1973-10-22

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, October 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the third time and do pass.
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate not with the contemplation of any particular pleasure in discussing the question of suitable punishment for those who commit murder but because I think it is a subject that parliament should approach with as great objectivity as it can command on this subject which is bound to be an emotional one.
At the commencement of my remarks I should like to express my congratulations to the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) on the very excellent speech she made last Friday.
I feel I have a special responsibility to take part in this debate because it so happens that of the four members of parliament from the small province of Prince Edward Island I seem to be the only one who is, in the popular jargon, a retentionist. I think a great many people in our province, probably the majority, feel as I do on this important subject. Whether they are in the majority or are a minority is, of course, only of secondary importance, but I believe that every point of view should find its expression in the House in this important debate.
The basic question that I think we have to ask ourselves is: What are the ethics, the mores, of our society in regard to murder? After all, any legislation that we pass can only be good and effective legislation if it expresses and generally reflects the most widely accepted wishes of the people whom we represent.
I think we should be clear in our minds concerning the purpose of the bill before us. The purpose is not to abolish capital punishment but to reduce the category of murder for which capital punishment is the penalty. In a nutshell, the bill before us reduces that category from all those who commit premeditated murder to those who commit the murder of police officers and penitentiary guards. So we are merely reducing the category of murder for which capital punishment is the penalty. We are not discussing under this bill the method of capital punishment to be
used. I think that parliament should consider that aspect at an early date. Whether or not this bill passes it is something we should consider because in any event capital punishment will not be eliminated under our law. So long as capital punishment is not eliminated I think we should carefully consider the method to be used in carrying out that sentence.
I believe we should base our consideration of the question on whether or not as a society we believe in the sanctity of human life. We must ask ourselves whether it is wise and reasonable to do so. It is certainly not necessary from a purely philosophical point of view because many societies in the past have not believed in the sanctity of human life. Individual societies in the past, which have continued for perhaps thousands of years, have thought it quite all right to kill other humans for food. I refer to the practice of cannibalism. Other societies have thought it right to kill in order to occupy or take over the land of other humans, to kill for ceremonial purposes or merely to kill in order to acquire goods as the cheapest or most efficient way of increasing one's standard of living, if you like.
Until recent times at least it has been recognized in many societies as being ethically right under certain circumstances to kill in order to acquire power or in order to take over the position previously held by the victim.
Through a painfully slow process we as a society have come to the conclusion at least partially that this previous way of looking at the lives of other humans is not viable in a highly civilized community and that in the long run it is perhaps self-defeating because sooner or later in the general scheme of things, if we give ourselves the privilege of killing humans, we ourselves are likely to become the victims of that practice. So we have come to the conclusion that we should look upon human life as something to be protected at all costs.
This view is evident in many other phases of our way of life. We keep alive people, who, because of accidents or disease, are from a medical point of view merely vegetables. We believe that we have an obligation to provide at great expense services for that purpose. I think that is correct if we say that we believe in the sanctity of human life. There is the argument that under no circumstances has the state the right even in the name of society, to practice such a barbarous thing as the carrying out of capital punishment.
At one time I thought it was very inconsistent that many people, though not all, should believe, on the one hand, in the elimination of capital punishment and, on the other hand, that abortion on demand is reasonable and a right women should have. I have always looked on that as being a paradox, an inconsistency. I consider the life of an unborn child is just as important, or perhaps more so because it is not in a position to defend itself, as the life of

October 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
anyone else. While I have always considered that to represent inconsistency on the part of many people, on thinking about it further it would seem that perhaps it is not inconsistency. On both counts it would seem that such people do not believe in the sanctity of human life.
I am a retentionist because I do believe in the sanctity of human life. Therefore it is my view that when an individual decides to take the life of another human, an act that is abhorrent to our view of the sanctity of human life, the penalty for such an act should be capital punishment not as punishment or as revenge but chiefly as an indication of the abhorrence in which society holds such a person. At the moment I am talking about premeditated murder in which a person has a plan to wipe out someone else. I am not talking about crimes of passion or homicide which could be construed as manslaughter or anything of that sort.
I would never want anyone, of course, no matter how gruesome the crime, to be subject to capital punishment on the basis of circumstantial evidence. If there is a shred of doubt, the accused person should be given the benefit of that doubt. I agree with that principle. However, as an ultimate sanction by society in respect of those who would ignore the view of our society, which I believe holds that human life is sacred, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind concerning the seriousness with which society views such crimes.
There is the argument, of course, that in the case where capital punishment is in force there is always the danger that an innocent person may be convicted and executed. I consider the chance of that happening as being very remote, especially in circumstances where it should be the recognized practice, as I think it is, that no one should be convicted and suffer capital punishment on the basis of circumstantial evidence. We should ask ourselves what the potential risk of this happening to an individual is. I contend that any Canadian citizen-you and I included- stands a far greater chance of being murdered than of being executed as a murderer who is in fact innocent. The relative chances are infinitesimal. If our purpose is to protect society, we should remember that the penalty should be such that no one can construe society's attitude as being in the least bit soft or as condoning in the slightest degree the taking of human life illegally by someone who plans it for his convenience or advancement.
It is a fact that when murders are committed the victims, generally speaking, have no means whatsoever of preventing it from happening. They are victims in the sense that they have no means of protecting themselves in advance or of taking precautions against it happening so as to make certain that they will not become murder victims. On the other hand, we can protect ourselves from the gallows. Any individual who takes the view that it is a terrible thing to inflict capital punishment on a Canadian citizen, regardless of what he has done, should remember that no one will ever be executed for murder or suffer any other punishment for murder, including imprisonment, if he chooses not to because all the citizen has to do to avoid that danger is not to murder anybody. Surely that is not too great a demand to make on the ordinary Canadian citizen.
That sums up my views in a very rough and ready way. We should consider this matter against the much broader background of what the mores of our society are at the present time. I fear that, with the rapid urbanization that has taken place in recent years all over the world, with the urban sprawl where communities are wiped out, most of our large cities are only dormitory areas where people sleep during the night and carry on their activities during the day in an entirely different environment. Among these people the sense of community has disappeared, to the detriment of our society. As a result of the destruction of small communities where people were each other's neighbours in every sense of the word, we are gradually becoming a society of Levites who pass by on the other side of the many problems that face us, especially in the large urban societies. This is one of the reasons that many people, especially the young, are being "turned off" by our society, are being frustrated by it, are being pushed into ways of living that can only be detrimental to them, to us and to society as a whole in the long run.
I want to say one more thing before concluding. I make no apology for the stand I take. I am sick and tired of being preached at by people who hold the opposite view and who say I am some sort of mossback and that I should "get with it" and advance. We are bound to advance by the fact that time moves on-we cannot do anything about that-but that does not guarantee the improvement and progress of every generation and of society as a whole. I imagine, although there is no way of knowing, that people supporting the policies that brought about tbe fall of the Roman Empire said to the critics of the day, "get with it, we want progress". I do not want progress, nor do I want to accelerate it, if that so-called progress is not real progress but only accelerates the decline in our standard of life and the quality of our society.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I never expected that I would rise so early in the day to take part in the debate. I do not mean to say that the debate has just started. I know it has lasted a long time. I have been here long enough to know that this subject was debated for quite a few days in 1966 and 1967, and it is being debated again in 1973.

Mr. Speaker, I participate in this debate with the conviction that I have neither to apologize nor explain the position that I intend to take when voting. I also take part in the debate to outline my viewpoint and I do not propose to act like those who have spoken Friday, for instance, to indulge in rhetoric and judge the morals of my colleagues. Everyone is entitled to his convictions in the course of this debate on a subject which is of prime importance for the people of Canada.
When the point is to speak about the freedom of Canadian citizens, of those living on the fringe of society, we must not forget about the freedom of victims, of my colleagues, of mine as well as of the security of all Canadians. Since 1967, the Canadians that I have consulted, that I meet, do not stop indicating to me all their apprehension

October 22, 1973

and dismay when seeing what little respect some citizens show for the people. Different opinions are held as indicated by the speeches which have been delivered; we have noted at times that this debate was fairly emotional.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to apologize for holding my opinions nor will I try to understand, for example, those who are resorting to all kinds of academic exercises to try to convince their colleagues and themselves that society would truly be better protected if the death penalty were abolished.
During this debate, Mr. Speaker, we have referred to Gallup polls and surveys made by many of my colleagues. As for myself, I have asked the advice of my constituents and I intend to continue that kind of consultation or survey. Some hon. members have acted likewise, but having obtained the answer of the population, they turn down their views, they rise in the House to state that they do not wish to become prisoners of public opinion. As for the survey carried out by my colleagues as well as that of October 30, 1972, we are all closely bound by them and we must take them into account.
If I decided to waive aside the results, I should be forbidden to carry out other surveys. I do not want to see the intelligence of Canadian people being abused, but we should know how to make surveys. We ask for public opinion on certain issues, but then the results are spurned when the people are clearly told: You have let me know what you thought about such problem, but I do not share your opinion and I will not consider your answers.
Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty in believing in the result of the survey because, like 66 per cent of my constituents, I want the death penalty to be maintained. During the last few weeks, we have heard all the reasons that could be given for maintaining or abolishing capital punishment. Of course, Mr. Speaker, it would be much easier for someone on this side of the House to get up and say that he too supports the great majority of cabinet members who are in favour of abolition.
The position which I have chosen is much more difficult; very few have chosen it. Until now, very few have taken this position on third reading. I believe that what I am doing is right because I have read about this subject for months, Mr. Speaker. Some may say that people with a legal background are better qualified to give an opinion or become experts in this matter, but I do not think so. To arrive at a fair conclusion, you should first of all have a sufficient knowledge of life. You must also have studied the subject and consulted experts in order to be able to judge the situation. I sometimes wonder if certain lawyers who fervently support the abolition of the death penalty lack faith in their own talent. Do they have doubts about the quality of the services which they can render to their clients when they have to defend them and save them from the death penalty?
Mr. Speaker, during this debate, we have talked about life and about clemency and we have quoted texts from the Bible. I have no intention of doing this. As you know, the Bible contains as many texts in favour of maintaining the death penalty as texts against it. I would like to talk about life, to which each one of us is entitled and which is jeopardized by these people who live outside society and threaten the citizens. How many times have we been
Capital Punishment
seeing people who, while serving their sentence, were paroled and perpetrated a second crime, even more abominable than the first one. While concern is shown here about the criminal there does not seem to be enough interest taken in the poor victims. Mr. Speaker, when we think about these atrocities from which some elderly, some women and some children have suffered, we can say that to anyone who tries to imagine these pains it becomes almost physically intolerable to imagine to what extent these victims had to suffer through the hands of these criminals.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to support the bill under consideration. I will have to vote against it. I would not want to give the impression, Mr. Speaker, that I am definitely and straightly in favour of the maintenance of capital punishment.
I am also in favour of abolition of this type of punishment, but I do not believe that our society is ready in this year of 1973 to indulge in such a luxury.
We should consider, Mr. Speaker, the impact of the abolition of capital punishment. Let us consider, as an example, some possibilities. A provincial cabinet minister, the Hon. Pierre Laporte, was assassinated in a cowardly manner almost three years ago, and it is not impossible, in the event of the accession to power of the political party advocating the separation of the province of Quebec from the rest of Canada, that we would witness the release of the authors of this atrocious crime.
It is due to a weakness in the present act that a criminal may be released. Let us seriously think of the consequences that could derive in the province of Quebec if all those who had anything to do with the kidnapping and the horrible assassination of Pierre Laporte were released following the Parti Quebecois' victory.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am unable to support the bill before us. Therefore, I shall vote against it.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I was not long in coming to the House this morning, because I was definitely intent on making known my position in respect of this bill before it is read the third time.
I can state positively and without hesitation that I am as I have always been against capital punishment. If I am, Mr. Speaker, it is because I am deeply convinced as a Christian that demanding an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth serves no purpose and, I don't know how it is said in the Bible, I am not one of those who cry vengeance for a criminal act of this nature.
I have heard several hon. members using highly con-demnable cases of murder as examples and demanding in an almost sanguinary voice that the murderers be in turn exterminated, hanged, in order to get rid of them once and for all instead of "freezing" them for many long years in our penal institutions.
I was still quite young when a person to whom I was very close was the victim of a murderer. That person was my uncle and godfather, the chief of police of a small town. The story was in every Canadian and American
7074

October 22, 1973
Capital Punishment
newspaper because at that time it was not very often that policemen were killed in the course of their duties.
It is not for me to discuss the circumstances of the crime. The murderer was committed to a psychiatric hospital; he has been there ever since and I do not think he will ever get out. The victim's close relatives are still alive. His children are active in their professions in the locality. The murderer's parents and children are also still alive. All of us who were close to the victim's family have the greatest sympathy for them and we try to have toward the author of the crime no other feelings than those inspired by Christian charity.
I am making this statement without ill feelings and when you are close to such facts as I have been as a journalist during the inquiry and subsequent judgment I can confess that I have in my heart not a feeling of vengeance but rather a feeling of deep compassion.
I think that, first and foremost, society should admit that we are encouraging circumstances which lead to murder, crime and violence. As most hon. members I watch television on weekends. I not only watch baseball, hockey and football but also the kind of programs intended for our children and I am astounded by the number of violent actions shown on the screen. There was a time when parents could, up to a certain point, control the watching of violent acts in the movie theaters but today television is invading the privacy of Canadian families and unless you simply throw the television set through the window it is absolutely impossible to control what our children are watching.
And yet violence does exist. Violence is shown by a state corporation, by private broadcasting corporations, radio and magazines which are giving detailed reports of heinous crimes and our children are exposed to all those facts.
Of course, in a free society and a democracy our children should be appraised of those facts but it is time that the Canadian legislatures, both the Parliament of Canada and the provincial assemblies, should deal with violence aimed at Canadian families, at innocent children who quite often are discovering life under such circumstances. This is no way of presenting reality, however heinous it may be. I believe that society must above all examine its own conscience and not take the bloodthirsty attitude of seeking vengeance against those that committed the crime.
These are, Mr. Speaker, some ideas which I wanted to put forward during this debate. As I have said before, I am an abolitionist, by deep Christian conviction. And I always remember, in difficult circumstances, whether in my dealings with the press, in political debates, or in personal relationships with persons with whom I work or with members of my immediate family, that there is one thing one must never forget, Mr. Speaker, and that is to forgive others as we want them to forgive us.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made on Friday, July 27, the recorded division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-2, an act to amend the Criminal Code, stands deferred.


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been agreed that instead of proceeding with another item of business we will call it one o'clock and resume sitting at two o'clock, if this is agreeable to all parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Before I inquire whether this is the desire of the House perhaps I should inquire what would be the disposition of the House with relation to the special order for special hours this afternoon and again this evening. I assume hon. members would want to resume the hours of operation under the Standing Orders.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That, I believe, is the desire, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered. I therefore leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 11.47 a.m. the sitting was suspended.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the government warmly welcomes the call for a cease-fire by the Security Council jointly sponsored by the United States and the Soviet Union. We hope that it will be formally accepted by the parties to the conflict in the Middle East and put into effect as quickly as possible. The position taken by the Canadian government from the beginning of the recent outbreak of fighting, and as expressed by me last week, was that there should be a cease-fire linked with negotiations as soon as
October 22, 1973

possible. We have also urged the United States and the U.S.S.R., as the major suppliers of arms, to use their influence toward the achievement of a cease-fire followed by negotiations on the basis of Resolution 242.
The linkage with negotiations is in our view vitally important. It is not clear at this point what auspices will be considered appropriate by the parties for the negotiations that are envisaged to take place immediately and concurrently with the cease-fire. We have suggested that the machinery of the United Nations should be made use of. However, if there are possibilities of negotiations under the auspices of the great powers, we would certainly not wish to oppose this or any other method of bringing the parties together.
Since the cease-fire is to take place in the positions that the forces now occupy, there will likely be a useful role for UNTSO in helping to implement the cease-fire. It may be that UNTSO will need to be expanded to improve its capability for this purpose. The Canadian government would look sympathetically at any request from the Secretary General for additional Canadian officers for UNTSO.
If the process of negotiations does get under way, and we emphasize most strongly that it must, then there may be a need for some peacekeeping force in addition to the cease-fire observation function discharged by UNTSO. As I have said before, we are prepared to consider participation in such a force if we are requested by the parties concerned and if we are satisfied we can play a useful role. This could be a very different force from the United Nations Emergency Force.
In 1956, one of the objectives was to remove the danger of a confrontation between great powers. This time, fortunately, the two super-powers have come together on a joint proposal for a cease-fire and it may be, therefore, that in this encouraging climate of detente there may be a place in the peacekeeping operation for forces supplied by the great powers. We will follow closely developments at the United Nations and consult with other governments on the situation.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say, we welcome the statement and, more important, the news that came out of the United Nations with reference to the cease-fire. These last three weeks have been most strenuous times. The suffering of the people directly involved must touch us first, but we must also remember that in all this time we have faced a grave and potential threat to the peace of the world.
The situation in the Middle East has been a long, long time in its origin and creation and it will be a long time before we reach a final settlement. But this must be the goal. Let us hope that yesterday's news was the first step toward this ultimate and desirable goal.
I note the minister's reference to the super-powers. That is an indication of realism, that where the super-powers determine upon a course of events something can be set in train. I note, too, his reference to the climate which the much welcomed detente has allowed to develop. Hopefully, within this climate even this most grave, most difficult, most explosive conflict may be resolved.
I note the minister's preference for a United Nations body in the negotiating process. I would have the same
Arab-Israeli War
preference, but I would go a little further than his statement that the government would not oppose a group of super-powers or any other body. Indeed, we would welcome in an empiric way any group or organization which could advance peace in this long troubled region.
The minister is profoundly correct when he set out this view that negotiations are of the essence. The cease-fire is a beginning, it is something, an essential element but the world must move toward the resolution of this difficult problem. I note that the government will be in touch with other powers, other countries, and I presume most assuredly with the United Nations Secretary General.
I am sure all the people of Canada would want us, their representatives, to indicate that this country is prepared to make some efforts and, indeed, some sacrifices if, under the proper auspices and with reasonable hope for success, the kind of force the minister mentioned should be set up. I believe we should sacrifice something for peace in the Middle East because in doing that we would be doing much more. We would be sacrificing something for the peace of the whole world.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we, too, welcome with a spirit of thankfulness the Security Council's call for a cease-fire and the apparent acceptance of the call by the main parties concerned. We concur with the view expressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that an important feature of the cease-fire is that negotiations for a permanent peace based on Resolution No. 242 should immediately follow the cease-fire, preferably under the auspices of the United Nations.
These negotiations must take into account both the claims of the Arab nations for the return of territory occupied as a result of the six-day war in 1967 and the right of the Israelis to secure and recognized boundaries. We assume that implicit in the acceptance of the cease-fire by Egypt and Syria is a readiness to negotiate on the basis of the recognition of the independence and territorial integrity of Israel. Because of the absence of such negotiations, Resolution No. 242 of the Security Council was previously inoperative.
Another subject which will have to be dealt with in the negotiations is the situation of the Palestinian refugees. These problems will have to be solved by co-operative action not only on the part of the Israelis but by her neighbours and the world community as a whole.
The world will feel a sense of relief that it appears the great powers have been able to bring about a cessation of hostilities without becoming further involved in confrontation amongst themselves.
Finally, we will support a Canadian role under the United Nations in helping to implement the cease-fire and, if necessary, to keep the peace afterwards.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, it is always extremely unfortunate to see that even today countries continue to resolve their differences through war. Therefore, it is heartening to see that Canada acts as a valuable mediator whose obvious good faith and good will are beyond doubt.
7076

October 22, 1973
Broadcasting
We can only hope, Mr. Speaker, that the recent action taken by the United Nations will finally succeed in bringing together the belligerent parties. And we wish that Canada's helpful intervention will contribute in an increasing way to the establishment of a lasting peace in all countries of the world.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity related to the protest and impending general slow-down by nurses in the federal employ which will particularly affect war veterans in veterans' hospitals across Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the question involving pay differences between the nurses and Treasury Board be immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs in respect of those matters concerning the department's responsibility for treatment services to war veterans.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion proposed under Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


BROADCASTING
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek unanimous consent to put a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the failure of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to implement the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts as concurred in by the House of Commons on July 24, 1973, in connection with the examination of the subject matter of Bill C-22, to amend the Broadcasting Act (Advertising on children's programs), and in view of the commission's position as outlined in a public statement dated October 16, 1973, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the public announcement by the CRTC dated October 16, 1973, be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.

[ Translation]


CANADA PENSION PLAN (No. 2) AMENDMENTS RESPECTING ANNUAL INCREASES AND LEVEL OF INCOME ON WHICH CONTRIBUTIONS PAID
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-224, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (No. 2).


[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. Muir: 1.	How many members are presently on the Atlantic Development Council?
2.	What are their names, addresses and professions?
3.	What amount of salary does each receive?
4.	What amount did each member receive in expenses since his appointment and for what purposes were these expenses incurred?


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: 1. As of July 4, 1973, there are 11 members on the Atlantic Development Council.
2.	The Council members are as follows: Mr. Gordon Campbell Eaton, MC CD, (Chairman); Managing Director, Newfoundland Tractor and Equipment Company Limited, St. John's, Newfoundland. Mr. Alyre H. Cormier, Executive Vice President, Atlantic Holdings Limited, Moncton, New Brunswick. Mr. John B. Foote, President, J. B. Foote & Sons Limited, Grand Bank, Newfoundland. Mr. F. Carl Hudson, President, Municipal Spraying & Contracting Limited, Bedford, Nova Scotia. Mr. J. J. Kinley, President, Lunenburg Foundry & Engineering Limited, Lunenburg, Nova Scotia. Mr. Paul LePage, President, New Brunswick Federation of Labour, Bathurst, New Brunswick. Mr. John R. Lynk, President, Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, New Glasgow, Nova Scotia. Mr. Keith MacKinnon, President, MacKinnon Transport Limited, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island. Mr. Philip W. Oland, President, Moosehead Breweries Limited, Saint John, New Brunswick. Mr. Calvert C. Pratt, President, Steers Limited, St. John's, Newfoundland. Mr. Esau E. Thoms, General Chairman, Brotherhood of Railway Clerks, Freshwater, Pla-
October 22, 1973

centia Bay, Newfoundland. Messrs. Eaton, Cormier, Foote, Hudson, Kinley, MacKinnon, Oland and Pratt are businessmen; Messrs. LePage, Lynk and Thoms are labour leaders.
3.	Members of the Council serve without remuneration. There is provision for an honorarium of $5,000 per year for the chairman, but Mr. Eaton has asked that he be permitted to serve without honorarium.
4.	The following are the amounts received in expenses by Council members since their respective appointments: Mr. Gordon Campbell Eaton, nil*; Mr. Alyre H. Cormier, $1,706.17; Mr. John B. Foote, $2,642.45; Mr. F. Carl Hudson, $92.13; Mr. J. J. Kinley, $1,676.95; Mr. Paul LePage, $2,035.33; Mr. John R. Lynk, $1,420.18; Mr. Keith MacKinnon, nil**; Mr. Philip W. Oland, $1,323.30; Mr. Calvert C. Pratt, $2,466.79; Mr. Esau E. Thoms, nil**. These expenses were incurred by attendance at meetings in connection with their duties as Council members.
'appointment effective June 14, 1973.
''appointment effective April 1, 1973.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the total number of and total cost of potted plants for the yet unopened National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, purchased or contracted for or anticipated?
2.	If an equivalent sum of money were spent (a) how many days could it sustain fuel cost for HMCS Iroquois (b) how many hours could it sustain in-flight operational costs of one CF-5 (c) how many hours could it sustain in-flight operational costs of one Argus (d) how many hours could it sustain in-flight operational costs of one Tracker aircraft (e) how many units of Permanent Married Quarters could be given complete re-plastering and re-painting?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: The answer is as follows: 1. two thousand two hundred and fifty at a cost of $81,434.
2.	(a) 34; (b) 185; (c) 53.5; (d) 137.7; (e) 135.4.
1971 FIRENZA CARS


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Has the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs sent any representations or communications to General Motors Corporation in connection with public complaints concerning the 1971 Firenza and, if so, what is the nature of such government representations or communications and what response has the government received from General Motors?
2.	Is the government considering any possible ways in which it could assist General Motors in realizing their obligation to dissatisfied purchasers of the 1971 Firenza?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Yes. The Department has been in communication with General Motors Corporation in connection with public complaints concerning the 1971 Firenza. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is investigating complaints received from dissatisfied Firenza owners and bringing them to the attention of General Motors with a view of trying to assist in obtaining satis-
Order Paper Questions
factory solutions to these complaints. The Firenza problem has been dealt with by correspondence and by discussion between Mr. J. N. McGill, Owner Relations Manager of General Motors of Canada Limited and officials of the Department. G.M. informed the department it would; (1) investigate and effect repairs within the terms of the warranty; (2) consider claims for repairs required after the warranty has expired; (3) provide each Firenza owner with a $250 voucher, if the car was purchased new prior to April 14, 1973, which can be used in an original owner trade in of a Firenza on a new G.M. automobile.
2.	No. The government is not considering ways to assist General Motors in realizing its obligations to dissatisfied Firenza owners. The government considers that it is the responsibility of General Motors to meet its obligations to its customers.


Mrs. Maclrtnis (Vancouver Kings-way): 1.	What was the total amount of expenditure by the government in South Viet Nam from 1966 to the present?
2.	How much of this was spent in various forms of aid?
3.	What forms did this aid take?
4.	What was the total expenditure by the government on the International Control Commission in Viet Nam from 1954 to 1972?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Total government expenditure in Viet Nam from January 1, 1967 (the earliest date for the compilation of an aggregate figure) to May 31, 1973 totalled approximately $22.77 million. (Recoverable amounts have not been taken into consideration in this total. For the period until February, 1973 expenditures made in North Viet Nam are also included since the 1954 Commission's operations and financial reporting extended to both countries.)
2.	The Government expenditure on aid in South Viet Nam during this period was $15.13 million.
3.	The Canadian Government maintains a program of medical and relief assistance in the Republic of Viet Nam. This assistance has been provided in response to requests for medical, social and humanitarian aid. Projects have included a T.B. clinic at Quang Ngai, a rehabilitation centre at Qui Nhon, a Public Health Field Training Development Program, educational texts and training, food aid, refugee housing, and other forms of emergency relief. Canada has also made contributions to the International Red Cross for its programs in Indochina.
4.	Government expenditures in connection with the ICSC from 1954 to the present amount to approximately $17.5 million. (Recoverable amounts have not been included. Because of accounting procedures some expenditures made in Laos and Cambodia are included.)


Mr. Marshall: Under Canada's Safety Regulations, what is the minimum amount of space per person required for passengers in public transportation vehicles under (a) buses (b) trains (c) planes?

October 22, 1973
Order Paper Questions


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: (a) The
provincial Governments have authority under existing legislation to limit the number of passengers on public transportation buses in relationship to the designated seating capacity, (b) There are no regulations with respect to space per person upon trains, (c) Space per person requirements are not stipulated for aeroplanes. However, regulations require a seat and an individual safety belt or safety harness for each person in the aircraft, other than infants.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Does the CPR subsidiary Marathon Realty or any other agency of CPR benefit presently from any exemptions from (a) local (b) provincial (c) federal taxation, other levies or regulations in consequence of original grants of land to the original CPR by the government?
2.	If there are present exemptions, what is the nature of each such exemption from (a) local (b) provincial (c) federal tax, levy or regulations?


