1974-04-03

GEORGES POMPIDOU


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we were deeply grieved to learn of the death of Mr. Georges Pompidou, President of the French Republic.
The range of his talents, the variety of his careers had made him known to Canadians much before his accession to the presidency of the Republic. A man of letters, high official, financier and politician, success had become rightly familiar to him. President of the Republic since 1969, he had won renown for his particularly intense activities in the field of international relations as well as on the national scene. Thus the influence of his action expanded beyond the French borders.
Tried by illness, he recently gave to all of us the example of a sense of duty which brought out the stamp of his character.

President Pompidou's death will be regretted by Canadians. His moderation and realism, qualities which he owes as much to his origins as to his wide and worldly experience, have been reflected in relations between France and Canada. Under President Pompidou our relations have developed within a framework of concrete co-operation. I am sure that this House and the Canadian people join me in offering our deepest sympathy to the family of President Pompidou, to the government of France and to the French people-a people to whom we are closely linked by language, by culture and, above all, by friendship.
I should like to add, Mr. Speaker, that on behalf of the government and the people of Canada I shall be attending the funeral ceremonies in Paris. At this time I should also like to apologize to those Canadians in Saskatchewan and in Ottawa who will be forced to see me postpone events in which I was to partake with them.


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, France is mourning today the loss of its president. Mr. Georges Pompidou was a great statesman. He devoted most of his life to the service of his country playing an important role within the European Community.

His contribution to the construction of a better world equilibrium will often be cited as an example to be followed. President Pompidou never rejected great challenges; on the contrary, when he was called to serve he
always responded, well aware of his duty to work for the welfare of his fellow citizens.
Mr. Speaker, that man will go down in history as having been the man of great times, the wise man who always sought negotiation rather than confrontation, the man of the happy medium, the man of detente and conciliation.
Mr. Speaker, we all know in this House how difficult it is for the political man to resist the wear and tear of time. Still, Mr. Georges Pompidou managed to keep the high esteem of everyone, thanks to the deep sense of honesty and devotion which characterized him throughout his life.
On my own behalf and on behalf of my party, I therefore wish to pay a last homage to Mr. Georges Pompidou who always pursued his task with the greatest respect for the individual and deepest love for political institutions.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, the warm relations between Canada and France are deeply-rooted in Canadian history. It is therefore with special sorrow that Canadians learned of the death of President Pompidou.
He was a statesman whose greatness extended beyond the boundaries of his country as far as the European Economic Community and the world. He was a man who left the imprint of his character and ideas on his times.
On behalf of my colleagues, I extend our deepest condolences to the French people, Madame Pompidou and his family.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, one is always stricken by the death of a famous man, especially when he was head of state.
The death of French President Pompidou is all the more impressive and particularly afflicting for us because of the historical, linguistic and cultural links between our two countries.
His predecessor, one of the greatest statesmen of the century, passed on to Mr. Pompidou the delicate responsibility of making more harmonious the relations between the Canadian and French governments. In spite of some susceptible dispositions of the Prime Minister of our country towards France, after the now famous events of 1967, we must admit, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Pompidou showed magnanimity in the circumstances and we must recognize that his actions made possible good and sound relations between our two countries.
For these reasons, the death of the President of the Republic of France afflicts us deeply.
On behalf of all my colleagues and as a French-speaking member from Quebec, I extend to the family of Mr. Pompidou and to all of France my most sincere condolences.
Newfoundland



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
April 3, 1974

[Stage Direction]
First Report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections-Mr. Laflamme.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table part II of the Jacob Finkelman report on employer-employee relations in the Public Service of Canada.


NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to seek permission of the House to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of considerable importance not only to the people of Newfoundland but to this country as a whole.
As the House is aware, on April 1 the province of Newfoundland celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of its union with Canada. Notably absent from the ceremonies that were held in the province commemorating the occasion was the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the House regrets the fact that the Prime Minister of Canada did not see fit to attend the celebration and that his absence in no way represents the true feelings of this House or the government and people of this country toward the importance of the occasion and the great benefits that have accrued to Canada as a result of its confederation with Newfoundland.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


PUBLIC SERVICE STAFF RELATIONS ACT
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-270, to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act (arbitration awards).


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

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-271, to amend the Interest Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to enable a mortgagor to redeem the mortgage by paying the amount of principal and interest then due, plus three months further interest. In this way, unscrupulous mortgages will be deterred from introducing excessively severe penalty clauses in the small print of the contract.


[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. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at (a) March 31, 1971 (b) March 31, 1972 (c) March 31, 1973?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal years ending on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1971 (b) March 31, 1972 (c) March 31, 1973?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal years ending (a) March 31, 1971 (b) March 31, 1972 (c) March 31, 1973?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: 1, 3 and 4. This information is tabled in the House of Commons annually in accordance with Revised Statutes, and also appears annually in the Public Accounts.
2. (a) Rates of Interest for: 1973/71, Quarter ending June 30, 1970, 1.3174 per cent; Quarter ending September 30, 1970, 1.3262 per cent; Quarter ending December 31, 1970, 1.3427 per cent; Quarter ending March 31, 1971, 1.3597 per cent, (b) 1971/72, Quarter ending June 30, 1971, 1.3838 per
April 3, 1974

cent; Quarter ending September 30, 1971, 1.3896 per cent; Quarter ending December 31, 1971, 1.4004 per cent; Quarter ending March 31, 1972, 1.4157 per cent, (c) 1972/73, Quarter ending June 30, 1972, 1.4601 per cent; Quarter ending September 30, 1972, 1.4659 per cent; Quarter ending December 31, 1972, 1.4778 per cent; Quarter ending March 31, 1973, 1.4931 per cent.


Mr. Laprise: Within the Winter Works Investment Program announced by the Minister of Finance on December 6, 1972 (a) which provinces participated in the program to date (b) how many projects were there and what was the amount involved in each case?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: (a) All the
provinces are participating in the program, (b) To the end of February 1974 the number of projects and the amounts involved were as follows:
Total
Province	Number of Projects Approved *	Approved Loans** ($ thousands)	Advances ($ thousands)Newfoundland	103	11,663	8,500Prince Edward Island	30	2,105	1,493Nova Scotia	86	13,953	-New Brunswick	78	10,405	9,699Quebec	161	106,955	75,812Ontario	280	69,875	230Manitoba	52	10,924	9,400Saskatchewan	120	13,442	479Alberta	100	14,950	4,291British Columbia	64	24,371	6,632Yukon	-	-	-Northwest Territories	1	400	4001,075	279,043	116,936
'Excludes cancelled projects, [DOT][DOT]Includes loan commitment revisions.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	Is the government planning to reduce its reliance on CSB's in 1974 and to enter the domestic long bond market?
2.	Does the government plan to borrow abroad so as to share with the provinces some of the exchange rate risks of foreign borrowing?


John Napier Turner: 1. The
extent to which the government will tap the capital markets in 1974 for net new funds and the type of obligations chosen will depend upon government cash requirements, alternative sources of financing and prevailing market circumstances.
2. No.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Stevens: What are the economic targets of the government for 1974 in terms of real economic growth, employment, real wages (before and after income taxes) and prices?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the government will be seeking to guide the economy to as high a real growth rate and level of employment as the economy can achieve without inducing further inflation. It is the conviction of the government that high employment and production will make the best contribution to dampening inflation and the retarding effect of inflation on the growth of real incomes.
It is the intention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) to review the government's policies and the prospective achievement of the economy in 1974 in his budget address.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Reynolds: As the Department of National Health and Welfare requires that a warning be put on every cigarette package advising of danger to health, will the Minister of Finance put a like notice on all Canada Savings Bonds which advises that danger to the health of the pocket book increases with the purchase of Canada Savings Bonds?


