government to ensure that women are considered for the appointments we make.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of sup-plementaries sought on this question. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fundy-Royal and then we will try to complete the first round of questioning. If hon. members think we should have supplementaries on this subject later, we will hear them.


POSSIBLE TRANSFER OF RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF STATUS OF WOMEN COMMISSION TO SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, this supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman say whether the government is considering transferring the responsibility for developing programs to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women from the Department of Labour to the Department of the Secretary of State, which department might be considered as an action oriented department?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed considered this question and I am in the process of discussing it now with the relevant ministers. I might go on to say that at this time I would have a slight preference for not doing what the hon. gentleman suggests because-


An hon. Member:: Or anything else.
*
* *


AIRPORTS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. He announced the appointment of an inquiry into the aspects of the Pickering Airport on January 30, I believe. I should like to ask whether he has appointed the board, commission or whatever he wishes to call it, and when will he be able to announce the membership of that inquiry?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the board is not constituted yet. We have a series of names and we are attempting to make a selection. As I announced, I will be having discussions with the Premier of Ontario so there will be agreement with him on the constitution of the board.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether he has already decided on the terms of reference for this inquiry, and can he assure the House that the board or commission will have the authority to inquire into not merely the narrow field outlined in his statement of January 30 but into the whole matter affecting the Pickering Airport?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the public will be able to make representations on the specific issue of type and timing of facilities and the transportation and planning content. The government has made it clear that decisions to date on need and location may be reconsidered in light of new facts, new information on technology or travel habits which nullify the basis of these decisions. The board will be authorized to inquire into all aspects of the question.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear that the board will have that authority. I understand from the

minister that he has not yet constituted the inquiry and intends to have discussions with Queen's Park, with the Premier of Ontario. Can he indicate to the House and the people concerned in the Pickering region how soon he expects to set up the inquiry in order that representations may be made?


Jean Marchand: I hope very early after Easter, Mr. Speaker.


PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-RELEASE OF SURROUNDING NOISE LANDS FROM MINISTERIAL ORDER
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In the interim before this group is set up, is the minister in a position to indicate which, if any, of the acres that have been frozen as noise lands may now be released?


Jean Marchand: At this moment, no, Mr. Speaker.

[ Translation]


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Over the weekend he stated that he would introduce this week a proposal for establishing a guaranteed annual income for jome categories of people. Has the hon. minister held discussions on this matter with the provinces before making this announcement? If not, will he be meeting the provincial ministers immediately following his announcement this week, and will he be discussing at the same time the matter of pensions for those aged 60 or over?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member no doubt knows, I met all my provincial colleagues when I visited the provinces two weeks ago. I toured the capital cities; I was able to discuss the matter with all my colleagues and we will be meeting in Ottawa on April 25, 26 and 27 to examine proposals for reforming our social security system.
With regard to guaranteed annual income, I have announced nothing more than exactly what is to be found in the Speech from the Throne of January 4, namely the government's basic principle that any reform of the social security system must include a guaranteed income plan for those who are unable to work and who are not expected to work.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions
Does the hon. minister intend to introduce legislation before the Easter recess or afterwards?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourns I hope to submit a working plan for the federal government to set before the provinces, but this working plan will not contain legislative measures at this stage; any bill will have to come after consultations with the provinces towards the end of the month.


DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE INCREASE IN PENSIONS FOR BLIND WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his consultations with the provincial welfare ministers, was any specific reference made to the blind who have not had increases in their allocation of funds since the 1960's?


Marc Lalonde: Surely, Mr. Speaker, when we discussed the possibility of establishing a guaranteed income, we did specify that this guaranteed income ought to apply not only to the aged, but also to the handicapped, including the blind.


REPRESENTATION OF PARTIES AT FORTHCOMING FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
In view of the announcement of the anticipated dates for the federal-provincial conference, can the minister advise this House, in view of the minority situation of this government, whether representatives of all opposition parties in this House will be invited to participate in this conference?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is an intergovernmental federal-provincial conference.
[ English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again there are a number of supplementaries. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Trinity first and perhaps we might have supplementaries later on this subject.
* He *


UNITED STATES DISC LEGISLATION-OPINION OF CANADIAN EXPORT ASSOCIATION AS TO EFFECT ON CANADIAN EXPORTS-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF STUDIES
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I should like to pose my question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister aware of the advice to the Minis-

April 16, 1973
Oral Questions
ter of Industry, Trade and Commerce by the Canadian Export Association that the effects of the United States DISC legislation on Canadian exports will be ten times greater than the level estimated by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and his officials?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that advice. I am not quite satisfied with the hon. member's analysis of it.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Can the minister advise the House whether the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or his own Department of Finance has instituted similar studies to those done by the Canadian Export Association? If so, would he be good enough to table the documents before the Easter recess so that we could study them during the recess?


John Napier Turner: I will certainly look into that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands have supplementaries to previous questions.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister prepared to fulfil his commitment to the people of Newfoundland when he announced on October 2 last that if his government was elected the first legislative action that would be taken would be regarding the family income security program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in that speech that the only reason it had not been done in the last session of parliament was that members sitting on the Conservative benches had prevented it from being passed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And I did say-


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: It was a lousy bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. Perhaps we should not return to that question.


Jack Marshall: I wonder whether the Prime Minister would ask the Minister of Labour, who was minister of national health and welfare when the family income security bill was before the House, if he would tell him what the opposition said at that time about voting for family allowance bills?


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


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the continuing difficulties in determining the accuracy of the location of the unfortunate helicopter crash that took place in South Viet Nam, would the minister inform the House whether Ambassador Gauvin has succeeded in securing approval from the Viet Cong and perhaps others for inspection of the helicopter crash site by the survivors of the crash to determine whether or not the helicopter has been moved from the original crash site?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, Ambassador Gauvin has been trying to get the inquiry extended in this way. So far as I know, up to this moment he has not yet been successful.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: In light of the importance of resolving this question at an early date, I wonder whether the minister has taken any direct action at the ministerial level to assist Ambassador Gauvin in arranging such an inspection by the survivors? If such action has not yet been taken by the minister, would he give consideration to doing so?


Mitchell William Sharp: The difficulty in making the inspection is that the Provisional Revolutionary Government has so far objected and there is no way in which I can make direct representations on that point. Ambassador Gauvin is in a much stronger position on the spot that I would be from this distance dealing with a group of people we do not recognize.


GREECE-HOLDING INCOMMUNICADO WITHOUT CHARGE OF LAWYERS REPRESENTING GREEK STUDENTS- REQUEST FOR REPRESENTATIONS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having regard to the fact that Canada and Greece are both bound by the universal declaration of human rights and are both signatories to the NATO treaty which speaks about respect for human rights, and in light of the report from members of the International Commission of Jurists and the International League of Rights that lawyers representing Greek students have been held incommunicado for more than a month without being charged with any office, will the Canadian government make representations to the Greek government protesting against this grave violation of fundamental rights?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 16, 1973


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, both at the NATO conference to representatives of Greece who were present and privately, I have made representations to the Greek government about the question of civil rights. I shall go on doing so. Our position has not changed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs answer my question and say whether he will protest against the particular incident I have drawn to his attention?


Mitchell William Sharp: I shall, if the occasion arises, speak to the Greek ambassador about this particular incident, but of course this is only one of several incidents. The general position of the Canadian government in relation to these matters is very well known, and I believe we are taking all steps that would be constructive under the circumstances.


AIR CANADA
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he has had any communication with Mr. Yves Pratte, the Chairman of Air Canada, since the interview Mr. Pratte gave to the Financial Post as reported on April 7? Has he been in touch with him, and has he been able to secure the co-operation of the Chairman in meeting the criticism that the government has no policy respecting Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, actually I met with the President of Air Canada on Friday morning between 9.30 and 10.30.


John George Diefenbaker: Now that we have got them together-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -possibly the minister will say whether or not he discussed with Mr. Pratte some of the statements that very estimable gentleman made to the press, among them being "I am not prepared to oversee the decline of Air Canada," and "if the government refuses to make decisions then within ten years Air Canada will be a second airline to CP Airlines"? Did he discuss any of these criticisms, and what is he going to do concerning, among other criticisms, the fact that the minister does not answer any of his letters regarding the objectives of Air Canada?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the right hon. member was not here on Friday. I would have invited him to the meeting and he would have seen that we are in perfect agreement, Mr. Pratte and myself, and that we both want to preserve the pre-eminence of Air Canada not only nationally but internationally. Further, he has received answers to all letters he has sent to me.
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I still ask the minister the simple question: did he take up with Mr. Pratte the very strong criticisms that Mr. Pratte made of this government, when he talked to him in that tete-a-tete on Friday afternoon?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it was not Friday afternoon; it was Friday morning at 9.30.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, we are making progress except in securing an answer. Did Mr. Pratte agree that CP Airlines should have the right to the Milan route? What was said in regard to that, because I notice he strongly criticizes the government for failure to act in that connection?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we have not discussed the case of Milan at all.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question, or perhaps a somewhat related question, in the area opened up by the Leader of the Opposition. Because it affects so many areas within government I want to ask the President of the Privy Council whether the government intends to bring forward, during this session of parliament, amendments to a number of acts which at present contain discriminatory sections with respect to the employment of women in the Public Service of Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the legislative program will be brought forward. I understand there is one particular measure under consideration relating to this subject.


DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSION AND DEPARTMENTS OF SPECIFIC PROCEDURES LEADING TO INCREASED RECRUITMENT OF WOMEN
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Is the government discussing with the Public Service Commission and the various departments which do hiring, specific procedures which would lead to a much more active program of recruitment of women into the public service and particularly into the upper echelons of the public service, than has been used up until now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if these discussions are going on these days. I do know that the subject has been discussed with the Public Service Commission and that the commission has responded by taking measures to make a particular effort to ensure the recruitment of women. Within the departments instructions have been given to all deputy ministers to ensure that women now within these depart-

April 16, 1973
Oral Questions
ments be given every opportunity to advance through promotion.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact that the government's policy on the employment of women, just as is the case with its policy on the employment of native peoples, has been clear and very good in principle for several years but the results have shown how little progress we have made, is the government really going to ask the Public Service Commission and the various departments to get on with the job, which they have not been doing up until now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the hon. member that it is not always sufficient to state principles because very often the application follows at some considerable distance. We had this experience in the application of the Official Languages Act. We are now taking the further step of looking into the application. I will consider the suggestion of the hon. member and see if we can issue some type of directive to ensure that the aims of these policies are carried out.


SENIOR MANAGEMENT DEVELOPMENT COURSE-ENCOURAGEMENT OF PARTICIPATION BY WOMEN
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask just one short supplementary of the Prime Minister in keeping with the tone of the questioning. In view of the fact that the senior management development course implemented by the Public Service Commission, designed to improve the administrative skills of the civil servants at the managerial level, has attracted only one woman, can the Prime Minister assure the House that he will discuss this matter with his ministers in order to ensure the encouragement and facilitation of women in this particular course?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the policies to which I was referring apply to every aspect of the civil service and its instruction programs. If the hon. member found this example in one program, I am sure he would find other programs where women are indeed coming in and are being encouraged in a remarkable sense.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member sought the floor for what he called one short supplementary, which he has asked. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and then the hon. member for Bellechasse. We will be running short of time. Hon. members should note that it is the first question asked this afternoon on which we are having all these supplementaries.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the

Prime Minister. In light of the fact that there has been very considerable opposition to the government's recently proposed federal advisory committee on the status of women because of the fact that it will report to the minister and not to parliament, as women's groups have requested, will he tell the House whether he has considered the restructuring of the committee along lines which would be much more in accord with the wishes expressed by the majority of women's groups?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, we have considered various ways of setting up this advisory group. It is one of the subjects that the Minister of Labour and I have considered together. The decision, for the time being, is to proceed as announced by the Minister of Labour. I do not believe it is right for the hon. member to assume that most of the women's groups prefer her system to the one put forward by the Minister of Labour.


AGRICULTURE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. speaker, I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture.
Could the minister tell this House whether he had or will have discussions with the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec to modify certain zones which had been designated to allow agricultural producers to receive subsidies following crop losses last summer?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Agriculture of the province of Quebec desires to meet with me I am perfectly willing to meet with him.


QUEBEC-CROP DAMAGE-INQUIRY RESPECTING REFUND OF $400 GRANT
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Does the minister intend to modify the zoning areas with a view to solving the problem of those who have been required to reimburse the $400 subsidy?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we believe in co-operation with the provinces. If the minister of agriculture from Quebec wants to make such a suggestion, I am willing to listen.


CANADIAN PROPOSALS FOR GATT CONFERENCE-DISCUSSION WITH FARM ORGANIZATIONS AND PROVINCIAL PREMIERS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the declaration of the minister at the recent OECD meeting in Paris that Canada looks forward to positive action in the GATT talks to be held this fall to liberalize international trade in agricultural products, is the government preparing specific proposals and, if so, are these proposals going to be discussed with farm organizations and provincial premiers this spring and summer?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the preliminary talks and preparations are well under way, if I understand correctly, and I am sure that the proposals will be discussed with our counterparts. Suggestions have been received from some of them already.


Jack Burnett Murta: In light of our apparent common interest with the United States in reducing barriers to agricultural trade, specifically in the EEC and Japan, is the minister going to hold ministerial talks with the United States on reaching joint goals for the GATT negotiations that will be held this fall?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that we did have several very informal discussions with the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States in Paris.


POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF GATT NEGOTIATIONS TO INCLUDE COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: May I ask the Minister of Agriculture if ways are going to be found to expand these talks on trade to include those countries that are communist or centrally controlled, which is the term they use, so that the agricultural talks may be broad enough to include the full spectrum of our trading partners?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious from the actions the government has taken and is taking at the present time, that we are trading all over the world more than we ever have in the past, and will continue to do so.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and arises from the minister's stated desire to find a new home for the Canadian National division point at Jasper. Will the minister or the Minister of Transport hold full public hearings in Jasper before
Oral Questions
July into the feasibility and consequences of moving the 1,200 people involved?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we have not decided to move immediately the employees now in Jasper; I merely said that it would be desirable for the CN, if it wants to have better facilities, to try and find another place. Of course, if we reach that decision, we will certainly have consultations with the local authorities; I did not say that everything should be done before the month of July, but merely suggested that we might be well-advised to have that objective.


Charles Joseph Clark: Since the minister's statement has caused considerable disquiet in the town site of Jasper and since he gives no indication that he is prepared to hold public hearings on his own at this time when the disquiet exists, would he make his officials available for the public hearings I intend to hold on the subject?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INCOME TAX
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the minister considering extending to small family businesses the same tax concessions that rightly will be extended to family farms?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the family farm is in a particularly unique position in view of the very high capitalization, the lack of liquidity, and the volatile value of land, but I appreciate the thrust of the hon. member's question and I appreciate his giving me notice of it.


IMPLICATION OF DEPARTMENT'S FAMILY PLANNING POSTERS
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of recent colourful posters on family planning put out by his department and showing as many as ten children per family, would the minister advise whether these posters showing as many as ten per family reflect the government's policy for Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I think they reflect maybe the

April 16, 1973
Oral Questions
policy of the Minister of Justice but I do not know about mine.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I am not sure that it is yet the government's policy.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I think I will still take a chance on the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Were family planning organizations across Canada consulted as to the possible effect of these posters in sabotaging their work of family planning?


Marc Lalonde: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that if they have as much effect as some of our posters have we should not worry too much.


IMMIGRATION
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or, in his absence, his parliamentary secretary. Has the Department of Immigration changed its policy of issuing work permits to people once they have been screened by a special inquiry officer?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister I shall be pleased to take the question as notice.


AIRPORTS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday I asked a question of the Minister of Transport which was referred to the Minister of the Environment. I will ask it again. In light of the fact that the Minister of the Environment told the House some month and a half ago that environmental studies would be completed on the proposed expansion of the Vancouver airport within 12 months, can the minister now advise whether these studies have begun?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, they have begun and the target date for their completion is December 31, 1973.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise the House when and in what manner the public will be given the chance to make representations regarding this matter?


John (Jack) Davis: First, Mr. Speaker, the consultants involved will be in touch with the municipalities and community interest groups in the area. After the studies have been

completed they will be published. Then we will decide about hearings.


HIGH WATER LEVELS IN LAKES ONTARIO AND ERIE- SURVEYS OF DAMAGE AND PROPERTY LOSS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Kenneth J. Higson (Lincoln):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment relative to the very extensive damage and property loss along the shorelines of Lake Ontario and Lake Erie during the last few weeks. Can the minister tell the House whether a survey of the damage and property loss has been prepared and received by him and, if so, what action is he prepared to take with regard to the survey?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, surveys have been carried out jointly with the provincial government, some from the air and some on the ground. We are still awaiting an application from the province for financial assistance.


Kenneth James Higson: Has the minister considered a program of assistance whereby low interest loans would be made available to lakeshore property owners to repair or construct protective works, the labour input of which might be partly or fully forgiven in circumstances similar to the three-year winter works program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation.



SHIPPING


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On February 14 I asked a question regarding the two year old Darling report, particularly the recommendation that Canadian coastal waters should be reserved for Canadian flag vessels. At that time the minister said that he was consulting the coastal premiers. Has the minister had any reply from the premiers of the provinces on the west and east coasts, and is he in a position to say what stand the government will take regarding the implementation of this particular recommendation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I met last week with the four premiers of the Atlantic provinces, but I have not had an opportunity to discuss the same subject with Mr. Barrett yet. The premiers of the Atlantic provinces are afraid that, if we implement the Darling report as it is now, the cost of transportation for the Maritimes will be increased. So we are going to study with their officials each of the cases they want us to look into in order not to place a new burden on those provinces in implementing the report.
April 16, 1973


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the minister intend to have consultations with the Premier of British Columbia with a view to seeing whether this recommendation can be implemented for the Pacific coast?


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[ Translation]



AIR TRANSPORT


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
This morning, 500 students and professors were supposed to leave for Haiti by plane. The students have been organizing such annual trips to Haiti for four years. Last Friday I personally phoned the Minister of Transport to see if it would not be possible to allow that flight of two chartered planes to Haiti. Has the minister any power over a Mr. Thomson? This might be a grievance, but Mr. Thomson answered the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) in an arrogant and impolite manner regarding those flights that he said he was cancelling, adding that he would never give his approval for that student trip. Could the minister tell us what action he can take regarding that situation?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if an official has been arrogant and impolite, I will be the first one to regret it and also try to ensure that he answers the public correctly. However, the hon. member will have to submit a specific grievance because I am not in a position to judge.
As to those 500 young people who were to leave this morning and unfortunately could not do so I regret this and I will see if there is a way to soften the regulations to ensure that there is no repetition of things like that.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of National Revenue who over a month ago indicated that he or his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, would be introducing legislation into the House to exempt Old Order Mennonites from compulsory payments to the Canada Pension Plan. Now that the time is again here for filing income tax returns, will the minister assure the House that Old Order Mennonites will not be forced to make these contributions against their will simply because the government did not act?
Oral Questions


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kitchener has been drawing this matter to my attention as well. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare can confirm that he intends to introduce a bill to accomplish this purpose very soon. I hope that will clear up all such problems of those two hon. members and their constituents.



POSSIBILITY OF INCREASED PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE ROLE FOR NURSES

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a non-Freudian question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is based on the recent recommendations of the Canadian Medical Association and the Canadian Nurses Association suggesting an increased primary medical care role for nurses. Can the minister advise how his department will facilitate adoption of this progressive and practical recommendation? Also, can he advise if the matter will be on the agenda of the upcoming federal-provincial conference of health ministers?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, indeed, there will be a conference of Ministers of Health early in May and the object of that conference will be mainly to discuss the new methods of financing. I am particularly happy to see the Leader of the Opposition give his support to this government proposal. I would also like to say that, hopefully, there will be discussion with the Ministers of Health on matters outstanding and I think the problem raised by the hon. member will be discussed on that occasion.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact a study has recently been made by the economics branch of the Department of Agriculture regarding the Canadian tender fruit industry, is the minister prepared to make a statement at an early date based on the recommendation of this study?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to do so as soon as it has been completed and the facts of the study are checked. I hope to be able to do that shortly.