Jean Marchand: The
Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: Subsidiaries of Canadian Pacific Limited, such as Marathon Realty, do not come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission. Consequently, the Commission does not receive reports from these companies nor does it have access to internal financial reports or agreements.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond): 1.	Was Mr. Gerald Blackmore under contract to the Cape Breton Development Corporation and, if so (a) for what period (b) what was his salary?
2.	Was the contract completed and, if not, for what reason?
3.	(a) What was total payment to Mr. Blackmore (b) what total expenses were incurred by him during his employment with the Cape Breton Development Corporation?
4.	Was Mr. Blackmore given any paper(s) of recommendation at the time of his separation and, if so (a) who authorized same (b) who signed it?
5.	At the time of departure was Mr. Gerald Blackmore paid any form of severance pay, either lump or otherwise, in relation to his separation from the Cape Breton Development Corporation and, if so (a) what was the total amount (b) how was it received by him (c) who approved any such payment or payments?


Marcel Prud'homme: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Yes; (a) five years; (b) it is contrary to the policy regarding employees of Crown Corporations to publish specific salaries or other payments.
2.	No; terminated by agreement.
3.	As for 1(b).
4.	Yes, concerning Mr. Blackmore's professional status; (a) and (b) the President of the Corporation.
5.	Yes (a) as for 1 (b); (b) cheque; (c) the President of the Corporation.


Mr. Godin: Owing to increases in the cost of motorcars, gas and living in general, is the government considering reviewing the plight of rural mail contractors bound by contracts dating several years back and, if so, on what date will the government announce its projects and be in a position to make an adjustment to enable such contractors to earn wages comparable to those paid in other sectors?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: In accordance with the terms of the Post Office Act, mail services are performed under contracts awarded following invitations of public tenders. Contract rates including wages are therefore initially set by the contractors themselves when they submit their tenders. Section 35 of the Post Office Act provides for upward adjustments in mail contract rates at specified periods to compensate contractors for increases in operating costs. One of the stipulations therein is that contractors must file an application if they wish to have their contract rates reviewed. Once this condition has been met, the Post Office Department ensures that contractors are adequately compensated for increases in the cost of performing the mail services since they were awarded the contracts or since the last adjustments in their contract rates. The Department is presently updating its formula under which adjustments in mail contract rates are authorized to ensure that mail contractors will benefit from increases in wages comparable to those paid in other sectors of the economy.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond): 1.	Was the Cape Breton Development Corporation involved financially with the Hustler Corporation and, if so, to what extent, either in loans or grants?
2.	(a) On what date (b) for what reason did Hustler discontinue operations in Cape Breton?
3.	Who was president of Hustler Corporation when its Cape Breton operations closed down?
4.	(a) What was the state of Hustler's finances at the time of closure (b) did Hustler have a bank balance and, if so, how much?
5.	Did the Cape Breton Development Corporation recover its investment and, if so, to what extent?
6.	What was the final disposition of the Hustler bank account?
7.	Were all creditors paid off?


Marcel Prud'homme: The answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: 1. Yes, $659,264.26 by loan and loan guarantee and $65,000 by grant.
2.	(a) June 30, 1970. (b) Appointment of a receiver by Court Order.
3.	Wylie Mason.
4.	(a) A state of difficulty, (b) Yes, $212.07.
5.	Yes, to the extent of $64,151.19 in cash and $300,000 by agreement for sale of premises.
6.	Taken over by the receiver.
October 22, 1973

7.	No.


Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Who are the Directors and Executive Members of Le Conseil de developpement social du Montreal metropolitain?
2.	What are the (a) names (b) qualifications of the persons undertaking the research into long-term causes of economic inequalities among individuals and families under the grant recently provided by the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Marc Lalonde: 1. President, Mr. Serge Carreau; 1st Vice-President, Mr. Michel Bourdon, C.S.N.; 2nd Vice-President, Mr. Pascal Laforest; Treasurer, Miss Ginette Mackenzie; Secretary, Mr. Maurice Lafond; 1st Counsellor, Mr. Andre Messier, F.T.Q.; 2nd Counsellor, Mrs. Pierrette Cambron; Director General, Mr. Andre Carrier (commencing September 10, 1973).
2. (a) Claude Parent, Pierre Bouchard, (b) These researchers were chosen with the following qualification in mind: (a) that both be available for full-time work; (b) that both be familiar with methodological problems in relation to research; (c) that one have a Master's degree or equivalent in mathematics and/or computer science; (d) that the other have a Master's degree or equivalent in economics and/or economic sociology.


Mr. Forrestall: On what date will the government proceed with plans to install an air conditioning system in the Halifax International Airport to (a) alleviate the extreme heat conditions (b) alleviate the extreme humidity conditions (c) provide humane conditions for both employees and airport users?


Jean Marchand: The
Ministry of Transport has planned the installation of full air conditioning to all areas of the terminal building in fiscal 1976/77.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is the Minister of Transport considering any of the recommendations of the 1971 Carr Report and, if so (a) what are they (b) on what date will they be implemented?
2.	Is the Minister of Transport considering any of the recommendations of the Bind Report and, if so (a) what are they (b) on what date will they be implemented?
3.	Is consideration being given for freezing the tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway at the level established by agreement between Canada and the United States in 1959, similar to the action of the United States Government?
4.	Is consideration being given to absolve the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority from the necessity of collecting past, present and future interest on capital costs involved, similar to the action instituted by the United States?


Jean Marchand: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows: 1. A study of the recommendations in the Carr Report is continuing and no decision has been reached as to whether or when they will be implemented.
Order Paper Questions
2.	No.
3.	The United States Government relieved The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation from the responsibility to pay interest on loans for construction costs. Although this reduces the debt burden of the United States Corporation it does not amount to action to freeze Seaway tolls. No decision has been made to freeze the tolls indefinitely.
4.	Consideration is being given to the possibility of refinancing the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. No decision has been made concerning interest on capital costs.


Mr. Hueglin: 1.	According to the latest statistics available, how many individuals who are not Canadian citizens are obtaining (a) Old Age Security Pensions (b) Income Supplements and, of these, how many are citizens of the United States of America?
2.	Is any check made to see if they are in receipt of Social Security payments from the United States of America?
3.	If they are in receipt of such a Social Security Pension, does this, in any way, affect their eligibility?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Parts (a) and (b) can not be determined since Canadian citizenship is not a requirement for entitlement to an Old Age Security pension or a Guaranteed Income Supplement.
2.	Not in connection with an application for an Old Age Security pension. If a pensioner applies for a Guaranteed Income Supplement, however, he is required to state his income, including United States Social Security benefits, if any. His statement is subject to verification through income tax records.
3.	Not insofar as the Old Age Security pension is concerned. Eligibility for a Guaranteed Income Supplement is affected, however, since entitlement is directly related to the amount of income a pensioner receives.


Mr. McKinnon: How large are the floor areas of each of the passenger terminals and what is the 1972 passenger load for each of the following airports (a) Victoria (b) Edmonton International (c) Regina (d) Gander (e) Yellowknife (f) Toronto including Terminal 2 (g) London?


Jean Marchand: Air Terminal Buildings
(a)	Victoria	
(b)	Edmonton International.
(c)	Regina	
(d)	Gander	
(e)	Yellowknife	
(f)	Toronto Aeroquay 1	
Toronto ATB 2	
(g)	London	
Total Toronto International
Gross	Annual Enplaned and
Floor	Deplaned Scheduled
Area	and Charter
S.F.	Passengers (1972)
24,000	286,849
360,000	754,615
37,000	317,874
155,000	111,499
14,000	53,921
819,000	7,671,369*
648,000	-
42,000	187,552

October 22, 1973
Orders for Returns MARINE ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION


Mr. Forrestall: In what percentage of the accidents involving significant property damage and/or serious or more grievous injury to occupants to water vessels has the investigation been partially or otherwise concerned with procedures of the other agencies of government that are charged with a regulatory function with respect to marine transportation?


Jean Marchand: Marine accident investigation procedures require the investigation of all factors which might have a bearing on or cause or contribute to a casualty, including the practices and proceedings of other government agencies charged with any regulatory function when these are considered relevant.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the Department of Transport or the Department of the Environment aware of shipments of ground lead and zinc in powdered form being transported in open railway cars from Escatall Mines in Kidd, Ontario to Eastern points in Canada?
2.	Will the government take steps to require that such open railway cars be properly covered in order to prevent their contents from escaping in any way?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Ministry of Transport and the Department of the Environment are aware that ore concentrates are shipped from Kidd, Ontario to Eastern points in Canada in open top rail cars.
2. The Canadian Transport Commission, in cooperation with the Ministry and the Department of the Environment, is investigating this movement to ascertain if there are any problems associated with escape of concentrates while in transit.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	To date, what buildings are (a) owned (b) leased by the government in (i) Ottawa (ii) Hull (iii) Vanier City?
2.	For each year 1968 to 1972 inclusive, what was the total rental cost for those buildings leased by the government?
3.	(a) Who is responsible for negotiating rentals on behalf of the government (b) what is the mechanics by which rental premises are arranged?
4.	For that same period 1968 to 1972, how many (a) commercial buildings (b) single-attached dwellings (c) multiple dwellings were (i) purchased (ii) demolished by the government?

5.	What was the value of each (a) building purchased (b) land purchased?
6.	What was the demolition cost of each structure destroyed?
7.	How many buildings are (a) being built (b) will be built within the next five years by the government in (i) Ottawa (ii) Hull (iii) Vanier City (iv) Toronto (v) Montreal (vi) Quebec City (vii) Halifax (viii) Winnipeg (ix) Vancouver (x) Edmonton (xi) other cities?
Return tabled.



MOUNT HOPE AIRPORT-LANDINGS AND DEPARTURES OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

Mr. O'Sullivan: 1.	In the period October 30, 1972 to June I, 1973, how many aircraft owned, rented or operated by the government (a) landed at (b) departed from Mount Hope Airport?
2.	What was the point of (a) departure (b) destination for these aircraft?
3.	What were the names and government positions of all persons aboard these aircraft, other than crew members?
4.	What was the operating cost of each of these flights?
5.	What was the reason for each of these flights?
Return tabled.

[ English]



DEDICATION OF NEWFOUNDLAND BOOK OF REMEMBRANCE COMMEMORATING THOSE WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES IN WAR

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will agree with the motion I wish to make. It arises out of an event that took place yesterday in the West Block Confederation Room when, as indicated two days ago by the honourable and gallant Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) would take place, a ceremony did take place by which the Newfoundland Book of Remembrance was dedicated. You, Sir, were represented by the hon. member for Mercier (Mr. Boulanger). The minister himself made an eloquent address, and it and the fine address by the hon. member for Mercier ought to be available to the people of this country today and in the years ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: As the only member of this House who served in the Canadian Armed Forces in the first great war, I hope and trust that the House will not consider me presumptuous in asking that consideration and consent be given to having the speeches of the minister and the hon. member for Mercier printed as an appendix to today's Hansard. There were also addresses by the Speaker of the Senate and by Senator Major Carter. I take it that their speeches will be made available through the proceedings of the Senate.
In the battle of Beaumont-Hamel on July 1, 1916, on the Somme the soldiers of Newfoundland showed dauntless
October 22, 1973

courage and overwhelming sacrifice. Today their service and their sacrifices have become part of the tradition and, indeed, of the inheritance of our country. What they did there will always be remembered and honoured by all Canadians. That service, of course, was continued throughout the rest of the first world war and the second world war as well as in other parts of the world. That tradition of service is exemplified since 1916 over and over again, and I feel that it would be only proper that the House be given the opportunity to permit what was said by the hon. members who served with such distinction in the last war to be made available to the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not at all certain whether parliamentary procedure requires a seconder for this motion. I think the reaction of the House makes clear that it will be accepted unanimously. I do want, however, on behalf of my fellow Newfoundlanders on both sides of the House to express my thanks to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), for the generous comments made yesterday and again today with reference to my fellow Newfoundlanders who gave their lives in various conflicts throughout the years in defence of the liberties we all hold so dear.
There have been in my life in parliament three very memorable occasions. First, I believe I am the only person here present who was in this chamber or in the other place when the actual terms of confederation between Newfoundland and Canada were signed 25 years ago this coming December.
The second most memorable moment was when I made my maiden speech as a backbencher in this honourable House in our centennial year, an appropriate recognition, I felt, for Newfoundland as all of Canada celebrated 100 years and we were in every respect the baby of the family.
The third most memorable moment, and perhaps the one that will stay with me longest, was yesterday when some 150 veterans from Newfoundland joined with veterans from other parts of Canada and with parliamentarians of both Houses in the magnificent Confederation Room to record after a quarter century, through placing them in the Peace Tower of this magnificent building, the names of those Newfoundlanders who, while now at rest, and who thus join those hundreds of thousands of other Canadians in becoming posthumously members of a great Canadian family and to share with them the contribution that preserved for us all the liberty we epitomize in this House.
I express my gratitude to all for this consideration of Canada's newest province and oldest cornerstone of the whole Commonwealth. Thank you very much.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in just a word may I say that all of us who had the privilege of being present at yesterday's ceremonies agree as to their importance and their significance. I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to the right hon. member for
Newfoundland Book of Remembrance Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) for making the suggestion he has proposed to the House at this time. Possibly, the motion might be enlarged somewhat so that the entire record of what took place yesterday could be included in Hansard, whatever they might do in the other place. But in any case and in whatever form the motion is presented, we are very happy to give it our support.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will appreciate that the proceedings are somewhat irregular. We may be proceeding at this time under Standing Order 43 (a) or 117, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre would suggest. I am not sure whether it is the desire of the House to hear further comments at this time. As I said, I have some doubts about the regularity of the proceedings. The hon. member for St. John's East is seeking the floor. Perhaps he might be recognized briefly, and then I think we would have to go on to the next order of business.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I merely wanted to rise to associate myself and my colleagues with the remarks of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. He stated our position very eloquently and very well. I also want to thank on behalf of my colleagues the distinguished right hon. member for Prince Albert for his noble gesture.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I understood you correctly, I would imagine there would be a disposition by unanimous consent to revert to motions so that the motion presented by the right hon. gentleman could be put.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think there is really any motion to be put. The right hon. member has sought the unanimous consent of the House for an order that the proceedings of yesterday's ceremony be appended to Hansard. There is a slight difficulty in that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no taped record of the proceedings.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps there was a bug in the room.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the difficulty that that might cause, I think the order of the House would be that the contributions made to the ceremony by the hon. members referred to by the right hon. member for Prince Albert would be printed as an appendix to Hansard. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's note: For text of certain addresses at dedication of Newfoundland Book of Remembrance, see Appendix.]
7082

October 22, 1973
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am sorry to have to come back to this problem, but in view of the demand by the Attorney General of British Columbia on behalf of the people of that province that by noon tomorrow the federal government make a firm decision on curtailing exports of natural gas until such time as the shortage of supply has been averted, can the minister now tell the House what his decision is with respect to this demand?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I responded to the Attorney General by pointing out to him that his ultimatum, if I may call it that, was in direct contradiction and, I suppose a repudiation of the view of the principal energy adviser of the province, the chairman of the B.C. Energy Commission. The chairman of the commission has advised the holding of a meeting, and I understand from the National Energy Board that there was a meeting this morning, between representatives of the commission, of West Coast Transmission and of Alberta's gas utilities with regard to possible supplies from northern Alberta. With regard to possible supplies from southern Alberta, West Coast Transmission in conjunction with PGT and APCO is preparing an application to the National Energy Board for the transmission of gas from southern Alberta sources and a similar application will be made to the Federal Power Commission. As soon as the application is received, the board will deal with it with utmost dispatch.


Frank Oberle: Can the minister tell us specifically whether he has now ruled out cutbacks in the 62 per cent of B.C.'s natural gas going to the United States, and has he reached a decision as to whom will bear the cost in the event that reserves from Alberta are rerouted for the benefit of consumers in British Columbia?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing here with a licence issued by the National Energy Board. Therefore in the first instance it will be a question for that board to hear evidence and to make a determination. I think I can say to the hon. gentleman that a cutback in exports of natural gas is indeed not ruled out, but I would not want to go further than this before I have an opportunity to discuss the matter with the President's energy advisor tomorrow.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have one more supplementary question. In view of the difference of opinion expressed by these two regulatory bodies, is the minister prepared to make an offer to meet with his counterparts in British Columbia and Alberta in an attempt to avert this very serious crisis?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there does not appear to be any difference of opinion at all. The British Columbia Energy Commission holds the same view as the National Energy Board.


NATURAL GAS-COST OF POSSIBLE ALBERTA SUPPLIES TO BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSUMERS
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources similar to one asked about this matter last week. Is he in a position to say what the cost will be to consumers in British Columbia of this rerouted gas? Will it not be more than what they are paying already?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, this is obviously a question that will be included in the application to the Energy Board. I will then be in a better position to advise the House.


GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL-DECISION ON POSSIBLE PRICE INCREASES
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two to direct to the same minister. Last Friday after he had met with representatives of the oil industry he announced, according to press reports, that the government would probably agree to an increase in the prices of gasoline and home heating oil in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces and that it might have to consider similar increases for the part of Canada west of the Ottawa valley now served by oil from Canadian sources. May I ask the minister whether he has made such a decision and, if so, what the increase will be?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Sir. No such decision has been made yet.


David Lewis: In view of the continuing considerable profits made by these large multinationals, and particularly in view of the fact that they sell to themselves from wellhead to refinery at prices they themselves set, may I ask the minister whether he is persuaded that an increase in the consumer prices is justified in those circumstances?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is the decision to be taken.


David Lewis: Can the minister inform the House (a) when the decision may be expected and, (b), what elements he and the government are considering with respect to the application for price increases?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, such a decision might be made during the current week. I think the most critical element will be the cost of crude oil from offshore sources being landed in Canada. As the hon. gentleman will recall, Venezuela has increased its tax on crude oil, and as well as that there has been a 70 per cent increase in the price of crude oil coming from the Arab states. So the principal element to be taken into considera-

October 22, 1973

tion will be the landed cost of oil in eastern Canada. Another factor will be the ultimate impact on the Canadian market once the restraint comes off, and whether or not there should be graduated raises to meet these increases.


OIL-REPORTED POSSIBLE DIVERSION OF TANKERS DESTINED TO CANADA TO UNITED STATES PORTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of a report I received less than an hour ago that there is a possibility that tankers bringing oil from the Middle East to Canada will now be diverted to ports in the United States, will the minister investigate that report and, if that is the case, instruct the companies or owners of the tankers to deliver that oil to Canada, its original destination?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am much obliged to the hon. gentleman for bringing this to my attention. I will look into it right away.
[ Translation]


GASOLINE PRICE INCREASES-POSSIBLE AGREEMENT WITH PROVINCES TO REDUCE TAX
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the fact that gas prices are increasing in a staggering way, can he tell us whether he is going to have an agreement with the provincial authorities in order to reduce the tax on gas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it is a very relevant question; we will consider the hon. member's suggestion.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that on September 4 statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment indicated it was still Canadian policy to provide Canadian oil to the Pacific northwest in order to keep oil tankers out of the Puget Sound area, and in view of the fact that on September 20 a statement was made in the House that leaves this very much in doubt, can the minister advise if Canada has abandoned its policy of supplying Canadian oil as a substitute for tankers carrying oil from Alaska?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman has said,
Oral Questions
there have been quite a number of changes in circumstances since the first statement was made on September 4 and, indeed, since September 20. In the first place, there are indications that we do not have unlimited supplies of oil in Canada. Second, in view of the changing circumstances it might be worthwhile to build a pipeline across Canada. All of these problems have to be looked at afresh. It is still our policy to try to minimize and, if possible, avoid entirely the dangers inherent in big supertankers coming into those waters.


John Allen Fraser: With respect, Mr. Speaker, my question was specific and it remains specific. Has Canada changed its policy of asking the United States to consider Canadian imports in order to keep the tankers out of there and, if not, what steps have been taken recently, despite the changing circumstances, to maintain this position with the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, we have been reviewing our oil policies. We have not made a decision yet on this question. At one time this looked like a perfectly feasible method of avoiding bringing tankers close to our coast. I am sure the hon. gentleman would agree that, because of the changing petroleum situation throughout the world, we cannot now be quite as sure as we were.


INQUIRY AS TO CANADA-UNITED STATES OIL SPILL CONTINGENCY PLAN ON WEST COAST
John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise the House, with respect to this whole problem, whether there is in fact now in existence a joint Canada-U.S. oil spill contingency plan and, if so, how soon Canada will have sufficient oil pollution containment equipment and personnel on the west coast in order to meet our obligations under any such plan?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, of course it will be some years before there are supertankers coming down the Pacific coast carrying Alaskan oil. There is now, of course, some movement into many of our ports, as the hon. gentleman knows, and for some time now we have had very active discussions, with plans being made to try to minimize damage from oil spills on both the west coast and the east coast. I am sure he will agree that, while we are greatly concerned about the west coast, there are also problems on the east coast.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize the hon. member, but he has asked a question and three supplementaries. I think there has to be a limit to the supplementaries asked by a member.


Charles Joseph Clark: He has not had an
answer yet.


John Allen Fraser: One of my colleagues says that I have not had an answer yet. A letter delivered to me, September 7, from the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs contained the following:
26635-18!

October 22, 1973
Oral Questions
An elaborate joint oil spill contingency plan has been developed.
My question is this: has that plan been developed or not, or is it still being discussed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, a plan has been developed and it is still being discussed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: My answer to both questions is yes.


PLANS TO ASSIST OIL FIRED THERMAL POWER PLANTS TO CHANGE TO COAL
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has his department any contingency plans to assist thermal powered generating stations to change to the use of coal, or to make some other adjustment, so that areas of the country that are completely dependent on oil fired thermal power plants will not suffer unduly because of the increasing cost of crude oil?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the hon. member is more concerned in this particular context with the Atlantic provinces.


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: We have been discussing with the three maritime provinces the whole question of energy supply and expansion, but not necessarily up to now in terms of conversion. The question has been primarily one of nuclear powered plants as being supplementary to those now in existence.


OIL-ACHIEVEMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY-SUGGESTION AS TO POSITION MINISTER SHOULD TAKE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the minister has now struck out for the second time with the province of Alberta on energy matters, the latest being his reply to a question by the hon. member for Calgary North on October 18 concerning exemption of Syncrude, Canada, Ltd., from the export tax, which has been refuted by Mr. Spragin-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might like to ask a question rather than submit an argument. A question should not be argumentative.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Will the minister now go hat in hand to the province of Alberta on October 29 to initiate an agreement between that province and the oil industry and the federal government which will be of benefit to all Canadians?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. gentleman that I was not speaking to Mr. Spragin; I was speaking to his principals, and I still think that my comment stands.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the Prime Minister. If the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources strikes out the third time at the meeting with Alberta on October 29, will the Prime Minister assure this House that the minister will be out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is hypothetical.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to nurses in the employ of the federal government most of whom work in and for the Department of Veterans Affairs, but I should like to put my question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as minister responsible for the Public Service Staff Relations Board. In view of the fact that the nurses concerned, many of whom are not reporting for work these days, feel that the arbitral award in their case was unfair in that it did not take all the factors into consideration, will the minister take up with the Public Service Staff Relations Board the possibility of having that award reviewed?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will have a word with the chairman of the board and discuss the point made by my hon. friend.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. In view of the apparent discontent of many nurses in veterans affairs hospitals, which is going to interfere with the care of war veterans, has the minister made his colleagues in cabinet aware of the situation, has he had consultations and has he made representations to ensure swift settlement of the issues before many of our veterans are ignored?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member that I have spoken to one member of cabinet, the President of the Treasury Board. I would also like to assure the House that our veterans are well cared for. A segment of the nursing staff is off for three days registering their objection but I am informed that the veterans are still being well looked after.


Jack Marshall: In view of the fact that the Assistant Deputy Minister of Hospitals has resigned, is the minister making an immediate appointment so that the mechanics of the treatment of veterans will continue uninterrupted?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the doctor in charge of transfer hospitals has not resigned; he has

indicated his desire to retire on December 21. This has been well accepted, although we are very sorry, but it is due to personal reasons.


Mr. Bell:: Something like Agnew. He retired early.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the President of the Treasury Board has been mentioned, may I address a supplementary question to him? In view of the unwillingness of the government to pay adequate salaries to the nurses, will the President of the Treasury Board make it clear that the government will not buy the recommendation of salaries of $60,000 a year for deputy ministers?
Oral Questions
under way. The team is made up of representatives of Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway and they are considering the feasibility of a northern railway for the purpose of shipping oil, with the expectation that we will have a report about the end of the year.


John George Diefenbaker: I wonder if consideration is being given to the best possible location for the terminus, in the city of Prince Albert?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that assumes more than usual importance.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can accept the premise of the hon. gentleman's question, that the award was unfair.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of supplementar-ies are being sought on this subject. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Champlain, the right hon. member for Prince Albert and then return to this subject.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
Could he tell this House if he will intervene directly or indirectly in the election campaign now under way in the province of Quebec, should he think that the interests of Canadian federalism are threatened?


Mr. Speaker:: I doubt that the hon. member's question is in order. In any case, be it sufficient to say that it is hypothetical.
* *
*


STUDY OF POSSIBLE RAILWAY LINE FOR SHIPMENT OF NORTHERN OIL TO AVOID POLLUTION BY TANKERS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that a group of scientists and professors of Queen's University recommended some months ago that the solution to the problem of the dangers of environmental destruction as a consequence of the movement of oil by ship was that alternative action be taken, is there a task force now in the department which is evaluating the question of shipments being made by a railway that will take several years to build? What is the present position of that task force?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, under the aegis of the Department of Transport and my department a study is


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the refusal of the Treasury Board to at least commence phasing out regional pay inequities across the nation for employees under its jurisdiction, does the President of the Treasury Board have under active consideration, for the sake of consistency, a measure to pay members of parliament on a regional basis as well?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the House is aware that pay arrangements for the public service arise from a process of collective bargaining leading to an agreement. I have not heard any suggestion by members of parliament that they should be paid on a regional basis.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Can the minister then explain the reason for treating this diverse group of federal representatives in a fashion different from the public servants who perform similar tasks in different areas of the nation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, as I say, the present arrangement in respect of the public service is as a result of collective agreements arrived at by collective bargaining. An agreement means just that-an agreement.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and arises from the serious effect of the shortage of boxcars upon industry, particularly the lumber industry in British Columbia which has some 4,500 boxcars of lumber awaiting shipment from interior British Columbia, and the continual backlog in the movement of grain from the western provinces to the ports. Can the minister advise the House if he has had discussions with the two national railways on which he can report to the House, and has he

Oral Questions
recommended increasing the supply of boxcars to Canadian industry since this has been a chronic problem for a number of years?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, if I may start with the last part of the question, Canadian National, the British Columbia Railway and Canadian Pacific ordered railway cars for lumber at the beginning of the year. Unfortunately delivery was not as expected because of strikes and other conditions, and it is impossible to lease any cars from the United States. Canadian Pacific succeeded in getting 300 cars, but that is all that are available on the market because in the United States there is a shortage. I hope I can meet with the railways on Thursday.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can the minister inform the House whether he has recommended a complete study of the availability and future need of boxcars, particularly the practice of the United States in holding boxcars in that country for some 45 days causing disruption in the movement of boxcars along with the much needed future expansion of boxcar allocation? Can the minister indicate whether he has recommended that the railways or his department undertake such study, in order that we might be able to overcome the critical and chronic shortage of boxcars in future years?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is normally done each year. Last year they provided for an increase in activity of about 6 per cent. It is not unfortunate, but the increase in activity was 14 per cent and this is why there is a gap between forecasting and the situation now. At any rate, I am going to discuss these matters with them and hope to find a formula that will avoid a repetition of what is going on now.