John Napier Turner: No.


Mr. McKinnon: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,966 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament concerning the total cost of the breakwater between Turkey Point and Mary Tod Island near Victoria, what is the expenditure by year?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Fiscal year: 1959-60, $298,968; 1962-63, $6,634; 1963-64, $1,114; 1968-69, $9,132; 1969-70, $22,970; 1970-71, $15,580; 1972-73, $173,501.


Mr. Cossitt: Was a political address made by the Minister of Agriculture to the meeting of the Lethbridge Liberal Association, Lethbridge, Alberta on Tuesday, March 12, 1974 reprinted at public expense and, if so (a) how many copies were printed (b) how many copies were distributed (c) what specific individual authorized this expenditure of public funds?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: No. (a) to
(c) not applicable.

April 3, 1974
Order Paper Questions [DOT]IRVING CASE-LEGAL FEES


Mr. Howie: As of March 15, 1974, what and to whom was the total amount paid for prosecution of the Irving interests under the Combines Investigation Act?


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, here are the particulars on the cost of New Brunswick newspapers prosecution in the Irving case, but they do not include travelling expenses and time of Department of Justice personnel and of officers on the staff of the Director of Investigation and Research. William L. Hoyt, Q.C., Hoyt, Mockler, Allen, Dixon & Godin, Fredericton, N.B., (Crown Counsel): Legal Fees, $88,021; disbursements, $23,587. T. Joseph Scanlon, Dean of the School of Journalism, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, (Special Assistant to Crown Counsel-Consultant); Fees, $9,100; disbursements, $3,367. Winnifred Johnston, Saint John, N.B., (Witness): Cost, $630. Total: $124,705.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Under whose authority was the "Safari Kit" issued?
2.	What is the purpose of this kit and of what does it consist?
3.	How many copies of this kit were prepared (a) in English (b) in French?
4.	What is the present distribution of the kit and the anticipated distribution for the future?
5.	What was (a) the cost to date (b) the projected cost of this kit?
6.	Was a contract given out for (a) the preparation (b) the production (c) the distribution of this kit and, if so (i) by whom (ii) to whom?
7.	What are the names and addresses of the directors of the company which received this contract?
8.	Was the contract open to tender and, if so (a) how many firms tendered and what were the names in each case (b) if not, for what reason?


John Mercer Reid: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to Parliament and not through a Minister. Questions may be put to him directly.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. Olaussen: 1.	What were the amounts, in dollars and as a percentage of total after tax profits, of dividends paid by Canadian corporations to foreign parents and affiliates and of profits paid by unincorporated branches of foreign corporations operating in Canada in each of the years 1965 to 1972, by each of the 37 industry groups and by asset size (a) less than $1 million (b) $1 million to $4,999,999 (c) $5 million to $9,999,999 (d) $10 million to $24,999,999 (e) $25 million and over?
2.	What were the total amounts of subsidies given to foreign-owned companies in each of the years 1965 to 1972, cross-classified by industrial group and asset size?
Return tabled.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had a question on the order paper for the past five or six months with regard to positions and salaries of women in the Public Service. It is question No. 319. There must be some reason why the government is refusing to answer. Maybe they have no women on salary over the $15,000 mark or maybe they just do not care about women.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister relating to the continued high rate of inflation in the country and the fact that the estimates of federal government spending tabled for the current year are some 40 per cent higher than the corresponding estimates of federal spending tabled only two years ago. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has any firm intention of moderating the rate of increase in the expenditures of his government as part of a fight against domestically-induced inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We shall certainly do our best, particularly in the area of bringing to an end programs which have run their time, and we hope we can count on the support of the opposition parties in bringing such programs to an end.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the position of the government, and particularly of the Prime Minister, that the growth in the estimated expenditures of the government, amounting to 40 per cent over a near two-year period, is appropriate in light of the current inflationary pressures in the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When we are talking of global figures it is good to remember the individual programs which form part of those increasing expenditures, and once again I call
April 3, 1974

all members of the House to support the government in trying to cut back on some of these programs.


An hon. Member:: What government?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Ask them in Nova Scotia.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Whenever my hon. friend wants to test the water in Nova Scotia federally, we will be ready.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: Or anywhere else, even Quebec.


Mr. Hees:: How would you like to test us in Ontario and New Brunswick? We are willing.


John Napier Turner: You are like corpses over there.


Mr. Crouse:: Sitting right there is the only member from Nova Scotia you will ever have, and you are not going to hold him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might have order. I believe the Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: My supplementary is quite specific. In view of the intense inflationary pressures in the country and the very sharp escalation in the rate of expenditures by the government, does the Prime Minister propose to bring before the House in the near future any firm plan to moderate the rate of increase in the expenditures of his government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If I might comment on the noise which accompanied the Leader of the Opposition's talk-


George Harris Hees: That is not what you were asked to do. We are sorry, but you cannot.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the Prime Minister that he should not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


COMBINES
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the reported price increase of 10 per cent imposed on April 1 by all three manufacturers of asphalt roofing-Building Products Limited, Canadian Gypsum, and Domtar Limited- and having in mind that during 1973 the price of asphalt roofing rose by almost 20 per cent over the price in 1972, will the minister instruct the director of investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to find out whether there is a conspiracy on the part of this cartel to fix prices?
Oral Questions


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to draw this matter to the attention of the combines investigation branch.


Winona Grace MacInnis: In view of the past record of this cartel in the matter of price fixing, will the minister instruct the director of investigation under the Combines Investigation Act to determine whether this cartel has deliberately brought about an artificial shortage of building materials through restriction of trade, thus contributing to the soaring costs of new housing and housing repairs?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the director in carrying out an inquiry to look into all aspects in order to determine whether or not there has been an offence against the act.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the answer that he gave in the House on Friday, March 22, 1974, following a question put by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, has he had any further contact with Air Canada concerning the closing of the overhaul base for Boeing 727's and its transfer to Winnipeg?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: No, Mr. Speaker, there has been no contact on this specific point. Ongoing discussions are taking place with Air Canada. No decision has been made yet, to my knowledge, by Air Canada and the situation is exactly as before. Anyhow, for the information of the hon. member for Champlain, I will say that our relations with Air Canada are as good as those with France.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport.
How long does he think it will be before Air Canada is in a position to inform the minister of its decision on this important matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member knows about the status of Air Canada. The decision must be made by that corporation, and as soon as I am told about it, I shall be pleased to inform the hon. member for Shefford.
1114

April 3, 1974
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr.   Allan. Lawrence@Northumberland-Durham: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to my leader's question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the undoubted inflationary effect of these massive increases in government expenditures and in the number of public servants employed by the federal government, can the minister tell us whether there have already been guidelines issued to the various departments in respect of restraint on government expenditures and the employment of people in the public service?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, no specific arbitrary guidelines have been issued. However, there has been a clear indication that restraint will be exercised during the course of the current fiscal year.


Mr. Lawrence:: In view of the fact that in 1969 the Prime Minister pledged that a freeze would be placed on the growth of the public service-


John Napier Turner: Order. That is
argumentative.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is a good argument.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -and that is has grown massively since that time, has there been any specific reference regarding growth of the public service itself, or will there be in the near future, from the President of the Treasury Board?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As I indicated, there will be, as there have been to some degree in the past, restraints on increases. The justifications for further growth will be more severely tested. But I would point out that over the past four years the increase in the federal government's expenditures for goods and services, including salaries, has been at a rate less than the growth of the gross national product.
*
* *


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. As the figures released yesterday by Statistics Canada show that average weekly earnings are running more than 2 per cent below the current rate of inflation, will the minister advise the House when he intends to take steps to restore to par the purchasing power of the pay cheques of the workers of Canada?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, those statistics also show that the ratio between wages and the cost of living has been returning in the

direction of wages. To answer more fully, I would direct the hon. gentleman to statistics of Statistics Canada which reflect that personal disposable income, that is, the income left in the hands of the average Canadian, increased more than 6 per cent last year.