April 16, 1973
Oral Questions ENERGY



CANADIAN POSITION ON POSSIBLE TRANSPORTATION OF AMERICAN LIQUIFIED GAS AND PETROLEUM BY TANKER

Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact there is a Congressional hearing and two bills are before the United States Congress and the suggestion is now being made that tankers may be used to transport liquified gas as well as crude petroleum, has the Canadian government made itself clear with regard to what means of transportation we would prefer if that energy, either liquid gas made from natural gas or crude petroleum, is to be moved?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Yes, Sir.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the short answer. I now ask the minister to tell us in two words what route the government prefers.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The safest route, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It is further to the question asked last week by the hon. member for Wellington with regard to income tax returns. Has the minister received any representations, from the accounting profession in particular, about farm returns and the fact that those people are required to file capital cost schedules with their returns, which will make it difficult for them to file their returns on time? If he has received such representations, will he give consideration to extending- if not the time for filing, the farmer's right to averaging if he is late filing? He may have to pay a penalty, but can he at least be given the right to retain the privilege of averaging?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, we have given careful consideration to the possibility of special dispensation for particular groups, but we feel that kind of discrimination would not be fair. However, I have stated publicly and I wish to reiterate now that if any taxpayer has difficulty in amassing all the necessary information on time, a return with income figures estimated on a reasonable basis will be accepted. Alternatively, payment of estimated taxes by April 30 will eliminate or at least reduce liability for penalty and interest even if the return is filed after the deadline.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. Perhaps hon. members will allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich before calling orders of the day.
[Mr. Whelan.l



TAXATION


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that over the weekend the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is now leaving his desk, endorsed a resolution calling for increased federal government revenues from the resource industries of this country, can the Prime Minister say whether the minister was advocating government policy and, if so, when can we expect the necessary legislative changes?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to see exactly what the minister, who is leaning over a desk, said. I am sure he stated government policy in some form.



WILDLIFE


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. I have given him notice. As a result of my notice, has the minister been able to make himself aware of the adverse publicity being given to Canada because of the ease with which, taking advantage of loopholes in Canadian import regulations, pelts of endangered species such as puma and ocelot are reaching Canada for storage and subsequent export?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As the hon. member knows, members of Environment Canada have been taking a leading role in international discussions on this subject.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, April 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-164, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railways Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada,
April 16, 1973
[Stage Direction]
be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, if I have to live with the New Democratic Party, I am pleased to see the growth in my audience since Friday. This is a rather serious debate concerning the operation of Canadian National Railways and the financing bill.
Last Friday, we asked the minister or his parliamentary secretary that we be told in some reasonable fashion what kind of financing was done in 1971 and 1972, in view of the fact this bill was not passed last year. That was a very interesting disclosure by the government. What kind of financing did Canadian National Railways and Air Canada undertake, in view of the fact the financing bill did not pass parliament last year?
On Friday, I raised what I believe to be a fundamental point. Within the confines of this debate, the ministers of the Crown, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in particular, who have any relationship to the area of transportation should take this opportunity to explain to this House and the people of Canada their position on the matter of transportation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William George Knight: On behalf of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), I ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) to explain what steps he is going to take in view of his long history as Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but if hon. members want to hold conferences I suggest they should do so behind the curtains.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I take particular exception to members sitting on the arms of chairs or sometimes sitting on their desks with their backs turned to the Chair while a member is trying to address the Chair. I ask the co-operation of all members in this regard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William George Knight: I would think it is particularly incumbent on the government, in a minority situation, to do some listening when transportation is being discussed. I want to say that one minister at least, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, ought to give some consideration to answering questions about the cost of freight rates as they relate to the Prairies and the Maritimes. My hon. friend from Nickel Belt and my hon. friend from Timiskaming have questions to ask about the transport situation in northern Ontario. This debate allows them the opportunity to request an announcement of substantial changes in the freight rate structure to meet the desperate need for a fair and just transportation system across the country, one which equalizes freight rates so that people living in regions such as the prairie region, northern Ontario and the Maritimes can move into secondary manufacturing industries, the kind of industries which are capital inten-
CNR and Air Canada
sive and which create employment for people in those areas.
Mr. Speaker, I have discussed at some length the whole question of the debt owed by the Canadian National Railways since they are carrying a debt which they ought not to be carrying as can be seen from this particular financing bill. A few years ago there was a change in the relationship of the debt between the Canadian National and Air Canada. There should be a further extension of that change to remove that debt from the books of the CN. After all, surely Mackenzie and those people who were shareholders back in the 1900's when the Tory party bought out those railways have been paid enough.


John Edward Broadbent: Too much.


William George Knight: Too much. I raised the question of the freight rate structure as it relates to many regions of this country and the relationship between it and grain. I brought up very briefly the question of rail line abandonment which faces western Canada more than any other area. I suggested that in lieu of 1975 being the cut-off date in terms of allowing railroads to abandon wholesale, if you like, the rail lines in western Canada, the government ought to consider putting a moratorium on that date in order to come up with a concrete proposal to western producers. In addition, the many hundreds of thousands of people who live in these small communities deserve a concrete answer as to the kind of national transport policy they are going to have and the kind of service they are going to get from the transportation system. The government ought to take the step of letting the producer know what kind of system he is going to have for the movement of his grain, what kind of cost he is going to incur if 610 miles of line in the Assiniboia constituency are abandoned, and over 2,000 miles of line, I believe, in the province of Saskatchewan. Hundreds of smaller or middlesized communities on the Prairies are threatened by that kind of abandonment at this stage of development. I would hope that some minister of the Crown, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), or the minister in charge of the Wheat Board who likes to stick his finger into transportation, would give us some answers to this all-important question.
One other question that needs an answer concerns the closing of the station agencies. The hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) raised this problem in the question period, and I hope he doesn't mind my mentioning it. It affects southern Saskatchewan as well. What kind of operation is being conducted when a railroad establishes a "servo centre" working out of the two major centres in the province of Saskatchewan, Regina and Saskatoon, then says it is for additional service to the producer and the people in the smaller communities. All the station agents are removed from those areas and then the company takes the opportunity to try to explain to these communities what this service centre is? They all know what it is. It is a telephone line which can be attended to in the city of Regina at a given time by some guy in an office who answers inquiries about some service some producer needs. If the producer is lucky he might get results by the end of the month. That is the kind of servo centre which is being developed in the prairie region. That is the kind of nonsense we put up with from public and privately-owned

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
railroads in this country, and the kind of system we have when there is no national transportation policy whatsoever.
In view of the spending on transportation studies by the Canada Grains Council and such things as the notorious group called the Great Plains project, there ought to be an explanation in this House by the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board to the Members of Parliament as to the allocation of funds for those two projects and an explanation of the kind of work they are doing. The Great Plains group talks about western development. The group is made up of highly established officials of the boardrooms of large multinational corporations and national corporations. There is not one representative of the western producers included, and the group works out of the Prime Minister's office. Where is there an explanation of that particular item in this debate related to transportation?
What is going on in the Canada Grains Council when two major farm organizations, the National Farmers Union and the Wheat Pool withdraw their membership? Why did they withdraw? What is the Canada Grains Council a front for if it is not a front for the private grain exchange in Winnipeg, the friends of the Conservative party, the friends of the Tory party? I am talking about the private Winnipeg grain exchange, something we New Democrats would like to see eliminated from the grain handling business. Bring flax, rye and rapeseed under the Wheat Board and quit fooling around.
That kind of question should be answered by one minister of the Crown. There is a long list of them. For example, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, since he wants his finger in the transport pie, should explain to members of the House of Commons the agreement to pay for the expenses and the depreciation of the hopper cars which are leased to the railway. There is not a producer in the west who does not know that the railroad could improve its rolling stock. There isn't a producer in the west who does not know that the railways could use many more than 2,000 hopper cars. But there isn't a producer in western Canada who doesn't know that for a hundred years or so the old line parties have backed the railways versus the producers by way of grants and money and rates, you name it, Mr. Speaker. They know that $48 million spent on hopper cars is a kind of subsidy to the railroads. Under the Railway Act the railways have to provide proper rolling stock for the Prairies. Anyway, they are supposed to do so. Yet we have had to live with boxcars which are beyond description. So we need hopper cars, but we don't need to encourage the railways to abdicate their responsibilities to the western producer and use Canadian taxpayers' money to provide a subsidy to the railway. The minister can tell us about the agreement on that particular issue. Who is paying for it? Is the producer not paying for maintenance and depreciation of hopper cars?
We could go down a long list of questions on which I wish to spend a few moments, questions on which I am sure my colleagues will expand and to which the government should give answers during this debate on second reading of the bill before us. One of the most fundamental ones, and one which was raised again today in the House, is the question which has been asked in the past by the leader of our party relating to the future of Air Canada
[Mr. Knight.l
and landing rights in Milan. Further to this, the minister could talk about the carving up of the world in terms of the private CP line and the Air Canada line. As far as I am concerned, when it comes to air transportation and air service, Canada needs, like most of the western world countries, only one publicly-owned airline. It does not need the CP whatsoever.
Aside from that, there ought to be an explanation during this debate as to the future of Air Canada if we are to continue to put money into it. Mr. Speaker, I have raised before the question of one of the ministers of the Crown, namely, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), answering a question in relation to the CN continuing to carry a debt it should not necessarily have to carry. Further to this I suspect my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), will raise a question related to-if anyone can guess-pensions of railway workers who retired prior to 1956 and are not covered by collective agreements. That is the key point I wanted to make-those who are not covered by the collective agreements with the railroad. I am sure my hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) will bring up the question of freight rates, regional development and rail line abandonment and will seek some answers. I am sure my colleague from Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) will wonder about the kind of agreement that the Canadian Wheat Board and the railroads have chosen to adopt in regard to hopper cars. I am sure he will be interested in receiving answers to the questions he has asked in the House.
The hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) will be interested in having some answers about the investment procedures used by the pension funds of the CNR and CPR, the manner in which workers' funds are used and the kind of corporations in which they are invested. In addition, I am sure the hon. member for Scarborough West will be asking questions about the CN needle, the 1,800-foot monstrosity to be erected in the city of Toronto to scare the life out of those unfortunate people from the prairies who happen to land in Toronto on their way to Ottawa.
There is one fundamental matter that concerns the Minister of Transport and I am sure my hon. friend from Saskatoon-Biggar will be interested in this question. I refer to a reinterpretation, a reassessment if you like, of the MacPherson commission report on transportation and its ludicrous proposal that what is needed is competition. What is really needed is one large public utility bent on servicing the people of Canada and not on private profit.
The hon. member for Assiniboia, as he has already pointed out, will be interested in having some substantial information about, and answers to, the question of rail line abandonment. I am sure that some of our colleagues from the maritimes and the prairie regions will be interested in having answers to questions they have asked about the future of passenger services. I am also sure the premier of British Columbia, Mr. Barrett, will be interested in some answers to questions concerning the possibility of using the railways to transport oil and gas from the Mackenzie region. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) could use this opportunity to
April 16, 1973

take a few moments to disclose to the House what possibilities there are for transporting oil and gas.
I believe the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) would like to raise in this debate some very important questions relating to the situation in the yards of the city of Vancouver, a matter I have also raised, and the question of working to rule. A number of workers there are upset about working conditions and the kind of work crews there are. Perhaps the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of Transport will take an opportunity to answer these questions.
I am sure the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and myself, both of us being members in good standing of the Hudson Bay Route Association, will be most interested in hearing what is going to happen to the port of Churchill in regard to movement of grain. Prairie members of the New Democratic Party are vitally concerned with transportation questions and are extremely interested in the possibility of the government becoming involved in the development of an alternative route through the Rocky Mountains. My colleagues have pointed out to me that my good friend and faithful colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has raised questions relating to freight rates and costs in northern Ontario.
Further, I have outlined to the government a number of subject matters that call for serious consideration. If this country is to develop in a cohesive way, and if there is to be national unity, then some fundamental questions that arise in the regions of Canada must be answered. For 100 years representatives from the constituency of Assiniboia and from southern Saskatchewan have come to this House and put the case regarding the very inadequate transportation system in their area. They have described the lack of service offered by the CNR and CPR. They have discussed in this House rail line abandonment, the question of freight rate structures, the question of alternative routes through the Rocky Mountains, more adequate use of the port at Churchill, and public transportation facilities offered by Air Canada and the CNR.
It is time that the government of this country took the opportunity that is afforded to it in this minority situation, not of setting aside answers for a future debate on a CN financing bill for another year, but of outlining to Members of Parliament and the people of Canada a clear and concise national transportation policy, letting the people of western Canada and those in the regionally disadvantaged areas know what policy the government has for meeting the serious needs of national transportation.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see Bill C-164 before the House, because I have a few comments to make before it is referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. The bill is entitled, and I quote:
An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June 1974, 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.
CNR and Air Canada
Mr. Speaker, every time a bill like this is introduced, I have the impression of watching a poor comedy. For in the past, whenever we have tried to draw the minister's attention to the administrative deficiencies of the CN, and point out to him the monstrous mistakes made by the officials who administrate railways which have caused millions of dollars of damage in all kinds of derailments throughout the country, especially the province of Quebec which has the shortest railway mileage in proportion to its population and where the service leaves more to be desired than anywhere else in Canada, we have always received the impression that those in charge of the corporation wanted to cut off all passenger services in the province of Quebec, so as to get all it could in taxes from its population of over six million, and improve services in other provinces, if only by doubling its office staff, who would only be there to wait for the trains. At the rate we are going, there will be no more passenger trains in a few years because we will have managed to put off even those who are still stubborn enough to use this service.
What has been, what is and what will be the minister's response to repeated appeals and denunciations, and to the demands of the population in these areas? "The CN is a Crown corporation and I can do nothing but receive its annual report" is the minister's systematic reply. But we have reached the point where even the high-ranking officials of this company no longer need to come before the Standing Committee of Transport and Communications and condescend to keep the House informed as to what is going on in the field of transportation.
What happened during the years 1970, 1971 and 1972? And where are the 1973 estimates? I remember the time when Mr. Donald Gordon, the former president of the Canadian National, was so often called to account, and spent hours answering hon. members' questions but, at least, we had someone to give us information. Today, the president does not even dare come and face ordinary members of Parliament.
The Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Comtois) seems to introduce an unimportant bill whose passage according to his own words, is nothing but routine work that we should approve without any problem. That is typical of the hypocritical way the government proceeds. Besides, it is not the first time that I claim this proceeding to be improper. Every time the government introduces a bill which provides just one more dollar for the taxpayer, in services that are being claimed for years, they seem to believe that they are doing wonderful things.
I might give the ridiculous example of the $13 a month increase in the old age security pension, and the $100 yearly increase in basic exemptions for income tax purposes. You would have thought that the government was about to grant $2,000 to all Canadians. It was said that this bill was not like any other, that it would bring to the former law unsuspected amendments, that those increases were simply fantastic and a lot of publicity was made about those minor increases.
However, the same government is introducing Bill C-164 involving almost one billion and a half dollars which

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
Canadians will have to pay with their taxes. In fact, this bill will allow the CN to invest $225 million in 1973 alone and $75 million during the first six months of 1974 so as to pay, before July 1, 1974, a debt amounting to $169,500,000.
Moreover, with workers' taxes Air Canada will be paid $140 million to meet its commitments from July 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974 and a very small amount of $13 million as a guaranty on its debentures for all the rest, namely anything not involving administration since 1971 about which we have been given no detail. All this is only peanuts. In fact we are told: The House is burning down but otherwise everything is going fine. This is a picture of our puppet representatives in front of technocrats who do not give a damn about parliament as they are protected by the government.
If you read the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Minister of Finance, you will find all the candor which senior civil servants can use to render the situation even more tragic.
The parliamentary secretary of the minister said and I quote:
Hon. members will remember that the 1971 bill (which included certain provisions for 1971 and 1972) had not been read for the second time when the 28th Parliament was dissolved.
This means that this bill covers 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974, so I wonder how the Canadian National and Air Canada got the necessary funds during the past few years. And when we ask why this government has not taken any measures, why Bill C-4 has been nipped in the bud, it simply cannot lay the blame on obstruction by the opposition since it had an absolute majority in 1971.
This government was more concerned at that time by all the omnibus bills they had passed by all their "yes men" rather than introducing and having passed by this House bills which are necessary for the good operation of our country's administration.
Will the minister tell us, when this bill is considered in committee, what the government had to hide in all this matter of the CN.
It is indeed unexplainable that a Crown corporation receives such protection from government. Why was the minister not satisfied only with tabling the CN budget in previous years, without ever giving Parliament the opportunity to approve or reject it. Why did the government deliberately leave the CN money bills on the order paper after having refused to table the annual report and the auditor's report at the stage of the second reading?
As sixth objective, the parliamentary secretary of the minister announced the appointment of auditors for the years 1972, 1973 and 1974.
Mr. Speaker, I have been in business for over 30 years and it is the first time I have seen auditors appointed after three years of hiring. I have already said that if all private enterprises or the other Crown corporations used the same criteria as the Canadian National to administer themselves, they would all go bankrupt within six months. A Crown corporation can only survive because its administrative deficits are always made up by the workers' taxes and this is the principle which I have been struggling against since I first sat in the House. I do not want the
[Mr. Gauthier (Roberval).l
poor, the family head, to pay for a small group of inefficient bosses.
If Crown corporations cannot hire efficient people who decide to get to work instead of sleeping in the offices the workers have offered them with their taxes, I say these corporations should be transferred to individuals who would be able to operate them efficiently. I have already said it and I say it again, the administration of a government business costs three times that of a private enterprise. Why? Because in private business there are responsible persons who are personally interested, while nobody is responsible in a nationalized company because no one is specially concerned.
This is why the management of Crown corporations is so expensive. In addition, the technocrats who are directing the country are always too much interested in their own comfort and security to have enough time to consider the services which they should provide to the people.
In connection with those services, I hope that the minister will deem it advisable to ask the officials of the CN, including its president, to appear before the standing committee of the House, to give an account of their management and say why it is impossible to meet the responsible persons when an emergency occurs.
Last week, for example, I again witnessed an unfortunate incident. The train had left Montreal at 8 o'clock p.m. for Chambord, when it had to stop because a freight train had derailed eight miles farther. This happened at five a.m. and I was waiting, with all the others, for somebody to come to our rescue; around eight o'clock, I asked the conductor whether the authorities of the Canadian National had issued the required orders so that all passengers could reach their destination. That is when I learned that no one dared take any decision, in spite of the recommendations of the conductor and his assistants that first they had to feed the 84 passengers and then hire buses to take them back to civilization.
There were, I said, 84 passengers on the train and there was no cafeteria car between Montreal and Chicoutimi; they had removed the cafetaria car, in short, they had taken away everything. There was only a little bar where they served nothing but beer and other alcoholic beverages. That does not feed anybody, Mr. Speaker. I am telling this to hon. members so they may be aware of the stupidity of those responsible for the passenger service of the Canadian National in the Saguenay-Lake St. John area and know that this little bar is in the same car as the few bunks available on that train. Train technocrats call that a "sleeping car", Mr. Speaker, but bottles, screams, songs and music disturb everyone. I guarantee one thing, Mr. Speaker: if ever you travel on that train, you will get no sleep.
My time is almost up. Back to the derailment. I want to say that the Quebec authorities had decided, in their wisdom, not to give anything to eat to the 84 passengers and not to give bus service. Everyone was therefore condemned to spending 15 to 16 hours, in some cases even 24, waiting in the forest.
When the news came out, I took it upon myself to get in touch with the Quebec office and tell the people in charge
April 16, 1973

what I thought, adding that if the required services could not be given, I would call up Ottawa to get some action. That is when the person in charge in Quebec decided a sandwich and coffee would be made for each passenger and two buses would be sent. And so we got to Cham-bord-because we were about 100 miles from there- around three o'clock that afternoon, and in a school bus.
In passing, I would like to congratulate the train personnel for having done their best to help the passengers. But they had nothing, so what could they do?
Mr. Speaker, for many years now we have been telling the government that our area is shockingly being discriminated against as concerns transportation. In all the province of Quebec, ours is the area which brings to the Canadian National almost the largest freight revenue and yet we are unable to obtain a single sleeping car on the Montreal-Quebec line. Still, they will come to the committee and say: The service is perfect. It is so perfect that everybody is fed up and nobody wants to travel on that train. And yet, 20 years ago, we had not enough of 20 cars on that line. Today, there is one to be divided between Chambord and Dolbeau. I am saying that at the present rate, within two or three years, there will no longer be passengers because nobody will care to take the train.
I avail myself of this excellent opportunity to make all the members of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications aware of such situations.
I have provided just one example; all the derailments that have happened over the last ten years in the Sague-nay-Lac Saint-Jean area have cost millions of dollars, Mr. Speaker, not to the Canadian National but to the taxpayers of this country.
That is why I was saying a moment ago that the Canadian National authorities are practical jokers who enjoy making fun of the Canadian people. As far as I am concerned, the joke has ended. Either some cleaning has to be done in the CN or everything has simply to be sold. Let the government sell that Crown corporation to some private enterprise, and then we shall be sure to have at least equitable service adapted to the needs of the people.
Once more, I invite all the members of the committee to request its chairman to send for the responsible people as witnesses, to have them questioned and have this matter clarified once for all. Let them at least tell the committee that they have sworn to have this line disappear. Then, we shall know what to expect, and grants might be curtailed. Once more I appeal to all committee members for a serious discussions of this question.
I would have something to say about Air Canada but as there was too much to criticize about the CN, I think I will leave to others the task of dealing with Air Canada. But I want the case to be brought before the committee, to have these incompetent people appear before it in order to learn about certain things, make a clean-up and attempt to appoint at least a few qualified people.