BOXCARS FOR GRAIN-REQUEST FOR MEETING OF RAILWAYS, WHEAT BOARD AND UNION REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the request the minister has had from the National Farmers Union to call a meeting of the railroads, the Canadian Wheat Board and the unions as well as others interested and involved, has he acceded to this request or will he do so, survey the total situation and come up with some answers?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that last Friday there was a meeting in Montreal between the representatives of the Wheat Board, under the auspices of the Minister of Justice, and the railways. I have not had any report on that. The Minister of Justice is not here. As for myself, I am going to meet with the railways on Thursday about the situation prevailing in British Columbia.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a last supplementary on this subject, and then recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I again ask the minister if he will broaden the scope of these meetings and ask not simply representatives of the grain groups and the railroads but involve all those people who have anything to contribute if we are to move grain? May I also ask him if he would persuade the minister in charge of the Wheat Board to quit politicking in western Canada and get back to his job?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


EFFECT OF FREIGHT RATES ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-POSSIBLE FURTHER REGIONAL CONFERENCES BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PROVINCES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the promises that were made on January 4. in the Speech from the Throne, as regards national transport problems, and in view of the conference arranged in western Canada a few months ago to study the impact of railway freight rates on the economic growth of the west, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell us if he intends to set up soon other federal-provincial conferences in other parts of the country in order to study similar questions and to show the people of this country that these were not hollow promises?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member refers to the decisions that were taken during the western conference, he will see that the parties and the governments attending the conference decided to follow up with government policies in several ways, both by referring these problems to the Canadian Transport Commission and by providing for the review of transport problems by a standing committee that must report before the end of the year.
Other regions of this country were treated in a different way. The Minister of Transport held recent meetings with the Atlantic ministers of transport, about one month ago, if my memory serves me right. Therefore, as the hon. member may see, the government deals with problems in a way that is proper to every region.


REQUESTS FOR COMPLETION OF PLASTER ROCK-RENOUS HIGHWAY AND MODERN ROAD BETWEEN FREDERICTON AND SAINT JOHN
Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, while we are on the same question of transportation may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of repeated requests for federal assistance for the completion of the Plaster Rock-Renous highway in central New Brunswick and the building of a modern road between Fredericton and Saint John, New Brunswick, would the Prime Minister not pay too much attention to the corridor proposal through the state of Maine which is brought to his attention from time to time?
October 22, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's question is a representation. It is not a supplementary. The hon. member asked a question on transportation. It may have been a related question, but it was not a supplementary question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister received representations from the Canadian Council of Churches and the Canadian Catholic Conference in respect of 150 refugees from Chile who are, I believe, at the airport in Buenos Aires in the Argentine and who are seeking to come to Canada. They have been threatened with immediate deportation back to Chile or to their countries of origin. Will the government take urgent steps with a view to permitting as many as possible of these refugees to come to Canada in accordance with the undertaking given by the minister to the House that the government will adopt a humane attitude in such cases?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, on the specific question as to whether I received representations from the Canadian Catholic Conference, I do not know whether in fact I received representations. My department reports, however, that this situation, which was outlined to me in the letter from the hon. member of October 22, is a situation of which they were unaware. Therefore, I asked our office here to get in touch with Buenos Aires, and I am now expecting a report. If, in fact, the situation is as reported, I can assure the hon. gentleman that the Canadian government will apply the humanitarian standards that it has always applied to similar situations.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, may I make a recommendation? Does the minister not appreciate that there is great urgency involved in this case, as these people may be deported and it may be too late to do anything?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I say, the department had been unaware of this, but as soon as the hon. member's letter was received I had a message sent off to Buenos Aires, to check on the report.


TOURISM
Mr. Keith Taylor (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since the session is now almost ten months old, and since the Speech from the Throne indicated that measures would be introduced to assist in the development of the tourist industry in
Oral Questions
Canada, would the Prime Minister advise the House whether any action other than the usual issuing of press releases will be taken this year on this important matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to consult with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to see if he intends to make any announcement in this regard.


NUCLEAR AND HEAVY WATER PLANT IN NEW BRUNSWICK-DATE OF DECISION ON PROGRAM
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of present energy difficulties, can we expect that the government will be accelerating its program of nuclear plants and, in particular, will the first decision, the one in which New Brunswick is interested, be made almost immediately? If so, when?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the proposal, as the hon. member knows, is not only for a nuclear plant but also for a heavy water plant in New Brunswick. I hope that the question of a heavy water plant can be decided by the government before the end of this month.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the government House leader. As the unemployment insurance ceiling, as set out in prior legislation in the amount of $800 million, has been dispensed with, and as we note with concern the increased cost of unemployment insurance, which may be greater than perhaps it was last year, would the government House leader now direct that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration be struck, in order that it can be studied?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to discuss this matter with the minister and to give consideration to the proposal made by the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister responsible for UIC has repeatedly indicated that he proposes to introduce legislation dealing with the UIC, can the minister advise the House if it is still the intention of the government to introduce such legislation and, if so, when?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, unless I am out of touch with the legislative program, it is not the intention to

October 22, 1973
Oral Questions
produce new amendments to the Unemployment Insurance Act in this particular session.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have one last
supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Lanark-Renfew-Carleton on a supplementary question.



DATE OF PROCEEDING WITH BILL C-125

Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. In view of the fact the government recognized the concern of Canadians during the October, 1972 election over the misuse of unemployment insurance funds and, indeed, introduced Bill C-125 to rectify the situation, and in view of the fact the Prime Minister of this country stated the bill would be debated and disposed of within a few weeks of February 3, 1973, can the minister advise when this long delayed legislation will be brought before the House for debate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the House has already dealt with a measure having to do with the unemployment insurance fund. The second bill is still on the order paper. Consideration will be given to bringing it forward at an appropriate time.



FINANCE


Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It refers to the statement made last week by the former chairman of the Economic Council of Canada to the effect that Canada should reconsider its devotation to the growth of the gross national product in light of present economic thinking and conditions. Can the minister reassure this House and, therefore, the country that someone in his department is giving serious consideration to the thesis put forward by Dr. John Deutsch and many other leading thinkers in this country?


Hon.. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



BROADCASTING


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications whom I am glad to welcome back to the House after his trip abroad. Can the minister inform the House when the

Canadian Radio and Television Commission intends to proceed with implementation of the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts with regard to advertising directed to children which was concurred in by the House on July 14 or does the minister share the view that legislation is necessary before the commission can comply?
[ Translation]


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me around noon that he would ask me this question.
I have consulted the files and I believe that the decision of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission on this subject reflects several of the recommendations contained in the report which was tabled and sanctioned in this House. In my opinion the question of whether it is necessary to have legislation allowing the CRTC to go further, if such were its decision and the formal recommendation of the House, should be closely examined.
As for the second question, I should like the hon. member to give me a few days to reflect on it.



FINANCING OF COLISEUM IN EDMONTON-FULFILLMENT OF GOVERNMENT OBLIGATION

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact the city of Edmonton and the province of Alberta have fulfilled their promise of helping to finance the cultural and sports coliseum in Edmonton, when can we expect the federal government to fulfil its obligation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the question is of such urgency that it should be asked as a verbal question at this time. If the minister can reply briefly, he will be recognized. This is the type of question which could easily be put on the order paper or considered at the time of adjournment. If the minister can reply briefly, he will be recognized for that purpose.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the last part of the hon. member's question.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I want to know when the government is going to fulfil its obligation with regard to the cultural and sports coliseum in Edmonton.


Marc Lalonde: I think Your Honour is right, the matter should be debated. There have been discussions with representatives of the city of Edmonton, but I do not know to which commitment the hon. member is referring.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
October 22, 1973



AIR CANADA


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport who is responsible for Air Canada. In view of the bedlam that exists on weekends and the scarcity or reserved space on Air Canada on the Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal flights and in view of the fact the national capital should have the best possible air service, will the minister ask Air Canada to institute an airbus service similar to that which exists with great success between Calgary and Edmonton?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this is on the agenda of the transport council. We are discussing that at the present time. I hope we will find a solution because I also travel between the airport and Ottawa.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the absolute necessity that Canada state a definitive position with regard to the marine resources of this nation as they pertain to the international law of the sea conference and because the minister promised such a statement would be made, as recorded in Hansard tor June 28, stating Canada's position in anticipation of the Law of the Sea Conference, can he tell us when this statement will be forthcoming?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, consultations with the provinces have now been completed. My officials inform me it is likely I will have a statement on my desk for approval toward the end of this month.



FISHERIES


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I note he is not here. Perhaps he can reply when he returns. It relates to the secret Canada-United States meetings held between September 26 and October 4 with regard to salmon stocks on the Pacific coasts of both these nations. Will the minister, as he did with regard to the IMCO conference in London, make a statement on motions to inform the people of this country of Canada's official position at these meetings with regard to salmon stocks and the guidelines the government set out for negotiating them?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I shall advise the hon. minister of the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena.



CONFLICT OF INTEREST


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact there was a promise in the January 4 throne speech that the government would introduce legislation to deal with conflict of interest of members of parliament, ministers of the Crown and public servants, what plans are underway to introduce this legislation to the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, possibly I may reply to the question. As soon as the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections completes its study of the election expenses bill, it is the intention of the government to send to the committee the green paper on conflict of interest with the draft bill attached thereto on the independence of parliament. That will give hon. members of this House and of the other place an opportunity to consider the proposals which have been made, and, if they are found acceptable, to embody them into the law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member and the hon. member for Rocky Mountain for a first supplementary but we will have to call orders of the day after that. I appreciate that a number of hon. members could not be recognized-the hon. member for Victoria, the hon. member for St. John's West, the hon. member for York East and others. I hope they will be given an opportunity tomorrow.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: I withdraw the supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I relinquish my right to the floor.



INDUSTRY


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question also concerns undertakings given in the Throne Speech. In the light of the promise in the Speech from the Throne-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary to the question raised a few moments ago. Perhaps he can be recognized now for the purpose of asking a related question, after which I will call orders of the day.

Canadian National Railways and Air Canada


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Sir. In the light of the promise in the Speech from the Throne concerning the establishment of a competition policy, may I ask the Prime Minister if he would explain to the House why nothing of this nature has been introduced in parliament to date, and would he advise us when legislation will be introduced to parliament concerning competition policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We do intend submitting a bill to this effect to the House for first reading within a week or two.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I apologize for doing so at this point. It relates to an answer to a question on the order paper which was received during the question period. The answer was in response to question No. 2509 asking whether any subsidiaries or agencies of the CPR are exempt from levies or regulations imposed by the federal government or other governments and the nature of such exemptions. The answer was that such subsidiaries do not come under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission. Naturally, that non-answer was over the signature of the Minister of Transport. I intend to re-submit the question but I want to draw to the attention of the House, on this point of order, the recurrent attempts of the government, on questions of this kind, to avoid answering legitimate and important inquiries.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House, resumed from Thursday, October 18, 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, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, when I last spoke on this subject last Thursday I had partially completed my remarks. I was discussing the financial statements of Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway and showing that the excuse offered in the past for the poor financial performance of the CN that debt charges were responsible for its lack of profit was nonsense. A comparison of debt charges against operating revenue of the CPR and the CNR shows that Canadian Pacific in fact carried a greater burden of debt

in proportion to operating revenue than did the CNR. On this basis alone, there is reason for concern among members of this House and Canadians generally when they are frequently being asked to supply additional funds to the Canadian National system.
As I said the other evening, it is most difficult, because of the nature of the balance sheet, to be sure of extracting accurate figures but I believe the figures I am giving are accurate. I have spent a fair amount of time on them. Gross revenue from railway operations only earned by the CPR during the last fiscal year amounted to $709 million. Revenue of the Canadian National system from its rail operations only was $1,257 million. After taking into account all debt charges, the CPR made a profit of $44.6 million on its railway operations. The CNR, not taking debt charges into account, made a profit on its railway operations of $23 million. Both railway companies possess additional sources of revenue, such as telegraph operations, hotels and other activities. After allowing for debt charges, the CPR made a profit of $70.4 million. The CNR took another $24 million out of its ancillary operations, but after paying its debt charges it lost $17 million, and the CN was quite proud of that performance. Clearly, in the field of railway operations alone, the CPR is able to generate a significant profit. The CNR, when debt is taken into account, generates no profit at all. But the statement as made up by the CNR tries to bury this fact, though it is one which must, I submit, cause concern to all hon. members.
The national railway system was an important factor in the building of Canada. Parliament has always considered the railways to be a vital means of tying our nation together. The events with which the railways were associated in the last century-the bringing together of the various provinces, the entry of British Columbia into confederation, to name only two-were matters of constant concern to parliament until the driving of the last spike. There is no question that Canadian Pacific received significant land grants as well as what were large sums of money in those days from the federal treasury. But I would point out that with the exception of certain operating subsidies affecting lines of national importance, the CPR has received no money from the federal government since that time. I would also remind the House that the Canadian National system was virtually completed prior to the first world war. Some 60 years have elapsed since then. But since the take-over of the Canadian National by the people of Canada, vast sums of money have been advanced to the CN in addition to the original land grants made during the earlier years of the system. It occurs to me it is time a serious analysis were made of the viability of this Crown corporation and the capacity of its management. As I pointed out the other day, on the basis of established values we should not be continually faced with appeals for further money for operating capital to supply the need of this railway.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to certain figures which appear in the balance sheet of the CNR. Net new investment made by the CNR during the last fiscal year amounted to $102 million. The capital cost allowances for tax purposes on existing equipment owned by the company was $126 million. So the CN had at its disposal more funds than were, in fact, necessary to replace its
October 22, 1973

stock and make the additional capital investment, since the difference between capital cost allowances and new investment amounted to $24 million. These railways are now in such a state in terms of capital assets that the depreciation of existing assets should more than supply sufficient cash reserves for new capital investment, if the process is properly managed. Clearly, according to the CNR, it does. Yet one of the things the present bill talks about is the advance of money to the CN for the very purpose of providing for the extension and renewal of the system. I am suggesting that, according to the CN statement, this requirement of public funds is not, or should not, be needed. If it is, in fact, necessary, the management of the CNR has a great deal of explaining to do before members of this House.
One of the things that bothers me about the CNR is its propensity to become involved in the grandiose and the spectacular. Sometimes I wonder whether the motive is of a political nature or whether these proposals are simply designed to enhance the public image of the company. A proposal was made to build a communications tower in Toronto. Originally, the tower was to have been owned jointly by the CN and the CP. The CP looked at the Tower of Babel, and decided it was not a good investment. The CN, without consulting the people of Toronto or the Council of the City of Toronto decided to go ahead using its power over Crown land.
I note the bill before us contains a recommendation that an advance be made to the railway company by the people of Canada of $8.8 million to CN Tower Limited. If this bill should pass this House, then the directors of the CNR must be brought before the standing committee of the House and give a detailed explanation as to why this railway, which if it has any justification for its existence must be the justification that it will move grain, people and freight across the reaches of the country, should be building a Tower of Babel in the city of Toronto.
1 come to the next matter of experimentation. The CNR decided to engage in an experiment in connection with a turbotrain. That train has yet to run. We have no idea what is the cost of the experiment to the Canadian National system in connection with that train. The directors of CNR had better explain this to the members of the House one of these days.
I come now to commuter services. It is my hope that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) will be speaking to this House later in this debate, but it is clear that the Canadian National Railways operates the commuter services into the city of Toronto. It is also the agent for the province of Ontario which operates the rail service for commuters into the city of Toronto under the Go-line system. The information we on this side of the House have is that the CNR makes a very handsome profit from the people of Ontario and the government of that province in operating the Go service into Toronto and is not at all willing to do anything other than make money out of Toronto commuters. Many of us would like to know the exact cost of operating that Go service. There has been much evidence that rail costs that are totally unrealistic vis-a-vis the capital equipment used, use of rights-of-way and so on, are passed on to commuters. The directors of the
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada Canadian National system had better be well prepared to answer these questions when they come before the committee.
I note also that the Canadian National system wants some more money to refurbish its hotels. When the railways were first built in this country, rail travel was the only means of communication. Obviously, it was necessary at that time for the railways to enter the hotel business. As far as movement of people is concerned, the railways are no longer the prime mover, except for the commuter services. Yet this railway has decided that it has to expand its hotel business.
If we were desperately short of hotels and motels in this country, perhaps that might be a fair decision to make. But we are not. Private industry has been very competent at building hotels right across Canada. I do not have to mention the chains run by the Highland House people, the Four Seasons, the Holiday Inn group and so on, which have been building quite excellent facilities in cities right across the country and, indeed, in some smaller places. Is there any real need for the people of Canada to provide $5,679,000 to the Canadian National Railways to build hotels? After all, the purpose of the railway was to forge links of steel across the nation to unify the country. Has this company any business going into one new venture after another without really getting down to fulfilling its major undertaking?
The other day in this House the hon. member for Gan-der-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) about the ferry service and the number of rail cars presently awaiting transit to the island of Newfoundland. The minister stated that the situation was not all that bad, that there were only 520 cars in the line last year and only 670 cars this year. These railway cars, Mr. Speaker, have been lined up, waiting, waiting, waiting, as the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate said, not for one day, two days or three days, but waiting with their cargoes for up to six weeks. Neither this railway, the government nor the Minister of Transport get upset about this, and they now come to the House asking for another blank cheque. Clearly our national railway is not doing its work properly, despite the subsidies it receives. The directors of this system have a lot to answer for, and they will have to answer to the committee of this House.
I now want to talk for a moment about Air Canada. This is quite a fine corporation that we have, but I suspect it would operate much better if it were not for the interference of the present government of Canada with its operations. A lot has been said in this House about the building of Terminal two at Malton Airport in Toronto. The suggestion was that we would build a new terminal for foreign carriers and Terminal one would be for the exclusive use of Air Canada.
I have placed a number of questions on the order paper with regard to this matter. What happened when the building was completed? It was so poorly and ineptly designed that the private carriers would not have anything to do with it. The rents were so high that the private carriers said, "no dice". So, this government admitted it had goofed and decided to force Air Canada to take responsibility for the goof. It did so, and Air Canada spent a fortune in our money. They are now coming to us and

October 22, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada asking for the money that they used to make up for the goof of the government in the design and administration of Terminal two. I wonder what these independent directors of this supposedly independent Crown corporation were thinking of to be such stupid businessmen that they would take a lease of a terminal which was totally unsuited to its operations. These directors will have to answer some questions about this matter.
Then, there is the matter of certain landing rights. We have been discussing in the House the landing rights at Milan. Air Canada has been seeking these landing rights and so has CP Air. Whether or not Air Canada gets them, the right to fly from Toronto to Milan is an exceedingly valuable right. But rather than assist Air Canada or CP Air to make some money from this route, the government makes no decision; it simply sits on its hands.
Another matter that Air Canada had better explain is the relationship between the government of Canada and a person by the name of Ward, as well as the purchase price of an airline called Wardair which seems to have integrated itself with the government system for charter purposes. I do not have the balance sheets to give the House figures on this, but the very strong suspicion I have regarding the value of the aircraft purchased and the previous profitability of Wardair is that Air Canada paid three or four times what it should have paid for the Wardair system. I think this House must demand from Air Canada a complete explanation of the Wardair transaction.
Even today, we have heard concern expressed in this House about service. When I go to Ottawa airport if I do not have a standing reservation I am lucky if I get out of this city to fly to the Mississauga airport in my riding. There is not nearly sufficient service. The occupancy rate or load factor as shown by Air Canada is 65 per cent. I want to say to members of this House, and I am sure my observation can be confirmed by almost every member, that very few of us have ever flown on an airplane in the last year or so when that airplane was not full. I would say I have yet to fly on an Air Canada plane when it was only 65 per cent occupied. Other airlines operate on a much lower load factor. Yet this airline, on its own figures, has an occupancy rate of 65 per cent and should supply a better service between important business locations.
When I hear, as set out earlier today, and as the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) set out in his remarks on this bill, that there is more than adequate air service between Edmonton and Calgary operated at a profit by a private carrier, because Air Canada could not be bothered, I wonder why we cannot have, without more and more study by the minister, an airbus service between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. The reason for this is simply beyond me. The directors of Air Canada have much explaining to do.
Another thing they should explain to us is the reason this airline has decided to use a multiplicity of aircraft. It is presently using Douglas aircraft, the DC-8's and DC-9's, Boeing aircraft, the 747, and the famous Lockheed 1011. I shall not comment on the value of these particular aircraft but it strikes me, as a person with some business experience, that a sensible corporation would attempt to stay

with one company so that it would have one set of parts in terms of spares, and one set of maintenance problems rather than three. This might sound a little confusing, but it strikes me as being sensible that one type of aircraft, or one maker and certainly not three, is really all that is required.
Now, to discuss some of the ramifications in respect of the annual reports, I looked carefully first at the Canadian Pacific report. The report is a considerably thinner document than the Air Canada report, but it is printed in just one official language. If one examines the quality of paper, one will find that it is not glossy, fancy paper. It is pretty good paper but of poorer quality when one compares it with the fine paper used by Air Canada and the Canadian National. The Canadian National and Air Canada, after all, can afford the glossy, fine-textured paper and a fine printing display because the payment for this comes from only one source. They have parliament and if they need money they come and get it. They do not have to answer to a great number of shareholders who have their money invested in the company. The situation should be the other way around. The CPR has to market its stock and borrow money on the open market. It has every reason to produce a very classy, if you like, image. But this other company- it is really only one company because CNR owns Air Canada-has only the members of this House to think of and it could print its annual report on mimeograph paper for all we would care. We do not need the fancy printing or the rotogravure. We would be quite happy if it came to us in English and French on Gestetner paper. But they have to make a good show. For whom? I say, Mr. Speaker, probably for themselves.
I wish to go further and do a quick analysis of the profitability of Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines, because the situation is the same as with the railways, except that Air Canada does make a small profit and the railway system loses money. In 1972, Air Canada had an investment of $816 million. With this investment it had a gross revenue from fares of $475 million. In other words, it took nearly $2 of capital to produce $1 of revenue. The Canadian Pacific system had a gross investment of $161 million and a revenue from fares of $172 million. For $1 of investment Canadian Pacific was able to generate slightly better than $1 of revenue.
Let us see what effect this had on its profitability. Air Canada, with $816 million invested-and much of its debt money without interest-after taxes produced a profit of $8.5 million. The Canadian Pacific system, with $161 million in capital, produced a profit after taxes of $5.1 million. Although Air Canada is nearly five times the size of Canadian Pacific, its profit amounts to a difference of only $3 million. This is ridiculous. Air Canada has every bit as good a routing system as Canadian Pacific and has every bit as good facilities at airports. Air Canada has the same technical assistance as the Canadian Pacific system, and yet it cannot show as great a profit. This points out the whole problem in respect of Crown corporations. These Crown corporations should do two things. First, for their profit-oriented sector they should perform every bit as well as a private corporation and indeed, because of the ability to borrow money at less than the market rate in many cases, they should do better. But do they? They do not.
October 22, 1973

We must say to ourselves that if a Crown corporation is in competition with private enterprise and cannot do as well, then we had better look very hard at the directors, the system and the organization of that Crown corporation-indeed, at the validity of Crown corporations in the first place. When this bill comes before committee, the directors of this corporation, if they have not already been questioned by members of the committee, had better look after themselves. They will have to explain-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired. He could continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I have only one or two remarks, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that since this Crown corporation was set up for the purpose of providing service to the public, we as a government should determine the public service quotient in it. If we had a private corporation doing that work, the same thing would apply. We should receive the public service that we require from the corporation. We should then say to the corporation officials: "Do not tell us about the public service problem. We have paid you well for that. It should have brought you profit. You must perform as does any other business, and if you cannot perform that well, then there is something wrong with your management".
Unless we start looking at these corporations very seriously, we will wind up with bills such as this every year. We have the same problem with the CBC. We are told we need that corporation for national communications. It costs us about $100 million a year. We do need that corporation for national communication in part, but let us buy the national communications service from the corporation.
The same applies to transportation. Let us buy the transportation service from the corporation at such rates as we need to pay in order to tie the country together. Having done that, these corporations must stand on their own feet, and so must their management. If they cannot do so, then there is mismanagement somewhere. These people are not working for the public service. They are working for Crown corporations and they are paid as they would be on the ordinary commercial market. These corporations are supposed to pay taxes and do something for the economy of the country. So I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of the House, that the management of Air Canada and of CNR leaves much to be desired and there is much to be explained.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, I will probably speak for a relatively short time this afternoon, but there are one or two matters which I should like to bring before the House. Much has been said about the CNR and Air Canada, and about the fact that they do not operate as well as private enterprise. I find it rather strange that this point should be made so strongly. Let us remember that the CNR came into business because a number of private railroad companies were going bankrupt. Initially, the CNR was a rescue operation.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That was 60 years ago.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I thought everyone knew that the CNR was a rescue operation. I cannot even say which particular government performed that rescue operation, whether it was a Conservative, a Liberal or a union government, but whatever government it was I suspect that it had no alternative. I do not see why we quibble about that matter. So far as the CPR is concerned also, I suppose, the people to my right would say that that company is a great example of private enterprise operating well. Initially, that company also was a great example of a group of skillful financiers and promoters being able to take the public of Canada into camp and come out very well as a result of their manipulations. Let us face it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shysters.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I do not see the point of wailing about this particular aspect. If the members here want to talk about the type of service that is given by the public corporation, then I think they are quite justified in examining this aspect, and I myself would like to examine it in particular. I regret very much that the matter of CNR financing did not come before a committee of the House before we recessed and before the rail strike occurred. There are railroad employees in my constituency who wanted to put across their points of view with regard to pensions before that committee. They wrote to ask if they could do that. They sought a hearing but were unable to get it. This failure lies at the door of the government across the way. For some reason or other, apparently they did not wish to see CNR financing before the committee. This contributed to some of the unrest that occurred among workers on the railroad because they felt, I think rightly so, that they were being unfairly treated.
The hon. member who spoke before me was very unhappy with the fact that the CNR is in the hotel business, they have been in the hotel business for a long while. I might say, on the opposite side of the fence, that I am very unhappy at the fact they got out of the hotel business in Saskatoon.


Mr. Whicher:: They did not make it pay.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As a matter of fact, it did pay the year they sold it. I want to tell the hon. member something else, namely, that the CNR had spent a lot of money on that hotel. They had remodelled the main floor of a very attractive building and they had done a good job. They put in a swimming pool and brought this hotel up to the top standard.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: They got the money from us last year.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: That is absolutely right. They got the money from the people. And then what did they do? They sold it to good old private enterprise at a figure that they will not disclose. The CNR and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) will noi tell the people of Canada the price for which they sold that hotel. I wrote the minister a letter on August 8 asking him for the price at which the hotel was sold, but he has not yet replied. I received a reply from the minister which is dated October 18 and came into my hands today. It took the minister two months to inform me that he would not reveal to a member of the House of Commons the price at which the CNR, a Crown corpora-

October 22, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada tion, disposed of one of the most valuable pieces of property in the city of Saskatoon.
As I say, it took him two months to write this letter which reads in part:
I have discussed this matter with the Management of the CNR and I am advised that the purchasers of the hotel are Management Associates Limited of Saskatoon ...
The matter of the sale price is one which the purchaser would desire remain confidential and, in any event, it is not the practice nor the policy of the CNR to disclose terms and conditions of transactions it may have with other parties.
Why not, Mr. Speaker? Incidentally, for the benefit of hon. members to my right, the head of Management Associates is a very prominent person in their party, if that is any comfort to them. Why cannot the members of this House be told the price at which property, which belongs to the taxpayers of this country, is disposed of by the CNR? This is a disgrace, Mr. Speaker. Is the government afraid? Is the minister afraid to disclose the price? Was the price so low that it was not in the interests of the people? Was the price so low that the government dare not inform the people? As I have said, this is one of the most valuable pieces of property in the city, but the government is afraid to disclose the price at which it was sold.
There has been discussion of the amount of debt owing by the CNR. I do not know how important that is, because debt is only relevant to assets and the productivity of a business operation. A debt of $1,000 may be enough to ruin one individual, but another individual or corporation may have a debt of $500,000, with no real problem, because cash flow and turnover can take care of it.
Referring to the service that the CNR gives Saskatchewan people, I would also like to mention how it treats our industry. Hearings were held on the transportation of rapeseed and products manufactured from it, out of Saskatchewan to eastern Canada. After a lot of talk we managed to get a reduction in the freight rate on oil cake meal, but not on the oil.
According to the financial pages of the newspapers the other day Agra Industries, a Saskatoon company, privately owned, has taken over some operations in Montreal where it will manufacture rapeseed products. The reason for this is that the CNR freight rates are so high on the finished product which is manufactured in Saskatoon that it pays the company to ship the raw product to Montreal and process it there. This same company has an operation at Nipawin, where it handles the entire production right through to margarine. It has the capability and know-how, but the freight rate structure is such that it is to the company's advantage to move part of the manufacturing to Montreal in order to be competitive.
As I said at the beginning, Mr. Speaker, I do not worry too much about whether the CNR is publicly owned or privately owned, or whether the CPR is publicly or privately owned, but the manner in which they serve the regions of Canada is something we should all be concerned about in this House. Our record in many instances is not too good, especially when one looks at the outlying regions of Canada, the regions which are totally dependent on rail traffic.