George Harris Hees: As the minister knows very well that the figure of real disposable income contains many factors that do not in any way benefit the average working man or woman, when does he intend to stop trying to mislead the workers of this country into believing that they are not losing out very badly on every pay cheque they receive?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Up, up, up! Don't try a Trudeau on me. Get up and try to answer.


AUDIT OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASE OF HEATING OIL FROM ROUMANIA TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE WAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Has the minister conducted an internal audit inquiry into the purchase of oil on the open market by the Department of Supply and Services and, if so, is he satisfied that the purchase of Roumanian oil did not involve a conflict of interest?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, there has been no specific inquiry into or no specific audit of this particular transaction.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why not?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I might add I have no reason to believe there was any conflict of interest.


Harvie Andre: In view of the fact the Department of Supply and Services did purchase an option from its own adviser, has the minister at least requested the Auditor General to investigate further government expenditures on heating oil by the Department of Supply and Services?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the premise of the question is incorrect. The Department of Supply and Services did not purchase oil from any of its advisers.


POSITION OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF HEATING OIL BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact the oil purchased at such a high price was surplus to requirements, can the minister inform the House whether the government got

April 3, 1974

out of the contract for the supply of oil and, if they got out, at what cost?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I did not understand the question. I will have to read it in Hansard. The government did not get out of any contract to the best of my knowledge.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That's right, it got hooked.


DISPOSITION OF HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Can he inform the House what he intends to do with this oil which was purchased and is not really required by Canadians?


An hon. Member:: Send it to Korea.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we will use the oil to heat the federal buildings in eastern Canada, from now on.


INCIDENCE OF SILICOSIS AMONG URANIUM WORKERS- ACTION BY MINISTER OF LABOUR
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact the minister has jurisdiction over the health and safety of uranium workers under Clause 10 of the regulations entitled, "Canada Dangerous Substances Regulations", and in view of the fact 10 per cent of the present work force in the Elliot Lake mines are affected to varying degrees by silicosis, will the minister inform the House what steps have been taken by him or what steps he intends to take to protect the workers in the Elliot Lake mine?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that he is not correct. It is not within my jurisdiction. Had the author of that comment in the north country bothered to check he could easily have found out that was not the case. The jurisdiction falls under the Atomic Energy Control Board and certain activities are undertaken by the radiation division of the Department of National Health and Welfare. 1 know that my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, has seen the parties involved and perhaps can give the hon. member a more adequate report. That department is involved and, as I say, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, not the Department of Labour.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have in my possession the regulations entitled "Canada Dangerous Substances Regulations", and under Clause 10 it specifically states that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Labour.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order; it is a point of debate.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not believe an inaccuracy should be allowed to remain on the record. When I said that jurisdiction did not rest with the Department of Labour, that was quite correct. Other regulations in respect of uranium and radiation clearly state that they supersede any legislative responsibility I have in terms of safety standards. If the hon. member will check, he will find out that he is incorrect.


PURCHASE OF HEATING OIL BY GOVERNMENT-POSSIBILITY OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question that is supplementary to one asked a few minutes ago about conflict of interest. The President of the Treasury Board said that the Department of Supply and Services did not purchase this oil from an adviser to the department and therefore there was no conflict of interest. Will the President of the Treasury Board not agree that the oil was purchased from a company with representation on the advisory committee to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which recommended to the Minister of Supply and Services that this oil should be purchased? If that does not constitute a conflict of interest, perhaps the minister could describe what conflict of interest would consist of?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the facts as outlined by the Leader of the Opposition are quite correct. He has established the facts and he is as capable of determining whether there is a conflict of interest, without further inquiry, as is anyone else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MANPOWER
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
In view of the great many projects submitted for the Opportunities for Youth Program, can the minister tell us if he has recommended to the cabinet that the sum of $25 million be increased for the year 1974?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I have not.
27451-8?

April 3, 1974
Oral Questions


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
Could the minister tell us if he intends to make such a recommendation to the cabinet to allow for the implementation of a larger number of projects proposed by the youth. They have gone through the trouble of submitting them and those projects should be approved by the Opportunities for Youth Program.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the earlier comment by the Prime Minister in response to a question by the hon. Leader of the Opposition would apply here in terms of allocating more funds. May I also add that we are seeking assistance of the private sector in doing everything possible to expedite the connection between young people seeking jobs and those employers who have vacancies, with more special emphasis this year than in the past.


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-ADJUSTMENT OF ALLOCATIONS TO EASTERN PROVINCES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egraont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration with regard to the original allocations circulated roughly a month or five weeks ago. In view of considerable representations from some of the eastern provinces which have been severely cut on a relative basis over last year, will the minister indicate whether reconsideration has been given to the allocations and whether any readjustment of allocations has subsequently been made?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I believe, we were going to make a final adjustment based on more current information on job availability versus youth population in various parts of the country, based on February figures which were updated from the ones on which we based our original allocations. The net result of all this is that there will be increases in the allocations to the Atlantic provinces and Quebec, and I believe one other province, but at the moment I cannot remember which one it is.


TRANSPORT
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Is it a fact that a review is now taking place in government circles, in particular in his own department, concerning the Crowsnest Pass freight rates, and that the feeling within the department is that they should be altered and that the Crowsnest Pass agreement can no longer be kept in effect?


Jean Marchand: Surely not, to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does Joe know anything about that?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, possibly the minister might look into that and find out because there is a press report by a most reliable press man, Mr. Nick Hills-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure in what way the right hon. gentleman wishes to ask the supplementary question but he knows it is not regular to ask a minister to confirm or deny a press report.


John George Diefenbaker: You know, Mr. Speaker, when the government does not know what is going on in its own departments, sometimes it is helpful for an opposition member to draw their attention to the facts. I would also ask the amiable minister whether or not he will get in touch with Canadian National Railways in order to ensure that the railway tracks will be cleared of snow, some of which recently were covered completely. Dayliners operate on these tracks. Would he see to this because this is a very serious matter in Saskatchewan, where it is anticipated that flooding will be worse than in previous years, so that as much wheat as possible will be moved before the break-up?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, on account of the presentation of the right hon. gentleman I can tell him that I intend to meet with the president of the CNR this afternoon at 3.30 and this is the first question I will raise.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of reports that farm credit loan interest rates have now gone up to 814 per cent from 7 per cent, and in light of the fact that the minister's request for an increase in the total loan fund has not been approved by his cabinet colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, is the minister now prepared to make a statement on motions on this matter?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the Farm Credit Corporation is operating in a normal manner. It is operating at capacity. There has been no slowdown in the handling of applications. The corporation has the funds with which to operate and it will continue to do so.


William Charles Frank: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that the minister has been travelling back and forth across Canada expounding on the necessity of encouraging young people to enter agriculture, or of at least maintaining those now so engaged, is this action by the minister of raising the interest rates not contradictory?


Eugene Whelan: No, Mr. Speaker.
April 3, 1974

Oral Questions COMBINES


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I could engage the attention of the Prime Minister for a moment. Has the government yet come to a decision on how it might assist Captain David McTaggart in pressing his damage claim against the government of France over the illegal boarding of the Canadian vessel, Greenpeace III, in the South Pacific last summer? If a decision has been reached can the Prime Minister tell us what method of assisting Captain McTaggart has been selected by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has discussed this matter with me several times over the past few months. I do not find myself in a position to indicate to the hon. member what specific methods have been agreed upon at this time. I do want to say that we feel modest progress is being made and will be made. If the hon. member would permit, I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to report to the House as soon as he feels he is in a position to do so.