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to join in this debate since it affords me the chance to discuss, in a fairly general way, rail transportation problems as they affect the economic life of western Canada and, in particular, the economic life of the
CNR and Air Canada
province of Saskatchewan. Much has been written and spoken in the past by prairie groups and western Canadian politicians on the prejudicial impact the existing freight rate structure has on the resource and industry development potential of the prairie provinces. Without the availability, however, of an efficiently run rail transportation and product handling system designed to meet shipper needs, making maximum use of the advantages rail technology has on the economic development and marketing of prairie natural resources in terms of costs to the producer, any success in achieving a downward revision of the existing freight rate structure will have limited impact on prairie resource development. The level of rail freight rates, relative to other producing and consumer areas in Canada, has long been a matter of vital concern to the prairie provinces and more particularly Saskatchewan.
Saskatchewan, historically and currently, is plagued by the handicap of paying a disproportionate share of transportation costs in marketing products in common world and domestic outlets. Saskatchewan residents also pay a high price on transportation of consumer goods purchased, predominantly in the major producing areas in eastern Canada. Geographically, Saskatchewan's continental location-approximately 1,200 miles to tide water at the west and about 800 miles to the lakehead-results in the provinces' wheat producers paying the highest average rail rates on export grain, and potash producers paying the highest inland transportation cost to place potash at tidewater, compared with other world wheat and potash producers and exporters.
It is, therefore, obvious when looking at a map of Canada that Saskatchewan has a real transportation cost differential to overcome because of distance when buying and selling in major domestic and foreign markets. Distance, however, is not the only factor affecting the level of freight rates in Saskatchewan. Competitive factors are also important. The railways' practice of charging different rates for the same service has been justified by some because of competitive forces. The existence or non-existence of competition is probably the most widely applied reason for the differential price of transportation, and I accept that the railways should not be denied the right to meet competition.
There is, however, no doubt that the lack of competitive forces in parts of Canada, particularly in western Canada, has had an impact on railway revenues. The availability of water competition in eastern Canada has, from the beginning of the railway era, exerted considerable influence on the freight rate structure in that area of Canada. Saskatchewan recognizes that, to some extent, for a portion of the long hauls inbound and outbound from eastern Canada, the existence of the waterways has eased somewhat the burden of over-all costs for the movement of Saskatchewan products and consumer goods. As water competition, however, is concentrated exclusively east of the lakehead, except for the existence of transcontinental rates which benefit British Columbia and disadvantage the Prairies, the complete lack of water navigation on the Prairies places eastern Canada in a much more favourable competitive position. As compared with the situation on the Prairies, a very large proportion of the total pro-

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
ductive output in eastern Canada is moved under the influence of water competition. Practically all of the large industrial centres in eastern Canada are located on natural waterways.
Proportionally as well, the development of road transport in the east and its consequent competitive impact on the railways has benefited eastern shippers to a much greater extent than has been the case on the Prairies. The railways have been forced to establish relatively low rates in eastern Canada to meet this competition, thus placing a heavier transportation burden on prairie shippers who lack the advantages gained from the availability of this competition. The lack and dispersion of population in the prairies and the nature of the outbound traffic-relatively low value, long haul and heavy loading-is not conducive to the development of comparable trucking competition.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the west pays dearly for its position as captive shipper to the railroads. In eastern Canada, water and truck transportation pose serious competition to the railroads, and rail rates are consequently held down. But the railroads have compensated for these relatively low revenues by charging high rates in the west. Between 1948 and 1958, the rate disadvantage to prairie shippers was fostered by a series of horizontal or percentage increases authorized by the transport commissioners. The increases applied predominantly to commodities and areas lacking in alternative modes of carriage. Consequently, the prairie provinces suffer a competitive disadvantage for marketing raw and manufactured commodities in terms not only of distance to markets but of higher rates per ton mile than eastern shippers pay.
The net results has been the favouring of industry in Ontario and Quebec and the retardation, particularly of secondary industry, in Saskatchewan. The railroads have co-operated with eastern industrial interests in maintaining this disparity. The rapeseed crushing industry is a case in point. The present rate structure dictates that it costs only 65.7 cents to transport one hundred pounds of unprocessed rapeseed from Saskatoon to Montreal, while the combined cost of transporting the crushed products, oil and meal, from that one hundred pounds is 102.3 cents.
Although for a number of reasons it is more economical to produce oil and meal on the Prairies, this 34.8 cents cost differential per one hundred pounds makes it cheaper to ship rapeseed east for processing. Eastern crushers, in short, enjoy a competitive advantage due solely to the existence of discriminatory freight rates. When the prairie crushers applied to the Canadian Transport Commission for rate modifications, their application was opposed by the two railways, the eastern oilseed processors, and the province of Ontario.
Present developments in the rapeseed industry dangerously parallel the situation of the flour milling industry in eastern Canada, similarly caused by discriminatory rate structures. As a Saskatchewan Member of Parliament, I accept the point of view that our geographical disadvantage, in terms of distance to markets, is a fact to be lived with. But the west cannot be expected to subsidize low water and truck competitive rail rates in other regions of Canada where high rates prevail at the expense of diversification and development of local industry. The situation is particularly intolerable in view of the fact that the west

is largely cut off from natural trading areas to the south and across the Pacific by protective tariffs. Our agricultural produce is sold in an international competitive market, yet, we must buy the manufactured products of eastern Canada. It is patently unjust that the west be hampered with discriminatory freight rates in developing its own secondary industry.
The national policy is explicitly opposed to the exploitation of one region by another. The evident tendency of the railways to persist in instituting rates prejudicial to industrial development in the west calls for stricter government control in rate setting. From this standpoint, the national transportation legislation of 1967 which allows the railways more freedom in instituting rate changes is a step backwards. As instruments of national policy, the railways cannot be permitted a role in the maintenance and promotion of regional disparity, by whatever device. The province of Saskatchewan has the most unfavourable transport position of the three prairie provinces, both from an import and export point of view. Our closest port is Churchill, at present limited to an 85 day season. Our main domestic markets for potash, pulp and lumber are in the mid west United States, a long all rail haul. Because of our central, land locked geographical location, our weak truck competition, and because the railways have been given the freedom under the National Transportation Act of 1967 to vary rates without reference to the regulatory authority, Saskatchewan makes the highest contributions to rail overhead costs on all rates, except export grain, of any province in Canada.
The railways perform certain services in the public interest for which they are paid subsidies. Since the passage of the National Transportation Act, some $410 million has been paid to the railways to the end of 1971. In addition, freight rates have been increased anywhere from 29 per cent to 67 per cent. In the intervening period, the railways have been confronted with enlarged export movements of coal, potash and grain. In fact, the railways have been unable to cope with the demand for certain freight services because of equipment shortages. Thus, potash sales go by the board because we cannot move it in sufficient quantities to Vancouver, and the federal government has to purchase 2,000 hopper cars for grain.
This brings me to a discussion of the National Transportation Act and some of the consequences of the removal of regulations in the railway system. The nub of the National Transportation Act of 1967 is expressed as follows:
Regulation of all modes of transport will not be of such a nature as to restrict the ability of any mode of transport to compete freely with any other mode of transport.
Released from regulation of rates, except when the Canadian Transport Commission might be asked by a shipper to review a rate, the railways have adopted an almost automatic formula for rate increases-one in the spring and one in the fall-without having to account to any regulatory tribunal. Since 1967 the general freight rate level has increased, as I have stated, from 29 per cent to 67 per cent depending on whether or not the rates are between eastern and western Canada or within western Canada.
April 16, 1973

The reason we in western Canada are suffering a 67 per cent maximum increase in rates can be understood more readily if we examine the following figures relating to the province of Ontario. It has been estimated that in Ontario 65 per cent of all freight loaded is transported by truck, including well over 80 per cent of all manufactured goods. No such comparable situation exists in western Canada, and particularly in Saskatchewan. In Ontario and Quebec, competition has acted as a brake to increasing transport costs. In the west, longer distances, small plants and low production volume of secondary industry, sparse population, plus a dependence on primary agriculture and resource industry, have militated against a breakdown of the rail monopoly and we pay the penalty in higher rates.
What can we do about excessive freight rates? As I have mentioned in my brief summary, a shipper can appeal to the Canadian Transport Commission to review a freight rate if the rate seems "to prejudicially affect the public interest". If the shipper makes a prima facie case to the commission, the commission will hold hearings and conduct an investigation. The rapeseed crushers of Western Canada and the Prince Albert Pulp Co. are cases in point. In fact, they are the first major cases placed before the commission since the new act was put on the statute books.
The rapeseed hearings lasted five weeks in Saskatoon, plus additional hearings in Ottawa. Legal counsel represented the three prairie governments, the governments of Ontario and Quebec, the eastern and western crushers and the railways. The total cost will run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Without the support of our three provincial governments, the rapeseed crushers could not have processed their legitimate case. The Prince Albert Pulp Co., seeking reductions in rates into the United States, had to proceed before the interstate commerce commission in the United States as well as the Canadian Transport Commission. Here, too the total costs will be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. You can see that only large companies or governments can successfully cope with appeals against unjust freight rates at the present time. The dice are loaded in favour of the railways in so far as the average shipper is concerned and unequalhanded justice is dispensed from Montreal or Winnipeg.
I submit that the Canadian Transport Commission has shown, to date, a pro-rail bias. I had hoped that when Mr. Pickersgill retired, a person familiar with regional transport problems would be appointed chairman. In fact, representations to the federal government to this effect were made by western Canadian provincial governments. What happened? We got Mr. Benson. I do not want to prejudge the new chairman but we from the west, and people in the Atlantic provinces as well, are sick and tired of having our vital problems of transportation decided finally by retired Ontario politicians. We demand that amendments be made to the National Transportation Act to simplify appeals against unjust rates so that the average shipper has access to the commission. We want a bridle to be put on the seemingly insatiable demands of the railways for high rates. We want the railways to maintain an adequate level of service to western Canadian communities.
CNR and Air Canada
What is required, Mr. Speaker, in western Canada and in Saskatchewan specifically, is a national transportation policy which is directed toward regional development. Instead of milking the west and keeping it as a source of raw material, a determined regional and national effort must be made to broaden our industrial base. When present transportation policy is a deterrent, as it now is, that policy must be changed. We must use our transportation policy as a vehicle of regional development.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the hon. members who have spoken on this important subject this afternoon, and I am surprised that once again government members are not interested in what is happening with respect to the financing of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. Apparently they believe that we should pass this item and proceed to another order of business. If this matter is not important, then obviously there is really not any point in discussing it.
I note that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Comtois) is here, but really this is a transportation matter and concerns something that has been the cause of a lot of problems to a lot of people over an extended period of time. A great deal of it centres around the financing of the railway. I have been glancing over some of the figures, and really nothing has changed. The last financial statement I have for the Canadian National is the annual report for 1971. All one needs to do is to read the general survey of the report. It shows gross revenues less non-rail revenues at $135 million. It shows operating revenues of $1,148.8 million, and expenses of $1,119.5 million. Net railway operating income was $21.3 million, other income $22.9 million, and net income before interest on debt $44.2 million. Net interest on debts totalled $68.5 million. That is the crux of the problem, Mr. Speaker. Are we going to be stupid enough to allow the government to continue something that has been recognized by most Members of Parliament for years as being in itself completely stupid? Or are we going to change the situation?
In the last parliament most of us decided that we would not pass the next financing bill of the Canadian National. So, an election took place. That situation does not exist now. I would like to know from the government how the hell it got around that situation. It has an obligation to tell us. What kind of tool did it use to do something it was not able to do in parliament? Did it use treasury bills to finance the Canadian National capitalization debt? Or did it just let the debt accumulate? It may seem as if this bill is a small item. My arithmetic is not good, but I have added up the figures and they come to approximately $486 million for the Canadian National and $270 million for Air Canada, which is about half a billion dollars for CN and a quarter of a billion dollars for Air Canada. To a Liberal government, the way it plays around with figures, that is not a sizeable amount of money, but we have not been given an explanation of what happened to the debt last year. It came to a total of $70 million. We did not pay that.
The reason that I and other members are interested in this is that the Canadian people have been told that they own the Canadian National, ever since the days of the Grand Trunk and the other railways that went broke.

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
That happened long before my time. But, Mr. Speaker, we have never paid for it. It is like buying an automobile and never becoming the owner of it. You pay the interest on the debt, and eventually the automobile wears out, so that you end up not owning anything. We still do not own anything in so far as the capital debt of the Canadian National is concerned. One does not have to go through the whole financial report to understand this. Most members are not competent to understand the financial report, and I confess to being one of them, although I have studied the CN report for a number of years and do know a small amount about it.
I know that in 1970 we paid $75.5 million as interest on debt, but before making that payment the railway had a net profit of $45.8 million. In effect, we have not reduced the debt at all. Some of that debt is owing to people who are long dead. Some of it carries an interest rate of 3 per cent in perpetuity. Bonds are still held by people in England and still carry an interest rate not unlike the previous one. This year the Canadian National Railways made a profit of $44.2 million, so it could have bought the hopper cars or established some branch lines or put a line into the Arctic if that were desirable. However, it could do none of those things because this year we have payment on the debt of $68 lA million. In times of war or other times when we find that we cannot pay off the principal of the bonds we put that amount into the national debt and pay out of national revenues the amount necessary to carry that debt. The debt is to buy the railway, not to operate it. Is it not time that we decided to write off the debt so that we can look at what the railway is supposed to be doing?
This bill indicates that the loan to Air Canada will be limited to $1 billion. We are going to lend Canadian National $270 million, but this gets mixed up with what was originally the capital for the purchase of the railway and what is normal operating expenses. An examination of the financial structure will show who owns the shares in Canadian National Railways, and the exact interest rates being paid, but there is a division between capital expenditures being made for current operating purposes and the capitalization originally provided to buy the railway on which we pay this huge amount of interest.
Some hon. members have mentioned problems in their particular areas. In my riding of Timiskaming there is the wholly owned Northern Ontario Railway, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. Most of us know that the railways are not operating to the advantage of many areas in this country. They are not .doing the job they should in theMaritimes or in northern Ontario. In fact, I believe they are not doing the job that they should in any part of Canada.
I was amused by a question which was asked today about amalgamating the services in Regina and Saskatoon. Many members from Ontario wonder what the improvement would be in the new service, and whether the service centres were going to eliminate the people working at the stations. Apparently a telephone service would enable you to order a boxcar or arrange for carload freight. It can all be done by a telephone call to the service centre. It has not worked to our advantage-the rates keep going up and the service keeps going down.

Yesterday I boarded a plane at six o'clock and arrived in Ottawa a little after eleven o'clock. That is the kind of service that is provided in northern Ontario. It would only have taken an extra two hours to drive the distance. Most of my travel is around Ontario. Years ago I used to be able to get on a train, go to bed, and wake up in any of the major cities of the country. The other day I ordered a bedroom and I found that it cost $28. What do I get for that? I am sure I am not interested in the porter-they do not even have stewardesses on the train. I am not sure what I get for the $28 except that I am getting rooked. The price of a bedroom is a disgrace when nothing has been added since it used to cost $12. The railways are pricing themselves out of the market.
The annual report mentions that Canadian National has applied for abandonment of most of the passenger services in Canada. This is not because they want to get out of the passenger business but because the CTC said that unless they make the application for abandonment they are not entitled to the 80 per cent subsidy the government will provide. Mr. Speaker, we can do something about putting the Canadian National Railways on a sound national basis. We can pay off that debt so that we know what the railway is making. The railway is making a profit of $44 million, but the interest payment on the capital debt is $68i million, leaving a deficit of $25 million. It seems to me that we must make some changes.
We have done some other foolish things in the area of transportation, Mr. Speaker. In this bill there is a reference to paying for an aircraft in sterling. Obviously, this would be one of the large superjets that we contemplated buying several years ago, the supersonic aircraft. No consideration has been given to building an airport for this type of aircraft which travels at three times the speed of sound. We have made no attempt to provide ground transportation to cope with such a modern society. We are still in the horse and buggy days-perhaps we have moved one step ahead, since we are no longer firing boilers with coal but have diesel engines now. However, that is all we have done. I am sure there is some Canadian National rolling stock still around which is steam driven and which has not been upgraded. I suggest that much of it is in the passenger service.
We are going to buy STOL aircraft to fly from Ottawa to Montreal. If we had a rapid transit system similar to the monorail in Japan which travels at speeds up to 300 miles an hour, it would be possible to travel from downtown Ottawa to downtown Montreal in one half the time required for STOL. There would be half the disadvantages of STOL. There would not be the dislocation of people and that sort of thing. We would not have to buck the traffic, nor would we have to drive on a speedway to the airport.
This is most amusing. In Ottawa, we built a speedway to the airport to facilitate traffic. We then allowed the National Capital Commission and the RCMP to use it as a source of revenue. In the city, the speed limit is 35 miles an hour and on the airport speedway, the limit is 30 miles an hour. Possibly the minister thinks that is a scenic drive and people will want to look around. I thought it was designed to speed up airport traffic, but that is not true. We drive faster in the city than on that blooming park-
April 16, 1973