The hon. member who spoke before me referred to the wonderful rail service in parts of Ontario. There railways have to be competitive with water and truck transport, and they must give service. But out where I come from they are the only carriers for some goods. We must use whatever service they care to provide. That is the basis on which they operate.
Here I would like to say a word or two about the condition of the CNR branch lines. The same thing applies to the CPR in our area. There was a small accident on one of the subdivisions. An investigation was held, partly at my urging. The fault was placed on the train crew for running the train at 20 miles an hour. The track was so bad that there was a speed limit of 15 miles per hour. If the train were to run at 20 miles an hour the roadbed would not stand it. There are thousands of miles of track that have not been properly maintained. This is not good service to the people of Saskatchewan.
It is the same story whether it is a question of moving oil or refined products to eastern Canada, whether it is maintaining the roadbeds, or anything else. Today, I talked to the President of the National Farmers Union who told me that the supply of grain cars in Western Canada is in arrears, even though the elevators at Thunder Bay are less than half full. This situation cannot be blamed on the labour dispute which ended a month ago. Something more basic is the cause of what is happening in Saskatchewan and other parts of western Canada. British Columbia has a complaint with respect to the shipment of lumber. What is needed is a different attitude on the part of railroad management. An attitude of expansion instead of contraction is needed. This attitude is prevalent in British Columbia and the Yukon with the development of additional rail lines and services, but for that attitude to fully benefit Canadians it has to reach the interior regions and the prairie regions so that we have a wholly integrated and forward-looking system of delivering service to the people who need it.
Finally, I want to say a few words in respect of the so-called servocentre system. In eastern Canada, as well as western Canada, station agents have been removed and the areas put on an integrated servocentre system which the railroad claims is an improvement. That remains to be seen, Mr. Speaker. I might as well say that in much of my constituency it is not being easily accepted as a better system. I would like to read a letter from one of the towns in my area to the superintendent of express and intermodular services, Canadian National Railways, Saskatoon. In that letter of May 3, 1972, the town clerk wrote:
At our last regular meeting of the town council your proposal to reduce services to Tuesdays and Thursdays came under discussion. As a town, we oppose any form of reduction in services. By not giving service farmers deliver grain elsewhere and freight and express is given to those who give the best service. It appears that poor service is deliberately planned to reduce the volume enough for a permanent shutdown. If this is a sample of what servocentre can do we in small communities have little to look forward to.
That is a sample of some of the letters and opinions that have come to me from towns in my constituency, and I am sure other western members could give similar examples. They do not have to be solicited, they just come. Our
October 22, 1973

problem is to try to deal with them and to get back from the railroad concerned the kind of service that was once given to those towns. Most of the machinery parts that we get in the town of Biggar come by passenger bus. Now, buses were not designed to haul machinery parts; they were designed to haul people. For a number of years the railroads have made it clear that they do not want to haul people, and now it appears they do not want to haul parts for machines.
We have one of the most efficient agents in our town, and he pointed out that the little baggage compartment of a passenger bus can only hold so many machinery parts in addition to all the luggage. Any parts that cannot be put into that compartment are just left. He says that eventually the agents give up on the whole thing and drive to Saskatoon to get the parts.
The main CN line from Montreal to Vancouver runs through Biggar, yet the main line passenger bus is hauling machinery parts to this town. The only conclusion one can reach is that service to the customer is not the prime objective of either the carrier or the Canadian Transport Commission. I do not leave the Canadian Transport Commission free of blame. I know that its powers are very limited, but I have yet to see it come before a committee of this House and ask for a change in the act so that it can protect the needs of the customer.
As a result of the MacPherson Commission in 1967 and various other hearings and proposals, the new Transport Act created circumstances under which some subdivisions can only tolerate the trains moving at 15 miles an hour. Mr. Speaker, there was a time when I could move as fast as that on a saddle horse, but that is as fast as the CNR can move trains over a subdivision in my constituency. It is ridiculous, but that is the way it is. We haul machinery parts around in passenger buses and people living 70 miles or more outside Saskatoon have to bypass perfectly good towns and machinery agencies to drive God knows where to get parts. Perhaps this House will not believe me, Mr. Speaker, but there are places in southwestern Saskatchewan where the people would not use a car; they would use an aircraft to get the service they need. If this is supposed to be progress, then someone had better change the definition of that word in the dictionary.
I do not particularly want to say anything about Air Canada, as some other hon. members have. I suppose it has its problems, just like everybody else. In the part of the country from which I come, I think Air Canada takes second place to rail transportation, except for moving people. We are mainly concerned about rail and road transportation. If we do not have rail transportation, we have to spend a lot of money building highways for more buses and trucks to do the job that the railways will not do. If the railways eliminate branch lines, then we need more trucks and more expensive highways to move the grain, the produce and the livestock. Rail transportation is pretty important to my area, to the people who use it and the people who run it. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope we come up with a satisfactory settlement so that we can do the transportation job that needs to be done for the people of Canada.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, I do not particularly relish speaking this afternoon on this bill dealing with the financing of the CNR because, frankly, I look at it with a feeling of hopelessness and complete frustration. I look on it with frustration because, ever since coming here in 1968, I have heard members on both sides of the House intelligently criticizing the operations of Canadian National Railways, yet nothing has happened as a result of those criticisms. Of course, the same situation existed for many years before 1968. I hope that members of the government, particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand), will read the last two speeches made in this House, the one by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn) and the one by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), both of whom are members of the opposition. The feelings they expressed this afternoon are not representative merely of the feelings of the Conservatives, the NDP or of the Creditistes. They are shared sincerely by those who sit on the government side of the House.
I said I was frustrated because I have spoken on this subject on numerous occasions and have listened to others speak on it, but nothing has happened. I also have a feeling of hopelessness, because I am almost totally certain that no matter what the opposition has said in the past or this afternoon and no matter what I say, nothing will happen. The CNR will carry on in its own way, doing exactly as it sees fit. It will not pay one iota of attention to the wishes of the House of Commons. Certainly, this has happened in the past, as far as I can see. The fact is that our feelings, as voiced by the constructive criticism which has been given by members of this House, are shared, in my opinion, by the people of Canada. Those feelings the CNR has completed ignored over the years.
With respect, I suggest that the members of one side of this House are in the position to do something. Surely, I do not exaggerate when I say that the government has the right, the ability-


An hon. Member:: And the obligation.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: -and the obligation, as an hon. member has said, to do something about this. Canadian National Railways may be a very important segment of the economy of Canada, but if they think they are bigger than the government of Canada or the parliament of Canada, they have gone too far. I suggest respectfully, and I say this apologetically as I hope members of the opposition will appreciate the position I am in, that the government is obligated, not only to parliament but to the people of Canada, to move into this field and, especially in extreme situations, to act.
It is unfortunate that the Minister of Transport is not present this afternoon. I would not want hon. members to think that I would refrain from the remarks I am about to make if he were here. He is obligated not merely to represent the department of government for which he is responsible; he is obligated, as well, to parliament and to the people of Canada and, so far as I am concerned, in some instances that obligation has not been fulfilled.

October 22, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
Let me give an example. Many examples were brought forward this afternoon; however, let me tell you of one that strikes home, that shows that the government has ignored the wishes of parliament and of the people of Canada. Over 18 months ago the committee of the House dealing with transportation visited southwestern Ontario. It went to four cities and towns, Stratford, London, Chatham and Walkerton, the county town of Bruce County which I have the honour to represent. Twenty members of parliament representing all parties in the House were sent to those places to look into railway passenger service as provided by the CNR as well as by the CPR in that particular locality. I will not tell you what went on at the various committee meetings; I will merely say that those members of parliament were so impressed by what they heard that they made a report to this House. It was signed by all 20 members who represented all parties in the House. That report recommended to parliament and to the government that passenger service in that area be reinstated immediately. I am sad to say that that passenger service has not been reintroduced in accordance with the wishes of the committee.
I know members of parliament cannot demand that the government do certain things, obviously. However, I say with respect that when 20 members of parliament representing all parties in the House recommend a certain thing, that thing should be looked into most seriously. It has not been looked into seriously by any means.
We took this matter up with the Minister of Transport. Many members representing all parties in this House have taken up this matter with him. I repeat, respectfully, that that committee report recommended that certain passenger service be reinstated immediately. That service did not involve Ottawa, Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto. I believe Kitchener was involved. The service to which I have referred does not affect the western or eastern parts of Canada. It affects that particular area of southwestern Ontario which I mentioned.
The Minister of Transport has said, under repeated questioning by many hon. members, that he does not have the power to restore the train service, and that the Canadian Transport Commission, established by an act of parliament, runs the whole show. May I remind you of something that happened several months ago. When Bell Telephone came before the Canadian Transport Commission for a rate increase, the government, for reasons unknown to me-and I am speaking as a private member and giving my personal view-rolled back the rate increase awarded to Bell Telephone. If the government can do this with respect to telephone rates, it can do something with respect to the railways.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: If the Minister of Transport wishes to reinstate the train service in southwestern Ontario, he can do it. If he thinks he cannot do it, all he has to do is come before parliament with a bill. I suggest, although I cannot speak for my friends in the opposition, that we, on my side of the House, would give the minister any powers which are necessary for restoring this train service. But, no, he will not do it. We should look at this situation closely.

Many arguments have been brought forward and many constructive criticisms have been made during the present debate, as well as in years gone by. However, I have spoken of one problem that faces us at the moment. Included in that committee report was a suggestion that after the trains were put back in service, there would be consultations with the federal, provincial and municipal officials as well as the railways to try to develop the most economical method of transportation in that particular area. There should be a meeting. It may very well be it may not be necessary to have two trains running into the same city or town on the same day. I will give an example of this.
The city of Owen Sound, a city of just over 20,000 people with another 10,000 in the surrounding district, before the edict of the CTC removing the train service, was served by not only a daily CPR train, but a CNR train. No one in his right mind, in this day and age, would suggest there should be two trains, but for many years there was CP and CN daily service. On a certain day, this service was cut off. There has not been one train since, in spite of the fact the restoration of the service was recommended to the Minister of Transport. The committee's report to parliament suggested that, after the re-initiation of passenger service, there should be meetings to discuss these matters. To give a hypothetical example, perhaps there should be only three trains a week into Owen Sound. Perhaps there should be twice-weekly service or service five times a week. The point is that previously there was seven-day service from two railways.
We asked that the most economical transportation system be developed. This request has been absolutely ignored by the Minister of Transport. I remind hon. members that the subsidies on these trains were something in the nature of three quarters of a million dollars yearly. I am completely against subsidies if something else can be done about the situation. If three quarters of a million dollars is too much, perhaps it should be cut to one half or one quarter million dollars. The people of southwestern Ontario see that the government is able to find hundreds of millions of dollars to increase old age pensions and veterans pensions. They see that the government has increased the tax exemption from $1,000 to $1,500 in one year's time. I feel these people have a very legitimate complaint.
Is three quarters of a million dollars too much of a subsidy for the breadbasket of Canada? I do not use the word "breadbasket" in a boastful way. I want some action. As western members know, one third of the agricultural produce of the whole of Canada comes from the province of Ontario. A great deal comes from the area I am speaking about at the present time. I feel there should be some type of service to that area. A magnificent tower costing millions of dollars is being built in the city of Toronto, perhaps justifiably so. I understand it will be the highest tower in the world. The people in my area are glad to see that, if it is necessary to have the highest tower in the world, costing many millions of dollars. They do not have anything against that. However, they think that passenger service should be re-initiated in southwestern Ontario,
October 22, 1973

especially when it was asked for by 20 members of parliament who studied the question in great detail.
We should look into the whole question of passenger service, not just in southwestern Ontario, but in the whole of Canada. It is suggested that in the foreseeable future the price of gasoline may be $1 a gallon. There is a great problem of pollution in our cities. Surely, this is not the time when railway passenger service should be finished, especially when 100 per cent of the committee members recommended that train service be re-initiated in the area from which I come.
I am sure members will not be shocked to learn that, instead of re-initiating service, the railway stations in this area are being torn down. One could very well ask what we, as members of parliament, are doing here today or any other day discussing the question of CNR financing. We, the representatives of the people, are asking that passenger service be re-initiated. Not only is this government not doing anything about it, but it is permitting the stations to be torn down. These stations were the real foundation of this country. This is why the railways were built in the time of Sir John A. Macdonald. Without the railways to unify this country, there would have been no country.
I am not the least bit happy with what has been going on in so far as CNR transportation policies are concerned. I could deal with many other areas. I hope that someone in the government will read what has been said this afternoon, not only by opposition members but by me. I wish to give a warning to this government. A month or two ago, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er), along with many other people, boarded a train in Toronto and travelled to the city of Owen Sound. At various places along the way, he said that not once during the time he was Prime Minister did he take off any passenger train service in this country. This government had better be listening to what I am saying this afternoon, because the people in that area certainly listened to the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: One cannot help but respect a gentleman who has given so much service to this great country. Even at his age, he thinks enough of this country, including that area, to travel 125 miles to Owen Sound to look over the situation and say to the people that, in his opinion, there should be train service in that area, particularly when a committee of the House of Commons has unanimously recommended such service. I hope the Minister of Transport will read these words. I say to him that it is high time the government started listening to the voice of the people in this and other areas. If the government does not listen, I say sadly they will be moving to the other side of the House and there will be people sitting on this side who will do these things. The people of my area, in which there are many constituencies, have a desire for the service which has been recommended by the parliamentarians. The government has an obligation to see that they get it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I greatly enjoyed the speeches by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave) and the hon. member for
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada Peel South (Mr. Blenkarn). I particularly enjoyed the fine remarks just directed to the House by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher). May I say to him I have heard many of his speeches. It was an outstanding, direct speech of the kind a good representative should make in this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I was wondering whether the quality of his capacity as a parliamentarian derives in part from the fact that he has spent some time in the opposition. I believe that being in the opposition is good for a member of parliament. Now, I have been here too long. I have been six years on that side and ten here and if I were to stay over here much longer I would be too good, and that upsets the balance! But I believe that to be nurtured and nourished in the opposition makes for the kind of fine representation we have just heard-vigorous representation on a most important matter.
As I join this group of people complimenting the CNR today, I agree with those who point out that this is a fundamental question both in magnitude as it extends across the country and in depth, historically. The hon. member is right. The birth of Canada, the creation of the dominion under Sir John A. Macdonald, was attained only through the practical tie of a railway. One of my political ancestors on the Conservative side-I prefer the progressive side-but one of my ancestors on the Conservative side, old Sir Alan MacNab used to say simply "Railways are my politics" and let it go at that. When I was checking on that piece of data to find out whether it was MacNab or Hincks, I discovered a delightful interpretation of what the letters CNR really mean. In the olden days those letters used to mean two things-"certainly no rush", and "collects no revenue". That was said 90 years ago, 80 years ago, 70 years ago. And I hear people saying it in so many words today.
I share the view of the hon. member for Bruce. When it comes to these railway operations there is a feeling of futility, a feeling of resignation. If I were not a stubborn Presbyterian I would say we could do nothing about it. But we must keep going on. I know exactly how the hon. member feels about the report of the committee. I was on the committee when it went east. It heard all sorts of briefs about the Prince Edward Island causeway and there was not sufficient courtesy shown to that committee as to enable it to get its report presented before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stood up and said the commitment to Prince Edward Island was being abrogated and that the inhabitants were not getting a causeway. Talk about not allowing the ink to dry. They did not allow the report even to be typed in either language.
Many things disturb us. I, too, am tired and saddened by the tendency of the CNR itself to adopt an attitude of resignation-to pull up lines and tear down stations. I believe that many in this chamber will live to see new railways being built, because in these days of pressure on the highways and danger to the environment there is still an important role for railways to play and it is a great pity that over the last decade or so we have not seen more imagination, more initiative, more determination on the part of those concerned to make the railways stronger and

October 22, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
more competitive, more attractive. Railways can still function.
It has been shown in many parts of the world that not only can railways still function but that they can make money. There is no reason we should weep bemoan and cry our way out of the railway age. If we had the whole winter in which to do so we could bring up from all parts of the country the evidence to underline and reaffirm the assertion that it is lack of good service which has caused the present trouble. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar almost made a slip when he talked about a train that went all across the country. Then he corrected himself and said "the one that begins in Montreal". We in the Mari-times never were linked to the trans-Canada network. We could never get aboard a train in Halifax, get a sleeper and go across to Vancouver. It was always necessary to stop in Montreal for hours and hours. We were never hooked into the system-and this is not to mention Newfoundland at all. '
One of the members on this side of the House referred to the situation in Newfoundland. It is a most appalling situation. We on the east coast, in the two island provinces, have had railway service withdrawn from us more completely than any other province in the country. Yet when the railway gets into conflict with its own employees, what parts suffer most? The two island provinces. We don't have passenger service in P.E.I. and in Newfoundland. The "Bullet" has long since been spent, winging its way into forgetfulness as some people would wish. Yet we are the ones who are isolated. We are the ones who lose millions of dollars when our basic industries of fishing, agriculture and tourism are knocked all to blazes in the fights between the CNR and its employees.
I have great sympathy for the people of Newfoundland. They have a terrible situation there. The backlog is enormous. They have our best ferry over there, the John Hamilton Gray. It was supposed to be back in Prince Edward Island around mid-October. But it hasn't come back. And we are now suffering. It isn't the fault of the people of P.E.I. that the Department of Transport or the CNR cannot move traffic from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland. It is not the fault of Prince Edward Island, yet we are joining once again the people of Newfoundland in paying for an egregious error on the part of someone else. It should not require a genius to tell you there is something wrong and that remedial steps are necessary if year after year there is a serious backlog in dealing with traffic.
I regret the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is not here. I say with all due respect that he should be.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Nor the Minister of Finance. It is his bill.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Yes. The Minister of Finance should also be here. Why is he not here? This is a matter of tremendous importance and great concern to all our people. It is a sloppy situation. Years have passed during which things should have been done, and they have not been done, as the Anglicans say. The rights of the committee have been suspended or abridged. Opportunities for in-depth discussion have been vitiated. Yet we are at it again. Problems have come to attention even since I entered this chamber today. Near the City of Charlotte-

town, precisely joining it in fact, are two smart, up-and-coming communities of about 8,000 people. The residents of those communities cannot get CNR deliveries because they are not in the City of Charlottetown. How does one explain that?
The other day-an item not as glittering as the one described by the hon. member for Peel South (Mr. Blen-karn)-there was a big announcement of a new management team for the CNR ferry service. I read it many times over. It was fluff and complete buncome, absolute froth. Not a thing to give to people who had just gotten over another suspension of services from the mainland. We in P.E.I. will never be content, or feel we have been properly served, or ever feel that our terms of union with confederation have been properly fulfilled until our citizens have the same right to link up with the national transportation network as those who do not have the good fortune to live on a beautiful island. Why should our separation by nine miles of water involve us in constant frustration and heavy cost at all times? Have we not reached the stage of comprehension at which someone can say that for reasons of cost, convenience, speed of movement of goods and people it is proper, right and just and in accord with the terms of union to regard the link between New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island as if it were a part of the trans-Canada Highway?
People from Saskatchewan travelling to Manitoba do not pay $3 to $4 to get across the boundary, but we have to pay through the nose every time we go to New Brunswick. We do not mind so much paying when we come the other way because when we get to P.E.I. we are somewhere pretty nice, but all the same it is just not fair. I am not the first-probably I am the one hundredth and first-representative from P.E.I. who has pointed out this fact in direct and sincere terms. But no matter what one's party label, action must be taken.
No member of the government needs to be told that, although transportation is vital and essential to the whole dominion, in the Atlantic area, an area where there are islands, peninsulas and inlets, transportation is the question. It was the question in our island in 1873; it was the question in the two mainland provinces in 1864 and 1867, and it has been the eternal question in Newfoundland. One has only to hear the question period to know that it is still a burning issue.
What has been done to alleviate our problems? During the last four years prior to the event of October 30, 1972 there were nine freight rate increases. These were scarcely helpful to our economy. How often have we called for movement into a stage of technological advancement? How many times have I alone pointed out the need for upgrading the facilities at Charlottetown Airport. Our province of something over 100,000 people has about one million visitors a year. They are smart people. The island is one of the beauty spots of this continent, indeed in this hemisphere. They want to come to P.E.I., and they want to come in comfort. The Charlottetown Airport is served by a very fine service which is provided not by the government but by Eastern Provincial Airways, one of the greatest friends Prince Edward Island ever had. You can fly by first-class, comfortable jet on three flights daily to Montreal and to other parts of the Atlantic region. EPA has
October 22, 1973

brought us into the jet age, but the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and his predecessor have been keeping us in the prop age.
To give one rather meaningful illustration of what I am talking about, Charlottetown Airport has seating space for about one-third of the load of the aircraft that use the airport. Surely, this cannot be very clever planning. You would think someone in the department would come up with a better solution than that. I have made no mention of other requirements, such as a restaurant, lounges and all the rest, which the people in upper, central and western Canada have. We do well to have a coffee machine that works, yet we are one of the great tourist centres of Canada.
Why is it important to assist our tourist industry? Because Prince Edward Island does not have all that many other avenues for economic achievement and advantage. Surely, it is sound sense, sound administration and good government to develop such comparative advantages as a region or a province has. The movement of our choice agricultural products and fine products of the sea, as well as the rapid and comfortable movement of an ever-growing number of tourists,-all are important. The responsibility for this movement lies squarely on the Department of Transport, and largely on Canadian National Railways, the corporation we are discussing today and which our predecessors have discussed down through the years.
Our main concern is that some move be made to give us a more comfortable airport. I am pleased that some important steps-and they are important steps-have been taken to upgrade our airport in terms of safety facilities and so on. EPA has an outstanding safety record, and I think we now have pretty up-to-date technological improvements in that important area in the airport. Most Prince Edward Islanders have to fly Air Canada when they leave EPA because it is a regional carrier, so they are also concerned about the other aspects mentioned by previous speakers. I never thought it was very clever when the ticket office and the main ticketing process was moved from Ottawa to somewhere else. I am strongly opposed to any downgrading of service of any kind by the government for the nations capital. I noted the expression used by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales) today, and I think he is quite right.
Here I join with the hon. member for Bruce in calling for some attention to be paid to what members are saying and to what the committee is doing. I do not pretend that I am always a member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, but I have the conviction that it is a committee that works very hard and has come very close to both the frustrations and the wishes of the people of Canada. I have looked over the reports of that committee and the evidence to come before it, not only with reference to the matters mentioned by my hon. friend from Bruce but with regard to the transportation situation all across Canada, and I would agree that, had the government and some minister listened and done something about the committee's recommendations, we would have had a great diminution of the kinds of grievances which pervade the generality of Canadian citizens when they think or talk about the two great carriers, Air Canada and the CNR. I should like to hear members of the House
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada say that Air Canada is the finest airline in the world; but they would not be listening to what their people say if they did that.
I am sure none of us enjoys denigrating or criticizing Air Canada or Canadian National Railways. In a sense, Canadian National Railways was, in part, the creation of one of the greatest Canadians who ever lived, Sir Robert Borden. He saw what had to be done, and with his usual pragmatic commonsense, when someone was twitting him and saying "You don't believe in government-owned railways, do you?", he replied "I would rather a government-owned railway than a railway-owned government". And that was not so far fetched at that time.
We want to get away from this apology for our national services. We want to be proud of them. We want to see that the CNR and Air Canada are the best, but they regrettably have a long way to go until that time comes about. I believe it is our job, and the job of members of the committee, to speak out and to criticize if necessary as well as offer constructive suggestions where practical in order to bring about an improvement in the service. We must prevail upon these bodies to do much more than merely come here for money in order to discharge the great responsibility and immense trust which is theirs. Because it is theirs, it is also ours.
I believe we should stop this sloppy procedure and should, as one of the high priorities of this session and as one of the high priorities of the Parliament of Canada, listen to some of the cries of members who know the problems. We should be moving very fast because things are becoming worse. We read of more trouble in Air Canada, such as resignations and so on. This is not good enough. It is not good enough to vote sums of money and then forget about it. The problems are here. The situation is serious and it calls for remedial action.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-164 is a bill to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada. This is a publicly owned transportation system in this country. The bill calls for an expenditure of $225,500,000. At the outset, I should like to say I have great reservations about this bill for a number of reasons. One reason for this exercise is that the CNR started out with the debts of bankrupt railways and has been saddled with these debts since.
I should like to quote a letter from the National President of the Canadian Railways Employees Pension Association in order to give the historic background. This letter was written in March this year and reads:
The CNR came into existence in 1923 through the consolidation of a number of bankrupt railways which the government could not allow to go into receivership, for fear that the public and private credit of the nation would be impaired. One of these railways was the Grand Trunk Railway, which was British owned and directed from London. Since more than 70 per cent of the foreign investment capital in Canada between 1900 and 1913 came from the London market, $1,753 million out of a total of $2,545 million, the government was reluctant to allow the company to default. The other major company taken over by the government was the Canadian Northern, which had borrowed heavily on its securities from the Bank of Commerce. To allow the railway to go into receivership would have caused the bank's failure and financial panic. The CNR system's future profitability was further