PLANS TO MOVE GRAIN FROM AREAS THAT MAY BE FLOODED
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, supplementary to that asked by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert. In view of possible flooding in the Red River and Roseau River valleys, a situation which the Manitoba flood forecasting committee rates as a distinct possibility, can the minister indicate what emergency plans are ready to put into place to move grain from these areas to prevent the spoiling of grain now in farm storage?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, following the various planning meetings of several weeks ago, an operational committee is now in existence under the chairmanship of a commissioner of the Canadian Wheat Board in Winnipeg to examine the whole question of what trucking is available and what means can be used to move grain in addition to the grain that can be moved on the rail lines that are open. These particular questions, therefore, are brought to the attention of this committee and the Canadian Wheat Board and what can be done is done to move grain from sensitive areas. Obviously, with snow conditions across the prairies being extremely serious in many places, not all of the movement of grain that would be desirable in the next few weeks can be accomplished.



ALLEGATION THAT CANADIAN BROADCASTING


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but as he has stepped behind the curtain perhaps I can address it to the Minister of Justice in his absence. In view of the evidence presented to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts on March 21 by Mr. Beauchamp of Information Canada to the effect that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation had induced Information Canada to adopt a suggested retail price for certain publications in contravention of section 38(2) of the Combines Investigation Act, will the minister lay charges against the CBC?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to have a look at the suggestion and the allegations, but of course I would not indicate in advance a decision concerning charges.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Secretary of State. Would the Secretary of State undertake to bring this case to the official notice of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation so that programs like "As it Happens" and "Market Place" will have an opportunity to air it thoroughly before it becomes sub judice?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I will look into that matter, Mr. Speaker.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister inform the House what communication he has had with the government of Alberta concerning a proposal that Alberta administer the collection of its own corporation income tax?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am in constant communication with the province of Alberta and Mr. Gordon Miniely, the minister of finance for Alberta, who called me before the announcement was made by Premier Lougheed. I told him that I understood the priorities of the province to diversify industry beyond a merely primary resource economy into a secondary and tertiary industry economy with particular attention to the small businessman. I thanked him for this advance notice and told him I am looking forward to consulting with him as to how to achieve those objectives without destroying the essential harmony of the tax system across the country.
Oral Questions MANPOWER

April 3, 1974



DENIAL OF RELOCATION ASSISTANCE UNDER MOBILITY PROGRAM TO POTENTIAL EMPLOYEES OF CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Harry Olaussen (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of relocation assistance available under the Canada Manpower Mobility Program and in view of the fact that such assistance is denied potential employees of Crown corporations, can the minister explain what steps are being taken or will be taken to prevent such discrimination?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and respond to the hon. member at the earliest possible opportunity.



AIRPORTS


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport regarding the airport planning process now going on between the federal government and the airport community planning association of Richmond. Can the minister advise the House why Mr. Bill Inglis, the airport manager, and Mr. Lenahan, the regional administrator of the Department of Transport refused to meet with the people who are being asked to leave their properties by the end of July?


Mr. Speaker:: I would think that question could be placed on the order paper. If there is urgency it could be given priority for consideration at the time of adjournment.



MANPOWER


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, the minister responsible for the operation of the Local Initiatives and Opportunities for Youth programs. In view of the very serious observations the Auditor General made in his last report that both these programs have had serious weaknesses in their administration, a lack of accounting records, and in some cases fraudulent and irregular procedures, what steps is the minister taking to make sure that the Canadian taxpayers' money is going to be spent properly and will be properly accounted for?
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton).J


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we have read carefully the comments of the Auditor General. I note that we would probably have some disagreement with some of his comments but we recognize the validity of others. We note also that the incidence of administrative weakness, or in some cases the possibility of improper practices, is very small indeed, particularly in relation to programs of this nature, something which is pleasing to us. Nevertheless we are going to take all possible steps to follow the advice of the Auditor General and will continue to improve our monitoring and auditing approach.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In view of the master agreement entered into by Ottawa and Quebec, and the fact that Saint-Hyacinthe has now been recognized as a designated area for incentives purposes, does the minister intend to confer with the Minister of Agriculture and their Quebec counterparts with a view to establishing a strong agricultural food product industry in Saint-Hyacinthe?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes, and those discussions are already under way.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question pertains to external affairs and I must direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. It involves another strange anomaly of potential conflict of interest. Has the government made representations to the guerilla force known as the Eritrean Liberation Front, in or near Ethiopia, asking for the liberation of two Canadian taxpaying citizens, Donald Werderfort and Clifford James, now held captive by this guerilla group?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt witli this matter two days ago.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Can the Prime Minister inform the House as to the amount of money in the form of a grant that was obtained from the government by the abovenamed Eritrean Liberation Front which is now holding these two Canadians captive?
April 3, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking for statistical information. That part of the question should be placed on the order paper.



INCOME TAX


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. No doubt he will recall that on Monday, in reply to a request by me that he table the names of the 1,088 corporations to which the questionnaire resulting in the report on the corporate tax measures was sent, and in response to related questions, he said he saw no reason why that could not be done. May I now ask the minister whether we can expect that information to be tabled, and when?


John Napier Turner: The House may expect that, sir, and as soon as possible.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. What steps is his department taking to assure Canadian consumers that no meat entering Canada to be sold in Canada is actually implanted with DES?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think I reported to the House previously that there will be a meeting in Washington between officials of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and our people, and that we have had meetings in Ottawa. There should be an announcement made shortly on what arrangements have been made between the two nations for certification that meat coming into Canada has neither been implanted with DES nor that the food consumed by animals has had the DES supplement added to it.



HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT-AMOUNT PAID BY CANADIAN FUEL MARKETERS FOR OPTIONS

Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Having regard to the answer given to my leader that Canadian Fuel Marketers Limited were in fact technical advisers to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, having regard to the fact that this heating oil was bought by the government at 99 cents a gallon, and having regard to the fact that Canadian Fuel Marketers is a subsidiary of Shell International, did the minister take it upon himself
Oral Questions
to find out what Canadian Fuel Marketers paid for their options before he bought this fuel from them and, if not, why not?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I am quite surprised to see that the government is being urged, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, to meddle with the private affairs of corporations, and I wonder with what authority the corporation concerned obtained options on an international market which, as everyone knows, is very much open to competition.


J. Trevor Morgan: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. Having said that the information he obtained came from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, did the Minister of Supply and Services take into consideration the fact that they were being advised by the very people from whom they purchased this oil?



HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT-ROTTERDAM PRICE AT TIME OF TRANSACTION

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Supply and Services who yesterday told the House that at the time he paid 99 cents for each of these five million gallons of oil the Rotterdam price was 89 cents. Would the minister disclose the source of his information about Rotterdam oil prices at that time, since the Oil Buyers' Guide shows that the Rotterdam price at no time went above 74 cents all winter?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: The tar baby is in trouble.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I obtained my information from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Pierre Goyer: -and I will certainly check whether the question of the hon. member, as stated, is according to the facts.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that this year western Canada will face the severest outbreak of grasshoppers it has faced in decades, and in view of the fact this will affect prime farm land, can the minister inform the House what action he is taking to assist in the fight against grasshoppers?

April 3, 1974
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the hon. member that we are offering to the provinces to set up control centres, with equipment and insecticides, and people who are willing to staff these centres, to make sure we are in a better position than we have ever been to control grasshoppers.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a quick supplementary to the minister who has shown great interest in the nutrition and diet of people not only in Canada but throughout the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William George Knight: Can the minister inform the House if his department, through its marketing agencies, is looking into the possibility of taking this high protein insect, which is a delicacy in many parts of the world, and turning it into a marketable commodity?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I gather that this is a representation.