way. That is the way we run our transportation system. Everything is backwards. This is what is happening in all fields of transportation. We have not faced the major problems. We have not faced the problem of financing the railway. Until we solve our major problems, many other problems will remain unsolved.
There may not be much support for building a railroad to the Prudhoe Bay area. It may not be possible to haul gas and oil by tankcars. It may not be possible to build a line along the west shore of Hudson Bay into the high Arctic. It may not be possible to extend the railway from Pine Point to the Arctic. History will show that this is by far the most advantageous way of opening our north.
I know something about northern rail lines. There is one in northern Ontario which was built through 100 miles of muskeg. If you got off the ballast track there, you would have difficulty walking. This line goes through many miles of low land before reaching Moosonee, but it has not disrupted the ecology of the area. It is a year-round facility that meets the needs of that area and, in my opinion, it should be expanded to meet other needs. I am not suggesting the CNR should have three or four lines into the high Arctic. However, we should be considering a railway line into this area. Already there is talk about using air tankers to bring oil to Montreal. We should be considering a ground facility. However, the general public would not support such a proposal as long as we do not have the brains to eliminate the financing problem that has been carried on for almost 100 years since we bought the bankrupt railways at an exorbitant price. We have never been in a position to pay off the principal. We are still trying to carry the interest.
We should look at this financing bill in a realistic way. The government should have enough gumption to tell us how the problem was solved last year. If the government does not need parliament to pass this bill, then let us move on to another order of business. It the government is really interested in the development of transportation, they should be honest enough to tell us what is being financed. Does the government intend to use this money to give a 3 per cent or 4 per cent cost of living increase to the widows of those who retired from the CNR many years ago? Do they intend to increase the pension of retired railroad workers? Do they intend to purchase new equipment or are they going to continue to pay the debt under the guise of other methods of financing? Obviously, the government has used other methods in the past. Last year parliament did not pay $75 million. This must have been paid in some other way or added on to something else. Before considering this bill, we need answers to some of these serious questions.
I have often said that we in this party are not interested in maintaining a second Senate, the Canadian Transport Commission. This Commission has been totally unsuccessful in handling the problems of the railways and other transportation problems. We have the idiotic situation where a second airport is being built outside of Toronto. Because one was built near Montreal, we must build one near Toronto. Because a white elephant was built at Ste Scholastique, we must build a white elephant at Pickering. Surely, there is more to this country than satisfying the idiosyncrasies of the people who live in Toronto and Mont-
CNR and Air Canada
real. If one city gets something, the other must have the same.
If the Canadian Transport Commission is going to do anything, it will have to solve some of these idiotic problems. Parliament should make the commission deal with some of the problems which face individual Members of Parliament. The transportation system is not satisfactory in any part of Canada. All kinds of deals have been made over the years that no longer apply. Many concessions that were made are no longer applicable. If some of these problems were solved, it would help the disadvantaged areas of this country. Whenever I attend a meeting in northern Canada or the Maritimes, I am always informed that it is the transportation problems that retard development. If that is true, every member who represents those areas should violently object to the passage of this bill until the government tells us what the transportation policy of this country is.
Although there are only slightly more than 20 million people in this country, we have two international airlines, plus the charter airlines. It was decided that CP should service one half this country and Air Canada the other. Any reasonable government would amalgamate these two airlines. There are reasons for not amalgamating the railways. They have been around a long time. They have built-in peculiarities, and have been given all kinds of benefits. There may not be any equality in rail transportation unless we take the whole Canadian Pacific and the whole Canadian National and unite them. But that is not true of Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines. This is the only country to my knowledge which allows itself the luxury of two international airlines, one going to the east and one going to the west. If Mr. Pratt has guts enough to stand up to the government it will be a surprise to me because he has never done so before. I congratulate him and I hope he wins in his fight to see that Air Canada goes into Italy. Why not? This area does not appear to me to be in Asia or the far east. It appears, to me, to be close to Central Europe. If the old agreement were in force, Air Canada'would have control of all the developments in the western area.
We should amalgamate those two air services. They should be considered as one agency, an agency of which Canadians should be proud and which they could use to make travel arrangements whether they were going east or west. We could call it whatever we liked. One of the largest airlines in the world is BOAC. Just a few months ago it amalgamated with its domestic counterpart. These companies, in England, were handling overseas, domestic and charter business. The decision has now been taken to amalgamate for the sake of efficiency, and I believe this decision meets with the approval of most people around the world who have become accustomed to using BOAC and identifying it with Britain.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I am not opposed to Canadian Pacific. If Canadian Pacific wants to take over Air Canada I would probably not have much objection. However, I think it is idiotic to allow these two large airlines, one in the east and one in the west, to operate as national airlines when we are such a small population in such a large area, and when so little service is provided in certain areas. I am

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
sure that even some of those who would not like to see Canadian Pacific taken over would agree that we in Canada are not getting service in feeder line areas. A while ago we decided to give northern Ontario to Nordair. Nordair does not want it. Nordair wants the line into Toronto because it is a paying proposition. But they don't want to go into northern Ontario. They don't want to go into Val d'Or. They don't want to go to Rouyn. They don't want to go to Timmins. They don't want to go to Sudbury. They want to fly from Montreal to Toronto.
If Air Canada had all the air routes in Canada, I am sure that what they lost on the apples they would make up on the oranges. They could run the overseas flights and they could run the trans-Canada flights-yes, and they could run flights into the areas represented by the hon. members to my right and give them better service to the main distribution points. I am sure that since it is a northern riding the minister is aware of many places from which people find it difficult to find scheduled flights to the north or south. That is true all across this country.
I am, personally, of the opinion that first things should come first.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


William Arnold Peters: Most members of the House in the last parliament were agreeable to the proposition that the first thing to be done involved the financing of the Canadian National Railways. Then, we would decide what was to be done about the company's capital structure. There is no question that Canadian National will need to borrow money. But any money borrowed to expand the railway should be money that the company is capable of repaying. But when we saddled the company with a debt which the company inherited when it came into being,-and, remember, it is parliament which always picks up the interest on this debt-it occurs to me that we did not buy this service; we just borrowed it from somebody and are just keeping up the payments. It is high time we did something about this situation.
Mr. Speaker, the government does not appear to be interested. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is not here. I do not know whether the parliamentary secretary is here or not.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: No.


William Arnold Peters: I don't know who he is, so naturally I do not know if he is here or not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay).


William Arnold Peters: Well, he may have to travel back here by rail and in that case we may not see him until after Easter. If he does travel by rail, he will be doing his job. I am sure most Members of Parliament have not been on a train for years and years. I am sure the Minister of Transport has not been on a train for years. My hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre has just disillusioned me by saying the parliamentary secretary was here earlier in the day and that he is therefore unlikely to be traveling around in the train finding out about the system.

What I am saying, though, is that there does not appear to be much interest in the subject we are discussing. Yet it is an important subject. I am of the opinion that Canada has not outgrown the railways, that there is a need in this country today for railways and that this need will continue for a long time to come. In particular, those who come from northern areas are well aware that when an area is developed by railroad there is a permanency to the development which cannot be brought about in any other way. It has certainly not been achieved by highway development. I believe this is true of the developments in Labrador, of the developments in Newfoundland, of the developments in northern Ontario and other regions.
It is interesting to note that northern Ontario developed and became a recognizable area only when the government of Ontario was forced to build the Colonial Railroad. When they did so silver and cobalt were found, and that is how Toronto was born. Before that, there were cabbage towns with few people and little money. After the railroad went into northern Ontario, nickel was found in Sudbury, gold was found in Kirkland Lake and Timmins, copper was found in the area and for years we supported the people of Toronto out of these resources. All this came about as a result of the Ontario Northland Railway. I am sure this is equally true of the developments in western Canada, of the developments in the Northwest Territories, in the uranium field at Pine Point and I am sure it is true of the development in Wabush. Lake St. John, I am sure, has a similar story to tell and I suggest there will be other sagas of railroading to be written in days to come about extension into the high Arctic in the centre, in the east and through the Yukon. They will make very interesting reading. They will make much better reading if we take from around the neck of the Canadian National the debt we hung there a hundred years ago, make it part of the national debt and make the interest payment direct from the treasury.
Obviously, this is a debt which the railway company cannot pay, one which it will never be able to pay, and one which is now being compoundied through bills of the kind before us which ask for specific amounts of money, in this particular case half a billion dollars, which appears to be required for capital expenditure. According to financial statements of the past, the company has been able to undertake capital expenditures in the past from its own funds after allowing for depreciation, the writing off of assets, and so on. But the railway has never been able to write off the debt which it inherited when the company was founded. In fact, the government has usually assumed the burden of the interest payments. It is true that in recent years the company made a payment of $25 million. Most of the money, however, comes out of general revenue, and it seems that this is the major problem we face.
The present government will, I am sure, make no change in transportation Policy. No change will be made for two reasons. First, the government will not admit that the Canadian Transport Commission which it devised, and which parliament established, and which I voted for because I thought it would serve an important purpose, has, in fact, failed to do the job for which it was set up. The Commission has failed to set any kind of reasonable policy. The CTC has also failed the general public in its approach to Bell Telephone and its tariff rates. It has
April 16, 1973

failed the general public with regard to making mandatory, service to the population in areas that need service. It has been used as a kind of Senate for retired politicians who did not want to return to their former practice, and has really met Dawson's requirements for politics in Canada that there must always be a body to which politicians who have served their usefulness can retire without getting into any difficulty.


Mr. Baldwin:: I thought he was in the NDP.


William Arnold Peters: When I studied Dawson there was no NDP, so I cannot be accused of using that. I suggest that the government take a serious look at the Canadian Transport Commission and at our whole transportation policy. We should take a look also at road transportation policy and at some of the legal decisions that have been made which allow interprovincial transportation to flow along our highways. Obviously, we must provide some rules and regulations governing this flow, and in this field I suggest we have totally failed.
Why does the government not look in the mirror and ask itself why it has not proclaimed Part III of the National Transportation Act? Why has it not got around the proclaiming what, in effect, was to be the guts of the National Transportation Act? I was one of those who supported the legislation. We did not set up the Canadian Transport Commission just to be an agency for retired politicians, or to decide whether Bell should get another five cents on its telephone bills, or whether it was just and reasonable that people in remote areas should have rail transporation available to them. Neither did we set it up to decide rail abandonment. We set it up so that it and not parliament would decide our transportation policy for the next 30 to 40 years.
The commission has the necessary expertise and we gave them legislation which allowed for greater leeway than most other agencies have been allowed. Yet it has failed totally. In fact, problems have got worse rather than better. I suggest-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on Bill C-164, I want to say at the outset that I concur with a number of the remarks which were made by my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), particularly with his reference to the failure of the government to implement Part III of the National Transportation Act which, in essence, constitutes the spirit of that legislation. I also concur with his remarks in respect of the manoevring and manipulation that have taken place in regard to Bill C-4, the previous CNR financing bill which died on the order paper in the last parliament, and the introduction of this particular piece of legislation.
I believe it is rather disturbing that, after a lapse of more than a year, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has now introduced Bill C-164 to cover the financial operations of Air Canada and the CNR for the period January 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974, and then implies through his parliamentary secretary that it should be disposed of without
CNR and Air Canada
delay. The previous bill Bill C-4, covered the operations of the CNR and Air Canada for the period January 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972. As hon. members know, it was never ratified by parliament. It was not even submitted to committee for study. As a result, a number of questions arise. I suggest that this bill should not be proceeded with or sent to committee until some of the questions that arise have been answered.
The first question is this. If Bill C-4 was to have been the vehicle providing for the authorization of certain sums of money to meet capital requirements for the operations of Air Canada and the CNR for the period January 1, 1972 to June 30, 1972, how was the business of Air Canada and the CNR transacted during this period without the ratification of parliament? Or is this bill simply a "nothing" matter which is used as a piece of filler legislation?
The second question is this. Inasmuch as Bill C-4 covered the period from January 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972 and Bill C-164, the bill we are now dealing with, covers the period January 1, 1973 to June 30, 1974, what has happened in regard to the six-month period of July 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972? Were no moneys expended during this period, or is there some other form of interim financing of carte blanche approval granted which in effect nullifies the necessity for these bills being presented annually? I suggest that this indeed is a very frustrating exercise and a questionable manoeuvre. Surely, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) should explain their actions in this regard.
We all are all frequently reminded of the days when this government had a huge majority which on many occasions it exercised to circumvent the will of parliament. We experienced the failure of the government to pay necessary sums under the provisions of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and also the difficulties with the Unemployment Insurance Act. Therefore, we ask ourselves whether this is simply another example of the type of arrogance that has been displayed in past days. I ask the government what held it back from proceeding with this measure in the last parliament. It had a huge majority and certainly had ample time to bring the bill forward and push it through committee.
As near as I can determine-I stand to be corrected since I am not a legal expert, a lawyer, or an authority on the operations of the Financial Administration Act or the CNR financing act-it appears to me very clear that the government has circumvented the role of parliament and acted in a manner which, in my opinion, is contrary to the provisions of the CNR act and the Financial Administration Act. If there is a legal loophole in this connection, I believe that one of the ministers of the Crown owes it to the House to explain what the loophole is; then, and only then, can we judge the importance of and the priority that should be given to this bill.
A third question arises, Mr. Speaker, and that is the question of the appointment of auditors, a matter alluded to by members who have spoken before me. Bill C-4 provided for the appointment of new auditors. However, as a result of that bill not being ratified to we have that section in this bill. Section 38 of the Canadian National Railways Act reads:

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
A continuous audit of the accounts of National Railways shall be made by independent auditors appointed annually by Parliament who shall annually report to Parliament in respect of their audit.
I simply want to ask what firm is now doing the auditing for the CNR and Air Canada. Are they being paid and, if so, under what authority? The parliamentary secretary offered an explanation in his submission when introducing the bill in the House last Friday. He pointed out that the auditing would be done on a rotating basis, and also that the rotating auditors would be appointed for a five to six year term. This would probably be an acceptable compromise.
No mention was made in Bill C-4 of the possibility of rotating auditors; there was simply a section dealing with the appointment of a new firm of auditors, namely the firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company, a change from the traditional group of Touche, Ross and Co. There was no explanation as to why the change was being implemented. Of course, parliament never really had the opportunity to deal with the matter in any great detail. I would simply ask whether this was a decision taken unilaterally by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Benson, and was it a reward for services rendered in past years to the firm of Peat, Marwick & Mitchell. We all know that the government looks after its friends and that it also looks after its defeated candidates. I am wondering what the government is trying to hide.


An hon. Member:: Patronage.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If everything is above board, Mr. Speaker, why has the government failed to produce the documents to which I have referred in notice of motion for papers No. 77 which reads:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents between the Minister of Finance and/or other responsible Ministers, and the auditing firms of Touche, Ross and Co., Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, in connection with the auditing services for Air Canada and Canadian National Railways.
This question has remained on the order paper since January, 1973, yet to this date I have received no reply, nor have I received the documentation in question. I simply ask what the government is trying to hide and what is going on here.
I should like to know why the 1972 budget for Canadian National was not tabled in this House until Thursday, February 8, 1973. If that is a normal occurrence, I suppose the government can offer that explanation. I simply ask in all sincerity why there was that kind of a delay, and why we have not had either an audited statement in respect of the CNR and Air Canada for 1972 or the annual reports. Is this because we do not have a firm of auditors ratified by parliament which could provide an audited statement and an annual report? What happens if parliament, in its wisdom, decides not to approve Clause 14 of Bill C-164, which provides for the appointment of two auditing firms? In view of the type of explanation we have been getting in respect of this particular facet of the bill, parliament may not see fit to pass this clause. Let me reiterate the fact that

under the provisions of Bill C-4 there was simply a change in the firm of auditors to be appointed.
When the parliamentary secretary introduced this bill he said, as reported at page 3297 of Hansard for April 13:
If the policy of rotating auditors were adopted, we should have to study carefully the frequency of the rotation. Evidently, the duration of the assignment should not be too short, because, otherwise, the auditors would hardly have enough time to familiarize themselves with the operations of the company and the intricacies of its accounting system, not to mention the special accounting requirements of the Canadian Transport Commission.
On the other hand, the long-term appointments made in the past covered far too long periods. Consequently, it was agreed that a five to six years' appointment would be an acceptable compromise, the first year and the last year to be overlapping periods during which two auditing firms would be hired.
Under Clause 14 of Bill C-164 we find that the firm of Peat, Marwick and Mitchell will be the auditors for the year which has concluded, 1972, and for the year 1973 we have the firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company and the firm of Coopers & Lybrand, both of the cities of Toronto and Montreal. For the year 1974, we will have the firm of Coopers & Lybrand. Those facts do not coincide with the policy enunciated by the parliamentary secretary. I should like to know if this is a makeshift change which came about as a result of an embarrassing situation which the government found itself in, or is this simply a form of corruption?
An hon Member: It is Liberal corruption.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Those are some of the questions in respect of which I believe this House requires an explanation. In my opinion, if these financing bills have any legal connotation whatever, then no firm of auditors, whether it be Touche, Ross and Co. or Peat, Marwick and Mitchell, have the authority to carry out the auditing services for the CNR and Air Canada. That being the case, I would ask the appropriate ministers of the Crown to explain this situation. Is this simply another example of this government's arrogance and inability to bring forward its legislation in an orderly manner? Whatever the answer, we should have some explanation.
Let me now turn to the nitty-gritty of the bill, and deal first with the operations of Air Canada and CNR. It should be clearly established that these two organizations form a vital and integral part of our transportation network in this country, and provide as suggested in Section 3 of the National Transportation Act:
-and 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 well-being 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-
When examining the operations of the CNR and Air Canada, I believe we must examine their performance in the light of this statutory statement of policy. There is no question in my mind, nor I am sure in the minds of hon. members in this House, that air transportation is a vitally important aspect of the development of Canada with its problems in respect of distance, sparse population and the development of various regions including the north.
April 16, 1973

At the present time it is interesting to note the game that is taking place between the Chairman of Air Canada and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). Much has been said in the House and in the press about the desirability of cutting up the aviation pie, as it has been referred to by my friends to the left. We should be under no illusions in this House that the Chairman of Air Canada is anything but one of the government's boys. I am sure that during his numerous discussions with the Minister of Transport, to which he has alluded on a number of occasions, everything has been rosy. I am sure they are dedicated to the same purposes and principles. I do not believe there is any conflict between the two.
The chairman of Air Canada is concerned about profit and protection. He believes competition is bad. Well, one can wonder how much less competition he really wants. After all Air Canada controls 75 per cent of Canadian air passenger service while Canadian Pacific Air Lines gets 25 per cent. Therefore, the growth of Canadian Pacific Air Lines and its penetration is predicated upon the growth and penetration of Air Canada. So, why the concern? Whatever Air Canada's competition may be, it will never exceed more than 25 per cent of the Canadian market because of the present policy. As a businessman this is very difficult for me, and I am sure for anyone who has ever been in business, to understand, especially in view of the remarks of the chairman of Air Canada who suggests that competition is bad for business. He suggests it is bad for the customer and bad for the company. This is particularly difficult to understand in view of the fact that Air Canada is assured of a 75-25 per cent allocation of the market.
I believe basic business principles apply equally to big business and small business. I sincerely believe competition is the lifeblood of business. In my opinion, it creates innovation and attracts technological advancement. I believe competition can provide a higher standard of service for the customer, in this case the travelling public. I believe customer satisfaction is a key to profit. I submit that the chairman of Air Canada, rather than running around in an effort to generate a certain amount of sympathy for Air Canada, would do better to examine his organization and direct his effort toward improving the service. He should be broadening airline service to more Canadians in this country. I also believe that competition can serve to reduce waste and inefficiency. If waste and inefficiency were reduced, this also would be beneficial to the customer and indeed to the corporation. Moreover, competition can create a challenge which in turn would help improve harmony and morale within the organization. This is something which obviously is lacking in the general structure of Air Canada.
I think competition creates a desire, if you are number one, to remain number one or if you are number two to try harder because you are aware that there is someone else knocking on the door. If a person has any dedication or loyalty to the company for which he is working, he will try harder if the company should be in the top spot to retain that position or if it should be in the second spot he will try harder to get it to the top. I think this is a situation which places everyone on their toes. It creates a
CNR and Air Canada
climate in which people pull together in an effort to do the job and serve the public. This is what Air Canada should be directing itself toward.