October 22, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
impaired by the government's policy of periodically transferring to it bankrupt lines acquired because it was politically, and socially necessary to maintain their operation. Furthermore, in addition to the system's heavy burden in having to maintain unremunerative services, the government transferred to it all the debts of the constituent companies, which means in effect that the government transferred its own railway debt to the national system. As a result the CNR has been able to meet all its interest charges only ten times; any wonder the CNR claim they cannot pay fair and just pensions to its employees. Don Jamieson, then Minister of Transport, said about 10 months ago ...
You will remember that this letter was written in March.
... that the government was going to look at the vast debts which the CNR employees of today are carrying.
I might add that not only are the employees or CNR carrying it, but the people of Canada as well.
Let's hope they do it soon.
It seems to me that the government of Canada should remove this handicap by taking over the almost $2 billion debt of the CNR. As a nation, I do not feel we have any financial obligation to pay off the debts of bankrupt railroads. We do not have this obligation because governments are not known to pay off creditors in bankruptcy. This is one case in which the government has assumed an unusual obligation. Secondly, this ritual will not solve our basic transportation problems. Instead of voting more money to pay off old debts, our energies should be directed to rationalizing our total transportation system. State ownership of our entire transportation system appears the only long-term solution to obtain the kind of railways system required, especially in Canada's prairie region.
In a country like Canada, with a small population spread over a wide geographic area, transportation is a vital part of economic development. As such it should be controlled by the state.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Public Service-Regional pay inequities- Reasons for not applying same principle to members; the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin)-Airports-Mirabel-Expropriation procedure-disparity in offers; the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly)-Agriculture-Brucellosis-recommendations for control and compensation-government position.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
Mr. Joe Hueglin (Niagara Falls) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing a national endowment fund to which tax deductible private contributions may be made in support of a salaried Team Canada which would not only compete for Canada in international hockey but would also compete against local teams in all areas of Canada on a year round basis with proceeds from games played in Canada to be divided between Team Canada and the support of sports activities in the area in which the game is played.
He said: Mr. Speaker, last year in September two of the greatest competitive events which Canadians had the opportunity to witness were occurring at the same time. The first of these, in which many of us played an important part, was the election. The second, but first in the minds of the people of Niagara Falls and Fort Erie, was the hockey competition that was taking place between Team Canada and the team from the Soviet Union. Perhaps my fellow members of parliament did not experience the same reaction in their portion of Canada that I received. But as I attempted to knock on doors, the television set was on and I hesitated to break into the concentration. As I spoke to merchants, I found that their concern was about our team's position rather than about tax problems that they may have been facing.
Most important of all, my own concentration on the election was broken when I saw literally hundreds of the students at my high school following every play on a television set that had been established in the cafeteria. They were watching it with unified intensity in almost complete silence until a goal was scored either against us or for us. Canada's honour as a nation was, I believe, at stake last year. It was at stake in the minds of young and old, of Francophone and Anglophone, and of many who are not as fluent in either of those two tongues as they are in that of the land of their birth.
At that time, the idea of this resolution was born. It asks the government to give consideration to the creation of a vehicle that can serve as a unifying force in Canadian life, unifying in that it touches the interest of almost all Canadians of whatever age, economic status or origin they may be. This resolution is presented in my name, but its authorship must be given to many of the citizens of Niagara Falls and Fort Erie who discussed the subject with me last fall, and who really brought these ideas into being. The basic idea is that the government of Canada play a role in establishing a Team Canada. Beyond this basic point, there are many details which are included in the resolution upon which others more familiar with sports than I can no doubt improve. But if the basic point is accepted, no doubt the other points can be worked out satisfactorily to Canadians at least, although our sometime friends in the Olympic games may not find them acceptable.
October 22, 1973

Is there justification for the spending of public funds on such a team? If there is not, then there has been a misappropriation of many millions of dollars on other projects over the years, I would submit. Few Canadians out of the total will ever see the National Gallery, few will see the National Arts Centre, and relatively few will read or see books or films that are government funded. I am not saying that these moneys are ill spent. What I am saying is that these cultural activities do not touch most Canadians as Team Canada would. Culture in the narrow context has, in North America and perhaps in most other countries, always appealed to and been supported by a limited segment of the community, but plays, ballet, and so on, are state supported in Canada to some degree. Hockey is part of Canadian culture. It is a development within the Canadian culture. It is ours, and I submit that it is certainly worthy of support, as worthy as any of those cultural programs which are now funded.
If funds are to continue to go to these other activities which touch only the few. who would deny them to an activity that touches us all? Let the government endow this Team Canada, but let private individuals who wish to be patrons be allowed to donate their own funds as well. Thousands of private businesses and individuals support local teams. Indeed, without them many of our minor leagues could not exist. Permit them to do so at this level as well. Indeed, in recent months individuals have approached me to learn if they could be permitted to outfit local minor teams with the same tax concessions afforded companies at present. If they respond, as I am certain they will, the government role need be only that of providing an endowment, for these private contributions will soon play a major role in the financing of our team.
Perhaps such a happy combination of private and public means might even overcome the objections of those who presently deny us the right to participate in international hockey. Certainly, the combination of public initiative, coupled with private support, is something that can commend itself to each of us, no matter what our personal political philosophy may be. Young men who played for such a Team Canada would, in my estimation, have to be paid, certainly not at the levels at which some of our commercial teams are able and willing to pay their players. The commercial teams pay for profit; the players play for profit. Team Canada's players would have to be rewarded well, not with niggardly pay, for the time taken from their lives which they would be contributing, but they would be playing not for profit alone but for their country. I sincerely believe that we have young men who would play for this reason, young men who after a time would develop into a team which would regain us our stature in international hockey without us having to bring back all those men who have become professionals.
Will such a team be accepted in international hockey? If it is not, then the farce that we have seen in the last few years would be complete. We all know that foreign teams are not composed of amateurs in the true sense but of people who are supported in their careers. Indeed, we all know that even in local teams, in some cases at least, jobs have been opened up to players who are an asset. This is no secret, I believe, and I think it is generally accepted. The Olympics was started as an amateur venture. There are no real amateurs who take part in it in the sense in
Sports
which it was started, that is, to give it a good try for a few weeks. All are dedicated athletes training full time. This does not take away from them in any way. I am simply saying that for them the sport absorbs almost all of their lives.
Surely, Team Canada, funded more and more from private sources, would have to be accepted. If it were not, then, in my opinion, we should do away with the hypocrisy of formal international competitions of this nature once and for all. Team Canada, funded initially by the federal government and increasingly by private contributions, calling upon young men of ability to represent Canada, what would it do aside from trying to get international competition to regain supremacy for us in our sport? It would do this. It would travel from Bonavista to Vancouver Island, certainly from the Great Lakes border and perhaps even to the Arctic circle. There are those things which unite us in Canada and those which unfortunately differentiate and sometimes divide us.
Certainly for me, coming to this House has been an enlightening experience if for no other reason than that the great differences that exist in our land have been brought home to me as never before. Having been raised and having worked very largely in southwestern Ontario, having spent years studying history and geography in college and years teaching history and geography, did not prepare me for trying to fully comprehend the breadth of our land or the great intensity with which members from other regions regard concerns which have been unknown to me or which I have found to be of no great importance. Canada is bound together by ties of history, economy and sentiment. We are faced daily with trying to reconcile divergent economic demands. Part of our history has been divisive rather than uniting in nature. Surely, any activity that ties us together by sentiment and by media exposure can be nothing but good, particularly if it is produced locally and is in no manner a divisive force.
For some, myself included, the expansion of commercial hockey in recent years has destroyed a focal point of interest. It used to be that I would support Toronto all the way, and then if they were beaten out of the play-offs I would immediately switch to the Canadiens as they were the Canadian team in the play-offs. Today, I am lost in a welter of teams, with the result that all bearings are gone, and this welter of teams is very largely foreign.
Team Canada would travel across Canada playing local teams. It may be too much to hope for, but perhaps local commercial teams would play for benefit performances. If not, then local teams of another nature would certainly be fielded. I have no doubt that if Team Canada came to Niagara Falls or Fort Erie, our arenas would be filled to overflowing. They would be filled for a number of reasons. First, there would be interest in our national team; second, there would be hope that our boys would upset them, and third, there would be a direct benefit to be derived by the local arena or area from the game.
Report concerning Team Canada on the national news could be a unifying force. As it moved from one arena to another across Canada, it would be a constant factor in the news, a constant factor to which we could all relate. It

October 22, 1973
Sports
could introduce our young people to cities and towns about which they know little or nothing. It would be possible to put in the hands of our children Team Canada maps upon which they could trace the team's progress and learn about our country in the process. I know the ability we display in getting young children up in the mornings for hockey practice. I can see this as a very valuable teaching aid in the hands of good teachers. It could be a very considerable force for good.
I believe local people would look forward to a game because their team might be added to the victors' list. It is well known that each team has a good night and a bad night. I suggest each town would look forward to having its name on the national news as having beaten the national team. I know that the citizens of Niagara Falls and Fort Erie would be greatly pleased to have this occur, and I would suggest that in this they would be no different from people in the ridings of other hon. members. The team would be prepared for road trips abroad; they would be prepared for travel, and for strange arenas. They would be trained to play as a team, and they would be in shape. These have been problems in the past for our teams.
The final reason local citizens would support this concept of Team Canada is that it would bring benefit to local sporting activities. Surely, there are few municipalities in the country that could not use half of the net proceeds from a Team Canada game. I know that in Niagara riding arenas are needed, soccer fields are needed, baseball fields are needed, and a host of other facilities are required to provide recreation of a positive nature for our children. I expect that municipalities in other ridings across the country are in a similar situation.
Team Canada coming to play in a local arena would be a positive way of sharing in our national team's development, while at the same time contributing to local activities in a manner whereby something is received in return. Since this suggested venture involves the expenditure of public funds it is presented as a resolution, asking the government to give consideration to establishing a Team Canada rather than actually establishing it right now. To those who, either as private members or as ministers, are concerned about the expenditure of public funds on such a team, may I say one again that millions of dollars have been spent on cultural ventures which are of benefit only to the few, and some of which have no hope of ever being self-sustaining. It is my belief that if the government sees fit to adopt this recommendation Team Canada very shortly could be self-supporting.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, may I return to the origin of this resolution. It came during a time when we were united as a nation watching Canadians striving to win for Canada. It came from Canadians who were concerned that we be able to field a team of ability in the future. If adopted by the House, and acted upon by the government, we can not only produce such a team but have it perform a valuable role in strengthening our bonds of fellowship across the country and in aiding local sports activities.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words in support of the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Hueglin). I am very glad to do so because the resolution takes into account the tremendous influence of hockey in

Canada, not only as a sport but as an activity that provides a common denominator of Canadian interest across the nation, and because the resolution also indicates the hon. member's recognition of the fact that public as well as private enterprise is a very logical ingredient in this field of endeavour.
It was last year in this place, noting across Canada the interest in hockey and that all the populated regions except those in the Atlantic area had major league public interest in hockey, that I proposed consideration be given to providing federal funds which, coupled with provincial and civic money, would make financially possible what is desirable, namely, the extension of major league hockey into the Maritimes. All across the nation, with the advent of T.V., hockey Canadians have something in common. We all relate in watching these games. But the people in the Maritimes are left out. They are not lacking in athletes or interest in hockey. However, they are lacking in one centre of population big enough to launch and maintain a major league hockey team.
A few years ago every man, woman and child in the country, all 22 million of us, contributed approximately $2.20 each to building the National Arts Centre in Ottawa, a monument to culture in Canada. I have nothing against that, Mr. Speaker. Yet the National Arts Centre probably plays a part in the lives of a minority of the adult population of the country. Relatively few Canadians will ever get a chance to visit the centre. But together we provided it. I wonder if, in the same spirit of co-operation, we could get together to provide covered stadia where they are needed for the promotion of hockey in Canada. Would this not be a worthwhile effort on our part to benefit Canadians? As the resolution before us indicates, athletics, sports, and particularly hockey provide a facet of Canadian culture, one which in my view should be encouraged.
The hon. member's resolution for a tax aid for Team Canada would also do as 1 have proposed, and I repeat the federal government should take the lead in promoting and aiding the establishment of major league hockey in the Maritimes, in a centre like Halifax. This would give Canadians from Atlantic to Pacific a common denominator of interest. Mr. Speaker, we do not have too many things in common in this country. Here, in what this resolution proposes, is something which, if we promote it, can have that effect, can be good for athletics, for sport and for national unity.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing and allowing me to speak on this resolution, which I am sure has the support of most members of this House and most Canadians, with the exception of a select few, particularly those in a position of power within professional hockey, who might not support it. However, if I can talk about the resolution for the next few minutes, we may find that there are some problems involved that might jeopardize its success, problems which I think in all honesty should be brought forward. I probably would not be speaking on this resolution were it not for the absence of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Cafik), who in fact is in another arena today trying to draw together his own team, which I understand is not salaried and whose expenses are not tax deductible. Of course, when I
October 22, 1973

speak of hockey and Team Canada and the role that sport plays in Canada, I can only speak as a spectator, not as a participant, as is the case with many Canadians. But I can share with all members of this House and people throughout the country, the special joy and pride in our national sport. I believe we should give serious consideration to the motion before us today.
I should like to refer to the Report of the Task Force on Sports for Canadians issued on February 28, 1969 which puts into perspective some of the problems we face in this motion. On pages 29 and 30, the report discusses Canada's national hockey team in the following words:
In Olympic competition, Canada was usually the undisputed world champion until 1956 when our team was defeated by the Russians. (The one exception, Britain's triumph in 1936, was hardly irritating to Canadians, since most of the players came from Canada). The U.S. won the Olympic title in 1960 and the Russians took it in 1964 and 1968.
As time has gone by our fortunes have gone down, until the report was issued in 1969. The report continues:
In 1930, there began the practice of an international tournament each year, sponsored by the International Ice Hockey Federation. This has come to be recognized as the world championship in those three years of the four when the Olympics are not held. Canada has not won this championship ...
This report, of course, was published in 1969.
.. . since the Trail Smoke Eaters triumphed in Switzerland in 1961. Next year, the championship tournament will be held in Canada for the first time.
We recall that taking place. To continue:
It is worth noting that Canada, the original home of ice hockey, has no special place in the International Ice Hockey Federation. It is merely one member with two delegates. The weight of membership strength is in Europe. Further, the executive leadership of the IIHF has seemed to rest for a generation with a Mr. Bunny Ahearne, an Irishman resident in London. At present, very little ice hockey is played in Britain, and Britain rarely fields a team for international play.
The report goes on to refer to Mr. Ahearne. We all know of his problems and his impact upon Canada as head of the IIHF. Later, the article says:
The organization and selection of an amateur national hockey team for Canada has become a more difficult and thankless task since high quality teams began to emerge from Russia, Sweden and Czechoslovakia in the mid-1950s, just at the time when the quality of our national senior champions, the winners of the Allan cup, was slipping.
Five years ago, . . .
That would be 1964.
. .. the recognition that our champions alone or aided by selected players were inadequate as representatives in the international tournaments led to the development of the national team concept. The managers and scouts of the national team have found a strong resistance to their recruiting efforts among the owners of some amateur teams. These men do not wish to lose their stars because of the potential loss of revenue and the weakening of their teams' capacity in league play.
The professionals have resented the effort of the national team because it has and will deprive them of the services of some outstanding NHL prospects. The NHL has also been reluctant to release any professional players who sought to be reinstated as amateurs in order to qualify for the national team. There is an inherent difficulty, of course, in that the system of contracts, drafts and waivers in the professional hockey setup gives rights to
Sports
every team in the arrangement, most of which are in the United States. Why should a manager in Tulsa or Baltimore waive on claiming a player just because he wants to play for and is wanted by the National Team of Canada?
You will recall some of the problems that we had in that situation last year, even with the Team Canada. To continue:
The concept of the national hockey teams had had several elements of reasoning and motivation. Firstly, there was the idea of providing some continuity of players and coaching from year to year. Secondly, there was the belief good playing talent could be attracted by the chance to represent one's country; to get a higher education while playing (especially a college education),...
Perhaps that could be part of the concept that the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Hueglin) puts forward.
... to have an income while playing and at college; to travel widely both in Canada and abroad; and to get a splendid opportunity to develop individual and group hockey skills under good coaching and through excellent competition.
The practical problem of financing the national team was faced by establishing the Hockey Foundation, under which businessmen raised funds through corporate donations, through obtaining government grants via the CAHA, and from the revenues brought in by games in which the National Team took part.
That is not something new; it has gone on for years and years.
At first, the National Team was centered in Winnipeg; then in 1967-68, another team or a "B" team was established in Ottawa. A surprisingly high number of young men has come forward in the past five years to try out for the National Team.
That is going back to 1969.
It is a fair judgment, we think, that the team representing us in this period has been better than we could get with an Allan cup or Memorial cup championship team. It has not been good enough and there have been problems in recruiting, in getting good competition, and in getting the necessary financial support.
There are several bald consequences of the failure of the National Team concept on the ice at international tournaments.
This is as it was in 1969, of course.
Despite the personal sacrifices of our young players, who have tried gallantly to uphold our hockey traditions, the defeats our National Teams have suffered have had an adverse effect, not only upon our hockey reputation, but upon the standing which Canada generally has abroad. Officials of the Department of External Affairs have assured us that this deteriotation in the over-all image of Canada abroad, and especially in Europe, because of our recent failures in hockey, is of much concern to them. The "body sporting" in Canada, including both those directly involved in the game and the huge public who know it enough to consider it our own, are discouraged, pessimistic, angry, or demanding of a better performance.
The article has summed up the problems of trying to put a national team together in 1969 and comments on why it did not work. Now comes the important part:
We found an amazingly strong agreement in all the meetings we held with various hockey groups across Canada that Canada must have a strong National Team. Accordingly, we sought out the area of friction and weakness, particularly by convening a "summit" meeting on hockey in Ottawa on December 10, 1968. There were present, representatives of the National Team, the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association, the President of the National Hockey League, the senior officers of the Montreal Canadiens and the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Directorate of Fitness and Amateur Sport and a number of interested business men.
The following points emerged. Canada is being defeated in world competition because the rules of eligibility and the nature and application of the international playing rules work against her. The European countries, particularly the Russians, are not

October 22, 1973
Sports
weakened in choosing their teams by the skimming of the cream of players into professional leagues as happens in Canada. Everyone with an interest in Canadian hockey must work together in a voluntary and free way in order to improve our representation and record. We must press for "open" competition. We must insist on the removal of artificial barriers to the participation of our best players.
Certainly, that concept changes part of the motion.
Meanwhile, we must create a unit involving all interested parties to develop and manage and sustain the Canadian team at international tournaments, whether these are "closed" as now or ultimately and hopefully "open".
We note approvingly the initiative shown at a gathering held in Ottawa on February 20, 1969,. . .
Just shortly before this report was released-
... chaired and convened by the hon. John Munro. Out of this meeting came the announcement of HOCKEY CANADA. As conceived there, it dovetails with the recommendations we now make, and it follows on from our summit meeting last December, and discussions previously held between the CAHA, NHL teams' officials and National Teams over the last two years.
This 1969 report of the Task Force on Sports for Canadians went on to recommend:
... that a non-profit corporation, to be known as HOCKEY CANADA, be established for the purpose of managing and financing the National hockey teams of Canada.
The report contains a series of recommendations on how Team Canada would be set up and these have basically been followed. In recent years, we have found that sport at the international level has assumed an increasingly important place in the eyes of people all around the world. We have had our own discouragements, as in the 1960's when we fell behind in world competition, and ran into problems with the International Ice Hockey Association.
The effect of international competition upon internal and domestic development of each sport is most important. The highlights of such events are individual performances. When you talk about hockey, you must look to what happened in the initial games last year. Players were picked out of the various teams and so the players had not worked together, but finally they came through for their country in a manner that I do not think any of us expected. The international effect of competition at home and abroad is very important and, as the task force report concludes, was felt last year in diplomatic circles in Europe. Apparently national prestige was low with European countries as the performance of our teams in international competition fell behind. Until the early 1950's, we were doing well in the world championships in ice hockey. The one exception was 1936 when the British team won the championship and that was principally a team made up of Canadians anyway, so we could not feel too badly about that.
We know about developments over the past two decades in Russia, Sweden and Czechoslovakia. Certainly the United States has come a long way. The national team concept, which started all this and which brings us to this discussion, was first introduced about one decade ago under the guidance of Father Bauer. That team was first housed in Vancouver, then Winnipeg, then Winnipeg and Ottawa. Again efforts were made to put together amateurs

but we just could not keep up with the competition by working on that basis.
The problems of establishing an ongoing Team Canada today are even greater. The establishment of the World Hockey Association has created a war for the best available junior players, with the result that salaries have skyrocketed in the NHL and in the World Hockey Association. In essence, the sources of talent are being drained at a greater rate than in former years: anybody who watches hockey will not argue with that assertion. This has come about because of the expansion of the NHL and the introduction of the World Hockey Association.
Team Canada would have extreme difficulty in obtaining the kind of competition it would need in order to keep its players competitive and, indeed, it would experience great difficulties in keeping its players. Even if it were possible to obtain the calibre of player required for international competition, it is easy to visualize that those players would soon become bored with the usual kind of competition which could be offered to them and it is very likely that sooner or later most of them would return to the professional ranks.
You would need one excellent team with top pay; and remember you have to compete with the NHL and the WHA if you are to get it. In this case you are talking about millions of dollars and long-term contracts. The question is, even if you get players on the team, how do you keep them there when they do not have their own kind of people to compete with? The only way to do this would be to create the sort of Team Canada which we have had in the fairly recent past, and deal directly with the NHL and the WHA.
Such a team would be ineligible for Olympic competition; let us remember that. And assuming that it consisted of professional players who were salaried, it would have difficulty in arranging regular, ongoing games with teams from other countries outside of world championships or Olympic Games. Graduated junior players in themselves would not be competent to compete equally in world championships. That was borne out last year when the chief responsibilities for Team Canada rested with the experienced NHL players on the team.
It should be noted that the International Ice Hockey Federation Hoes not recognize players in our established professional leagues, including the National Hockey League, the World Hockey Association, the Central Professional Hockey League and the Western Hockey League. That is where the professionals are; that is where the best players come from. The motion before us suggests that players of that caliber ought to be included on the team. Frankly, under the rules of the International Ice Hockey Federation they would not be eligible for certain kinds of competition.
The responsibility for fielding a hockey team to represent Canada in international play rests with Hockey Canada. It is a non-profit corporation established under part II of the Companies Act. All the varied interests in hockey in Canada, the Canadian Intercollegiate Athletic Union, the Canadian professional teams, the NHL and the WHA, the players' association, the public at large and the government are represented on the board of directors of Hockey Canada.
October 22, 1973

I am saying that over the years we have tried to establish our national team. Father Bauer tried to establish it c' or one decade ago. We tried to take on the Allan Cup champions and the team could not keep up with them. You run into a difficult situation in competing with what are salaried and professional teams in Europe, something we cannot get across to Bunny Ahearne and others. One ought to point out, if we are to consider this motion seriously, that passing the motion will not enable us to meet all the requirements in this field.
Concern over this question has been generating through the years. That concern came to a head long before the showdown last year in which we came through in the final minutes. It came to a head with the task force report on sports and brought about the creation of Hockey Canada. Hockey Canadian fact represents all the groups in hockey. Hockey Canada is classified under the category of institutions to which one can make donations which are tax deductible. I think that is an excellent idea.
Perhaps one of the good things to come out of this motion might be the suggestion to Team Canada that they start a major fund-raising drive to support the team which is envisaged in the motion. The money so raised could be put into the kitty and, together with the funds derived from the games which would follow in which our best professional players would be used as they were last year, could then be disbursed in order to encourage amateur hockey across Canada.
It is a fact of life that if you want to employ a salaried team it will be classed as professional, and that rules you out of the International Ice Hockey Federation and out of the Olympic Games. So where will you use such a Team Canada. With whom will they compete? We could get the very best players and pay them wages which are above those paid by the NHL and the WHA. However, if the public which loves this sport so much was not able to watch such a team competing with teams in the NHL and WHA, at least not in the regular season-I do not know how one could arrange these games, although perhaps they could be arranged in the off season or in the training season-how could one hold such a team together?
Surely we should be spending millions of dollars for a team that was not at its best. It could not really compete in Canada and keep up with the rest of the teams playing, and meanwhile it could not compete internationally either in International Ice Hockey Federation games or in the Olympics. So I suggest that although there is a great deal of merit to this motion, there is no need now to establish a national endowment fund contributions to which would be tax deductible. I suggest that if we employed a salaried team that would rule us out in Canada and in Europe.
May I make one final point. A member of the New Democratic Party supported the motion. He suggested that the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Hueglin) recognized that sometimes the public sector can compete successfully with private enterprise, and therefore he was especially pleased to support this motion. I think we are entering very dangerous territory if we end up with a government-supported team. Instead of thp independent body, Hockey Canada, being responsible in this field it might be the government which had a direct role to play. The government might be responsible for a team that
Sports
could compete with our own national teams or with international teams.
If it were to fail internationally, we might end up with an election campaign in which the issues might not compete with hockey for attention but in which hockey might be a predominant topic for discussion, at the expense of other issues which are of vital importance but which may not receive such widespread public attention as hockey.
In conclusion, may I read a few sentences from "A summary of the organizational development, activities and achievements of Hockey Canada, January, 1969, to May, 1972." I will not read it all; I merely wish to put the following on record:
Hockey Canada is an organization established early in 1969 to achieve the following objectives:
1.	To develop, operate, and manage a national hockey team or teams to represent Canada internationally.
2.	To foster and support the playing of hockey in Canada, and in particular, to develop the skill and competence of Canadian hockey players and coaches in co-operation with other hockey organizations.
I think we are looking for a better way to make our system of hockey work. I think Hockey Canada has given us a good start. I am not at all satisfied that the dispute in the private sector between the NHL and the WHA has been resolved to the satisfaction of the Canadian public, but surely that might be done by Hockey Canada which was an initiative of this government.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is not often in this House that we have the opportunity to discuss such a pleasant piece of legislation or motion. I say this especially as we debated earlier today the bill on capital punishment. That has been a debate in which many members have been carried away emotionally. I am sure there will not be anything emotional about this debate.
May I inform the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Hueglin) that I share his views regarding the importance of our national sport. I am sure we all remember the high-class entertainment that was provided by Team Canada one year ago. Team Canada demonstrated to the whole world that hockey in Canada is not only a national sport, but that with the event of the Canada-Russia series it has become an international sport. We are very proud that Canada holds the world championship title in this sport. May I take this opportunity to congratulate all the members of Team Canada for their great victory over the Russians.
Our love for hockey and our concern for ensuring its continuity obliges me to take a stand different from that taken by my colleague from Niagara Falls on this motion. A government-sponsored team would bring serious opposition to private enterprise which has provided and is still providing us with our favourite entertainment. Such a team could hinder the financial success of teams in the private sector. Eventually we should see lower salaried players engaged in this sport, which would result in a lower calibre of entertainment. I do not think the hon. member for Niagara Falls wants this to happen, nor does any other Canadian want it to happen.
7106

Sports
My first point is this: I doubt seriously whether the government should be allowed to compete with private enterprise.
Art hon. Member: It is doing it in the oil business.


Denis Éthier: About 300,000 Canadians participate actively in this sport, I am informed, and as that number includes high-salaried players playing for professional teams in our two hockey leagues, I am sure many young players today anticipate a future as professional hockey players. Without private enterprise which constantly contributes financially to our young hockey players, a great many of our young people would be deprived of an opportunity for a career that not many fields in private enterprise could offer if hockey were eliminated.
One must also consider the advantage derived from each young Canadian being able to develop physically while practising this sport. As one who has coached many junior hockey teams for numerous years, I would certainly feel a great loss if private owners of hockey clubs stopped sponsoring hockey because of a drop in their revenues occasioned by the competition of hockey teams sponsored by our government.
Another point we must consider is the high rate of delinquency in the young people of our country. We must appreciate what hockey does to reduce this. We must take into account the amount of time our youngsters spend in outdoor rinks and arenas. This takes them off the streets where they often get into mischief. We should be thankful we have Canadians interested enough to invest in and promote such a healthy sport.
In this bill the hon. member asks that donations to Team Canada or Hockey Canada be tax deductible. I am sure that at the present time donations to Hockey Canada are tax deductible because it is a non-profit corporation. The hon. member must also consider the possibility of teams being refused in international competition. Hockey players receiving remuneration or a salary certainly could not compete in the Olympics. For this reason I felt I should speak on this bill.
I enjoy the wonderful sport of hockey, as do most Canadians. I want to be assured it will continue. However, I cannot go along with the hon. member in asking that the government compete with the private sector. I am sorry to say to the hon. member that although I love the sport, I will not support this motion.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate because the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Hueglin) has raised a point we must think about and discuss. I agree that people in his constituency, like mine and probably most others, feel very strongly about this subject. However, we must be careful that we do not get carried away in our enthusiasm to the point where we forget about sport for the sake of sport. We should not concentrate too much upon winning. This attitude has disturbed me somewhat.
In our whole orientation toward sports, particularly hockey, many of us grew up in the days when we did not have artificial rinks except for very special occasions. This

made for a very erratic schedule, certainly around the Toronto area. I appreciate that it would be different in the Edmonton area. Even though it is windy there, if you could get on the windward side of the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), you would be all right; you would be well protected.
In our relationship to sport there should not be emphasis upon winning at all costs. This is important. We have to rethink what we are trying to do in our society and in training our children. I am disturbed in this respect. I have four sons, all of whom are serious hockey and football players as well as participators in many other sports. Despite the fact they are good, cleancut athletes, I think they are taught to be dirty players: that is part of the game.
I spoke to a high school teacher who is coaching a football team. The school does not have a grade 13 and this is the first year it has had a senior team. Strangely enough, after losing the first game 48-0 and the second 38-0, they started to win the odd game. He took these young men who never played football before and welded them into a team. I am somewhat embarrassed to say that I am sure he is teaching them every dirty trick in the book.