William George Knight: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, although this may appear to be a preposterous question, I want to inform the House that grasshoppers are selling at $3.10 a pound in Japan today.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Maybe Goyer will buy them!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Frank Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In light of the recent announcement of his rural and native housing policy, for which my colleagues and myself have developed a degree of appreciation, I would like to ask him if he has had any discussions with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Resources to extend this policy to native people living on reserves?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, there have been some discussions at the official level. We amended the National Housing Act last session to provide that the programs under it could apply on Indian reserves. But the responsibility is essentially that of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the building and provision of native housing on reserves. We have been having some discussions on the application of the new policy to reserves.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Rimouski.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What steps is the minister taking to prepare the native community on the reservations to take advantage of this policy that would certainly establish a brand new philosophy of housing ownership and pride of ownership? What steps has the minister taken to inform the natives of the policy?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, discussions have started with the Indians, as my assistant deputy minister indicated in committee yesterday morning, and we have submitted concrete proposals to the Indian Council of Vancouver Island concerning a pilot project which combines the housing programs of my department with those of the Urban Affairs Ministry. We will have shortly a formal meeting with the representatives of the Indian Association of Canada to discuss a new housing policy for Indians living on reserves.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but since he is absent, I will direct it to the Prime Minister.
The Canada University Service Overseas (CUSO) has hinted that an Angolese delegation will be in Canada from April 22 to April 30 and wants to organize an official reception for this delegation in the Parliament of Canada. CUSO is reported to have submitted a request to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a few weeks ago. Can the Prime minister tell us whether such a request has been received, whether he intends to answer or has answered it? If so, what was his answer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If this is really urgent, the hon. member can raise the matter again at the time of adjournment.

[English)



FEED GRAIN-GOVERNMENT POLICY FOR NEXT CROP YEAR-ROLE OF CANADIAN LIVESTOCK FEED BOARD

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Since the minister has outlined at some length details of the governments feed grains proposals for August 1, 1974, the start of the new crop year, is it the government's intention to implement the proposals contained in the document that has been distributed which is entitled, "The Domestic Feed Grain Market"?
I Mr. Knight.]


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I believe the document to which the hon. member refers is a working paper on the technical implications of putting into effect the type of proposals we outlined last August 3 for the long term. We are working on the final decision as to the kind of policy we ought to have without having confirmed that we will go the route of the August 3 proposals. We did want to be sure of our technical grounds and the workability of that proposal and the alternatives we are looking at. This is a document on the technical feasibility of the August 3 proposals and does not indicate a final decision by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member for Lisgar might be allowed a supplementary question, following which the Chair will call orders of the day.


Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my supplementary question in two parts. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the government that the Canadian Livestock Feed Board will play a more prominent role in determining supply and demand for domestic grain sold in Canada. Also, will the government be prepared to announce its policy by the end of this month, well in advance of the start of the new crop year so that all may have a good look at the proposals?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we had hoped to be able to announce the new policy by the end of the month, but it may well be early May or mid-May before we manage to do so. The role of the Livestock Feed Board is being studied and, while no firm decision has been made on that, I think it is fairly obvious that the board will play a more active role in assessing the need for feed grains in Canada and informing the producers as well as the consumers of grain about the way in which sales of grain are progressing and grain is moving.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 2, debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that Bill C-5, 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 third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rises on a point of order.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order simply to say that there have been some multiparty discussions and I think you will find there is general agreement for a special order providing that the remaining speeches at the third reading stage of this bill be limited to 20 minutes.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, Bill C-5 intituled: "An Act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways System and Air Canada" is evidence that some changes have occurred during the year. In the bill introduced in former years, a very significant word was recurring fairly often and that was the word "deficit". In this bill, Mr. Speaker, this term has been replaced by another, namely, "securities to be repaid". This is fairly more sophisticated and seems rather successful.
Mr. Speaker, although the president of our Crown corporation is always very well paid and several officials have chosen for themselves important positions and applied the planning formula, the results are the same, that is we are virtually facing a fiasco as a result of the incompetence and irresponsibility of the management. And we can always expect the same results. For instance, when it comes to planning, we always find the same incompetence in the field of agriculture and transport as well as in the St. Lawrence Seaway Administration or the Canadian National. Following advanced planning, our country which was a major producer and exporter of goods sought throughout the world has become an importer.
The government planned the system. If fixed quotas and, to be consistent with its plans, went so far as paying western farmers not to produce. This same government even penalized eastern farmers for producing too much. It even mobilized inspectors to visit farms and keep an eye on farmers. In my opinion, the shortcomings in planning result from the very fact that most people responsible for planning are "yes-men".
We all know that, in the private sector, one must not be satisfied with following but must lead the way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but I think he is being interrupted by some of the conversations that usually accompany the end of the question period. If he would like to rest a moment whilst the House settles down, this period would not be subtracted from his time.


Roland Godin: In private enterprise, as I said, we all know that administration officers develop ideas and put them into practice. Anyone anxious to know the difference between private enterprise and public enterprise does not

April 3, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
need to go out of the country, or even to get into a new field, he can stay on the same "track". One has only to compare the balance sheets of the CN and the CP. The CN operates at loss while the CP shows profits.
In 1973, the CN came before the government begging for credits to plug the $17 million hole. The same year, the Canadian Pacific's balance sheet showed $125 million profit. In the February 12 edition of Le Soleil, one could read the following:
The Canadian Pacific company announced yesterday an unaudited net revenue of $125 million for 1973, including extraordinary items of $6 million.
That is a $29 million increase over 1972.
Mr. Speaker, in 1971 for instance, the CN came before us again with a deficit of $29 million.
In 1968, the CN had tampered with their employees' superannuation fund, had written off a $371 million debt and in spite of all that it still showed a deficit.
During the 60's, the CN tampered and meddled again with the employees' pension fund. They loaned themselves $675 million at 4 per cent interest for 60 years.
Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit members say that the Canadian National, like many other Crown corporations, should be financed through new credits at a low rate of interest. However, we maintain that savings deserve a reward and that the best reward that can be made at the present time is the payment of interests at the market rate.
Moreover, by lending themselves $675 million at 4 per cent, the CN saved $40 million a year, but those savings are at the expense of retired employees and I think that is an abnormal state of things.
If all that tampering gave results, it would be really encouraging but we know the situation remains the same because by financing its operations in a fraudulent way as it does, the CNR remains constantly in the red.
On the pretense of saving, Mr. Speaker, the CNR lays off personnel, neglects the maintenance of its cars and tracks, and trains derail.
A paper tabled in the House earlier this year and submitted by the Canadian Transport Commission indicates, for example, that in the year 1970 the CPR had 60 derailments, and the CNR 193. In 1971, the CPR had 52 derailments, the CNR 192. In 1972, since the figures for 1973 were not available, the CPR registered 80 derailments while the CNR managed to beat its own records with a total of 230 derailments.
All this to say, Mr. Speaker, that those figures prove that there is always room for improvement at the CNR.
In 1973, CNR authorities forgot to order cars. Officials always on holidays forgot that you have to have cars to move things.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a dairy producer who would forget to have his cows inseminated.
Imagine a corner-store owner who would forget to renew his inventories.
Imagine a gardener who would forget to sow or a taxi company who would go into business without cars.