An hon. Member:: It does.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Some one said "it does". I just want to refer to a situation which developed in the Ottawa region last fall. I do not know which of the 19 or 20 vice-presidents is responsible for this. I refer to the method of placing a reservation in Ottawa. After midnight it can result in a real fiasco. With the advent of Tel-Pack, which was introduced last fall, all reservations, I understand, are now placed through the city of Montreal. This has resulted in what must be one of the lousiest reservation services in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Anyone who has had the experience of attempting to make a reservation after midnight will know that he may have to hang on to a telephone for periods of from a half hour to an hour. I am sure my friend, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lun-drigan), who I am sorry to say is not in the House at the present time has had this experience. He has been conducting a little campaign to draw this situation to the attention of the appropriate authorities. This is an absolute disgrace. When one cannot contact the national airline after midnight at its home base without this kind of a delay something is certainly rotten. To me, this is an example of a big league airline operating with bush-league business practices.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You are quite right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Whichever vice-president is responsible for this situation and has not had the common sense to overcome or improve it should have his ears chewed off. Furthermore, the chairman of Air Canada should acquaint himself with the situation and provide the necessary staff to do a proper job in order to ensure the calibre of service the public really deserves. I suggest that this situation will not be improved simply by a reduction of competition and more protection for Canada's national airline.
We wonder also about the effect of the decentralization of Air Canada's operations. We know that part of the servicing organization was moved from Winnipeg to Montreal.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order No. 40, to advise the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour)-
3342

April 16, 1973
Transfer of Base at Ladner
Pollution-Qu'appelle Lakes, Sask.-Implementation of recommendations in report; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland)-Income Tax-Practice of discounting tax rebate cheques-request for government regulation; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Canadian Culture-Multiculturalism-policy of Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) is rising on a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: May I call it a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker? Reference was made to the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and I were not in the House this afternoon. I should like to have it on the record that the reason both of us were not in the House this afternoon was that we were meeting a very important delegation from western Canada pertaining to the same matter that has been under discussion in the House this afternoon.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


John Douglas Reynolds: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of transferring the Crown lands, commonly known as the Canadian Forces Station Ladner or the Old Boundary Bay Airport, together with the buildings thereon, to the municipality of Delta and, in co-operation with the municipality, develop the areas as an industrial-recreational complex of pollution-free secondary industries, parkland, ocean beaches and sports stadia for the benefit of Delta, Richmond and the Lower Mainland and as an example to other medium-sized urban and suburban communities of the value of such a complex.
He said: Mr. Speaker, possibly no greater opportunity exists for the government to contribute to the over-all development of an area with a minimum capital investment than in the Boundary Bay area of the municipality of Delta in British Columbia. In co-operation with the municipality of Delta, there exists an area with potential for development as an industrial-recreational complex comprised of pollution free secondary industry, parkland, ocean beaches, and sports facilities. This complex would benefit not only the residents of Delta and Richmond, but also the entire lower mainland of B.C. and could serve as an example to other medium-sized urban and suburban communities.
We have already seen the federal government propose multi-million dollar developments for the Toronto waterfront and we have an idea of the benefit that will be
accorded the citizens of the entire metropolis. We have seen how multi-million dollar expenditures on Montreal's Expo have served to benefit the citizens of Montreal by completely changing an area that previously offered very little. Benefits of similar proportion can be accomplished in the area to which I am referring with an investment of one fraction the amount of money. But the government must take positive steps now if these goals are to be achieved.
For example, at this particular site there is an airport hangar which at the present moment is of little value. With modifications, and again limited expenditure, this facility could be turned into an arena to serve the needs of the thousands of children and sports enthusiasts in one of the fastest growing areas in Canada. The miles of beaches that are presently not being used for recreational purposes could be transformed into one of the finest beach areas in the province with limited federal spending. In addition, the very real possibility exists of turning the entire Boundary Bay area into a vital tax resource for all levels of government. With limited government investment, the existing Boundary Bay airport could become the lower mainland's principal airport for small private aircraft in the years to come. The tendency over the past decade has been to segregate the larger aircraft from smaller aircraft used for business and utility purposes. One of the most costly items in the construction of any airport is in the initial acquisition of land, but in this case the land, with an existing airport, is already there. The principal cost now is in maintenance rather than in acquisition.
It would be in the best interests of all who carry on business from the Burnaby-Richmond-Delta and lower mainland area to have an active local airport for small private aircraft at this location. In addition, the advantages are obvious to those interested primarily in the recreational facilities which could be incorporated virtually hand in hand. New businesses would be attracted to the Delta area by virtue of the fact that they could locate near an airport which could effectively and efficiently carry personnel to their branch plants. The airport would thus aid in the growth of the area and offer greater employment opportunities in the entire mainland area.
New facilities will be necessary to support this industry and thus contribute to the over-all economy of the area. Possibly some of the smaller firms presently located at the Vancouver international airport will move due to the high lease rates and the overcrowding. This, in turn, will permit an orderly expansion of the present facilities at the Vancouver international airport. Boundary Bay airport is already built and is served by good access roads. There is no other area that is so capable of incorporating the airport, an industrial complex and a recreational complex all in one, each one nurturing the other, and each one complementing the other.
Possibly, the former Centralia air force base could be regarded as an example of an industrial development which became successful because of its airport. But no such undertaking can be successful without a proper environmental impact study carried out with respect to the implementation of this proposal. It is appreciated that an environmental impact study cannot be completed overnight, but the long-range program in this case is of such

April 16, 1973

importance and of such over-all benefit to the people concerned that virtually everyone is prepared to accept the fact that time is required. But what is most important is that the government consider this proposal, consider the advantages, consider the need for a recreational area, consider the need for additional job-creating light industry, consider the quickly disappearing waterfront recreational land available and commit itself to an in depth study with the minimum amount of delay. The corporation of Delta is prepared to assist in the establishment of a joint environmental study of the available facilities, and the council will render all possible assistance and co-operation to the federal authorities.
In conclusion, given the existing ingredients and the land availability, and given the spirit of co-operation among all levels of government as well as between ministerial offices, there is herein the opportunity not only to set an example in this field but to provide jobs through the creation of pollution free light industry and to afford a recreational facility for thousands of residents of the entire lower mainland. Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to consider and act upon this motion.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this motion, I should like to associate myself with the mover and seconder. I think it is a splendid idea that a motion such as this should be brought forth at this time, and hon. members should have an opportunity to debate it briefly on the floor of the House of Commons for it is my hope that we will see the motion sent to committee for study. I do not know the coastal part of B.C. as well as I know the interior where I have lived for many years but, having lived in the Vancouver district for a considerable period of time, I do know that the Boundary Bay area could be made into one of the outstanding environmental playgrounds on the Pacific coast. Having been a member of the B.C. legislature, I am aware of the fact that on numerous occasions over the years we have had briefs from various groups in the area urging that action be taken provincially to preserve many of the fine beaches to which the mover of the motion has referred.
A subject, in which all members are clearly interested and which was mentioned in the address we just heard, is the environmental studies. I urge the federal government to look into this part of the motion without delay. There is no reason why a sound environmental impact study could not be launched at this time, and I agree with the mover of the motion that it will take some time for an adequate study to be undertaken and for the results of that study to be assessed. We should not delay. Time is of the essence. The growing community of Vancouver and the whole Fraser valley area is in need of further recreational facilities, and here is an opportunity for the government to do something which would assist in setting this area aside for all time for the purposes outlined in the motion.
I know that it takes time for the wheels of government to get rolling and for the government take action. But again I am going to suggest to the government that they refer this motion to the appropriate committee for the necessary studies and I hope that it will pass the House of Commons this afternoon. Our group is certainly interested in seeing studies of this nature carried out, and we will
Transfer of Base at Ladner
certainly endorse the resolution which has been presented to the House this afternoon.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the motion. The Department of Transport accepted the transfer of the former RCAF station, Ladner, in June, 1972. Discussions concerning the future of the airport have been held and representations have been received involving the corporation of Delta, the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, Walter Industries of Canada Limited, officials of DOE and the Department of Transport.
I see no objection to considering the advisability of transferring the land to the municipality of Delta for the use described in the notice of motion, at the same time as consideration is being given to the feasibility of a number of alternative uses of the property. However, I wish to make it clear that by agreeing to the motion neither I, the minister nor the government is giving any undertaking that the lands will be transferred to the municipality or, if they are transferred, will be used as suggested in the motion.
A careful study, and here I agree with the hon. member, will be carried out into desirable uses of the property, bearing in mind all the conflicting interests which are involved, and the interest of the public in those uses, before any final decision is arrived at by the department.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see two hon. members rising on points of order, the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any other motion to be dealt with during private members hour today, and in view of the importance of the motion just passed and of the springtime nature of the day, I think we might come to agreement to adjourn at this time.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, in view of the considerable amount of business dealt with this afternoon, I must agree with the hon. member.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, it would seem appropriate, on a day like today, when a motion like this has been passed concerning what we call sunny Delta, the sunshine capital, and since this is the sunniest day in Ottawa since I have been here, that we should adjourn.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Apparently everybody sees it as six o'clock. It being six o'clock, or thereabouts, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At 5.16 p.m. the House took recess.
3344

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-164, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, 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.
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Prior to private members' hour, Mr. Speaker, I touched briefly on the matter of Air Canada and its policy of centralization, particularly in respect of the servicing and maintenance of aircraft. It seems to me that a number of questions arise as a result of this policy, particularly with the advent of the wide-bodies jets, the L-1011 and the 747. I believe these aircraft lay-over in the Vancouver area, and in my opinion it would make for a very efficient operation to carry out a certain amount of servicing and maintenance in Vancouver.
The other question is, what happens to the Dorval facilities when Ste. Scholastique goes into operation? There will be a certain amount of cost and inconvenience in ferrying aircraft from one airport to the other in order to carry out necessary maintenance. On the whole broad question one can only ask whether the concept of centralization has given the greater degree of efficiency in service and maintenance to Air Canada. Also, is the policy of centralization consistent with the policy of the federal government which has announced in many areas its attempt to decentralize operations.
I would be remiss if I failed to point out a matter which rather alarms me in the 1971 annual report of Air Canada. Are the huge costs of sales and promotion justified? Something in the order of $75.6 million was spent on sales and promotion to move 7.4 million passengers. That works out to $10 per passenger ticket. We might also ask whether Air Canada is utilizing these funds to take quarter-page ads in the Globe and Mail to push air traffic to Hawaii via Los Angeles through the Pan American system. We also wonder whether the administrative cost of $23.8 million, which works out to approximately $3 per passenger ticket, is justified. We question whether there could be any shaving of administrative expenditures, particularly in light of the fact that there are 19 or 20 vice-presidents on the Air Canada board of directors.
We also wonder about the desirability of the purchase of Wardair by Air Canada. It has been said that it was purchased because of its leadership in the charter field. But, Mr. Speaker, Air Canada controls 34 per cent of all charter traffic in Canada, while Wardair has roughly 27 per cent and Canadian Pacific approximately 10 per cent. In short, Air Canada handles more passengers on a summer weekend than Wardair does in a year, yet in putting its case before the Air Transport committee the argument was that Air Canada required a great amount of expertise in the movement of large numbers of people.
This argument seems to me invalid and I wonder what the real reason was for Air Canada's purchase of one-third of the interest of Wardair. Was it simply because the IDB has a huge investment in Wardair and the loan was to some extent in jeopardy? These are questions that must be answered, Mr. Speaker, because the argument put forth by Air Canada, namely, that it needed to acquire Wardair's expertise in the movement of large numbers of people, does not hold water in my opinion. On the broad picture we wonder whether this monopoly will bring about cheaper air fares for the travelling public, or will it breed more inefficiency and protection for Air Canada while in effect depriving passengers of freedom of choice?
I turn now to the matter of air service as it pertains to western Canada, particularly the cities of Edmonton and Calgary. I note with interest that Air Canada plans to expand its regional air service in northern Ontario. I have no argument with that because I realize it is important to have adequate air service in all parts of Canada. However, it seems to me rather inconsistent with Air Canada's policy, because over the years it has been attempting to get away from handling regional air traffic. It gave up the route between Calgary and Edmonton and left a void which was very successfully filled by Pacific Western Airlines.
I believe that Edmonton and Calgary deserve a direct link to the nation's capital; indeed, I believe that every provincial capital deserves a direct link to the nation's capital. What we in western Canada need is greater frequency of service. We do not necessarily need huge jets like the L-1011 and 747, but more DC-8 and DC-9 jets to connect with eastern and western Canada. We need more flights and additional international links with the United States.
Bilateral talks have been going on for some time. Edmonton is desirous of obtaining a link with Minneapo-lis-St. Paul. This has been talked out for years. The time has come when this service should become a reality. The advent of wide-bodied jets such as the L-1011 and the 747 will undoubtedly cut down further on our frequency of service. We do not want the frequency of service decreased. With these large jets, Air Canada will be more concerned about moving larger numbers of people rather than increasing service for these areas.
The cities of Calgary and Edmonton have grown and matured to the stage where they should have a direct link with Ottawa, rather than going through Toronto. There is quite a campaign going on in the city of Toronto about who wants airplanes flying around, and who does not. The

April 16, 1973

travelling public in western Canada who are heading to Ottawa would very much appreciate going around the bottleneck that exists at Toronto airport.
I want to summarize my presentation on air service by quoting from a study which was conducted by the Transportation and Development Authority of Calgary. The study is entitled "Air Service Requirements of Calgary, 1972-1976." I believe there are some valid points in this report. The report can be applied to many areas throughout Canada. I want to put this on record for consideration by the minister and others who are interested in the air transportation industry. I wish to quote from page 9 where the recommendation is as follows:
First, there is a growing tendency for regional carriers to assume responsibility for regional services, thus relieving Air Canada of that responsibility and weakening the agreement that Air Canada's financial position must be protected from serious transcontinental competition.
The next factor is something I pointed out earlier:
Second, there are numerous benefits to be realized from allowing competition. These include increases in frequency, quality, and efficiency. Third, the analyses upon which present restrictions were developed were conducted six years ago. Fourth, there is no certainty that the transcontinental market, given better service, would not be capable of supporting competition. Fifth, the present restrictions will not permit the gradual implementation of effective competition as the transcontinental markets expands.
These are good recommendations and should be considered when reviewing the over-all air transportation policy both in Canada and in respect of our international air service.
Throughout my presentation I may have sounded somewhat critical of the operations of Air Canada, but I want to say that I am very proud of Canada's national airline. There are a lot of dedicated people who work for that airline. However, I want to assure Your Honour that there has been a great deal of degeneration and deterioration in the service and, indeed, in the morale of the people who work for the airline.
The management should take a very close and hard look at their operations. I urge the chairman of Air Canada and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to stop playing this superficial game of cat-and-mouse and get on with the job of serving Canada's air travelling needs. They can encourage a greater degree of pride, initiative and dedication for the people who have worked so hard and have dedicated themselves to making Air Canada an efficient and proficient airline.
I want to deal briefly with the servocentre concept as it relates to Canadian National Railways. Much of what has been said about the implementation of the servocentre concept has been negative. I want to go on record as being totally against the concept of the servocentre. It is a sophisticated computer network. Canadian National have advised that the concept is not being initiated simply for economic reasons. If that is the case, we must ask for whose benefit the servocentre concept is being developed. Certainly it is not for the patrons of the railways.
Over the past number of years we have witnessed the closing of railway stations in smaller centres throughout western Canada. The business has not been funnelled to the larger centres. It has been lost. We do not have anything now to prove that it will be transferred to the larger
CNR and Air Canada
centres. When station operators are taken out of communities of 4,000 and 5,000 people, there is a drop in business accruing to the railways. There has been a great deal of centralization, with a number of smaller communities losing their station operators. The customers expect personalized service. They want a representative on hand, particularly with the degree of rationalization that has taken place to this date. How can anyone expect from a centralized computer center the kind of personal service he deserves? CN representatives say they will improve service by offering a Zenith telephone number and periodic visits by the customer representative. This has not worked in the past and it will not work now.
CN and CP are guilty of deliberately withdrawing from their responsibility of providing express service and passenger communications service to hundreds of small communities in Canada. I believe it is deliberate. If one looks at the stations now in existence, they see that they are the most run-down buildings in the communities. This is really disheartening, because to lose the CN or CP agent is to lose a very prominent citizen. He is one who has actively participated in the various activities of the community. To lose an on-hand representative is certainly very discouraging.
An application for a servocentre concept has been made in my community of Vegreville. Upon examining the revenues derived from that particular station, we found that one-third of the revenue generated was derived from passenger sales, express and communications services. One-third of all the revenue from that station comes from this source. I believe the CN should have an on-hand representative to properly look after this business and promote additional services.
In view of the fact the minister and the government have undertaken to examine the transportation needs and the economic opportunities of western Canada over the next year or so, I recommend that while this review is going on there should be an indefinite postponement of any further abandonment of station operators and the closing of these facilities. We cannot allow this to continue without having some knowledge of what the future holds with regard to the total transportation picture and the matter of rail line abandonment. We now have a number of studies which relate to the abandonment of a number of lines and elevators. This will ultimately result in reducing the number of elevators and the number of serviceable lines by approximately one-third. I urge the minister and this government to use their good offices to encourage CNR to stop this deliberate degredation of rural Canada. I see my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, since Friday, I have been carefully listening to my hon. friends' speeches and unlike most of them, I do not feel compelled to use all my time, because I intend to clearly state my views instead of hearing myself talking and putting hon. members to sleep.
We are now studying Bill C-164, an act to authorize the provision of moneys for two Crown corporations. As it is asked by the government, we have to approve capital expenditures for the CNR and Air Canada.

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
Through the Governor General's recommendation we can evaluate that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) is requesting an aggregate amount of $225,500,000 for the capital expenditures of the CN in 1973, $75 millions for the capital expenditures for the six first months of 1974, $167,500,000 to enter into contracts for new equipment, and finally, $21 millions for branch lines loans, and I do not know whether those $21 millions will be used by officials to branch out or only to take root in a foolish administration. Mr. Speaker, we are asked to approve $489 millions to maintain a business which is poorly run, without convenient service, which is 25 years behind and to perpetuate a stupid administration.
We heard Western members-conservative members because there are no liberals in those areas-members from Central provinces and Eastern Canada, and all of us have explained with numerous examples how rotten the present service is, the decrease in passenger service and the incompetency of CN officials.
Mr. Speaker, considering the way in which the government manages that type of undertaking, we wonder whether the people in charge of the CN are even slightly competent. It may even be that they are so incompetent as to be unable to carve out a peg to plug up a hole.
Mr. Speaker, this company is said to be responsible to Parliament. It is quite willing to ask for credit, but what control does the government exercise over it? None whatsoever, to the extent that towards the end of the recommendation in the bill, it is said, and I quote:
. .. such loans to be repaid from revenues of the Railway Company and Air Canada or . . .
And here go the government controls-
. .. or, if revenues prove insufficient by subsequent deficit appropriation by Parliament.
In other words, the government guarantees $489 million today, and if that proves insufficient it will give more. The government could not care less how it is spent, whether it is thrown out the window, spent on bubble gum, or what have you. It gives $489 million today and if in six months or a year from now that proves not to be enough, it will give more without exercising any control. Let it be spent on anything at all, or even thrown out the window, for that matter. And if you are short of money, we government idiots will give you more to replenish this $489 million petty cash.
Mr. Speaker, I shall say like one of my friends that this is not disgusting, it is damned disgusting to see such an administration. And through the Canadian Transport Commission, we try at a certain time to get justice. And what about these jerks who go beyond limits, beyond the government's authority, even Parliament's? These are arrogant officials like this chap, Thompson, who tells us stupidly: When I say no, it is no.
Here is proof that these corporations are in no way under government authority. They are only playing the hypocritical game of a mitigated democracy. These officials say: To hell with you. And I would not be surprised if they used the picturesque language of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to tell us to eat something.