An hon. Member:: Did you speak to the principal?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I suggest it is a matter of principle.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: The point is, we can and must have clean sports. We must take away the emphasis on winning. This applies as much to international sports as to national sports in Canada. It seems we are building up an international relationship through hockey. I was proud of our national team but I was astounded at the behaviour of our fans who went to Moscow. Although I attended only one game, I was embarrassed at the performance of the fans in Canada. It was the greatest hockey I have ever seen- absolutely first-rate hockey. Certainly we should take hockey seriously. However, this killer instinct of winning for the sake of winning, or believing that Canada would be dishonoured if it lost a hockey game to the Soviet Union, is not right.
I always understood that lacrosse was our national sport but we seem to take hockey as the national sport. We should be pleased that hockey has been taken up by so many countries with Canadian coaches and players. These nations have done extremely well on their own. If they beat us in hockey that is part of the game, although I like to see us win.


Steve Eugene Paproski: It is a good thing they won.


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think the hon. member has a point. I wonder how many seats in this House it would have cost if we had lost that series. I made a canvass in connection with the series, although I could not go from house to house to canvass all my constituents. I remember people running out on to their lawns when the winning goal was scored by Henderson. Two young men were roofing a house in my constituency. They had some other supplies on hand to help them enjoy the game and I thought they
October 22, 1973

were going to fall off the roof. I continued canvassing because I am conscientious with regard to what is good for my country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: At the first house we could not talk to each other. We sat there with tears in our eyes. They gave me some medicine which carried me on for a little while longer.
The hon. member's motion is important. As the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming) said, most Canadians and most members of this House would have tremendous sympathy for it. I certainly do not object to it. I think it has immense merit, but not in its present form. Some of us support it in principle. It certainly would have an impact on the sporting community, particularly Sports Canada and Hockey Canada. I think there is some merit in the federal funding of a national team that represents Canada abroad, but it should be channelled through Hockey Canada. That is where it belongs. That is what Hockey Canada is all about.
It is a credit to parliament that it supported this government in establishing Sports Canada which has done a great deal. When members visit their constituencies they see that the fellows who used to run provincial and national leagues from kitchen tables now have at least minimal facilities. I see how great the spirit is in my constituency. We have a softball team which won the world championship in Manilla. The members of the team were welcome and honoured, when they visited our gallery, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by parliament and by Sports Canada. I do not think this would have happened so readily if it were not for the great job Sports Canada is doing in all sports with which it is associated.
However, I do not think a permanent hockey team would really reflect the many top players we would like to see represented on a national team, although we see them playing together as a team all the time. Most of our players were far superior but they had not played together as a team long enough. Competition in our regrettably highly commercialized sport of hockey would make it exceedingly expensive or perhaps impossible. Finding a permanent team of sufficiently high standard would be difficult.
Though we were terribly impressed by the Russian team, I understand it is only one of about nine teams of a similar character. I was in Siberia, Russia, last May. I was not sent there; I was on a voluntary visit. It was a beautifully sunny day in the south of Russia, but in the north it was darned cold; it was below zero. I saw children between 8 and 10 years of age playing hockey on artificial ice in an indoor arena. It was very interesting for us to see those youngsters playing hockey so seriously. I do not say it was great hockey, but one could see the difference in style in the way they were being coached. Those children were really skating; there was very little body contact. However, the point I am making is that in Russia there are a number of teams of the highest calibre competing against each other, and this calls for a great effort on our part.
Sports
I think the hon. member is on the right track. In a sense, I believe one has to isolate Team Canada; I do not believe it would be good policy to make it part of a wider project. I believe people sincerely wish to support Team Canada. There is nothing seriously wrong about establishing a corporation, giving it a charter, and so on, enabling it to operate independently. But in my view this would be a wrong approach. I believe we should think in terms of Hockey Canada and establish a special fund for Hockey Canada or Team Canada in care of Hockey Canada. The fund would be devoted specifically to supporting the Canadian team. I think, then, the team would be better financed than an NHL team since, as I say, a large number of Canadians would support it on a regular basis.
The idea of a permanent team causes me some concern. I do not know where one would get the players to comprise such a team or who they would play against. I do not wish to talk out this motion, because I believe it is a worthwhile one. I would support it as Hockey Canada with a tax-free privilege for donations intended for Team Canada.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Hueglin) for bringing this motion forward for discussion. I suggest to him and to the hon. member who has just spoken that the most important fact in hockey is not money, but is conditioning and the will to play. As one who comes from a small community in Ontario, I well recall the days when we used to run to the barn to get out the squared-mouth shovel which we used to clean-off the ice in a ten-acre filed so that we could play hockey. Our sticks were usually from a branch of a tree cut in a nearby swamp, and in this way many of the great hockey players of the future developed in those years.


Thomas Miller Bell: What about your pucks?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Since those days hockey in the rural areas has developed along more sophisticated lines. First, small outdoor rinks were built, and finally covered rinks, leaving the way clear for the establishment of what is known in the rural areas as a bush league. I have played in these bush leagues and I must say I was in much better condition then than I am today. I can recall occasions when I travelled six miles on foot to get a ride for another nine miles to play hockey in my home arena. The visiting team might have come from 30 miles away.


Thomas Miller Bell: Did you ever use a magazine as a shin guard?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Players in hockey teams all over Canada have come up through these ranks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret very much having to interrupt the hon. member whose speech was obviously of great interest. Indeed, hon. members might, by unanimous consent, be willing to allow the hon. member to continue for a while.
There does not appear to be unanimous consent, so I must consider that the hour set aside for private members' business has expired.
26635-19*

October 22, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE TIME AND DATE OF VOTE ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BILL


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to report to the House that the representatives of the various parties have met pursuant to the special order dealing with the amendment to the Criminal Code, capital punishment and agreement has been reached on the time for the vote on third reading of the bill. The vote will take place on Wednesday next at 2.30 p.m. It is understood that whatever proceedings are before the House at that time will be interrupted, that the bells will ring for 15 minutes and that the vote will begin at a quarter to three. That is the agreement reached among representatives of the four parties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Then it is so ordered.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
*


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-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.
Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when I was speaking at five o'clock, some hon. members who spoke before me were bemoaning the fact that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) was not in the House to listen to their words of wisdom. I am glad indeed the minister is present now; perhaps he will listen to my words of wisdom.
I have a special affinity for the railroads. Although I have never worked on the railroads, I have travelled a great deal on them. My first father-in-law came to this country in 1928 and worked for two years in northwestern

Saskatchewan building a railroad from Shellbrook to Shell Lake, Saskatchewan, using horses, canvas tents and what-have-you. In those two years he earned enough money to bring over his wife and two children from White Russia.
In subsequent years I became a widower and remarried, this time a girl from Newfoundland whose father was a retired railroad worker. He tells me that he was one of the workers on the old Newfoundland railroad company which was going bankrupt and was inherited by Canadian National Railways, as I was pointing out prior to five o'clock. He was one of the gentlemen who was on the Newfoundland railroad company black-list-he was one of 30-because of their attempts to organize a union. As I say, he is now retired and he tells me the pension is not high enough.
I was trying to say before five o'clock, Mr. Speaker, that we have never had competitive railroad systems in western Canada. The CNR and CPR are like two trees planted too close together; the trunks and branches are so interwoven that neither is able to develop its full potential. For example, in areas of Canada CNR and CPR share almost the same roadbed, they are that close together. I am thinking particularly of one example between Perdue and Biggar, Saskatchewan, where the tracks are within a stone's throw of one another yet there are CNR and CPR trains going by several times a day on the main line.
To rationalize adequately our railway system in Canada all railroads should be brought under state ownership. The CNR is now state-owned, and the CPR should be. This has been the thrust of the policy of our party almost since its inception. In my own province of Saskatchewan, transportation policies have tended to work against Saskatchewan's small plant industrial economy. Basically, Saskatchewan is agricultural but we do have a small plant industrial economy too. There is a significant area of monopoly in the transportation industry with higher rates and service problems.
The railroads must develop reasonable rates with which the people of western Canada can live. If not, the government must step in and act, using transportation as a key instrument in national policy and national unity. I quite agree that a two-language policy is necessary for this country socially and culturally, but I feel transportation is also the key to national unity, something I think the government has overlooked.
For too long the railroads have been encouraged to extract their fixed costs and overheads from those areas which are not endowed with intermodal competition. Western Canadians have made disproportionate contributions toward the fixed costs of the railroads. The railroads must also be a key instrument in northern development. I think the government of the day must take a very close look at the whole concept of a railroad down the Mackenzie Valley and into northern Saskatchewan to transport the uranium deposits there which will be of key significance as we move closer and closer to a so-called energy crisis.
Several weeks ago I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about the high cost of food in the north-the Northwest Territories, northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan. He replied that this was really the responsibil-

ity of the provincial governments. I think transportation is the responsibility of the federal government. When people have to pay almost $2 a dozen for eggs in Arctic Red River near the mouth of the Mackenzie delta in the far north, I think the time has come to develop the north; and transportation is one of the keys.
For too long the rate-setting policies of the railroads have been based on fictitious water competition. Rarely are we given details of the name of the water carrier, the rates charged, the tariff applied, the type of service and the frequency or capacity of the service.
I understand from the Western Economic Opportunities conference that the Government of Canada has agreed to make some of these figures, statistics, and so on, known to the provincial government. This is appreciated by the people of the west. We need a framework to compensate for the overwhelming advantages through the size, volume and competition in the transportation field which industry now enjoys in the most favoured regions of central Canada. Such an approach must take into account the total production and distribution problems of a single industrial plant, a group of plants or an entire industry within a province such as Saskatchewan, or even within a region.
The largest discrepancies exist between regions such as the western provinces and the central provinces, or between the maritime provinces and the central provinces. I am also opposed to rail line abandonment such as the proposed abandonment of the line from Shellbrook to Spiritwood and Turtleford. This would mean that some farmers would have a grain haul of 50, 60 or 70 miles. We do not dispute the fact that some rail lines should be abandoned, but it must be on a rationalized basis.
Provincial policy in Saskatchewan is to encourage decentralization as much as possible and to locate industries in the smaller towns and villages. We want to preserve the rural way of life. In the face of this, branch line abandonment and centralization of rail services is negative. Centralization in the form of servocentres will not necessarily give the best service. The CNR today is talking about servocentres. As I mentioned earlier, this does not mean there is no room for rail rationalization in western Canada, but it means we must be aware of all the social costs and psychological implications. It means that national transportation policies must be grounded in regional needs and regional economics.
Now may I say a word or two about the airlines. I have heard many people complain about the service of Air Canada. They have said that the service is terrible, the food is terrible, and so on. So far as I am concerned, the food is okay and the service is not too bad. Every once in a while one misses a flight out of Ottawa because of freezing rain or because the runway is icy, but that merely proves that man has not conquered nature completely. Despite man's great advances in technology, we still are not at a point where we can have de-icing machines and technology that make it possible for a flight to leave at the exact time every day, 365 days of the year.
I have flown on a number of airlines. The food service of Air Canada is not bad. The hostesses are always polite.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada However, I do have a few criticisms in the nature of suggested improvements. For example, I am rather opposed to these expensive air terminal buildings which are sometimes foisted upon communities as symbols of community pride or monuments to politicians. We have huge terminal buildings in Montreal and Toronto and a fair sized one in Winnipeg. The one in Saskatoon is too small.
When I fly into the northern part of my province, I am lucky to find a little shack to go into to keep warm. In some cases there is nothing; one must step out into the blustering wind and snow. I would sooner have decent runways and navigational aids in some of the outlying regions of Saskatchewan and northern Canada. In my constituency there is a need for good runways and navigational aids in places such as Meadow Lake, Buffalo Narrows, Beauval, Cluff Lake and many other northern communities.
Again, I should like to commend the federal government for taking the initiative in allotting $100,000 to the community of Meadow Lake to pave 2,800 feet of runway there. It will be the first paved runway in my constituency. I hope this is followed up with many more. It should also be an instrument of national policy to build roads to the north. I think we should be looking at things far beyond rail line or airline transportation. At least we should be willing to share the expense of road building with the provinces in the more inaccessible regions. For example, in my area a road is required to Cluff Lake and the south shore of Lake Athabasca. This would be a boon to the development of some of the rich uranium finds in the area. In Saskatchewan also we need a north-south jet service extending into the United States. The government of Saskatchewan asked for such a jet service and were refused. Air Canada should be looking seriously into the matter of serving some of our centres such as Uranium City, North Battleford, Prince Albert, Yorkton, Weyburn, Swift Current, and so on.
Coming back to the question of the railroads, if the railways insist on abandoning trackage then they should also forfeit an equal percentage of land and return it to the provinces concerned. They should return both the physical property and the mineral rights. For example, if they want to abandon 20 per cent of the trackage in Saskatchewan they should give us back 20 per cent of the 15 million acres of land, together with the mineral rights, to compensate our loss.
Only if the activities of the CNR and CPR are completely co-ordinated can a limited plan or rail line abandonment be struck. We must have complete co-ordination. The railways ought to sit down with the provincial governments involved, the elevator companies and, most importantly, the farmers' representatives and representatives of communities, the smaller communities in particular, to design a plan which would utilize the best tracks with the least detrimental effect to the communities concerned.
Why do railroads need money? Here we are about to vote $225 million. Why do they need this money if very little of it is spent on keeping up the trackage? In my constituency the elevators are plugged. There are no boxcars. The tracks are poor. One might ask why this situation is allowed to exist.

October 22, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada


An hon. Member:: A poor MP.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: A gentleman over there says it is because there is a poor MP. I think it is because of poor government, period: that is what we have had for the last 20 years.
I should also like to ask why the railways hang on to rights-of-way on which track was never laid or on which it never expects to lay track. I will give an example. There is a railway right-of-way in my area of northwestern Saskatchewan. Thirty years ago the right-of-way was obtained for the Canadian National from St. Walburg to Loon Lake, Saskatchewan. That trackage was never laid. There is no railway to Loon Lake, but they still have ownership of the right-of-way. In the village of Loon Lake, which is one of the very few places in Canada which is totally surrounded by an Indian reservation and which is one of the few villages in Saskatchewan still growing, the railway has a right-of-way on which 20 or 30 houses could be placed. They refuse to pay frontage taxes for sewage and water, or to give the land back to the village so that it would have the land for expansion purposes within the community.
I think, also, that the financial dealings, statements and transactions of the CNR should be more open to the public than they have been up to the present time. Many questions have been raised in my own province with regard to the sale of the Bessborough Hotel. When queried as to the price at which the hotel was sold, the company said it was not in the public interest to divulge it and that to give the information would be to give their competitors an unfair advantage.
So they would not reveal the price of the hotel. Yet they sold a hotel in Saskatoon. They spent, I do not know how many millions of dollars, on a huge edifice in Toronto which when it is completed is supposed to be the highest building in the world-over 1800 feet high. And for what? What does that have to do with transportation? I sometimes question what the CNR is doing. Certainly, if they spent a little more money fixing up the tracks in Saskatchewan and buying a few more boxcars, it would be money put to better use than on the CNR building in Toronto.
There are 2,000 hopper cars that the CNR and the CPR are supposed to use to haul grain. They cannot haul grain on half the trackage in the prairie provinces; and we have not yet heard from the government what the deal was with the CNR and the CPR with regard to the rental of these hopper cars and what would be their use.
Basically, railroads should be an instrument of national policy, of national unity and they should be used to serve this country and to bring about the unity of our nation. 1 will not stand here criticizing the CNR, because I am convinced that it is a good railroad and that it serves its social purposes-which the CPR refuses to do-despite the fact that its financial situation is not quite as good as that of the CPR. But I must also remind hon. members that the CPR was given large sums of the taxpayers' money, land and mineral rights in this country to build up the huge empire which it now has. Yet that company does not provide the type of services which the CNR provides.

Every time a little rail line goes bankrupt, the CNR swallows it, perhaps, as I said earlier, for social or political reasons. I think it is about time we looked at our total transportation system and co-ordinated it. I believe quite strongly that the CNR, the CPR and in fact the whole transportation system should come under state ownership.


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I find that Bill C-164, gives members of the House an opportunity to look at the railway system and the airline system which is owned by the taxpayers of this country. I want to point out that the CNR is underwritten by the taxpayers of Canada. When it first set up its operation it amalgamated Grand Trunk, Grand Trunk Northern and Grand Trunk Pacific, and since that time any profits which accrue to the CNR operation are used to pay back the barons of England from whom the government of this country at that time had rescued these almost bankrupt railway companies. I hope the government will see the light and will realize it is time to liquidate the $1,900 million of public debt owned by the CNR, then perhaps we can go forward with the kind of profitable operation which we have proved the CNR could be.
I always find it rather strange that it is advantageous to those who support the free enterprise system-which you may observe is neither free nor enterprising-to maintain the present arrangement whereby the people of Canada have to cough up annually large sums of money to help pay the interest on that original loan. This effects the operations of the CNR and any profits which it has made. Indeed, it is always very nice to be able to say that the CNR did not make a profit. The public, of course, must not read between the lines and must not notice that the profit which accrues is used to pay off the interest on the original loan. People would like to say that the government cannot run any business profitably nor any transportation system. To say so is always in the interests of those who support the free enterprise system. I have only one answer to that, which is, as my colleague has suggested to me, horsefeathers.
It seems to me that when we look carefully at the operations of the CNR we find that in effect it has been very successful. We find that in the year ending December 31, 1972, for example, the CNR had a profit of about $45 million. As a matter of fact, the total railway operating revenues rose 10 per cent, from $1,141 million to $1,257 million. The carload freight revenues were up by 8.6 per cent, due mainly to the rise in traffic volume. Passenger service revenues rose 3.9 per cent. Also, the CNR paid $178 million in taxes to all levels of government in Canada in 1972. In addition to that, I repeat that the CNR's net profit was some $50 million.
Now let us look at how the CNR treats its employees, the people who help to produce the wealth of this railway company. I find the rates of pay of the CNR very interesting. For example, the CNR pantryman with 19 years of service or over gets $2.97 an hour. A waiter on the CNR with 19 years of service or over gets $3.11 an hour. A CNR porter gets $3.14 an hour. A cook assistant gets $3.21 an hour if he has 19 years of service or over, and the cook himself with 19 years of service or over gets $3.53 an hour. The chef gets $4.12 an hour.
October 22, 1973

If those are the rates of pay which this government-operated business pays its workers, no wonder we have the unrest on our railways that we are experiencing these days. I ride trains regularly, my community at Capreol is on the main line, and I find that the morale of the CNR employees on the trains is pitifully low. It is at rock bottom, largely because of some of the steps being taken by management to cut back the work force and to increase the workload. I find, for example, that in 1972 in the CN St. Lawrence region there were 1,000 persons employed in the dining and sleeping car service. In June, 1973, that figure was down to 347. Remember, Mr. Speaker, CNR passenger service has been increasing; indeed, revenues from passenger service have increased by 3.9 per cent-but the work force has gone down.
How does the CNR treat its retired workers? We find that as of January, 1971, the CNR was paying 5,052 pensions of less than $50 per month, and of that number most were pensions of $25 per month or less. In 4,194 cases, pensions up to only $99.99 were being paid. The Government of Canada has seen fit to provide for payment of pensions to employees of dozens of Crown corporations under the Public Service Superannuation Act. I maintain the government should force the CNR to pay the same type of pensions to its employees with provision for 2 per cent of salary for each year of service.
Other things are responsible for lack of morale among CNR workers. Air Canada employees receive a free pass once a year on the CNR but this does not work in reverse; CNR employees do not get a pass once a year on Air Canada. This can only lead to resentment, to a feeling of being second-class employees receiving second-class or indeed third-class pay. Another thing that concerns me about the CNR is its board of directors. I looked at that board and found it was sadly lacking in representation from ethnic groups. With the exception of two French Canadians it seems that Anglo-Saxons make up the board of directors. There is N. J. MacMillan, chairman and president, J. W. G. Macdougall, R. A. Bandeen-


Mitchell William Sharp: Those are not Anglo-Saxons; they are Scots.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the suggestion made by the hon. member is that these Scots are not real ethnics. The Scots were the first ethnics of this country.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, with a name like mine I was looking for more Irish names like my own on this board of directors. To continue the list, there is Pierre Taschereau, J. R. Richer, A. H. Hart, M. Archer, R. T. Vaughan, J. L. Toole, W. R. Corner, E. P. Stephenson, K. E. Hunt, George Lach, W. H. Bailey, J. M. Duncan, R. E. Lawless, D. W. Blair, J. F. Roberts, W. D. Piggott, A. R. Williams, J. H. Spicer, J. C. Gardiner, John Gratwick, S. D. H. Thomas, and E. J. Denyar. I also found that many of these people are on the boards of directors of other companies. There are no workers represented on the CNR board of directors, yet they are the ones who know what is wrong with the railway. Democracy is not apparent in these government-appointed directors. They are all appointees from a very elite group.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
I am also interested in the way the CNR approaches the public. It seems it has discovered that its greatest source of revenue is in carrying freight and in that field it practices a great deal of discrimination against certain parts of the country. The greatest discrimination in freight rates is practised against northern Ontario. The hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) mentioned northern Saskatchewan and the freight rate discrimination there. I say there is not an area in Canada more discriminated against, so far as freight rates are concerned, than northern Ontario. Indeed, the area between Quebec and Armstrong in northern Ontario shows the highest freight rate structure in northern Canada.
The freight rate structure in northern Ontario discriminates against local development. It is based on the volume of the items being shipped out. This has led to the development of northern Ontario as a resource depository from which raw materials are shipped. The mining companies get the benefit of lower rates. Recently I discovered that it costs $8.66 per ton to ship iron ore from Copper Cliff to Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, but to ship a ton of fertilizer from Toronto to the Sudbury basin costs $90. How can we develop diversification of our industry in northern Ontario if freight rates make it more profitable to ship raw materials from there? This has been a bone of contention in the north for many years.
Recently the government of Ontario announced an 18 per cent freight rate cut on all freight shipped by the ONR or Star Transport. As you know, Mr. Speaker, ONR operates only in northern Ontario. It does not operate out of the region; we have to depend on the CNR or CPR for that and our hope was that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), or the government, would cut CNR freight rates in a similar fashion in order to assist the establishment of secondary industry in our area. But we have not heard one word of any reciprocal action by the federal government. Indeed, we see that what the Turgeon report had to say is as true today as it was when it was first made. It reads in part:
It has been pointed out to the commission that in this regard railway management in the past has often proceeded, in fixing freight rates, without sufficiently considering the interest of the community to be served, and without even showing a proper conception of the long-run interest of the railway.
I suggest that we in northern Ontario have been discriminated against by the CNR in the matter of freight rates. This is why Eaton's and Simpsons have two catalogues, one each for northern Ontario and for southern Ontario. In all cases, the items advertised are more expensive in northern Ontario than in southern Ontario. This is why workers in the Sudbury basin must continually demand a higher rate for the work they do, because they have to contend with prices that are highly inflated due to freight rate costs.
This leads me to another point. The railway roadbeds were laid down about 70 years ago. These roadbeds were laid to accommodate trains of that time which were much shorter and lighter than modern trains, but no improvements have been made to them. It takes the CN passenger train 7'A hours to travel from Sudbury to Toronto. Apparently this is because of the slow orders on the line. When the track was laid, the trains were pulled by steam engines and the rail line went around the lakes so that the trains