Regardless of the business involved, it is obvious that inadequate and irresponsible administration would give the same results.
As a matter of fact, regardless of the business in which they were involved, those businesses would be doomed to bankruptcy unless they managed to obtain a grant as the CNR does every year.
Mr. Speaker, the car shortage is nothing new. The Canadian National authorities have long been aware of it, as was shown to us in previous years.
At that time, the Canadian National invited members of Parliament to information sessions to tell us for instance about the new customer service.
According to the information agents of that time, the service would be greatly improved through the use of a new electronic system.
Since all movement would be directed by the system, they said it would be very easy to control trains and cars.
Simply by glancing at the reports given out by the computers, it would be possible to tell the movement of trains and the numbers of cars in Canada and even in the United States.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the lack of results, we must conclude that the members of this House have simply been had by jokers since, in spite of all the nice promises, there is still a car shortage.
We still give the iron from our mines to the Americans, we export hard wood for Japan's bowling alleys, and, in our own country, we forget to build railway cars.
At the present time, there are not enough cars to move western grain to the east, to move paper and all other kinds of perishable goods in our country. That is the situation. All this simply because we did not think, we did not get the necessary equipment, we did not organize to meet the transport companies' demands in relation with agriculture, trade and industry throughout the country. That is the situation.
Mr. Speaker, this shows a lack of service but it also shows a waste of money. We could prove at any time that the Canadian National spends money for all types of material which is never delivered.
The CN pays for oil to paint bridges which have not been painted in 20 years. But it still receives oil bills and labour bills.
I am quite ready to admit that the railway companies are a public utility and that they should be maintained and improved.
However, I am not willing to admit that we should nationalize the private enterprise to get better service.
In the transportation area, we can also observe how Air Canada and some airports operate.
Last fall, we heard about the way a contract was awarded for snow removal at the Quebec City airport.
Last fall, in November and December 1973, public calls for tenders were issued: four contractors submitted tenders. This invitation to bid involved a three-year contract. The tenders received by the authorities responsible for
April 3, 1974

snow removal at the Quebec City airport were as follows: $265,696, $288,880, $292,129 and $305,623. Although there was a difference of $40,000 between the lowest and the highest bids the authorities of the Montreal regional agency, which were apparently responsible for this contract, managed to grant the contract to the highest bidder. And among the people interested in this contract, there was a contractor from Sainte-Foy in the riding of Louis-Hebert. At that time, this contractor tried to draw his member's attention to what was going on. He also got in touch with the secretary of the Minister of Transport in Quebec City. Personally, I made several phone calls to the office of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), in Parliament because I thought he was one of those who could help us. I supplied him with the figures I just mentioned. But apparently he could do nothing. As the minister stated in the House and elsewhere, he has lost control. Is it true or not? In any event, we know that to make profits certain things should be done and others avoided.
We all know that if an honest business calls for tenders, it is in the intention of making a sensible choice to its advantage. It is as simple as that and to date nobody has proved to me that paying the highest price was the most economical principle.
And contrary to our NDP friends, who say that the government should nationalize the CPR, I would rather be in favour of merging the CNR and the CPR. Most of the companies doing business in this country and which are successful in business have often merged. Obviously, some positions in the Canadian National management, starting with that of the president, would disappear. However, in my mind, the benefits drawn from an equitable management of the Canadian Pacific will perhaps lead us to consider the implementation of this practice for other Crown agencies.
Since such a merger policy cannot be realized in one day, Mr. Speaker, we may perhaps attempt some other method, which is that the top management of the Canadian National, including the president, be paid a commission.
Because set salaries are the reason for a stupid and losing administration, I think it would be appropriate to implement our suggestions, as members of parliament, so that government succeeds in instilling awareness and motivation in some management officials and in giving them the guts to do a good job in their companies. I believe this country is prosperous enough to support these transport corporations. In my opinion, if stricter measures were applied, the Crown transportation companies could make their services more profitable and efficient and Parliament would be spared the voting of funds which, until this day, we can only compare to welfare payments. I think the situation is most abnormal in a country that prides itself on being rich, prosperous and well administered. Mr. Speaker, to prove ourselves and show that the country is prosperous, that the administration is honest, we will have to go into action without any delay.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, this bill has been around for quite some time, almost a year. It is not my intention to unduly
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada delay the progress of it, but I think this situation clearly illustrates the haphazard manner in which the government is managing the affairs of this country. This bill is a bit of a joke because the money provided by it has already been spent. Therefore, it is redundant.
Perhaps we might consider some of the reasons the bill has been around so long. One reason is it has had very low priority on the government's legislative timetable. It has been nothing more than filler legislation. As I said before, the money has already been spent. Members on both sides in committee and in the House expressed reservation about this particular exercise.
The second reason the bill has been around so long is that, for the first time members of the House and the committee have scrutinized this particular piece of legislation. I am not sure whether it is the first time in history, but for the first time since I have been a member of this House, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) appeared before the committee to explain the bill. That was very useful. It gave members a better understanding of the financial structure of these two Crown corporations.
Throughout the committee hearings, it was obvious that a number of the committee members were not satisfied with the financial arrangements that exist for these two major Crown corporations. I believe the Minister of Finance alluded to the fact he would like to see some changes made in the overall financial structure of these two corporations. This suggestion has also been made by previous Ministers of Transport. It is a position which meets with general agreement among the committee members who took part in the debate in the House as well as the extensive committee proceedings that were carried out.
A good number of the committee members were not satisfied with the answers they received from the officials of these two Crown corporations. They were not satisfied with the explanations nor with the fact that on many occasions the officials of these two major corporations refused to give information which committee members were attempting to elicit. The committee members were also concerned about the fact that these two Crown corporations were not utilizing their resources in the proper fashion and discharging the mandate given to them, namely to provide safe, efficient and effective transportation service by air and rail.
We found that these two corporations were engaged in many exotic, collateral ventures which really have no relationship to the matter of transportation services in this country. For this reason, the amendments were proposed at the report stage. We wanted to focus attention on the fact that these two major Crown corporations are not totally discharging the mandate given to them by the people of Canada.
Another major concern of the committee members is the feeling that parliament has no control over these corporations. This feeling came about because in many instances the officials refused to give the kind of information that was being solicited. It was the general feeling throughout the hearings that parliament has no effective control over these corporations.

April 3, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
With regard to Air Canada, the service and profit picture in relation to the number of benefits Air Canada enjoys in terms of the monopoly it has in this country certainly is not satisfactory to many committee members. Service standards, labour relations within the company, the fiasco at terminal two, sales promotion expenditure and the whole question of administration within that corporation are questions that were not answered satisfactorily when committee members cross-examined the officials. We were not satisfied with the fact that Air Canada seems to be very intent on branching out into allied ventures, such as Comstock. Here again their reluctance to give committee members certain information created an aura of suspicion.
If these corporations are going to be responsible and prepared to effectively discharge their mandate, they must be accountable to parliament and the people of Canada. Otherwise, it is nothing but contempt of parliament. There was precisely that feeling in Committee that the officials were somewhat contemptuous of the committee members.
I could say basically the same about CNR. We certainly gained the impression that the railways are not interested to the degree they should be in discharging their mandate of safe, efficient and effective railroad transportation to the country. Here again we witnessed the fact that they are involved in many allied ventures, ventures which really have no relationship to the business of transportation. It is our belief that CNR should epitomize an effective and futuristic railroad transportation system. If it cannot do that, how in the name of God are we going to create an effective national transportation system by nationalizing another railroad? The government certainly has an obligation to hold these Crown corporations to their responsibilities, to force them to discharge the mandate they were given. If these corporations fail to discharge that mandate they should be answerable to parliament.
This leads me to another point which involves the minister. We have the distinct feeling that parliament is exercising no effective control over these corporations. But the minister is suggesting that he, on behalf of the government, has no control. He says, in effect, that the CTC is an all-powerful, autonomous group which has handicapped him in his activities to a great extent. He also implies he has no control over the railways and goes on to suggest further that in these circumstances the only solution to the crisis in transportation, the only way to overhaul the system, is by nationalizing the Canadian Pacific.
There are a number of myths associated with that assumption. One of them seems obvious to me-it is that the people who favour nationalizing the CP are of the opinion that civil servants can do the job of running a railroad much more effectively than those who are employed by private enterprise. It has certainly not been proven to me that a nationalized concern can offer rates below those offered by a private corporation, and unless supporting facts are brought to the surface, what we have here is nothing more than a simplistic, socialistic solution to a complex major problem.