Is it known that officials like those of the CNR and even of the government, delight in managing in the most "honourable" jumble.
Let us think about it. The CNR makes $42 million in profits but the interest on the debt amounts to $68 million. Finally, it reports at the end of the year a $20 million deficit. That is the management of a company that we cannot control. What progress has the CNR made? What modern method of transportation has it adopted? What did the government do to force it to improve its means of transportation? Absolutely nothing. Now, Canada developed according to the rythm of the railways at the turn of the century. Nowadays, means of transportation are still the same as they were at the beginning of the century. They do not want to create or improve the systems, they will delay their development.
This afternoon, we heard members from all sides of the House say it is badly operated. The CN does not want to improve the transportation systems while it is so important nowadays for example to consider more and more the needs to curb pollution. The government does not do anything to force these companies to improve their systems of transportation while complying with scientific data. Before approving moneys, why does the government not force these companies to allocate a fraction of the moneys to the improvement of means of transportation? Canada is the ideal country for that: Why not force the companies such as the CNR for example, to use faster trains? They do exist. Everyone has heard about them. In Japan, for instance, trains travel at 200 miles an hour which would be ideal for Canada, because of the distances involved. It would even solve the problems of requirements for increasingly larger airports, such as Pickering, or Sainte-Scholastique, and the resulting problems facing the people. Fast trains would be an ideal solution for travel from one city to another. Why does not the government compel the CNR to work in that direction? It does nothing about it.
We still pass the time voting funds and assuring the CNR that if it does not get that money, it will get some through special warrants. We have heard about the service provided to passengers on the Ottawa-Quebec, Quebec-Montreal or Montreal-Lake St. John lines or to people who travel on those 1890 cattle cars where no attention is given to passengers. However, on the Ottawa-Montreal line, there is an hourly bus service. Why could we not offer the same services through rapid train systems? No, we are satisfied with old systems which are kept going through legislation authorizing the granting of funds without compelling the recipients to do some development.
Such are the comments which I wanted to make, Mr. Speaker. My remarks relate not only to the transport system as such but also to its financing. As I said earlier, interest is up to $68 million and profits up to $42 million, so the deficit is down to $20 million. That is exactly the type of administration that we deplore and to which we are opposed.
The same thing happens at the government level where there exists a deficit system due to interest. We see the government decry inflation. Inflation is eating away at us.
April 16, 1973

The expenses of such crazy systems where you pay more interests then you can make profits are precisely a cause of inflation. When interests will have eaten away more of the profits of a company like the CN or the government it will be realized that inflation is still growing without being able to solve the problem.
We say that any new production must be financed through new credits and as long as the government does not admit that we will be caught in crazy systems such as those we have now, deficit systems, systems where prices steadily go up while quality goes down, where prices go up while easier access to consumer goods is being destroyed. Interest goes up, costs go up in such systems.
Creditists have said and repeated for many years that any new production must be financed through new credits and not through crazy loans to pay interests on fictitious debts as can now be seen with respect to the CN. As long as the government does not understand that, as long as it does not accept to consider in a positive way the suggestions we make, as long as we are presented with small bills such as the one before us to try and make us believe that the government is deciding more or less what decisions are to be taken by Crown corporations-because, in fine print, they are promised money by the barrel-we shall never see the end of it.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks I wanted to make and I hope that the government will wake up once and for all and acknowledge with us that the present system is debt oriented and not tailored to efficient service. It is about time to ensure that this objective is reached.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with BillC-164,1 want to make it abundantly clear at the outset, as I have in the past, that I am not prepared to use Canadian National Railways as a whipping-boy. Nor am I in any way condemning the employees of the CNR. These are hard working, conscientious men and women dedicated to their task. Any criticism of transportation in Canada belongs at the door of this government, and particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). Canadian National Railways and Air Canada are operators. They carry out the policy, or lack thereof, to the best of their ability. Where this policy is outdated or completely lacking, we cannot possibly blame the operators for the deplorable situation in which we find ourselves.
Railways are the backbone of this country, both literally and figuratively. Properly operated, Canadian National Railways has, in my opinion, a far greater potential for the reduction of regional disparity in this country than the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or any other program developed by this government. The key words are "properly operated". The present administration has not, to date, demonstrated any ability or inclination to bring in any policies consistent with the present needs, never mind the future; instead, they use exactly the same indifferent and arrogant approach that they have used in the past.
For the moment, let us consider the recent financing bills of the Canadian National Railways starting with Bill C-186, which was passed in 1971, covering the financing of the railway system and Air Canada from January 1, 1970, to June 30, 1971. Bill C-4, which was never passed, was
CNR and Air Canada
intended to cover the financing from January 1, 1971, to the first day of June, 1972. Then there was an overlap of six months, and finally we have Bill C-164, which covers from January 1, 1973, to June 30, 1974, leaving a gap of six months completely devoid of covering legislation. Was this overlap and gap of six months an error? Did the people in the department who prepare the legislation not know or not care? In any event, the whole time period was left without covering legislation and I will be interested in finding out in detail how this was and is to be handled.
We have the further irony of changing auditors after having accepted the seemingly satisfactory services of one company for many years. The change of auditors was announced in Bill C-4, which was of course, as I have said, never passed; and in Bill C-164 we find confirmation of the 1972 auditors, two separate firms of auditors for 1973 and one of those two firms for 1974.
As a new member, I cannot review past practices from experience, but I have had very detailed experience with auditors at another level of government and in private industry and I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this whole deal smells. It literally reeks to high heaven. Without questioning the capability of any of the auditors mentioned, I know that you do not change auditors without just cause, and having a former senior official with one audit company now a highly placed government employee, while I deplore and question the situation, is not just cause. Furthermore, under no circumstances do you appoint auditors, either new or in a continuing capacity, without the approval of the senior body, in this case the parliament of Canada. Appointing the auditors for 1972 retroactively in 1973 is highly questionable from a legal point of view, ridiculous from a practical point of view and smacks of arrogance in the extreme from the point of view of responsibility to the parliament and the people of Canada.
In 1973 we are asked to approve two sets of auditors. Obviously, one company is sufficient to complete the audit. Why, when, do we need two? The extra cost must be staggering. How much extra will probably be very difficult to ascertain. If the need for the third auditor is transitional, that is to say, while changing from one firm to another, surely we could have stayed with the second firm for a little longer since we have been adequately served by the first firm for many years.
If, on the other hand, the firm appointed for 1972 and jointly for 1973 has not been adequate, then the government should say so. If their services are adequate, even considering the involvement, directly or otherwise, of a past member of that firm in the Department of Transport, they should be kept on for a minimum of five years so that we can take advantage of their cumulative knowledge. These firms are of the highest calibre, and to be in the position of moving them around like pawns in a political chess game places them in an untenable position to the shame of the minister responsible. Or is the minister responsible? That is another question I shall expect to have answered.
For the moment, I do not intend to deal with the individual clauses of the bill; rather, I will go along with sending it to committee. But I assure the Minister of Transport that it will not be reported out of committee

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
before I or a number of my colleagues have had answers to each and every question I have raised, and many more contained in the legislation. The continuing arrogance of this government in asking for quick passage of legislation such as this, without justification, will not be condoned.


John Paul Harney: At the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I have listened with a certain awareness to the comment of the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette) and I must note, concerning his proposals, that the dynastic aspect of politics are simply not transmitted through consanguinity, but through similar ideas. As we often say, like father, like son!

Before I begin my remarks, properly speaking, I might be allowed to make a couple of comments on what has gone on. I was intrigued by the intervention of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) proposing in some way that Air Canada be permitted to carry the can when it comes to air travel in Canada so that CP can pick up the chips. This reminds me of debates in the past with regard to the efficiency and profitability of the CN in relation to the CP. The poor old CN has always been the whipping-boy.
Canadian National is a public-owned railway. How useful it was for parties in this country, and I do not mean just political parties, to be able to refer to the CN as one horrible example of the effect of public ownership. Year after year we were told, "That is not the way to run a railroad; and besides, it loses money." Of course, it was never pointed out that the CNR does make money on the operational side but because it has to carry the debts of long ago its profit is quickly erased, so the poor old CNR winds up in the red.
My hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) gave the reasons this afternoon. Back in the twenties and early thirties, the government of the day picked up the can for a lot of its friends who had invested not too wisely in a number of railroads which were going into bankruptcy. It also picked up the tab to cover the losses of the private investors. To this day the CN is carrying the interest on these advances of a long time ago. It is no wonder the CN can rarely show a clear profit in its annual statements. Surely we could get around this business of partisan or political flummery by having the people of Canada, through this parliament, pick up this ancient debt and take it off the shoulders of the CN so that we can see once and for all whether a publicly-owned railway can operate efficiently.
However, even a cursory reading of the annual reports of the CN-and in case hon. members have not seen them, there is a resume at the back of the latest annual report- will show that as a publicly-owned corporation the CN is managing to show an operating profit. By comparison one can always point to the CP whose major function over the years has been to stick its fingers into the Canadian pie and pick up the plums. No wonder it is successful. With a deal of that kind, dating back to the early days of confederation, one would have to run an absolutely inefficient (Mr. Ellis.l
operation in order not to make money. The CP cannot help but make money. When I hear of the government offering yet more plums to the CP by way of airline routes to Milan, I can see the past repeating itself; I can see members of the opposition in years to come-and members of the government party, too, when it is their turn to be in opposition-berating the CN and Air Canada in relation to the profitability of the CPR and the CP Air operation.
Many years ago an American gentleman spoke forcefully about what was then called social democracy-socialism, as we know it today. He was asked whether he was in favour of government ownership of the railways. This is still a radical idea in the United States. This man, Eugene Debs, then said, "Gentlemen, I would rather have government ownership of the railroads than railroad ownership of the government." That is the nub of the question. This is the picture we have seen in Canada: set up the CN so that it can act as a whipping-boy or strawman. Set up the CN in such a way that it can never, or rarely show a clear profit and we shall always be able to show that public enterprise does not work. I, for one, believe that public enterprise does work. As a member of this parliament, I would not be able to use this little card which was given me, a pass on the railways of Canada-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What does it say?


John Paul Harney: It says:
-is a member of the House of Commons of Canada and is entitled by law to free transportation with his baggage on all railway trains in Canada.
For years I tried very hard to become a Member of Parliament. I looked forward to sharing this chamber with representatives of various parties-the usual standard government of Canada, the Liberal party; the oxymorons to my immediate right-


An hon. Member:: What?


John Paul Harney: -my hon. friends, and members of the Social Credit party. This was my major objective in trying to become a Member of Parliament.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nice to see you here.


John Paul Harney: An added attraction was the thought that I would be able to ride free on all the trains. But now that I am a Member of Parliament there are no trains to speak of. If it were not for the CN there would be hardly any chance of my being able to use this pass at all.


An hon. Member:: Try the baggage car.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: When did you last use it?


John Paul Harney: I used it in Sackville when I tried to bring socialism to the people of south eastern New Brunswick.


An hon. Member:: There is no train long enough for that.


John Paul Harney: I should like to speak for a few minutes about the investment policies of the CNR. Just because I believe in public enterprise does not mean I approve of everything this publicly-owned company, the CNR, does. As a matter of fact, there are many things it does of which
April 16, 1973

I disapprove. As a matter of fact, there are many things about this railway which I abhor. There are many aspects of the CNR which make it very hard to distinguish between it and a privately-owned enterprise. It behaves, in the main, like a privately-owned corporation no more evidently than in its investment policies.
A few weeks ago I had occasion to ask questions in the House about the CNR which was involved in investment in a project in Toronto established by Fidinam (Ontario) Limited. At that time the CNR pension fund had invested some $33 million in this particular development project. This $33 million was accompanied by a loan on the part of the Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario in the amount of $15 million, all of which contributed to a total of $48 million supplied on the one hand by the public of Ontario-or, to put it more specifically, the working people of Ontario-and on the other hand by the public of Canada; or, to put ir more specifically, the working people of Canada, and even within that specificity, the people who work for the CNR.
Here we have an amount of $48 million for the purpose of building yet another high-rise office complex in the city of Toronto, as if we did not have too many already. One might say these moneys were advanced to a private corporation which in turn supplied a rather large amount of money of its own to build this project. But, surprise, surprise; this corporation which is totally foreign-owned- and for once it is not operating with American money but Italian money, although it is foreign money-received loans from the Canadian people, not from the stock exchanges, not from private dealers but from our publicly-owned corporation at the federal level, on the one hand, and a public institution at the provincial level, on the other hand, in the sum of $48 million to build this building the total worth of which is to be in the order of $53 to $55 million. That left a difference between $48 million and $53 million, so they turned around and went to Canadian private lenders to borrow this money.
We have here a situation of a foreign-owned corporation coming to this country, with nothing but gall and the stupidity and gullibility of parliament and the legislators of Canada, and setting up a development which it will control totally, having used almost none of its assets and mainly the assets of the Canadian public, and, more specifically, the assets put away for the old age of the Canadian workers across this country or the assets put away by workers in Ontario for protection against their disability at work.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John Paul Harney: I asked the question in the House and, of course, it received some attention because the situation was known. It had been not only reported in the newspapers but had been the subject of a public inquiry by the legislature of Ontario. It was known that Fidinam Corporation had, in consideration for the loan it received from the Workmen's Compensation Board of Ontario, made a grant of $50,000 to the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
CNR and Air Canada


John Paul Harney: My point received attention then, as I am sure it is now, because it is a massive, old-style political scandal. It was probably felt by members of the government party that I was insinuating that they, too, probably received some kind of benefit from the CNR pension fund loan to Fidinam. Nothing of the kind; I am sure they are clean. As a matter of fact, in answer to my question in the House the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Guay) said it was a perfectly legitimate transaction. Indeed it was. Under the law of Canada it was a perfectly legitimate thing for the CNR pension fund, which by the way is totally controlled by the investors of the CNR, to invest the workers' money in this enterprise without asking the workers.
What exactly was the scandal? It was not the fact that they may or may not have given something to the Liberal Party. I suspect they did not. As a matter of fact, if I were a member of the Liberal party I would be a bit annoyed if I did not get a cut of it. But that is not the point. The point is there are workers in Canada who need housing. As we all know, and as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has said time and time again in this House, there is need for investment in housing.
Here we have a public fund that is dishing out money to a foreign corporation so it can set up yet one more totally useless high-rise office building right in the middle of Toronto where we do not need it. We have before us a bill which has to do with the capital allocation that this parliament is being asked to approve for the CNR. I think it is totally right and proper for us to ask just what the CNR intends to do with all this money. Sure, it would be very nice to say that it intends to offer better service to Canadians, that it intends to finally deliver the hopper cars to the west so that western farmers can move their wheat, or that it intends to bring back the old railway dining car.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I am getting on myself; I am well into my forties now. I look forward to the day when I can tell my grandchildren how it was in the good old days when we could travel on the railway and have a meal in the dining car. Those days are gone forever. Members of this House will be able to recount this story to their children, their grandchildren or their great grandchildren. But it is gone forever.
Sure, it would be nice to talk about the capitalization of the CNR for the provision of this kind of service. However, what I want to do tonight, and what other members of my party want to do in the days and nights to come, is to ask to what socially useful purpose for the benefit of the people of Canada will this money be used, because we have already had some horrible examples of the way the CNR uses its capital. A short while ago, had it not been for a mass reaction on the part of the people of Vancouver, the CNR, through its investment policies, would have lent money to a private corporation, the Four Seasons Hotel Corporation, to build a hotel on government property, which it would have bought from the government, right on the frontier boundary of Stanley Park in Vancouver. This is an example of total insensitivity to the needs of the people of Canada and to the value of a piece of property such as Stanley Park. So we must ask ourselves what the CNR intends to do with this money.
3350

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
Recently the people of Canada, and particularly the people of Toronto, have been apprised of another wonderful project on the part of the CNR and its investment policies, namely, the Toronto CN tower. It is going to be a marvellous, wondrous project sticking up some 1,800 feet above lake level, whatever that is these days in Toronto, an it may not be very high as the lakes keep rising. It is to go up some 1,800 feet above lake level and it will be the first aspect of this vast development, backed by CNR, called metro centre right on the lakeshore of the city of Toronto.
I know that we the members from Toronto are accused of being parochial, that we are always talking about Toronto, but I would ask members of this House who come from other parts of the country to look very closely at the expenditure that CN investment policies intend to put into the city of Toronto. If I were from somewhere else I would be a little jealous, because that project now is slated to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The CNR is in a kind of partnership with a private corporation, and Lord knows what the offspring of that coalition, if I may call it that, will be.
As the very first aspect of the project of metro centre, this obscene structure is to go up, namely, the CN communications tower. What is the true use of this tower? Oh, yes, we are told it is to be a wonderful new device to aid and abet electronic communications in the Toronto area. The CBC, I am told, will make use of its facilities. We could ask ourselves in this House why it was that as recently as two years ago the CBC spent so much money to refurbish and ameliorate its transmitter and antenna facilities in Toronto if it was simply going to move in as part of the CN tower a year or so afterwards.
The CN was supposed to go along with a partner in the building of the CN tower, but somehow or other the partner dropped out; perhaps because it was not a viable financial project. So we have the CN doing it alone. As you know, statements have been made by the pilots' associations of Canada to the effect that this tower will present a very real danger to air traffic over Toronto, particularly air traffic using Toronto island.
I do not have to tell you that if we intend to develop short take-off and landing air facilities in Canada, we will have to seriously consider using the Toronto island airport. I wonder how many members of this House from the Toronto area would like to take off in a STOL aircraft in what we call a misty day in Toronto, or come back late some Friday evening in mid-winter when the sky is somewhat unclear, knowing that the aircraft will somehow have to negotiate this tower which sticks up some 1,800 feet into the sky. The safety of this tower is really questionable, as is its presence in the Toronto air space.
The aspect of the tower with which I want to deal, however, is how interesting it is that the CN should decide that as the very first part of the metro centre development it should not build the new transportation centre, it should not build the new office complexes, it should not build the new residential housing which is supposed to go into that area-and I will have more to say on that later-but it should put up this tower. It is a cheap publicity trick.

Once the city of Toronto gives its approval, CN will begin building this tower in the spring. It was proposed that it be finished by 1974. That is a pretty hasty erection. The object of it is so that the people of Toronto will be told. "Look at the tower. Look at what we can do for you. Aren't you the proudest people in the world? You have this tower. We can build the rest of metro centre for you." This is a publicity gimmick, and nothing else. Millions of dollars will be spent to build this tower which will not be of any use to either the people of Toronto or the people of Canada.
How much will the tower cost? I do not know. As I read this bill, I see the amount on page 2. It reads; "CN Tower Limited, $8,800,000". I suspect that this bill is not up to date, because other figures have been quoted such as $18 million. I suspect that the figure of $8,800,000 includes only the part that was originally to be paid by CN when it was in partnership. I suspect that now we will have to carry the whole pack and it will be much more than $8,800,000 even at its inception, let alone at its completion.
I have said a few words about the metro centre and this is really what I would like to come to tonight. For members of the House who do not have the happy accident of being representatives of ridings in Toronto or the Toronto region, I think it is worth while pointing out that metro centre will cost several hundred million dollars. A development company has been set up to develop metro centre. For those of you whose familiarity with Toronto may be slight, let me point out that metro centre will be established south of what is now known as the Union station, which may be shortlived, and will extend to the lake. To the west it will be cheek-by-jowl with the park that was promised to us in Toronto as one of the election goodies of the present government.


David Réal Caouette: It is a French station. [Translation]


An hon. Member:: Union Station.