Canadian National Railways and Air Canada could stop to get water. That day has gone, but the lines still go around the lakes. Mr. Speaker, I believe the government ought to spend about $5 billion straightening out the lines to make the service faster and more convenient.
These days we hear a great deal about the gasoline shortage and the fuel shortage. We hear the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) saying that cities must not be allowed to sprawl the way they are at the moment. The railway lines are already there, and it seems to me we ought to be converting people to the use of public transportation. I am firmly convinced that the CNR does everything in its power to discourage passengers from using its service. It has taken a leaf out of the book of CPR in that respect, and I disagree with it. We should be trying to get the CNR to establish an improved passenger service.
During the last election campaign an announcement was made about the removal of railway lines from downtown cores. The CN quickly moved their lines from downtown Sudbury to the suburbs. But the CPR lines are still there. CN built what I call a little passenger hut, Mr. Speaker, because that is what it is. Every time we get a fog that closes the airport, a crowd of people go over to get the train and find they have to stand out in the rain. That little waiting-room is not any more than two feet by two feet, and I am not exaggerating. The area has a population of close to 180,000, so the waiting-room is not adequate. People become disgusted when they cannot even find shelter from the elements. The town of Capreol is on the transcontinental line, and there we find a building that must be at least 100 years old. It must have been there at the time of confederation, Mr. Speaker, and apparently has some historical significance because it is crumbling away. However, no effort is made to provide for passengers' comfort.
If we do get on the train, we find that the price of meals is exorbitant. I think inflation hit the railways ten years before it hit the rest of Canada, and I strongly suspect that they use the profits of the dining-car to pay for the private cars that they have all over the country for the personal use of the regional managers. Liver and onions costs $2.45, hamburger costs $1.50, coffee 25 cents, and Coke 30 cents a bottle. This sort of thing discourages people. If you want a sleeping berth, you are told that none is available. This happened to me, and then I went to the Ottawa station and asked for a berth to Vancouver and was told that one was available. There seems to be no system of reservations at all for the public convenience.
If the energy crisis continues, then a public transit system for this country will become increasingly important. But the government seems to think they have things under control. When we ask the minister a question about the possibility of cutting freight rates, we are told that this would have to be done by the Canadian Transport Commission. Mr. Speaker, who runs the country? Surely not some commissioners sitting around in opulent rooms. Surely it is the government elected by the people of the country. I believe the proceedings of the House of Commons should be televised so that Canadians could see what happens when important questions are asked. Matters touching on the lives of the half million people in northern Ontario are brushed aside and we are told that a

commission has to make the decisions. Why do we need a government, if a commission can decide? I cannot speak too harshly about that kind of thing.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that it is apparently all right for CNR to subsidize commuters between Detroit and Pontiac, Michigan, to the tune of $375,000 annually. We have been doing that since 1954. If we can do that, then what about the people who live in northern Ontario? Perhaps we should subsidize their foodstuffs. If the government of the province of Ontario can equalize the price of beer between southern Ontario and northern Ontario, surely the federal government can do something to ameliorate freight rates in northern Ontario so that the region does not have to develop only as a resource economy. An adequate rail service would be the first step toward developing secondary industry in a area such as mine. Millions of dollars are spent on the educational system there, but when the young people reach working are they find they must leave because there is very little opportunity for those aged 18 to 25.
How can urban sprawl be stopped when the people of northern Ontario have no secondary industries, no interesting jobs in research and development to offer the young people who find they have to go to the large urban centres where the opportunites are greater? I wish the people of Canada could be transported into this House to see what goes on.
I urge the Minister of Transport to use the power of his office to make sure that Canadian National Railways, which is owned by the people of Canada, is used for the benefit of Canada. Some great things could be done. This railway system links the two ends of the country. Surely we could improve the system to the point where people would prefer to go by rail rather than drive on crowded highways on which they may be prone to accidents and the hazards of inclement weather in areas such as the one I represent. Can we not improve the service to the point where people will want to use the railway? I urge the minister to use his power in that way as an elected officer of this country.
Secondly, I am concerned about freight rates. They are most important, Mr. Speaker. The Ontario government has cut freight rates on the ONR by 18 per cent. Why cannot the CNR do the same? The CNR ought to cut freight rates in that area if we are to move out of that second-class slot in northern Ontario in which we merely take stuff out of the ground, ship it out and then take back the finished product. Surely we can expect the Liberal government to act in this regard. Liberal members have represented northern Ontario for the last 50 years. Formerly, 9 out of 12 members representing the area were Liberal. Just before I came along, 11 out of 12 were Liberal. Surely those Liberal members know that freight rates are at the root of our problem in northern Ontario. Surely those members who represent northern Ontario have the ear of the minister. Indeed, I think they also have his tail, but that is beside the point. The fact is that they ought to do something worthwhile for northern Ontario. They have the power, as they represent the area. The members of my party would be quite willing to support Liberal members
October 22, 1973

who would like to work in the direction of improving the situation in that regard.
I also urge the minister to use his power with the CNR for the benefit of the workers. The workers are not slaves any more and deserve more than the paltry wages which I have mentioned. Also, pensioners ought to be treated better. As a publicly-owned transportation system, the CNR ought to set a pattern in this field which would be the envy of the so-called free enterprise system. I urge the minister to act in the three areas I have mentioned.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is safe to assume that members of this House wiser than I am might have been content, in contributing to this debate, to say, "I agree with what was said this afternoon by the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher)." He represents a neighbouring riding, and I do not think the case with respect to rail passenger service in southwestern Ontario has been more effectively or forcibly put by anyone than it was by that hon. member this afternoon.
I am not indulging in wishful thinking when I say to the minister that in the part of the world which I represent, rail passenger service is not a partisan issue. It is not only Conservatives who ride the rails. Passengers include those who support the NDP and the Liberal Party. I think it is safe to say that the members of all parties representing that part of Ontario have spoken with one voice.
When I came to this House in January, I do not think I was so naive, as a new member, as to think that the major problems of my constituency would be solved immediately. I confess I was naive enough to think that I would be given the opportunity to discuss these problems in the House. I must confess, further, that I and many other members were disappointed in this regard. I therefore hope to find some sympathy in this House for my feeling of frustration. That frustration was spoken of so well this afternoon by the hon. member for Bruce, as we have been given little or no opportunity to discuss rail transportation in this House since last January. Those of us who are concerned about this important issue have been allotted a minimal amount of time in the standing committee, and in the daily question period to raise this issue. In the question period the answers or, more accurately, non-answers of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) have only added to our dilemma.
The hon. member for Bruce spoke of his feelings of frustration and hopelessness. I hope I do not sound as pessimistic as he did. Perhaps his pessimism was induced by the fact that he has been here longer than I have and knows the minister better than I do. The frustration I voice is also the reflection of the feelings of three pertinent groups in my area. These are, first, the rail passengers; at least, those who were at one time rail passengers and would like to become once more rail passengers. The second group consists of the employees of the railways, and the third group for whom little is said is the property owners' group through whose property railway rights-of-way run. This group includes other occupants of such property.
If I may speak about the first group, the railway passengers, let me point out that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
tabled in this House on June 21, 1972. It was a unanimous report. I attended meetings in Stratford. There were other meetings all over western Ontario. I remember very well that those who presented briefs or gave evidence usually prefaced their remarks by saying, "We do not think you can do much, but... On several occasions they were interrupted by the chairman or acting chairman as the case may be, who said, "We know what you have gone through. You have had meetings with the railways; they have shown a great deal of sympathy and have protested that they will make every effort to improve the situation, but then they have forgotten about you."
These people had met with the Canadian Transport Commission and again had been shown the same sympathy. They had been given excellent heavings, but then they had been forgotten. So when the members of this House making up that committee came to Stratford and called witnesses, the almost invariable response was, "We don't know why we are here, because we have gone through all this before." The committee members said, honourably and sincerely, "You are wrong. We are present to hear you and this is one time when something will be done." I see members of this House present tonight who sat on that committee. I know they are honourable men who meant what they said.
The committee's report was unanimous. It was published as a result of public hearings in western Ontario which had been called for the purpose of eliciting representations on the adequacy or inadequacy of passenger service in that area. It received 55 briefs and heard 68 witnesses. The committee was presented with petitions, letters and mail-in coupons containing several thousand names asking for restoration or continuance of rail passenger service in the southwestern Ontario region.
Despite those these hearings the CTC discontinued rail passenger service in the area effective November 1. At the time of discontinuance the Canadian Transport Commission assumed, and the residents of the area were so informed, that public transportation in forms other than rail would be provided. After about two years, the evidence presented to the committee indicated that there was widespread dissatisfaction with the type of passenger service then provided.
The bus service provided in the area did not constitute a satisfactory alternate public transportation service, nor did any other system of transportation solve the transportation problems of the public. The committee therefore recommended, among other things, first that all rail passenger services which were discontinued on November 1, 1970, should be re-established immediately and, second, that a moratorium should be placed on all pending passenger train discontinuance applications in Canada. The committee also recommended-and this recommendation was as important as the other two-that a joint study group composed of representatives of federal, provincial and municipal officials should be formed. In other words, it recommended that a trilevel study be established immediately, all of which was well put this afternoon by the hon. member for Bruce. This study was to determine a minimum rail passenger network as defined in relationship to the most efficient and adequate transportation system
7114

October 22, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada making the best use of all modes of transportation at the lowest possible total cost.
What happened? As the House well knows, members have been speaking on the subject, and speaking well, for a number of months. Certainly prior to the election of last October my predecessor representing my constituency along with many members of the House acted as spokesmen for the area-but to no avail. I do not think the minister has appreciated the reaction of the community. Those who represent the area no longer measure their mail in numbers of letters; they weigh it. I am sorry that I did not bring my file. I am sure my mail bag is no bigger or smaller than that of other members representing the area. I wish to quote from several letters to show the concern of my constituents. I will not bore the minister with reading all of them. I will read excerpts. First may I read part of letter sent by a senior citizen who is a constituent in Listowel, Ontario. He said, in part:
A great many residents here would appreciate it very much if you, as a member of parliament, could look into it and do something to improve our situation.
The second letter comes from Mitchell, Ontario. It says in part:
This service was hard-earned and paid for by our forefathers.
The following letter was received from the city of Stratford:
Please inquire into what has happened to the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Transportation in the House of Commons.
The following is from the town of Palmerston:
We are not asking for something that is not our right, or that we should not have. Therefore, why can't we have it? Your support is now requested to keep this concern before the government until action is gained.
The next is from the town of Listowel:
If MP's had to put up with all that. ..
This was written after describing the horrendous situation in getting from point A to point B.
... it would certainly be the first motion to come up-It seems, if you don't live in one of the major cities, or want to drive your car, one is just supposed to stay at home.
The next is from a rural area outside Listowel, in Perth county:
Last year my doctor made an appointment for me to attend the cancer clinic in Victoria Hospital, London. I found out there wasn't train or bus service to London so changed my appointment to Wingham and couldn't get there either-I am sure there are hundreds of people having the same experiences.
What has been the reaction of the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission? Apparently there is a Canadian Transport Commission study. The standing committee recommended a trilevel study. The Midwestern Development Corporation recommended a trilevel study. Many members of this House did the same. We have a study by the Canadian Transport Commission: right off the bat, that is suspect. In my opinion, the CTC is part and parcel of a deliberate attempt to downgrade rail service in Canada. In any event, this CTC study, which has not been published although it was supposed to be some time ago, was to involve local consultation. I person-

ally checked with four of my colleagues who represent constituencies in this area. Neither I nor they could find one local municipal official who was consulted. We cannot find anyone who was ever consulted. If members, not only on this side of the House but in all parties, from this part of Ontario are skeptical, I think it is with good reason.
This past spring representatives of the Midwestern Development Corporation came to Ottawa to meet with the minister. Circumstances prevented his meeting them, but they met with his parliamentary secretary. When I suggested that this was mere window-dressing the parliamentary secretary was almost at a loss for words. This astonished me. The parliamentary secretary took great umbrage at the fact that I would suggest this was just another bit of window-dressing for the Minister of Transport.
The second group of people for whom I should like to make a plea are the railroad employees. I suggest to the minister that the railway is engaged in a deliberate attempt to downgrade roadbeds and rights-of-way. The result is that many members of the operating union of the CNR are fearful for their lives. I do not want to be an alarmist, but I am consulted almost every week by members of the union safety committee. Incidents such as falling trees and almost impossible visibility are now the rule rather than the exception on certain lines north of the city of Stratford and, indeed, lines that go into the constituency of the hon. member for Bruce. Roadbeds are so poor that reduced speeds are also the rule rather than the exception. In an article in the June 21, 1972, edition of the London Free Press on the condition of the roadbed, the hon. member for Bruce was quoted as saying:
... claims that the rail lines in the area are in poor repair and unsuitable for service are unfounded.
"The lines are not nearly in as bad a shape as some people think" he told the committee. "I see freight trains going over them every day."
That may very well have been true in June of 1972. I have no knowledge of the situation at that time. However, I wish the hon. member were in the House now to update his report. Remember, that was 16 months ago. On the basis of honest and sincere evidence given to me by the safety committee of the railway union in that area, I suggest these men are operating trains in fear.
The final group for which I wish to speak are those people through whose property the railways have a right-of-way. It is very easy to go on at great length about weeds, fences, and so on. Rather than do that, I wish to give the House one example. It would serve no purpose to name the railway or the specific location, because the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) have my complete file on this. Their file is as current as mine as of a week ago. This is a situation that has arisen in two rural townships. The best way to summarize it would be to paraphrase a letter from the field-man of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture reporting to members of the federation with regard to having a certain situation remedied in the area.
Between June 1 and June 6 of 1973, 11 requisitions for fence repairs were forwarded to the railway. Apparently this is how you initiate fence repairs when it is the railway's fence: a farmer sends a requisition to a district
October 22, 1973

office, rather than the railway initiating repairs on its own. On June 22 and 25, the fieldman of the Federation of Agriculture talked personally to the district engineer of the railway at the regional office. The engineer indicated he hoped to have something definite before the end of July. On June 29, after a meeting of the directors of the Federation of Agriculture, the fieldman wrote the district engineer asking that definite action be taken prior to July 15. A copy of his letter was sent to me. This was the first time I was made aware of the problem.
On July 9 and 17 I wrote to the Hon. Edgar J. Benson, president of the Canadian Transport Commission, Ottawa, asking for assurance that action would be taken without delay. On July 30 the district engineer of the Canadian Transport Commission in Toronto contacted the federation and obtained the names and addresses of the farmers affected. Remember, this was two months after the requisition had been forwarded. The district engineer of the Canadian Transport Commission is quoted as having said he would forward the recommendations to Ottawa and action would likely be immediate.
On August 10 more requisitions were forwarded to Ottawa. On August 22 the assistant director of the Federation of Agriculture wrote Mr. J. D. Beeton, secretary of the Railway Transportation Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission following a telephone conversation with the railway in Toronto. In this conversation it was stated it might take two months to get the money allocated as it had to be approved by a board in Montreal. Remember, this is a fence in the country which affects 11 farmers.
The letter to Mr. Beeton suggested the railway was dragging its feet. It stated the farmers would appreciate any help that could be given. A copy of this letter was also sent to me, and I again wrote to the Canadian Transport Commission. This takes us to the end of August. On September 12 I wrote a third letter to the Hon. Edgar J. Benson asking for immediate action. I raised this matter in the House of Commons on September 21 by way of a question to the Minister of Agriculture, in the absence of the Minister of Transport. On September 24 I received a letter from Mr. Benson acknowledging my letter of September 12. He indicated that the transport committee of this commission had taken up the matter with the railway. The last paragraph is interesting. I quote:
I thought you should know your representations have not escaped our attention in spite of the period of time which has elapsed since you first brought this matter to my attention. I will keep you informed as to developments.
This takes us almost to the end of September when I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, with a copy to the Minister of Transport, sending him my complete file on this matter. In the last two or three weeks I have received an acknowledgment from the Minister of Agriculture and another letter from an assistant to the Minister of Transport acknowledging receipt of the correspondence. I received a further letter from the Federation of Agriculture in Toronto, at least a copy of a letter to the Transport Commission dated October 12, indicating that the work had not been started. Then I received a letter on Friday from the secretary of the CTC indicating that the work
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada had been done. Which of these two letters is accurate, I do not know.
I cite this correspondence to show that if there is frustration and anger in southwestern Ontario, it is justified. This anger and frustration is not partisan, as was so well shown by the hon. member for Bruce. I suggest that the railways and the CTC are deliberately avoiding their responsibilities. No doubt they intend, as they did in the case of passengers and mail, to downgrade the service until the business is lost. No doubt they will apply for abandonment.
The Minister of Transport seems content to allow the present course of events to continue even in the face of a unanimous recommendation by the standing committee, in the face of the economics of the situation and in the face of the economics of the situation and in the face of common sense. I can only conclude that the situation in southwestern Ontario is simply a penalty for those ridings which return members who are not members of the Liberal Party, the only exception being the hon. member for Bruce who is trapped in a net because he is surrounded on two sides by water and on two sides by Tories. Thus he is in the same position as we are. It is a sad commentary on the just society.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few comments on the CNR financing bill which deals especially with the financial aspects of the CNR and Air Canada, the two largest carriers in their class in the country. The mere fact that no public audit has been presented to the House of Commons dealing with the financial aspect of the affairs of these companies, together with the failure of the government to refer the annual reports to the transport committee, indicates that all is not well in the transportation field as far as these publicly-owned carriers are concerned.
My riding, being highly rural with a relatively static population, is not faced with many of the problems such as urban sprawl, transportation and housing which confront metropolitan areas, but it is vitally interested in the retention of an adequate rail system and in the policy concerning branch line abandonment. Like the rest of western Canada, the area is heavily dependent upon grain as the main agricultural crop, the production of wheat complementing the grain growing. This means that should the transportation system be further reduced, it would likely result in a corresponding reduction in the productivity of the area.
As far as my constituency is concerned, proposals for branch line abandonment must be considered together with the so-called grain rationalization proposals affecting local elevators; how many would remain in operation, where they would be situated, and what is to be their capacity. Events of the last few months have shown that the world is faced with food scarcities and seems to have narrowly escaped a major food shortage. This has a strong bearing on railway transportation problems in the west.
The relatively rapid increase in the cost of diesel fuel, and the prospect of further substantial increases in the months and years ahead, bring into focus the interaction of various transportation systems and in particular the relative competitive ability of the trucking industry and
26635-20.1

October 22, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada the railways. I have been informed by reliable railway authorities that the resistance offered by a steel wheel on a steel rail is only half that of the rubber tire on tarmac. This may not be significant in itself, but it means that in terms of the energy the railway is in theory twice as efficient as highway transport. With the price of energy rising, this factor should considerably enhance the competitive position of the railways and may reverse to some extent the trend to move goods by highway rather than by rail.
I turn now to an issue which was well brought out at the recent conference between the western premiers and the federal government in Calgary, namely, that the railways have consistently refused to publish details of their earnings and costs in the various regions of Canada. In 1968, after my election here, I asked the parliamentary library to undertake a small research project along these lines. The librarian detailed to do this work stated after a few days that there was absolutely no information of any authenticity available with regard to the operations of the two railways-no idea what their costs were in the west or in any other part of Canada relative to the income they earned there. Unless this information is furnished there can be no enlightened discussion about grain freight rates or freight rates affecting secondary industries in the west.
It has always been the opinion of many people that the railways made money in western Canada. But the companies have consistently claimed that freight rates for western agricultural commodities, particularly basic agricultural products and resource products, have been too low. Not until details are made available shall we be able to make any reasonable assessment as to how badly off, or how well off, the railways are in the west. Certainly a comparison between some of the freight rates which particularly affect western Canada, for example, from Montreal to the central prairies, as against Montreal to Vancouver, throws considerable doubt upon the validity of the case made by the railways.
The western conference was preoccupied with some of these transportation questions. When answers are supplied, perhaps we can make progress. Appendix II of the transportation paper presented by the government to the western conference indicates that from 1968 to 1972 the so-called ton-mile of originating rail traffic increased in the west at a rate much greater than the national average, and now makes up more than 50 per cent of the national average. In 1968 the percentage originating in the west was less than 50-about 45 per cent. Westerners who attended the Calgary conference were dismayed by the lack of interest taken by the government in the transportation issue or, at least, by its inability to come forward with any solutions. All four western provinces seemed to regard the issue as one which primarily involved the freight rate structure, a structure which has not basically changed since the railways' task was primarily to move raw materials out of and manufactured goods into the west. Furthermore there were inequities in that governments, particularly the federal government, paid varying amounts of the cost of different modes of transportation. They contended that railways users pay the highest portion of these costs.
The National Transportation Act of 1967 relies on carrier competition to control rates. The lack of competition in certain regions in the west gives the railways significant monopolies and the railways seem to set the highest possible rate. Numerous examples were given where the rail rate to a northern town would be immediately halved once the highway reached the town. It seemed important to the premiers that there be a full disclosure of the costs of all modes of transportation, and that a rate-setting procedure be established which would include a federal contribution toward costs comparable to that provided other modes of transportation.
A counter-proposal by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) at that meeting to the effect that the examination of rate-setting by the CTC of different commodities could and should be speeded up was about the only counter-proposal that I could detect. He pointed with great pride to the fact that the CTC had ordered the railways to reduce the rate on rapeseed meal exported out of western Canada. To the cynical, it should be pointed out that normally rapeseed oil is the most valuable product of rapeseed and that the meal is of considerably less value. But at that time eastern Canada was suffering from an animal feed shortage and the rapeseed meal, not normally a particularly attactive feeding supplement, was needed badly here in the east.
I suspect that had the feed grain shortage not arisen there would not have been any reduction in the tariff on rapeseed meal. Had the CTC been genuinely interested they would have reduced the freight on the oil, because it is well recognized by western crushers that the freight rate structure makes it cheaper to ship rapeseed to the crushers in the east than to ship the oil.
The proposal to review the freight rate structure commodity by commodity is long and tedious and each decision is almost out of date by the time it is made. The railway should be obliged to disclose its costs and revenues by regions. I think that western Canada, being a railway monopoly area, should have situated in it a substantial degree of autonomy in management and economic decisions. The present situation whereby the CNR runs the whole of the country from Montreal means automatic distrust and some poor decisions. Until there is more input into the railway management by people who live in the prairie regions, there will be continuing problems. At this western conference the bringing forward of Premier Lougheed's equitable pricing technique showed that the westerners did have productive ideas and thoughtful solutions.
I would like to discuss for a few minutes regional airlines and the service that is given to the smaller communities in the west. The CTC is allowing TransAir to terminate air service to the town of Dauphin. The town of Dauphin has been served by an airline since after the war, when the forerunner of the present CP Air established a line from Winnipeg to Dauphin to The Pas. This seemed eminently successful and provided a much needed service. But as time went on this forerunner of CP Air was dropped and TransAir took over. The growth of traffic to northern Manitoba reached the position where TransAir stopped direct flights from Dauphin to The Pas and

October 22, 1973

attempted to work a schedule into Brandon and Yorkton and eastern Saskatchewan. This has never been entirely satisfactory and frequent delays, late arrival of planes or no planes at all at times, and no service on weekends, all contributed to damage the reputation of reliability that would have been necessary to make the airline route a viable enterprise.
The approval on October 1 by the CTC of the application of TransAir to drop their Dauphin run has set back the possibility of this community having a reliable air outlet. It is my understanding that in 1966, when the government declared a regional air policy, it was recognized that regional airlines would at times be flying routes on which they would be losing money, but they were to be compensated by the allocation of enough profitable lines to allow them to make a reasonable profit and provide service.
The departure of TransAir from my community means that 60,000 people live more than 100 miles, and many more than 200 and 300 miles, from an airport with scheduled flights. These people pay their share of taxes, and we in Canada support various transportation systems, including Air Canada, with massive sums of money paid out of the federal treasury. We all recognize that this bill is designed to allow Air Canada to purchase aircraft ultimately at the taxpayers' expense, and the cost does not amount to a few hundred thousand dollars but to hundreds of millions of dollars. If the country at large is going to have a subsidized air service, then small communities should have some share and some reasonable service for this public largesse.
The CTC should take into consideration the fact that regional air carriers must have enough profitable lines to carry some unprofitable ones, or there should be some direct assistance given to airlines to maintain service in rural areas. The subsidy method, I understand, has been used to help regional airlines in Quebec and the Maritimes to service some communities. A similar attitude should prevail in the west in some cases. Air service to Dauphin and Brandon and the rest of western Manitoba has been poor. I believe this can also be said of Yorkton and other parts of eastern Saskatchewan. Recognition of their problem is past overdue and immediate action is necessary if the people who live in large sections of rural western Manitoba, and perhaps eastern Saskatchewan, are to have some reasonable air service. Although these people may be scattered, in total they do represent many hundreds of thousands.
I believe that the regional air policy has been productive. I think other airlines that have taken over Air Canada runs are providing good service. Air transport seems to lend itself to competition among many small companies, although the safety factors must be controlled. In essence, I think the government must look at all the services that are supplied to the regions of this country and ensure that all areas receive reasonable service, so that people do not find themselves hundreds of miles from an airport that has a scheduled passenger service.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, the few remarks I wish to make tonight will be fairly
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada brief, indeed I believe I could deal within a short time with the few points I would like to make.
Since the beginning of this debate, a good many members have dealt with Canadian Pacific management and said one could be proud of it. I noticed also the numerous discrepancies in this House whenever we discuss bills on the means of financing the Canadian National Railways.
On the one hand capitalists in this House say: How is it that the CNR cannot be administered as well as the CPR? They answer: CNR management is inefficient. Let us put that company in the hands of private corporations which will make them produce to the benefit of all Canadians. On the other hand, socialists invariably say that we should at all costs nationalize the Canadian Pacific Railway because they are making profits. That a private company should make profits and even succeed in extinguishing their debts, contrarily to the CNR, that makes no sense.
There is obviously an element of truth on both sides. Undoubtedly, there are many reasons for deep reforms in that field, but beyond great perturbation, there is a daily fact one cannot ignore, it is that of experience. As a matter of fact, in the public as a whole, whose opinion we all reflect in this House, there is a general dissatisfaction with the services provided by either railway company. Railway employees on the whole are dissatisfied with their working conditions and the strike and recent strike threats speak volumes on that. People will say that the unions will settle their problems eventually. Yes, but after how many hardships, how many weeks and months of negotiations, to get finally less than half of what was hoped for.
I said that it was in the ordinary everyday relationships between an employee and railway companies that we have succeeded in forming a fairly accurate opinion about the quality of the service or of the management.
A few years ago, the area which I have represented in the House of Commons for nearly six years lost a passenger train service which we then considered as quite adequate, following an epic struggle involving private citizens, groups and associations, as well as unions.
As a matter of fact, we were trying to obtain service improvements when the Canadian National Railways announced its unilateral decision to abolish the service given by the passenger train known as the "Ocean Limited", that is to remove it from the Moncton-Edmunston-Montreal line in order that it may go to Montreal via Campbellton. The service which has since replaced it is far from satisfactory, so that it is unthinkable for me, for instance, as a member of Parliament, to use it to get to my riding or to return to the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, I still keep the pass given by authority of the Canadian Parliament to senators and members of Parliament, in case of a very urgent situation which would prevent me from using other means of transport. I have no intention of using this pass and I have used it only once, I think, since the removal of the "Ocean Limited", in particularly trying circumstances. I do not intend to use it again and keep it strictly for my souvenir album.
If, in the future, I have to use again the CN passenger trains I will pay cash without claiming any reimbursement. I must confess that when I get angry about the CNR

October 22, 1973
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada I sometimes think of burning this pass as a protest against their insulting service or their lack of service in certain cases.
The city of Edmundston, which is the chief town of the Madawaska-Victoria riding is the center of CN operations for northwestern New Brunswick. This is only logical. It is also more than that because Edmundston is the operations center for most of the railway line between Moncton and Levis, over several hundred miles.
Edmundston is a key location for the CNR. For years, many people have found employment there but they have been concerned for several years by the centralization of services and certain operations in Moncton where a true administrative empire is being established. I am also worried about this decline which may be compared to a sacrifice on the altar of technology.
If it is truly impossible to repatriate the many jobs lost in the name of progress to the benefit of bigger centres, the railway could at least modernize its facilities in this city and spend there a small portion of the hundreds of millions of dollars allowed almost yearly by the government. A small amount is spent every year but very little. For example, the time has come to replace the dilapidated old buildings which are housing certain services of the marshalling yard, repair workshops, etc.
Rightly so, the city of Edmundston is proud to be the capital of the Madawaska republic but it is afflicted by a blemish which partly soils its charm.
When going along, for example, St-Frangois St., we cannot miss behind a not overly old station as well as warehouses also not too old, it is true, wooden buildings which seem to be on the verge of collapsing at the slightest breeze.
Such is my personal reaction each time 1 go in there and I am always in a hurry go get out. However, the CNR should understand me well and I know that my speeches are read and that the CNR authorities always listen carefully when I speak about them in this House or in committee. I do not mean that they always answer my prayers, but at least they hear me.
I do not want those old buildings to be demolished and the services and jobs they lodge to be transferred elsewhere. Far from me this thought. I would like, as do the people who have to work there, to see modern facilities, warm in winter, comfortable in summer, some additions to the shops and the creation of new jobs.
With all due respect to the working class across this country, the kind of workmen who are found in Madawaska-Victoria and in Edmundston are a separate group, very hard-working, earnest, busy, qualified and willing to progress in every field. It was said again and again and I am proud to repeat it on every possible occasion: the greatest resource of my constituency is its human capital and the corporations that come to take advantage of this resource are wise including many businesses that are encouraged by the financial assistance program of the federal department of Regional Economic Expansion, businesses that later become customers for our railway companies and contribute to their development. I suggest that in turn, these railway companies should take more initiative.