The minister tells us that transportation is in a mess, and that the policy of the government has been wrong. Indeed, he suggests now that the government really has no policy. This is surprising, because only a year ago the same minister was stoutly defending his so-called policy. In a speech made in this House on June 19, as reported at page 4902 of Hansard, the hon. gentleman is reported as saying: "It must not be said we have not established a policy; we have." Then, he went on to outline the provisions of the National Transportation Act and the role played by the CTC. At the Western Economic Conference held in Calgary last July, he indicated that our transportation system as a whole was one of the best in the world, if not the best. Then, on March 7, as reported at page 268, the same minister stated:
Something we do not have is a rail policy and I hope that sooner rather than later it will be possible to have such a policy.
That is quite an admission. It is really an admission of failure. It is an admission that the past policy of the government has been a failure, an admission that if indeed, there was a policy it has not been effectively administered.
Since this parliament began back in January, 1973, we have been greatly disappointed by the attitude of the minister and by the attitude of the government with respect to discharging their responsibilities in the area of transportation. The minister's answers in the House have been flippant, evasive, confusing. And now we find they are conflicting, because the interpretation he places upon the role of the CTC is diametrically opposed to the interpretation placed upon it by the president of the commission. Only yesterday, in committee, Mr. Benson indicated that the minister has all the power he needs to over-rule the CTC. In these circumstances, I maintain that parliament ought not to put up with this kind of nonsense any longer. The minister certainly has the necessary powers. Whether he wants to exercise them or not is a matter for him to decide, but if he does not wish to exercise them then perhaps Marchand had better march along.
With regard to the minister's power vis-a-vis the Canadian Transport Commission, it might be worthwhile placing on record in categorical terms the authority the minister possesses. Section 64 of the National Transportation Act states:
The Governor in Council may at any time, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the Commission, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application; and any order that the Governor-in-Council may make with respect thereto is binding upon the Commission and upon all parties.
That is pretty clear. The minister suggests that this power can only be used in certain circumstances. Yet he has never told us either in the House or in the committee just what those circumstances are.
He also indicates he has no power over the railroads. It is my opinion that the provisions of the Railway Act do give the minister sufficient authority to enable him to compel the railways to discharge their mandate. Subsection 100(1) of the Railway Act provides that whenever the minister is aware that a railway company which has received construction subsidies out of public funds cannot
April 3, 1974

be safely and efficiently operated, he may apply to the Commission for an order that the railway and its equipment, or both, shall be put in a safe and efficient condition. The Commission is authorized to make such an order. The order may direct what repairs, improvements or additions are to be made to the railways, equipment, or both, and stipulate time limits for commencement and completion.
Section 262(1) (c) embodies the standards which an efficient railway must meet. This particular section requires that a railway company shall, according to its powers, without delay, and with due care and diligence, receive, carry and deliver all traffic offered for carriage upon the railway.
Subsections 235(1) and (2) require that a railway company shall, according to its powers, afford to all persons and companies all reasonable and proper facilities for the receiving, forwarding and delivering of traffic. These requirements are mandatory. If a railway does not meet them, it is derelict in its duty and, therefore, not efficient.
Section 3 of the National Transportation Act embodies a policy statement. It declares that an efficient transportation system is essential to protect the interests of the users of transportation, and to maintain the economic wellbeing and growth of Canada. This section states in no uncertain terms that the efficiency of the national transportation system is to be judged by its efficiency in serving the private interests of users of the transportation system and in serving the general public interest, that is, both the private interests of the public and the public interest. The various private interests of the component parts of the transportation system are, obviously, not a factor upon which the efficiency of the system is to be judged.
We could go on. In his various statements made both inside and outside the House, the minister has clearly indicated that the railways are inefficient, that they are not interested in renovating their rolling stock, that the rails are deteriorating, what some of the bridges, even, are falling down. This is not a situation in which one can expect an effective passenger service to be provided. Certainly that, in itself, is an admission, a recognition of the fact that the railways are not functioning efficiently.
I could also refer to section 48 of the National Transportation Act, as well sections 50 and 51. These sections of policy, which is the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act, clearly and unequivocally define the powers of the minister. Evidently the minister has failed to exercise these powers in such a way as to compel the railways to discharge their mandate.
The minister also has the power of the purse, the power to grant money, such as the moneys provided by this particular bill. I suggest that funds could be earmarked for a specific purpose, such as to upgrade the road bed, to upgrade the availability of rolling stock, or to upgrade various pieces of equipment required.
Let me simply say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that in my opinion he has failed to discharge his responsibilities as Minister of Transport. He has failed to discharge his responsibilities to the people of Canada and to this parliament. I suggest that, rather than hide behind
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada the CTC and the National Transportation Act, he get on with the job of working with the CTC and the railways so that this country can start moving again.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, the CNR financing bill gives the House an opportunity to analyse the way the CNR is spending money. The way the CNR spends money is very important to the people of my riding. In my riding there is a huge railway centre in the city of Melville. I also represent a riding that produces a lot of grain and livestock, as well as potash. Therefore, the movement of these commodities is a very important part of our economy.
This afternoon I want to deal particularly with one or two matters of real concern to the people who work on the railway in my riding. I refer to rail safety, a matter the members of this House should really be concerned about, as well as the condition of the tracks that the men have to work on and the branch lines across the prairies.
Over the weekend an extremely unfortunate incident occurred in my riding. A young man who had just started work on the railways was killed when working on a train. He was a member of a crew the CNR were experimenting with, called a survey crew, in an effort to cut down on the number of men from four to three. As a result of this, and due to the track conditions at the time, this young man was the unfortunate victim in a dreadful accident, one that should be investigated by the minister, the CNR and the CTC. The train in question was backing in to hook up to some grain cars when it jumped the rails and caught this man between a railway car and a bin that held some fertilizer.
This incident has caused great concern among railroaders in my riding, as it will among those right across the country. They are concerned about the CNR's handling of matters such as safety, as well as the condition of rail tracks across this country. In my riding on Sunday I met some union officials employed by the CNR who told me that in the previous 30 hour period there were four derailments in the area serviced by the men working out of Melville, largely caused by the condition of the tracks.
I suggest that in examining the financing of the CNR, we should look at some of the problems experienced by the workers and at the dangers to which they are subjected. We all know winter conditions in the prairies, the large amount of snowfall this year, and we all know the condition of the tracks. At the same time, the CNR picks this period to conduct an experimental survey to cut down on the number of men in a crew. The railroaders in Melville and all across western Canada, I understand, are very concerned by this kind of action on the part of CNR officials and management.
I want to take this opportunity to ask the minister and CNR officials to investigate this accident to which I have referred. A person has died because of what appears to me to be negligence, to be a lack of concern about the safety of men and the conditions under which they have to work. The morale of CNR workers is hitting, in my opinion, a level that is probably lower than it has been for many a year. This is due to some of the matters I have already mentioned. When you combine this with the fact that we are now witnessing more difficulty in moving grain than