John Paul Harney: -Union Station, gare Union, please! What is the meaning of the word station in French? We say a station of the Way of the Cross, but-


An hon. Member:: Les gares-


John Paul Harney: -CN stations, better still.

I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. This will be an extremely large project. It will take many years to complete. I think it is important for members of the House to realize that CN is a major partner in the development company which will build and develop this project. Many questions have to be asked about this project. First: What consideration has been given by the developer, of which CN is a major partner, to the total urban development of the city of Toronto?
Any city has to bank upon its natural assets. The city of Montreal takes pride in having a mountain. In Toronto we have to look to the lake, and when I say "look to the lake"
I mean it because in most areas of Toronto you have to look very hard to be able to see the lake. We the residents and citizens of Toronto are separated from this great
April 16, 1973

natural asset by highways, railways, warehouses, factories, bakeries and commercial enterprises of many kinds.
Metro centre could be an extremely valuable and humane development if it were built so that families could live there, not just residents; because there are residents in Habitat, Montreal, right by the harbour but there are not many families. There are some real questions that have to be asked about the kinds of residential development which will be allowed in metro centre. There are other kinds of questions that have to be asked as to whether the city of Toronto really needs that much more office space. It is now a fact that in the city of Toronto the renting price of office space in older buildings is going down because we are beginning to have a surplus of new office areas. We have had a lot of building in the office realm and we should really ask ourselves whether it is really wise for the CNR to invest yet more money in this area.
There are questions to be asked about the location of the transportation centre itself in the metro centre development. At present we have a rather nice gare Union in Toronto. It is a place acclaimed by architects all over the continent as one of the finest examples of railway architecture in North America. It is a very fine building. There are very few buildings in this country, indeed on this continent, which have the sense of generosity of space that Toronto's Union station has. It is a superb railway terminal. The proposal contained in metro centre is to abandon the Union station as a railway station and to build a new transportation centre, as I understand it a little to the south and a little to the west of it.
The city of Toronto has built itself a subway which connects directly with the Union station, and it is an extremely useful arrangement that you can take the subway and go to the train terminal or to the Royal York hotel and take the bus to the airport. Mr. Speaker, let us ask ourselves how useful it will be for the people of Toronto to stop using the Union station as a transportation terminal and to have to go from the subway, from the main road arteries down to the new centre which will probably be extremely convenient for the CNR but not for the people of Toronto.
There are many questions of that kind to be asked about the capital project of the CNR involved in metro centre. But the last question I want to ask is perhaps the most important one. I ask: Where is the CNR going to get the money for the metro centre development? I have looked through the annual reports of the CNR and I have been trying to find some information about its investment policies. I find myself rather short of information. If I look at the list of officers, I can see that they have officers in charge of the investment division, including a chairman of the division and the general manager of the division. I looked through the annual reports, the latest of which I have is for 1971, and I find statements with regard to various aspects of the CNR financial operations. But I do not see very much about the CNR investment policies.
I challenge any member of this House to tell me whether he has been able to get out of the CNR any detailed information at all about the corporation's investment poli-
CNR and Air Canada
cies. As a matter of fact, you can probably get a little bit of information, if you are a good gleaner, from the statement on page 44 of the last report with regard to the pension trust fund. It gives a statement of its financial position as of December 31, 1971, and in very skimpy detail gives us the bare bones of CN's investment policies as far as its pension fund goes.
Globally, we have presented to us the figure of $255 million for mortgages. There is no more detail than that. If you tried to run a company in the private realm and presented a statement of this kind, you would be hauled before the securities commission of whichever province in which you were operating. This is not a statement. It is a fairy tale. And no wonder it has to be a fairy tale, because the CNR does not dare to detail to the people of Canada, to this parliament and to those workers whose money it directs to its own particular purposes the specific aspects of its investment policies. If it did, there might not be a resolution in Canada but there would be series of riots and rebellions in all centres of this country, rebellions which could not possibly be put down by any act of this parliament because they would be justified.
I want to end on this note, Mr. Speaker. Surely, if we have a public corporation which is responsible to this parliament we, as members of this House, should know in detail what its investment policies are and what are the purposes of these policies. And we should be able to decide the direction of the investment policies of this corporation. First of all, it is a public corporation. Secondly, it is a large corporation; and when I say large, I want members of the House to realize that just one aspect of this corporation, the CNR pension fund, has control over some $1.36 billion at this time-and that ain't hay!
Mr. Speaker, I hope to hear later from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), whose bill in a sense this is, and from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand)-I would even be willing to hear from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport-on the investment policies of the CNR and what it is doing in particular with the money it has gleaned over the years from the men who have dedicated their lives to the operation of this publicly-owned corporation in Canada.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I received a little clap when I rose to speak, because I do not think this is going to be a very exciting speech. I want to say something tonight about my home city, Calgary, in reference to the depot there. That city, in my opinion and in the opinion of the 450,000 people living in it, serves the southern part of Alberta, the resource industry, the ranching industry, the farming industry; and we have been neglected.
On January 23 last we saw some light. An announcement was made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in which he said a new $57.7 million air terminal complex would be built in Calgary over the next three years. No one can quarrel with that. But I ask, when will it be finished? The need is great. The initial work is scheduled to begin in the summer of 1973 and it will not be complete until 1976. I plead with the minister to start the project now. There is unemployment in Canada, but above all there is serious need, in the heart of what we call the oil capital of western Canada, for a new air depot because
3352

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
of the inadequacy of the present one to serve the travelling public and the people who work in Air Canada, CPA and the Department of Transport.
Here is the history of the present depot. At the beginning of the 1950s the air depot was owned by the municipal body. The airport, like other airports, was owned by the Department of Transport. It was a nice depot; in fact, it was the talk of Canada at that time. Because it suited the existing need, nothing further was done. Since that time, all across the country-at Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, London, Windsor, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver, Regina and Saskatoon-the DOT has built new depots to serve the travelling public who use Air Canada and CPA. Then in 1965-it might have been in 1964-an agreement was made between the city of Calgary and DOT by which the latter purchased the depot from the municipality.
At that time the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill was minister of transport, and he promised that Calgary would immediately get a new air depot because of the inadequate size of the existing depot. The deal was consummated, the money was paid to the city, and the city looked to the federal government of the day-and is still looking to the federal government-for action. This air depot is something like the Saskatchewan dam. For years Jimmy Gardiner promised a dam for Saskatchewan, but it was not built until John Diefenbaker became prime minister. We have been waiting and waiting for action on the air depot.
In 1969, things became desperate. When I read the figures, hon. members will understand why. I am going to make a good case and, I hope, influence the minister. I put the following question on the order paper, which was answered by the minister on February 19, 1973. Question No. 428 reads as follows;
1.	When will the construction of Calgary's new federal air depot at the international airport commence, and when will it be completed?
2.	How many people used the Calgary international airport depot for the year 1972, for the purpose of leaving or coming (a) into Calgary (b) into Edmonton (c) into Winnipeg?
3.	In 1972, what was the number of commercial airplanes that landed and took off from the (a) Calgary international airport (b) Edmonton international airport (c) Winnipeg international airport?
The answers can be found at page 1393 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker. Edmonton has such a large airport, and it is built so far out of town, that you could almost say it was in Red Deer. The only figures available are for 1971. These were given to me by the Minister of Transport, and I know they are accurate because I checked them. At Calgary international airport 985,375 people either took off or landed. Edmonton airport has a corridor where you walk so far that you can never see the end of it. It is deep in the country. There were 100,000 less people leaving than arriving, and 866,340 people used the airport for both arrivals and departures. Winnipeg, which is called the gateway to the west, was used by only 856,000 people.
These figures show that Calgary is a very busy international airport. In 1969, the situation was so desperate that you could hardly move in or out of the airport, and since then several millions of dollars have been spent to erect temporary buildings. Everybody here knows what. that

means; the Department of National Defence is still using the temporary buildings erected in the Second World War.
Mr. Speaker, I invite every member of the House to come to Calgary for Easter-come to Lake Louise or Banff and enjoy the beauty and the atmosphere. But what is happening today? Under the new rules of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), 44 RCMP will be stationed in the depot at all times. The congestion is such that when you walk up some sort of ramp to the second floor, only six chairs are available for 112 people. The government must have thought they were building cattle pens. The area is heated by an electric heater which is likely to burn you.
The security check is impossible. Passengers are crowded in like cattle and are told that anyone without a handbag or briefcase can go through; they separate people into carriers and non-carriers. Passengers are then herded into this pen, and as a Member of Parliament you pray that you get on first-class. You wait days to get a reservation out of Calgary and I am told you wait four or five days to get out of Regina. For two summers there was no air-conditioning. Employees did not want to petition because some were employed by DOT, some by Air Canada and some by CPA and all are dependent on the government to get things organized. I must give credit to the former minister of transport, because when I complained last summer they did get some form of air-conditioning.
There are no facilities for the aged, the infirm or the sick. There are no wheelchairs and anybody who cannot walk must board the plane on a stretcher. I see that the minister is rubbing his eyes. I wish he had been here when I congratulated him for at least making the statement to which I referred. I am very serious, Mr. Speaker. I know the minister is a hard worker and a dedicated man, but I hope he will make a personal visit at Easter if possible. I will see to it that he gets the best hospitality from the Chamber of Commerce and from the mayor. I am told that the mayor is a Liberal. I hope the minister can promise to get matters moving during 1973, and completed before 1976. The present conditions are not the fault of this minister; he inherited the problems. But the one million people using the airport are trying to get service.
The working conditions there are a disgrace, not only to the city of Calgary but to the province and to Canada. It is worse than the airport we used to have at Ottawa. When President Eisenhower landed here and looked around, he thought he was in the wilderness. Calgary is the centre of the resource industries, people come there from the United States, France, Germany, Britain and all over the world to deal in petroleum and natural gas. The airport is busier than Edmonton or Winnipeg, and is as busy if not busier than Vancouver, yet it has the poorest facilities. It is totally inadequate for the people being served by the airlines, and it is totally inadequate for the employees. No other city would put up with it. It is totally unacceptable to the workers, to Air Canada and to CPA and should be totally unacceptable to the DOT workers in Calgary or to any other corporate body.
Mr. Speaker, we cannot wait until 1976. In the minister's news release of January 23, 1973, he said:
Initial preparatory work is scheduled to begin in the summer of 1973.
April 16, 1973

I am always frightened by that word "begin".
When it is completed early in 1976-
If I know anything about government projects-it does not matter whether they are NDP, Conservative or Liberal, provincial or federal; they are all the same-it is generally two years later.
-the terminal will be capable of handling up to two million passengers a year.
I believe that will be 1976 or 1978. We have one million passengers now, and by then there will be two million. They will have to truck them to the planes because they cannot use this depot. I cannot speak with any more feeling than I have tonight. We are spending $2 billion on unemployment insurance; everybody is crying about it and making politics out of it. We should take that money and get this project moving. In 1939, when this country was at war, things were built overnight. If this can be done in times of crisis, why can't it be done in peacetime? Why do we have to drag our feet?
Calgary needs an airport. We have the money and the know-how, and people are looking for jobs. Why does the minister not show that he is a man of aggression and that he loves western Canada? If the airport is built, even Pat Mahoney will not lose his deposit the next time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister also said:
Projected increases show that by 1980, 3.1 million passengers will be processed annually; by 1985-4.6 million-
If the minister means "processed", we have processing plants in Calgary of various kinds. I can name them. Instead of having me and several others represent them, I wish all the people of Calgary could come here personally to express their feelings of frustration when they try to get on Air Canada and CPA planes.
I wish to leave with the minister one other thought. This has been said before, but because of my humility and modesty I think I can say it stronger. As a westerner from the city of Calgary, I am tired of being funnelled into Toronto and being told that although a plane will be leaving for Ottawa in 30 minutes, because of some rule or regulation which states that if a plane lands for less than 30 minutes, even if the seats are empty, you cannot get on it. I have been engaged in that kind of fight. If a fellow from Toronto takes on a westerner, he knows he is taking on someone. They folded, and put me on the plane. I should not have had to go through that frustrating experience. Why should the travelling public?
Edmonton, the capital city of Alberta, the oil capital of the world-of which the NDP seem to be so jealous- should at least have a direct connection with the city of Ottawa rather than being funnelled through some other city with a delay of one hour to three and a half hours. I must relate what happened to someone I consider to be a fair minded man. He became so frustrated that he left a suit of clothing in the depot. The following day he contacted Air Canada and they located the suit. The only way he could get the suit from Air Canada was to pay an express charge of $8. Do you know who that gentleman is? Me. I
CNR and Air Canada
was not very hospitable toward those dedicated public servants.
The people at the Toronto airport have a great sense of humour. During the course of the argument a fellow came up to me and said that if I had any trouble I should take it up with my Member of Parliament. I finally realized what little power and what little force we have. Maybe the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was right when he referred to strawmen and said they were nobodies. What about the people who have not been elected to parliament? What kind of service do they get?
In conclusion, I ask that the situation at this air depot be remedied. It is most disgusting for a busy city of that size. Second, the minister, by himself or with a whole body of people, should straighten out Air Canada so that we can get some decent service in this country. This is not a political speech. If this project is left to 1976,1 can promise that Pat Mahoney and any other Liberal candidates in Calgary will see even less of the horizon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, for me this is the fifth annual event on the CN financing bill. I know the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has taken part in this debate for many more years than that. I have been party to this kind of debate four years out of five, because in one year the bill was not passed. What strikes me as strange is that we always lose sight of the main thrust and purpose of the bill. I have been as guilty as any other member in complaining about the schedules, the terminals of Air Canada and the train service. This is a good opportunity to do that. However, the real point is not mentioned. Each year we go through this exercise and vote funds, not only for the capitalizing of the Canadian National Railways' system and Air Canada but to cover deficits of the CN system.
Under successive old-style governments it has been a tradition since 1923 to establish a public corporation to which they pay lip service and then refuse to let it function as it can and should. They handicap it with a debt structure that makes it impossible for it to succeed in any meaningful way in terms of providing service to the public. The hon. member for Calgary North wonders and worries about the inadequacies of terminal capacity, baggage handling, and so forth, in his city. I defy him to name any private corporation that could or would operate under the financial handicaps the CN system has had since 1923.
We are saddled with a corporation, regardless of whether it is privately or publicly-owned, which started off with the deck stacked against it. In its beginning it was saddled with the debts of bankrupt railways which private enterprise could not operate. We are still paying those debts. In the course of being saddled with the debts of five or six bankrupt railroads which were brought into the CN system, including the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Northern and the Grand Trunk Pacific. On top of having their annual capitalization, they have always been saddled with the original debt of these bankrupt companies.
I do not pretend to be an expert in this area, but it seems that the remaining $1,900 million public debt on the CNR books should be taken over by the government of Canada in return for shares that may or may not pay 3 per cent or

April 16, 1973
CNR and Air Canada
4 per cent per year. They should remove forever the handicap that our publicly-owned rail and air transportation system have had, particularly CNR.
We go through this exercise every year. In previous years I have heard the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) talk about the glories of the CPR because it makes a profit. He and some members of the official opposition seem to forget that most years CN has had an operating profit. I believe the last figures shows a net operating profit of approximately $50 million. However, the interest on the debt which goes back to 1923 was $72 million. Parliament had to vote an additional $22 million or $23 million because the interest on that debt ate up the net operating funds plus an appropriation from parliament.
In 1923, the railroads of the day, all of which were privately owned, were in financial difficulties; they were going belly up. That is the problem we were faced with. But why pass this burden on to a succeeding railroad which is owned and operated on behalf of the people of Canada? If we feel that as a nation we have some kind of financial obligation to pay off the bonds of bankrupt railroads-and I do not agree we have-why impose this liability on a succeeding railroad which is publicly-owned?
Believe it or not, there are still $4 million worth of bonds on the books of the CN which can never be paid off unless a special act of parliament is passed, because they are held in perpetuity-3 per cent interest in perpetuity. That is a long time. It is even longer than never. But these bonds of indebtedness are still a burden on the back of the CNR.
No corporation, public or private, can operate outside the limits of government policy. It can only operate as well as government policy will allow. And while we all have complaints about rail services, branch line abandonment, station agencies, air terminals or air traffic schedules, these are only a small part of the total picture. Unless and until parliament is prepared to make fundamental changes in the direction and purpose of national transportation policy, we shall continue to go through this exercise each year, and each year we shall vote $20 million or $30 million more to pick up the deficit of the CN system to pay off the indebtedness with which the railway was saddled, almost $2 billion, in 1923.
Another aspect of the tragedy brought to mind by the annual exercise we go through in considering the CN financing bill is this. The CN, which is publicly-owned, is a convenient victim of all the brickbats and complaints of Members of Parliament and the public. The CP has yet to answer for some of its actions perpetrated at the expense of the public. We cannot get at the CPR. I would hope that in this parliament, with the help of an excellent and respected chairman of the transport committee, officials of the Canadian Pacific will appear before the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications, for the first time in about seven years, because we have some questions to ask these gentlemen. It is entirely unfair. I must confess to some feelings of guilt about this myself. We tend to take too much out at the expense of the CN because of the occasion provided by the annual CN financ-

ing bill. Too often it is the CP which has led the way in abandoning branch lines or making applications to close stations.
I think we have been very fortunate in the kind of employees and managerial people we have in both the CN and Air Canada. We are fortunate they have not quit on us. What we are doing to Air Canada right now, in terms of national air policy vis-a-vis Canadian Pacific Airlines, is equivalent to what we have been doing all along to the CN vis-a-vis the CPR.
Air Canada is supposed to have exclusive access to Europe, the Caribbean and the Atlantic routes and supposedly CP Air, under the Orwellian-Pickersgillian policy, was to have exclusive rights in the Pacific and South America. But over the period of years since the fifties the picture has been altered. CP Air has been given rights to Lisbon and Madrid. By golly, the next thing we knew it obtained rights to Amsterdam. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is likely to recommend to the cabinet that it be given the route to Milan, Italy, In fact, I would be prepared to bet the minister a crock that this is what he will do. I would be happy to lose that bet.
Air Canada should be getting the new routes to Italy, the new landing sites in Germany, and extended routes the government could negotiate to Greece, the Middle East and to Asia. I doubt they will get them. I suspect they could get exchange routes with the Russians to Moscow and maybe to Siberia. But this landing site in Italy will go to CP, I will bet a nickel. I will take that bet up with the minister as well. But when Air Canada asks for a share of rights in the Pacific, the answer is; "Oh, no; those are reserved for CP Air," after all, that has been national air policy for the past 15 years. Surely, if it is logical to let CP Air erode the viability and the profitability of Air Canada in the Atlantic and on European routes, Air Canada is entitled to routes to the Pacific rim countries. We cannot get a word out of the minister or the government on that score.
It seems to me it would be logical to let Air Canada take routes to the Philippines and to India in both directions or, if you like, in one direction all the way around the world. The government and its predecessors of both stripes, right and far right, have continually handicapped our public corporations by imposing policies which make it impossible for them to succeed. We have continued to syphon off some of the best routes Air Canada had, giving them to CP Air or to regional carriers which have government heelers on their boards of directors. Air Canada suffers as a result, and the public complains about its usefulness.
I wish this government, or some government, would leave a clear field for a publicly-owned corporation answerable to parliament to operate under conditions of really open competition with private carriers answerable only to their boards of directors. I should like to see that kind of fight. I was hoping that the Minister of Transport would have been willing to engage in that kind of fight. Our national transport policy since 1967 mitigates against the publicly-owned corporation and on every occasion the CN or Air Canada have been succeeding, or on the verge of succeeding, there seems to have been a move to say, "Well fellows; that is far enough. Let somebody else have this, the CP, or Trans Air, or Quebec Air or Nordair." They
April 16, 1973