I feel, Mr. Speaker, to deal with another aspect of the problem, that members of parliament and the leaders of the Canadian National are usually far from one another in their consultations and that they never meet. It is always the same old story. One day, the CN authorities announce a decision without, on most occasions, consulting municipal, provincial or federal authorities, Chambers of commerce or the management of regional development companies.
This results in a general outcry when the announcement is made. They all feel frustrated as a result of unilateral decisions that affect the economic conditions of a whole region. They then shower abuse on one another, they express their dissatisfaction. And yet, the CN should understand that the people's representatives, at all levels in a given area, must also fulfil a mandate, are responsible and deserve our confidence before so many decisions are taken. Oh, they would say, the CNR could never make the decision. There would be too much political interference. This, Mr. Speaker, could always be a possibility. But anything likely to improve relations between the representatives of the people and the railway companies in Canada,-I specially think of the Canadian National Railways-would be worth testing. This is a question of mutual confidence. I, for one who at one time strongly criticized the CNR, have the impression at times that the future could be more readily based on true dialogue and not the type or irreversible, unilateral action which we all witnessed in the past.
What is stopping that company in each riding or group or ridings from gathering members of parliament from time to time, that is those who want to know about the operations of railway companies, to talk to them about their projects, their needs, their problems in labour relations?
Quite impressive amounts from the public point of view, and that includes us all, are being spent in the form of advertising of all kinds but little case seems to be made of members of parliament in their capacity as representatives of the people. The CNR seems to be satisfied to force members of parliament to dig out the facts as best they can in the House through questions put to the minister responsible for it, through questions on the order paper that can be easily avoided under various pretexts, through examination in committee where the game we feel is not so much to inform or instruct hon. members but to hide the most facts possible.
If that continues, Mr. Speaker, the representatives of the people might react in a surprising way one of these days and the citizens of this country could wake up one morning to hear the newscaster with the other Crown corporation-the one which has to do with broadcasting-say that the night before the House of Commons refused to grant the CNR the votes they were requesting. This is of course a hypothetical situation that should in no way be interpreted as a threat. But I feel that after nearly six years in this House of Commons there is a feeling of frustration on all sides such that that could well happen.
Mr. Speaker, I could continue on but for brevity's sake, I join in my mind my intervention tonight with all those
October 22, 1973

that I have made previously and which make up a file of claims a number of which have yet to be resolved satisfactorily by the Canadian National Railways.
I appeal to the common sense of the CNR authorities to deal in a more open frame of mind with the representatives of the people. I urge them to trust us more than they did in the past. While I am ready on my part, to co-operate, to pace up and down, as they say, would the CNR authorities be content to sit back behind the legislative wall that created it?
Criticism has its merits, Mr. Speaker, but it is understood that I am not here to praise the CNR. I stand when I have something to say, and that is what I had to say about this railway company.
However, I would not want to return to my seat before quoting from the last number of Tip & Topics, a publication of the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission. I quote in English a brief passage which follows an additional grant for the transportation of goods from the Atlantic region to western Canada, up to Levis. The quotation is as follows:

The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission welcomes this additional assistance as a very positive step to improve the competitive position of Atlantic manufacturers and producers in the markets of Canada west of the Atlantic region.
[Translation\
This is good, this is certainly encouraging for the government and appreciated by the citizens of the Atlantic region. Finally I should like to join my congratulations to those expressed in the news report and thank the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) specially for the prompt attention he gave to the problems of the Atlantic region.
[English]	.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that every constituency represented by members of this House has something which is unique to it in respect of its needs as they apply to government services. Perhaps the most significant, or at least one of the three most significant needs of Carleton-Charlotte are the transportation requirements of the area. Transportation is the lifeblood of the industry which exists there, whether it be agriculture, lumber, the fisheries or manufacturing. The products of these industries is destined for markets in the main outside the confines of the constituency. Therefore, transportation becomes perhaps the single most important item for the economic prosperity of the area.
The railway company as it is presently serving the area leaves a great deal to be desired. There is no question that the subsidies which were mentioned by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) are of help. The principle of subsidies for the railways of this nation has been substantiated in virtually every area of Canada. I do not think members of the House or members of this nation should consider that the Atlantic area is the only one which requires subsidies. It was with this in mind, and because of conversations I have over the years, that I placed on the order paper some questions with respect to the assistance given by the Government of Canada to the transportation system of this nation.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
The information did not come to me in the fashion in which I asked for it, nevertheless it presented a picture which gave some detail although not sufficient. It showed that in 1970-71 assistance under the Maritime Freight Rates Act for the Atlantic region amounted to $16,800,000, in round figures, in 1971-72 to $20,049,000, and in 1972-73 to $20,573,000.
The information also showed that grants for various branch lines in 1970 amounted to $10,800,000, in 1971 to $22,900,000, and in 1972 to $22,800,000. These went to the Prairies area. I am not critical of any grants which might be paid to any area of Canada, but on occasion people have said to me, "You have the Maritime Freight Rates Act which gives you assistance from the Government of Canada which other areas do not get." What I want to make abundantly clear to the House is that up to July 31, 1973, assistance to various regions of Canada, outside the provisions of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, amounted to $105,829,000 from the federal treasury. So let us not delude ourselves into thinking that it is a unique situation in the Atlantic area so far as subsidies are concerned. It is a totally national situation.
Since land, sea and air facets of transportation are so vital to my area, I tried to get information pertaining to the costs and the programs of government. To give an example, I put a question on the order paper asking for the profitability of the railroads, according to their statements, on a provincial or zone arrangement. The answer was to the effect that neither the CPR or CNR kept regional, provincial or zone statements of profit and loss. This immediately presented me with a problem and a question. How can a government pay a subsidy to any part of the railroad structure in this country if that railroad does not produce figures of profit and loss as they relate to the area concerned for which the subsidy is paid? In our Department of Transport do we have a group of blank cheques which we sign on request from the railroads?
Is this the way it is done? It certainly cannot be based on any picture of profit and loss because that is not available from the CPR and the CNR. My question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) at this moment in time is: How do you define a need for a subsidy in any area? How do you justify payment of a subsidy if the railroads do not have their profit and loss figures broken down? The Department of Transport says these figures are not broken down. This puts the Minister of Transport and those agencies responsible to him in a virtually incredible position, and makes him responsible for wanton expenditures without justification by statistical data.
Of course, periodically we do have the ultimatum from our rail system to this effect: If we do not get more subsidies we will raise the rates on manufactured goods going to the prairies. In that case, do we just knuckle under and pay? According to the answer I got, that could be the case. The idiosyncrasies of the rail structure are acting to the detriment of the public of Canada. It is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to sort this out.
I had the responsibility and the privilege to be a member of a committee in the province of New Brunswick which dealt with railroads and transportation for Canadians. There was no way we would get facts and figures from the

October 22, 1973
Adjournment Debate
railroad in question so that we could negotiate in good faith or intelligently with respect to retaining or reducing the increases in the rate structure being proposed.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: There was the audited report.


Fred Alward McCain: The audited report did not have it, although there must be a breakdown in there somewhere. But the parliamentary secretary should not quarrel. The answer I received came from the minister. He is responsible for the answer to question No. 2549 which I placed on the order paper on July 20, 1973. The answer reached my office on October 16, 1973, and was that "neither railway compiles profit or loss statements on a regional basis." But, Mr. Speaker, when a railroad wants to abandon a line it has facts and figures to show that the line does not pay. It has facts to show it loses so much and it itemizes the loss. And when it wants to remove passenger service on a particular line it itemizes the loss. Somewhere the CNR has zone, regional and provincial figures, and I believe we should get them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This seems a convenient time to call it ten o'clock.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Thomas Miller Bell: In asking the House leader the business for tomorrow, may I compliment the government on having eight ministers here for the entire evening. The reason for such activity completely escapes us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my hon. friend that the reason eight ministers are here tonight is to meet the formidable new House leader for the Conservative Party.
Tomorrow we will continue with this item, followed by the Customs Act.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order No. 40 deemed to have been moved.

Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) whether, in view of his attitude toward wage parity or equity for federal public servants, he was going to be consistent and use similar reasoning for paying members of parliament. The best answer he could give me was that members of parliament are not part of a collective bargaining process, as if we did not know that. And if we were, Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not believe that many

of us would want the President of the Treasury Board as our spokesman because, with all deference, his antediluvian attitude in some matters causes me to wonder whether some day he will be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the twentieth century.
We are dealing tonight with thousands of nurses under federal jurisdiction who are aggrieved by the arbitral award brought forward by the public service arbitration tribunal. As a result, they are making their feelings known across the nation this evening and are manifesting those feelings in various ways. In Halifax, at the Camphill hospital, the operating room and psychiatric ward are affected. Some wards are doubled up and in many cases patients have been sent home. Similar conditions prevail in Whitehorse, at the Shaughnessy hospital in Vancouver, Deer Lodge in Winnipeg, in Edmonton, and so on across the nation.
In addition, to underline the seriousness of the situation, public health nurses are joining the protest and according to my information are booking in sick in places such as Prince Albert, Edmonton, Calgary, Halifax and Sydney, Nova Scotia, and reports are starting to come in from registered nurses. This government now has a situation on its hands that is affecting the care of veterans. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what class of people in this nation is more deserving of respect, of gratitude and of the highest standards of hospital care and treatment than veterans?
The hon. members for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) have been bringing the situation before the House, so the government cannot say it did not have warning. In the past, the hon. members for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall), Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), and St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) have all consistently prodded this government about its attitude toward regional wage parity. On occasion I have asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) about it, as has the hon. member for St. John's East. This government has been given plenty of reminders about its inequitable policies.
Let us consider a typical statement of government policy in this regard. I should like to read a document that is quite literally on its way to many members of parliament. It is a petition put out by the nurses who in their opinion are aggrieved by government policy. It reads:
In view of the outcome of the recent federal nurses arbitration tribunal in which Treasury Board originally tried to suppress information of vital concern to the nurses and then failed to implement its own policy as stated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board on April 17, 1972, and by the President of the Treasury Board on October 12, 1971 . ..
The nurses as citizens and public servants feel it is their responsibility to submit a vote of non-confidence in the Liberal government.
Unfortunately, they can only do this symbolically, but it gives some indication of the depth of their feelings about the way they have been treated. There are sections of the Public Service Staff Relations Act which permit the government to modify its policies with regard to the way nurses are presently treated. Nurses would like to see
October 22, 1973

national wage parity, but failing this they would like to be paid as well as their provincial counterparts.
Briefly, some of the worst areas are these: the mari-times, where nurses at the maximum level are about $570 behind; Quebec, where they are $1,491 behind; Alberta, $556 behind; Manitoba, $381 behind; and British Columbia, where they are $426 behind the maximum level. In Nova Scotia, public health nurses are below their provincial counterparts by at least $1,000. Also, the federal government has the worst vacation arrangements because their nurses get only four weeks vacation after ten years of service, whilst most provinces give four weeks after five years of service.
In the Treasury Board's arbitration brief which was submitted in relation to this particular group of nurses, I believe it was stated that as a nationwide employer it was essential that the government's policy on pay benefits take into account the rates of pay and patterns of benefits applying to workers in related employment in the private sector. It is very obvious that this is not the case, Mr. Speaker, and that the government has not in fact lived up to this policy.
I realize, as does our party, that it is not realistic to think that wage inequities can be corrected overnight, but we can surely make a beginning. Our national economy should accept the philosophy of equal pay for equal work, which could be carried out in basic stages. The first step would be immediate acceptance of equal pay increases so that the disparities are not forever increased. Secondly, one could immediately commence upward revisions and gradually phase out inequities on a regional basis over an appropriate period of time.
I suggest again, with deference, that for a change the government should practice what it preaches. The minister knows very well that the present position regarding nurses is not equitable. I earnestly ask the minister to take steps to give nurses under federal jurisdiction a better deal as a step toward more equitable regional pay in the public service generally.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Answering the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), Mr. Speaker, may I say that I hoped he might have said other things pertaining to nurses. For example, he could also have spoken about holidays and other fringe benefits. I say that from a personal point of view, with due respect.
If I may more directly answer his question, let me say the following. As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) has said on more than one occasion, the government, as employer, is committed to paying rates which are equitable and competitive with rates being paid outside the public service for similar occupations. Where the outside pay data for occupational groups indicate significant variations from the Canadian average, and where the area of recruitment and the mobility of employees within the public service is limited, the government, as employer, considers it appropriate to pay regional and not national rates of pay.
Paying national rates of pay in such circumstances would only serve to overpay employees in some regions and to underpay employees in other regions in relation to
Adjournment Debate
the rates of pay prevailing in those regions, neither of which situation, from the employer's point of view, is desirable or viable.
With reference to the rates of pay for hon. members of this House, the Beaupre committee set up to make recommendations to the government did not, it will be remembered, recommend regional rates for members of parliament.
[ Translation]


AIRPORTS-MIRABEL-EXPROPRIATION PROCEDURE-DISPARITY IN OFFERS
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, on July 5, I directed to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) the following question:
Mr. Speaker, since there are disparities or differences in prices for those who are expropriated, .. .
depending on the airports and for pieces of land of equal value ...
. .. can the minister ensure the House that he will carry on an investigation with the officials responsible for the expropriations . . .
Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of the House the significant differences which exist between the prices paid to the land owners who have been expropriated to make room for the Mirabel Airport in Sainte-Scholas-tique and those paid for similar purposes at Pickering, in Ontario. I wish to point out, Mr. Speaker, the difference between the prices that officials offer to pay in relation with expropriations for the construction of both airports and even to the expropriated owners at the same airport location. The last figures we got give a good idea of the extent of the problem.
As the owners at Sainte-Scholastique receive on an average $200 per arpent-or	acre-compared with $2,200
per acre to the expropriated owners at Pickering; as $3,000 are given to all former owners in compensation for the relocation when nothing is given to the owners at Sainte-Scholastique and as an annual rent of $2,000 is required from the former owners at Sainte-Scholastique compared with $1 a year plus taxes from the former owners at Pickering and as 10 per cent per acre above the evaluation price of $2,200 per acre is given at the time of purchase to the expropriated owners at Pickering as a readjustment for the cost of living when nothing at all is given to the expropriated owners at Sainte-Scholastique, and as an amount of $300 million has been set for the expropriation of the 18,000 acres of land for the construction of the Pickering airport when only $125 million have been set for the purchase of 88,000 acres of land at Sainte-Scholastique, I think it would be wise to study these enormous differences in evaluation.
I fail to understand the difference in the advance paid to the expropriated owners at Sainte-Scholastique and that vary between nothing at all and 100 per cent of the amount in some instances. Then I find difficult to explain why, after four years, some of these expropriated owners did not receive a letter or an offer in writing telling exactly what they will receive for their assets and damages incurred by the obligation to move out.

October 22, 1973
Adjournment Debate
When I visited the two airport locations I had the impression that many aspects of the situation were the same. Yet there is a big difference in the way the expropriated owners are treated in the two airport locations. The enormous difference means that in Pickering speculation will benefit the expropriated while in Sainte-Scholas-tique, it will benefit no one. It will only succeed in making the expropriated lose large sums of money, because the difference of amounts paid for identical values is atrocious.
The manner in which the expropriation was done varies greatly between one place and the other. Here are two reasons why: first, the new expropriation act presented a few months after the Sainte-Scholastique expropriation and a letter from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) which assured the expropriated that they would be treated according to the spirit of the legislation; second, the determination of the people in Pickering not to give away their possessions or almost, and how I understand them!
I found out, Mr. Speaker, that expropriation causes less prejudice of all kinds to the farmers of Pickering than to those of Sainte-Scholastique, as far as the value of farms is concerned.
The farmers expropriated at Sainte-Scholastique face many problems which would be too long to list here, but I thought it advisable to inform the House. The loss in value is not taken into account, and those losses are even more detrimental because in Sainte-Scholastique, there are only
88,000	acres to disrupt.
Who knows what tremendous moral pressures and tensions every expropriated farmer was subjected to during the protracted negotiations which, in some cases, have been going on for 4 years.
I ask now, Mr. Speaker, that a special committee be set up in order to put an end to these blatant disparities between the treatment given to the farmers expropriated at Sainte-Scholastique and at Pickering and that justice be done in all cases, so that the former owners who must make room for international airports or for the expansion of international airports will be glad to move, because I think that those airports are necessary.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, land at Mirabel was expropriated in March, 1969, whereas the Pickering expropriation took place in January 1973 under a new expropriation act which became law in July, 1970. Notwithstanding this, in the main the same basic principles for compensation were followed in both expropriations because the new act merely modified the rules for compensation allowed under the old act. In the final analysis market value is the basis for compensation under both acts.
We have stated repeatedly that it is not realistic to compare market values in one area of the country with those in another, particularly at different times and under different conditions. Market values in both cases were established by expert appraisers through the examination and analysis of comparative sales in the open real estate market to establish prices that willing buyers were paying

for comparable properties. This then became the compensation base, and it is inconceivable that government agents would resort to intimidation and threats to force owners to accept an amount below fair value. The history of federal expropriations indicate the reverse is true.
Whether or not the Mirabel owners have been treated as generously as those at Pickering is a matter of judgment. Although government administrators attempted, to the best of their ability, to observe the principles of the impending new expropriation act, the very size of the project, coupled with severe operational time limitations, made it difficult at times to interpret the rules of an act which was still in the drafting stage at the time. While the same principles of compensation have been followed in both expropriations, confusion has quite naturally bred discontent and has led to charges of discrimination.
The record shows that all but 28 owner residents at Mirabel paid no rent of any kind for about 21 months, over 1,500 did not pay rent for almost three years, and at least 100 are still not paying rent. Nevertheless, the residents of Pickering were given rent-free occupation for 23 months, and in addition all had the opportunity to receive the full compensation three months after the expropriation, a benefit which could not be afforded the people in Mirabel under the old act.
Due to the confusion I have referred to, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) have arranged to meet, in November, with representatives of the people at Mirabel to discuss problems. Of course, I am not in a position tonight to prejudge or to announce what the results of that meeting may be.


AGRICULTURE-BRUCELLOSIS-RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONTROL AND COMPENSATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Mr. Speaker, on July 13 of this year I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) several questions regarding brucellosis, a disease that is currently plaguing northwestern Saskatchewan. It seems to be concentrated mainly in that part of the country. One of the questions I put to the minister was this. I asked whether he had considered a brief presented to him by a group of farmers in northwestern Saskatchewan, and whether he was yet prepared to implement some of the recommendations contained in it. The answers given by the minister were evasive. His only contribution was to define the word "brucellosis" as "contagious abortion." Second, I asked the minister whether he was prepared to begin adopting a humanitarian approach to farmers who suffer losses when their herds are infected by brucellosis and when he intended to make the necessary decisions to help bring this disease under control. He had no answer to that question.
My main concern now is the necessity for a humanitarian approach to the situation of farmers whose herds of cattle are affected by the disease. In August, after the parliamentary recess had begun, many farmers were up in arms over the handling of this matter and this culminated in a demonstration at Debden, Saskatchewan, during which the federal government attempted to use strongarm methods, including the calling in of the RCMP. Demon-
October 22, 1973

strators shouted that farmers were "fed up with legal robbery". Since August, as a result of various representations made to the government, the situation appears to have stabilized, at least temporarily. This is to the government's credit. It is certainly time this happened because some farmers have been fighting this disease for five years, during which time the approach of the government has been extremely inconsistent. I think it is to the credit of members on this side of the House that the government did finally take notice.
There are still a number cf reasons for concern. I am thinking, particularly, of the method of compensation. A couple of farmers in the Debden area find themselves in difficulty because about $30,000 due to them in compensation has been held back. Their herds have been wiped out. They were told that until their premises had been cleaned up, no money would be forthcoming. These farmers are finding it very difficult to get by, and I think at least some part of the compensation should be paid them; perhaps the rest could be held back until the premises had been cleaned.
Another farmer, from Pierceland, Saskatchewan, suffered the loss of his entire herd. He was awarded a considerable sum by way of compensation and he has cleaned his premises to the satisfaction of inspectors. The work has been approved by veterinary inspectors. But no cheque has been sent to him. He is in need of the money; he wants to get back into the cattle business. Again, many farmers feel strongly that spring compensation rates should be higher than fall compensation rates, because the condition of cattle in spring is usually poorer than in the fall even though they may be as valuable.
Thirdly, many famers I have talked to feel that compensation rates should be set at least at 90 per cent of replacement value and that there should also be compensation for calves. This is where the government has been rather inconsistent. Some farmers were paid compensation for calves this year if they were insistent enough; others have not been paid such compensation.
Further, there are many farmers, including Mr. F. M. Clark of Meadow Lake, who are concerned about the taxation status of compensation received for animals affected by bangs. I did try to obtain some information on this question and a Mr. R. H. Ashman, the farm taxation expert of National Revenue, has confirmed that compensation received on animals affected by bangs is considered taxable income. The fact that this compensation may not even approach the fair market value of the animal is not considered because the agricultural operator has been allowed the cost of acquiring the animal or raising it.
According to Mr. Ashman, the cost of replacement is also considered a deductible expense for taxation purposes. So that if the replacement cost exceeds the amount of the compensation, no apparent taxable income, or in more general terms no net expense, is incurred. If a net
Adjournment Debate
income is incurred because the animal or animals have not been replaced, the agricultural operator can average out his taxable income over a period of five years, according to section 119 of the present Income Tax Act.
Many farmers feel that this is unjust. It seems to me that compensation payments should not be taxable until a farmer has had an opportunity to replace his herd-a period, say, of two years. If they are not replaced within two years, then the income should be taxable. I think special consideration should be given to these farmers, rather than applying the complicated procedure outlined by Mr. R. H. Ashman. Otherwise farmers will not have an opportunity to plan their finances.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Corriveau) to comment on some of the matters I have raised.


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide the hon. member with a few facts on this situation. He mentioned that it had reached epidemic proportions. That, Mr. Speaker, is not accurate. If we consider Canada as a whole, we find that the infection rate this year compared to that of last year, is the same. In Saskatchewan, the infection rate has actually been reduced as compared with last year. Therefore, we are not faced with a brucellosis epidemic problem. Nevertheless, it is true that in Saskatchewan a few herds are or have been infected with brucellosis. Most of these are to be found in the northern part of the province.
Mr. Speaker, the department has studied the report prepared by the Northern Development Association on brucellosis control and has advised that organization. I think it is necessary to check the infection spread by brucellosis in that area and we will make every effort to reach that objective. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Health of animals branch of the department deals with the control of that disease and thanks to its continuous effort in that field for the past several years, Canada enjoys world recognition as holding one of the best records in the control of brucellosis.
However, I have asked the department to intensify tests in Saskatchewan, to look after the testing of community grazing grounds and also to take measures concerning animals in stockyards and at auctions. Furthermore, my department will demand more cleanliness on the farm, a fumigation of premises as well as the implementation of a more rapid process for the slaughtering of animals with positive test results, and they will also require the application of quarantine measures to all infected herds.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I feel that through intensified government measures and with the understanding and co-operation of all farmers, that disease will be fully controlled in Canada.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.29 p.m.

October 22, 1973


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Prosper Boulanger (Mercier):: Mr. Chairman, distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen. It is with deep emotion and great joy that I have the honour this afternoon to represent the hon. Lucien Lamoureux, Speaker of the House of Commons, and also the privilege of introducing the Hon. Daniel MacDonald, Minister of Veterans Affairs.
I think that there is no need to introduce Mr. MacDonald. Even if during the last years, he has been before all a politician-first at the provincial level and now at the federal level-he has remained nevertheless strongly devoted to his first love: farming. And whenever his ministerial responsibilities allow him to do so, he likes to go back to the red soil of his farm in his province.

That he is a war veteran is obvious; and the scars he bears show that he knows, personally, what it means to be at the "sharp end" in battle. He is well aware too, also from personal experience, of the provisions of Canada's veterans charter and of the way in which its benefits have been, and are, administered.

The contribution of Canada and Newfoundland to two World Wars was such that at memorial ceremonies, it is difficult to find someone who has not lost a relative or a friend. This is all the truer in the case of men such as Mr. MacDonald who fought the enemy at close range.
During the few months since his appointment as Minister of Veterans Affairs, Mr. MacDonald has proved that he has set his heart on the needs and aspirations of veterans and their family.

I am sure that, in unveiling this memorial to the war dead of Newfoundland, Mr. MacDonald will want to leave us a message that certainly takes a special significance, coming from a man with his past and experience.
Ladies and gentlemen, the Honourable Daniel MacDonald, Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, Reverend Sirs, Honoured Guests, Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am indeed privileged to be playing a small part on such a solemn and historic occasion. We are here to witness, and take part in, the unveiling and dedication of a book which commemorates the names of more than two thousand men and women who gave their lives bravely and willingly for the ideals of freedom which we all hold so dear.
These were a very special group of people and they came from a very special place. It is fitting that the book bearing their names will rest, proud and silent, in the Memorial Chamber of the Peace Tower. Many of those whose names are listed here have no known graves but now their names
are recorded forever in this book in the capital of our country.
It is also fitting that so many of their friends are here today. I would like to thank the province of Newfoundland for arranging to bring so many of your brave sons and fair daughters to be witness to this memorable event.
The story behind the production of this book started over six years ago. A certain pressure group from one of the larger island provinces felt, and I must say with justification, that the names of their fallen heroes should be enshrined in the Memorial Chamber along with those other Canadians who had made the supreme sacrifice for their country.
One of the main driving forces in this group was a veteran of both World Wars and a man who is held in great respect in his native Newfoundland. I refer to Major, the Hon. C. W. Carter, Senator. I know-but I want to be sure that everyone knows-just how much Senator Carter contributed to the successful completion of the project. It is said that no man is indispensable but Senator Carter came awfully close to proving that saying wrong.
A great many people contributed their talents and energies to producing this book and, unfortunately, it is impossible to name them all. There are, however, two whose dedication and industry must be identified. One of them, Major Sidney Frost, is with us today and I want to thank him officially for his part in initiating and bringing this project to a successful conclusion. The other one was Mr. Alan Fraser who regretfully did not live to see the fruition of his labours. I am happy to see Mrs. Fraser here today to witness the dedication of this superb piece of work to which her husband contributed so much.
Many others worked long and faithfully gathering the information which was required. I know that, when you see this book, you will appreciate that their reward is the knowledge of a job well done.
Canada has always deservedly had an international reputation for excellence in the ways in which she commemorates her war dead. Whether the memorials are in stone or vellum, they reflect the feelings we have for those who fell that we might live. They have a dignity and a glory worthy of those in whose memory they were created.
Just this summer, while on an inspection tour of our memorials and cemeteries in Europe, I had the privilege of visiting Newfoundland Park at Beaumont-Hamel. I know quite a few of you have made a pilgrimage to this hallowed piece of Newfoundland but I wanted to relay the feelings I experienced to all who are here today.
The impact of this impressive memorial was staggering. I came as a complete stranger but I was immediately filled with a compassion and awe for the courage of those who had passed this way on the first day of July in 1916. This
October 22, 1973

monument is a worthy tribute to the fearless and intrepid men of Newfoundland who fell in World War I and who have no known graves.
In just the same way, I am confident that the Book of Remembrance which will be unveiled today, will be a magnificent memorial to all whose names are inscribed in it. A special copy of this book is being prepared which will be presented to the Province of Newfoundland and which I understand will be located in a place of honour in St. John's where it will be readily available to the public. Copies of this book will also be sent to all the other provincial capitals so that ex-patriate Newfoundlanders living in those cities will be able to see them.
i would like to tell you about our procedure in Ottawa concerning the showing of the Books of Remembrance. The pages are turned daily, always at 11 a.m. which was the time of the cease-fire of World War I. The control system is such that anyone can request and be told the date on which the page containing the name of their loved ones will be open. In this way families of those recorded in these books can time their visit to Ottawa to coincide with the date on
which the page in which they are interested will be on view.
I mentioned earlier that this book contains the names of more than 2,000 Newfoundlanders. The exact figure is 2,327. We realize, even though the search for names was painstaking, that there may have been some omissions. Provision has been made in this book to add the names of any who may have been overlooked.
So, what has been a labour of love, has now been finished. It started when the Hon. Roger Teillet was Minister of Veterans Affairs and it was conscientiously continued under his successors, the Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube and Senator Arthur Laing. Now I have the privilege and honour of unveiling the Newfoundland Book of Remembrance. I do so with a deep feeling of both pride and sorrow.
(Minister reverently lifts flag from the Book, hands it to the Protective Service Deputy Chief who, with assistant, folds it and hands it back to the minister)
I will now ask the Hon. Joseph Harnum, Lieutenant-Governor of Newfoundland, to come forward, so that I may present this flag to him for safe-keeping in Newfoundland.

Tuesday, October 23, 1973