would not operate when they could have had the routes by themselves, but they came in afterwards to get the gravy.
This is what the bill before us is all about. We can raise questions in committee about terminals or schedules or branch line abandonment, but unless there is a national transportation policy which allows publicly owned carriers to function as they could and should function, the things we are complaining about are only the results of the failure to approach the subject in a basically satisfactory way. Since confederation, the Canadian economy as a whole, and more particularly Canadians isolated or nearly so by their geographical situation, have had to pay too high a price both individually or as part of an enterprise for transportation either of themselves or of their goods to other areas in Canada.
Where transportation is privately-owned, it must operate on the basis of making a profit. If it is publicly-owned, it has to operate on the basis of profitability first, and the provision of services has to come second. Privately-owned enterprises have to make a profit. That is the only reason for their existence. If transportation enterprises are publicly-owned and are required to operate on the basis of profitability, they cannot provide adequate service in a country with our kind of climate and geography. It is an illusion to think we can maintain a national air and rail transport system when the motive for operation is profitability. I submit this has resulted in an inefficient service to the public and a discriminatory transportation system which fails to meet the needs of the Canadian economy as well as the convenience of individuals. Our publicly-owned air system has been prevented from doing a better job by depriving them of lucrative routes. The government has already helped private carriers by handing them new routes, particularly international routes, which really means CPA.
I have been here for only five years. Many members in this place have been here for 20 or 25 years. It has been our repeated plea that we need a national transportation policy which is made in Canada, one which takes into account our geography and climate. Our 1967 National Transportation Act needs to be drastically revised to the point where the provision of transportation services-I emphasize the word "services"-rail, air, pipelines, etc., takes priority over whether or not those services are economic or profitable. A national transportation policy that takes into account the geography of the country, as I have said, a transportation policy that equalizes costs to as great a degree as possible for the delivery of goods and people, is what is required.
We must also include in this policy, communications, equalized and/or subsidized freight, express, telecommunications and passenger fares. Other countries have been doing this-northern countries-for decades. We are still trying to operate a transportation system on policies out of the 1890s taken from our neighbour to the south. Even there the great private enterprise system of the United States has been going belly up over the last ten years. They now have a system that is publicly-controlled and operated so far as passenger services are concerned in a complex of seven or so large U.S. railroads, but even this is
CNR and Air Canada
not succeeding because they have gone about it by adopting half measures.
We must treat transportation as an essential public utility and think of it in that way, because public utilities operate best for the public, in that it takes priority over the demands or considerations of boards of directors, shareholders, or for that matter members of Parliament. If we are not prepared to have a National Transportation Act that has this central theme and thrust, we will continue on down the road we have been travelling and lose three or four thousand miles of rail lines on the prairies. We will lose upward of five to six hundred agencies all across Canada. We will lose a viable air transportation system that is publicly-owned because it will continue to be eroded. We will see our publicly-owned transportation systems paying attention to shopping centres and high-rise office buildings while trains are later and airports cannot handle our baggage. All of this calls for the public ownership of rail and air transportation facilities and pipelines. Many other countries that have been very strongly free enterprise-oriented did this years ago and have transportation systems from which we can learn something.
My second point, which I should like to hear about from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) before the debate on second reading concludes, concerns the government giving some kind of undertaking or commitment that some $1,900 million of the old debt of the CNR will be taken over by the government of Canada in return for an equivalent value of shares in the Canadian National system, so that the system is entirely owned by the public of Canada through this parliament. Thereafter, there will be no more interest on debts amounting to $20 million to $30 million a year in excess of the operating profits of our own rail transportation system.
Further, I submit that our air transportation systems, both national and international, have to be publicly-owned and operated. Further, we want a commitment or undertaking from the Minister of Finance before this bill receives second reading that there will be a further moratorium on rail line abandonment, as well as a moratorium on the closure of agencies and the establishment of the so-called customer service centres. There must be a massive expenditure to improve transportation facilities and to substantially expand their capability, as well as use made of ports like Churchill and Prince Rupert. We will expect to hear something about all these matters from the Minister of Finance before concluding the second reading stage of this debate.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I should like to ask the government House leader what business he proposes to invite the House to deal with tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow I hope to have the House adopt on motions the adjournment motion which will permit the House to rise after the business on Wednesday. Tomorrow I should also like to call the report stage of the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act and

April 16, 1973
Adjournment Debate
the Export Development Act. There are no amendments listed, so probably we could take third reading tomorrow. I suggest we might spend from eight to ten o'clock tomorrow on the conclusion of the debate on food prices curbs and concurrence in the committee report on food prices.
Following these items, so far as we can complete them, I should like to call at some point a short amendment to the Public Service Staff Relations Act of which notice has been given,-it will be on the order paper tomorrow- followed by crop insurance and the Aeronautics Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, on January 30 I directed two questions to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) concerning the implementation of the Qu'Appelle board study report, a study carried out by the department in co-operation with the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba. At that time Mr. Speaker indicated that if there was urgency, the subject could be debated at the time of adjournment.
The Qu'Appelle basin study was started in 1970, the report was completed in 1972 and it was made public in January, 1973. The report makes two main types of recommendations, long-term recommendations and those which require swift implementation. That report makes clear that sewage from the cities of Regina and Moose Jaw, and the Canadian forces base is the principal cause of the decay of the lakes in the Qu'Appelle River system.
It is estimated that about 2.8 million pounds of nitrogen and 2.2 million pounds of phosphates are being dumped into the system annually, 70 per cent of it from these sources. This is a situation that must be remedied if the Qu'Appelle lakes are to be saved. What is required is that these two cities upgrade their sewage treatment facilities in order to remove these nutrients from the effluent before it is discharged into the river system.
The report estimates the total cost of effluent control for which immediate action is recommended at $15 million, half of which would be required to instal the necessary treatment facilities at Regina and Moose Jaw. Clearly, a financial commitment of this scope will be difficult, if not impossible, to manage at the municipal level.
The Qu'Appelle valley and its lakes and rivers represent an irreplaceable national asset as important to the people of Saskatchewan as the Fraser River system is to the people of British Columbia. However, the financial burden of solving the pollution problem of the Qu'Appelle is for the most part being left by the federal government to these two cities.
The minister can boast, as he did in Vancouver on February 5, that his department has spent almost $40 million on sewage treatment works in British Columbia since 1970, but when asked what he intends to do in Saskatchewan he remains strangely silent. Is it any wonder that the federal Liberal party has become a rejected and discredited political party in the prairie provinces of western Canada, given this kind of attitude by its ministers?
The situation calls for leadership from the Department of the Environment and a sense of urgency in the implementation of this report. What is being demonstrated is not a sense of urgency but a sense of inertia and drift. The citizens of Regina will pay their share of the cost of these facilities and more, but to expect them to provide sewage treatment facilities at a higher level than any other major centre in Canada, which is the case, without substantial assistance from senior government is just not reasonable.


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, my minister answered this question in the House on February 1 but I should like to elaborate on that answer at this time. At a press conference in Regian on Saturday morning, January 20, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), speaking for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), announced that the federal government would indeed participate with the province of Saskatchewan in the implementation of the recommendations made by the Qu'Appelle basin board.
To facilitate the arrangements, a negotiating team was appointed to enter into discussions with Saskatchewan to work out details. In connection with the recommendations for the installation of tertiary sewage treatment plants in Regina and Moose Jaw, I should like to advise that the environmental protection service is already taking steps to establish an adequate treatment plant for the Canadian armed forces base at Moose Jaw as part of the government's previously announced $60 million program to improve waste treatment at all federal installations across Canada.
The Hon. Jack Davis is prepared to recommend that we make available to Saskatchewan the same assistance that we have provided to the province of Ontario through the Great Lakes agreement, that is, to ensure that sufficient funds are available through the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation fund so that the loans to the municipalities, which have a 25 per cent forgiveness feature, will be readily available.
In addition, as with the Great Lakes agreement we are prepared to share on a 50-50 basis with the province of Saskatchewan any costs which might be involved in pilot plant construction and operation that may be required to determine the most efficient type of treatment to deal with the nutrient problem at Regina and Moose Jaw.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members, in making their contribution, would refer to other hon. members by either their ministries or the seats they hold.

April 16, 1973


INCOME TAX-PRACTICE OF DISCOUNTING TAX REBATE CHEQUES-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT REGULATION
Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, over a year ago I first drew the attention of this House to a practice which members in all parts of the House found deplorable. I refer to the practice of discounting government cheques. I think it would be worth while to take a moment to explain this term. It is possible in most major centres in this country, and it would seem especially so in western Canada where such enterprises advertise in daily newspapers, if someone is in desperate need of money and is guaranteed receipt in the future of a government cheque such as for unemployment insurance, old age pension or as an income tax rebate, to secure what amounts to a loan with the anticipated cheque as security. However, the procedure followed is for the lender in effect to purchase the cheque at a reduced amount. That is the reason for the term "discounting".
Thus, if someone anticipates receiving an income tax rebate, say in the amount of $500, and there is solid evidence to support his expectation, a discounting operation might offer such a person $350 in cash, half now and half on receipt of the cheque, in return for the total cheque being turned over to the business offering the cash. The amount discounted, if computed as interest on an annual basis, would customarily amount to 1,000 per cent to 2,000 per cent.
The operator of such a discounting operation encounters little or no risk because before providing the cash he requires definite guarantees that the government will, in fact, be issuing the cheque in question. Moreover, he usually requires that arrangement be made for the cheque in question to be sent to his address rather than to the address of the person to whom it is nominally payable. Interest at the rate of 1,000 per cent to 2,000 per cent for a loan involving no risk to the lender can only be termed usury.
I raised this question last year in connection with the discounting of unemployment insurance cheques. I am sure that other members, while they may not have done so in the House, have made private representations to the minister. As a result of these efforts, the Unemployment Insurance Commission established new regulations which had the effect of preventing the use of an address not that of a claimant under the unemployment insurance plan without the permission of the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This did much to correct the situation with respect to Unemployment Insurance Commission cheques.
Further, I am given to understand the government instituted legal proceedings against one such loansharking operation in Alberta as a test case. One of the series of question which I asked on March 7 which has given rise to the debate this evening was of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) asking him the status of that case. He took the question as notice and undertook to report to me privately. I am still waiting for the information and would hope that whoever replies this evening will present it to the House.
Beyond that I asked, in order to end such deplorable practices as they affect income tax rebates, if the Department of National Revenue was contemplating action similar to that taken by the Unemployment Insurance Commission. My question received a very sympathetic but
Adjournment Debate
unenlightening response from the minister. If I had time I would quote his answer because it provokes three further questions which I hope might be answered this evening. First, does the prevention of such practice require an amendment to the Income Tax Act and, if so, does the government intend to introduce such an amendment, and when?
Second, can charges be laid against such usurers? However, such a question is not permissible since one cannot demand a legal opinion of a minister, so I would simply ask whether the government intends pressing charges against such operators? Third, has the Department of National Revenue taken steps to prevent the mailing of an income tax rebate cheque to an address other than that of the intended recipient without departmental approval, in line with the action of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, as opposed to preventing the making of cheques payable to anyone but the taxpayer?
I ask these questions because each of them involves action which the government could immediately undertake to curtail these usurious practices. Their elimination, I believe, could be accomplished by amending the Small Loans Act in the manner I have suggested in a bill now before the House. Bill C-57, standing in my name, would change the definition of a loan in the definition section of the bill to include the practice of discounting an amount of $1,500 or under. Thus, the interest on loans against the future receipt of the government cheque under the amount of $1,500 would be limited to 2 per cent a month, or 24 per cent a year, as opposed to the 1,000 per cent to 2,000 per cent per annum now customarily charged in such transactions.
Thus, my final question is: Is such legislation being contemplated by the government? The BNA Act, section 91, subsection 18, "Bills of exchange and promissory notes" and subsection 19, "Interest", clearly gives the federal government authority so to act, and I hope they will.
To recapitulate, my questions are as follows. First, what is the current status of the legal proceedings against discounters instituted by the government of Canada? Second, is an amendment to the Income Tax Act required to prevent such practices with respect to income tax rebates and, if so, when may we expect to receive such legislation? Third, if the Income Tax Act already permits charges to be laid against such loan sharks, when may we expect such action to be taken? Fourth, has the Department of National Revenue taken steps to prevent the mailing of a rebate cheque to an address other than that of the taxpayer concerned? Fifth, is the government considering an amendment to the Small Loans Act having the effect of bringing the practice of discounting on amounts under $1,500 under its provisions and, if so, when may we expect such legislation?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) for raising this question and giving me the opportunity to indicate the concern, which the government shares, about the practices of discounting government cheques. I wish that the answers and the solutions to

April 16, 1973
Adjournment Debate
the problem were as simple as those suggested by the hon. member.
There are, of course, a number of alternatives, one of which he suggested and which I have asked my officials and those in other departments to consider, because I do agree with him that it is a deplorable practice in many cases. But there is, of course, a possibility that people will innocently and in all good faith wish to enter into transactions with regard to government cheques as they do with other financial paper, and there is a question as to how restrictive we should be in preventing this practice. There are obviously some Canadians who wish to deal with government cheques in this way. Personally, I think they are unwise to do so.
In the case of income tax refunds, we are now aiming for the fastest possible processing of them, and in cases where income tax returns are properly completed there should be a refund in the hands of the taxpayer within approximately six weeks of the filing of the return where a refund is called for. Therefore, I might say to any taxpayer who has attempted to discount his refund that there is no reason to do so, the refund will be in his hands almost as quickly as if he were to deal with the discounter.
I have asked my officials to watch closely the returns which appear to be filed by discounters. It is questionable whether we should prevent refunds being sent to addresses other than those of the taxpayer, because there are many financial institutions in Canada in whose hands taxpayers have placed their financial affairs. There is some question about whether or not we should prevent their doing that.
Of course, one possibility is that provincial governments, including that of the province from which the hon. member comes, could deal with this matter on the basis of licensing and provincial law which, I might say, is somewhat clearer than the jurisdiction of the federal government in this respect. There was a prosecution by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, as the hon. member mentioned, which I believe was unsuccessful at the first stage and is under appeal. This illustrates the difficulty, under federal legislation, of proceeding against these practices.
I would urge the hon. member to exercise his influence on the provincial government of his own province to take action within its jurisdiction to curb such practices. In the meantime, my officials are exploring all possible avenues, including the one suggested by the hon. member, and if it appears that the federal government can properly restrain this kind of practice, I hope to propose a method of doing so or have one of my colleagues do so in the House at a later date.
It is matter of some complexity. We want to be sure that we do not unfairly restrict or restrain the ability of Canadians to deal with their own property, and particularly we want to avoid infringing upon the powers of the provinces in this respect. But I share the hon. member's concern. We will keep it under very close observation and we hope to achieve the same objective that he has in mind.


CANADIAN CULTURE-MULTICULTURALISM-POLICY OF CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on the matter of the sale of radio station CKSB, St. Boniface, to the publicly-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. It is not that I want to question or criticize the sale, but rather I want to take this opportunity to present to the Secretary of State responsible for multicul-turalism, some of the viewpoints that multicultural groups have in respect to the use of the CBC and the broadcasting of multicultural programs.
CKSB was a privately-owned French station in Manitoba. In fact, it was owned by the parish of St. Boniface. In the last number of years, because of financial difficulties and other reasons the board of directors of CKSB sold air time to various multicultural groups for the broadcasting of programs which were specifically directed to multicultural groups in the Winnipeg and southern Manitoba area. Communities such as Polish, Ukrainian, German, Jewish, Portuguese and Italian used the radio station for these purposes, and the co-operation between the radio station and these various groups was exemplary.
There is a need for a second language radio station in Manitoba, a need which radio station CKSB was fulfilling. But because of the financial difficulties which the station was experiencing, the CBC stepped in and made a purchase offer to the board of directors and on March 29, 1973, the Canadian Radio-Television Commission approved the sale of the radio station. CKSB, now being a CBC-owned radio station, is to fulfill the following requirements:
The commission will therefore expect the station, as will be specified in the conditions of the licence, to complement network service with a substantial amount of programming originating from and designed for the French-speaking residents of this area.
I endorse this policy because the people in my riding have among them proportionately the second highest number of French-speaking Manitobans, and radio station CKSB, broadcasting in the French language, serves a vital purpose for these people. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, because of the policy of the CBC that it can only be used in the French or English language as far as broadcasting is concerned, these various multicultural groups which availed themselves of the services of CKSB now find themselves having to look elsewhere for broadcast privileges.
On February 22, 1973, as noted at page 1547 of Hansard,! asked the Minister of State in charge of multiculturalism (Mr. Haidasz) the following question, in part, with regard to the sale of CKSB:
As there are no hearings scheduled for Winnipeg on this matter, can the minister indicate to the House what alternatives he is proposing which would preserve the established customary rights of multicultural groups in the Winnipeg area?
The minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of government policy and if anything is to be done it will be announced in the usual way.
I am still waiting for that policy, Mr. Speaker. In a sense, the CRTC made policy on an interim basis, because on the announcement of the sale of CKSB to the CBC the commission stated:

The CBC has informed the commission that, in view of this long standing practice, broadcast time will continue to be made available on a similar basis to any of these groups desiring it for a period of 12 months in order to provide sufficient time for those groups which have not already done so to make other suitable arrangements for their programming in the Winnipeg area. The commission considers this to be a reasonable and equitable proposal.
I commend the commission for giving the government 12 months to set its house in order. But I am still waiting for the government to clearly state its policy on CBC in relation to its position on multicultural programming.
I have a recommendation to make which I hope the parliamentary secretary will convey to the Secretary of State. It is that the CBC should establish a policy whereby these various multicultural groups could use a certain number of broadcast hours for the purpose of multicultural broadcasting. I know that the Secretary of State has been approached by various multicultural groups with this request.
There are radio stations in southern Manitoba such as CFAM-CHSM, which has been exemplary in giving time to multicultural groups to broadcast in the language of the background of the people. We are asking that the people who came here and who are not Francophone or Anglophone, but who became Canadians and good citizens, have the right to some time on CBC in order to maintain their cultural heritage. This is not divisive but is simply a matter of maintaining a heritage. I suggest that in western Canada, at least, these are the groups that have given us a cultural mosaic and a special identity which should be preserved. I suggest that the government should seriously consider a policy whereby the CBC, within a relatively short time, should make time available for multicultural broadcasting.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to my hon. friend's
Adjournment Debate
question, I could easily refer him to the reply given by the Secretary of State, but I think to reply thus would be inadequate, and in view of the importance of this matter, I ought to add a few comments.
Although Section 38 of the Official Languages Act deals with the rights and privileges of other languages, I would point out to the hon. member that, in the case he is particularly concerned with, the multilingual broadcasting privileges that this population enjoys were not given to them by the government organization but by a private station. The broadcasting act is explicit on this point, and CBC policy follows it closely. The member is also aware that a lot remains to be done in the field of broadcasting in the two official languages of Canada: there are places where there is no service in French or English, or where these must be improved, which are assignments of major importance for the CBC, and will continue to take priority until all such projects have been realized.
The CBC Board of Directors is acutely aware of the growing need to fulfill the special needs of the different regions, and there is a close link between regional and ethnic programming. The CBC considers that at the present time, its national broadcasting service is not suitable for multilingualism and that the best solution to the problem of programs of an ethnic nature would be for the ethnic groups to continue to try to obtain broadcasting time on a local basis, from stations that do not belong to the network, so that the CBC can concentrate on its major obligations.
The hon. member stressed the CRTC's decision to extend these rights for a year, and I do not intend to comment on this. I can assure my hon. friend that I am convinced, from the way that he dealt with the problem, that he has made some very serious suggestions, and that I shall hasten to inform the minister tomorrow of all his remarks, and we will try to find an equitable solution to the really serious problems which he has brought up. [English]
Motion agreed to and the House adiourned at 10:30 p.m.

Tuesday, April 17, 1973