April 3, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada we have ever had in this country, then you wonder why the CNR does not examine its methods and policies from one end to the other.
I can very well understand and sympathize with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) when he says that transportation is in a real mess. This real mess includes the running of the CNR, or at least many aspects of the CNR's affairs across this country. The railway men in my constituency tell me that many safety regulations are overlooked by CNR officials. They are told to do things that are clearly against the safety regulations, and they feel that this jeopardizes their lives, their health and physical safety. I think it is about time we examined some of the matters that affect the day to day lives of people working on the railways, something of great importance to them. And not only to them, Mr. Speaker; it is important to the country to keep the economy moving, to keep commodities like grain, potash, lumber, iron ore and so on moving to our factories and markets.
Another matter of deep concern to the people of my riding is the low priority placed by the CNR on maintaining their trackage, not their main line tracks but their branch line tracks in particular, tracks that serve the small towns, villages and hamlets of Saskatchewan along which grain and other commodities are transported. The CNR seems to be forgetting about these tracks. It also seems to be forgetting about what I think is the mandate of the CNR, which is to serve the public of this country regardless where they live, be it in a city like Toronto or a small village, town or hamlet in rural Saskatchewan. The mandate of the CNR is to serve all people equally efficiently; its mandate is not necessarily to serve only those industries or areas of Canada from which they derive a profit. This is a facet on which I wish to put heavy stress.
I have already referred to movement of grain. At the present time we are several thousand boxcars behind meeting our export commitments, particularly on the west coast. These commitments have at stake, I suppose, the reputation of Canada as a grain exporting nation. Also at stake are the incomes of many farmers in the prairies. We are not behind in our deliveries simply because of heavy snowfall; other things enter into the picture, such as the morale of the men, the conditions under which they work, the conditions of the tracks, and the low priority that both CNR and CPR place on the movement of grain across this country. This is a situation that must be changed, and changed very quickly.
One of the other concerns I have spoken about on behalf of the ordinary citizen of my riding is the intention of the railways in this country to abandon many of their branch lines. There may be some lines that could be abandoned, but I think the railway companies are trying to abandon far too many of them, lines that serve a lot of people in rural communities which should not be abandoned. If these lines are abandoned it will mean a real loss both in economics and services to the farmers, small towns and the people living in those areas, so I think the railways should take a serious look at their intention to abandon rail branch lines in this country.

Another concern is the phasing out of station agencies. Many have been phased out in the last few years and many more will be phased out in 1974 and 1975. I will give you one ludicrous example, in my opinion, of a station agency that is to be phased out in my riding. I refer to the town of Ituna, a town of perhaps 1,500 to 1,700 people, which is a good size in terms of the people it serves. I have in mind not only the town itself but the communities surrounding that town which will be affected if the station agency is removed, not only this year, but next year and the year after. This is not a small town of 200, 300 or 400 people, but a place of 1,500 to 1,700 people which serves perhaps an additional 700 people beyond those who live in the town. I see no reason for phasing out a station agency in a place of that size. It is on the main line of the CNR which has some passenger service and over which a lot of goods are transported, so there is no reason for phasing out an agency in a town on a line such as that. This action will not save the CNR much money, but it will create much hardship for the community and the people who live around that community of Ituna. This is but one example of many that we on the prairies and, indeed others in other parts of Canada, could give the CNR, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
Those are some of the things that concern my constituents in their day-to-day lives as they consider the operations of the CNR and CPR across the country. I think the Minister of Transport was right when he said that transportation is in a real mess. I think the CNR, in terms of the way it is managed and handled across this country, is also in a real mess. We need some new management and controls on the Canadian National in this country as well as on the CPR.
In conclusion, I would say that in this country we indeed need a new transportation policy that removes freight inequities, which will nationalize the CPR and integrate it with the CNR into one transportation system with new management. Then perhaps we would have a system which could efficiently serve the people of this country regardless of where they live. We need a new transportation system that would be integrated and have service as its motto rather than the making of profit or moving into areas that are more easily handled. It seems to me that the people who work for the CNR usually follow the lead of the CPR. If the CPR is not doing something then the CNR will use that as an excuse, or if the CPR is moving in a new direction the CNR again follows that lead. That seems to have been the pattern that has developed over the last few years. I suggest an amalgamation of the two railway companies, putting them both under public ownership and control, running them efficiently on behalf of the people of this country whether they live in Toronto or in a small town in my riding on the prairies.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, there is, of course, a very basic philosophical difference between my position and that of the last speaker. I see very little justification, on the basis of past performance, for the nationalization of any additional industry in any facet of our society by this or any other government or by
April 3, 1974

any particular Crown corporation that may presently exist.
Perhaps it is not so much from the point of view of opposition to the financing of the CNR and the Air Canada structure that this bill should be discussed in this House, but rather from the point of view that the behaviour of those in charge of this socialized structure is such that members have been denied the opportunity to express opinions, let alone be part of the decision making process. We have been denied the right to express an opinion prior to the time a deal has become a fait accompli and then presented as part of the financing bill for the CNR and Air Canada.
Parliament is thus denied its proper right, and the public at large their right to know what is becoming of federal money, and how it is being spent. The hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) outlined this in great detail. I think his remarks should be considered almost classic and referred to frequently by members of this House who have any concern whatsoever for the expenditure of our public moneys and the knowledge that the public is entitled to prior to such expenditure. This has been denied to the House.
The committee which has met in respect of this bill is another mockery of the opportunity for a member elected by the public to participate in the economic structure of this country. When one has an hour and a half or perhaps two hours twice a week over a three or four week period to discuss an item of the significance of this one, certainly that is virtually no opportunity at all to get an intelligent idea as to how one should express himself on behalf of his constituency in particular, and Canada in general. Yet, this is just another example of how the committee procedure of this House conceals from the public the knowledge of their own affairs.
The transportation system, under the public ownership structure, has been subjected to pressures of a political nature. This has made it virtually impossible for the system to either serve the Canadian people or make a profit on their behalf. It has been compelled, perhaps at some expense, to build the hotels which have been criticized. It has been compelled by the public and political pressures to render services which were not economic. The House is further compelled, as a result of these political pressures, to annually underwrite the losses which the public ownership vehicle has accrued over the years. At no time has there been any directive, publicly noted, from the government saying to this publicly owned structure: It is your responsibility to both serve and to make a profit; it is your responsibility to at least render service to Canada at a minimal cost and prove that you have exercised proper efficiency in your managerial practices on behalf of the Canadian public. It has been some time since there has been any indication that the government has directed the transportation system of this country to give consideration to the necessary national requirements in respect of development, the basic reason for the initial construction of our present transportation system. The challenge of that responsibility has not been met.
At a recent transport committee meeting which did not deal with this particular bill we found ourselves almost completely frustrated in an effort to obtain information in
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada respect of the operation of the railroads, in respect of the function played by the Canadian Transport Commission, and in respect of the authority that can and should be exercised by the minister. We found we were in a virtually helpless position with ineffective legislation and less effective administration, and the combination of the two spells out the death knell of any long-term transportation policy in Canada's best interests.
We find that in this bill continuing evidence to support our belief that there is proliferation of the infringement upon the private world by public ownership. There seems to be no justification given by the Department of Transport for authorizing the railway to invest in de Havilland or in any other industry as it may desire or for authorizing Air Canada to invest in the aerospace industry without an examination of the long-term profitability or the longterm advantage to the Canadian population by virtue of this participation. These are the things which give me great cause for concern as this bill is about to become law by virtue of the vote that will be taken. There is no way this House can deny the funds which have been spent. They must be granted, but it is with great regret I say this when I see the infringement of the parliamentary right of members of this House to participate in the structure of the nationally owned transportation system we have.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) does not seem to have any grave concern about the development of the port structure of this country. Whether you are from Vancouver or from Saint John, whether you are in a fishing port or on the St. Lawrence seaway, it seems that Port development is allowed to coast. Its relationship to national development is not given proper consideration. We might consider, for instance, the opportunity we have to develop the port of Saint John and the opportunity Canada has to develop with it. With its railroad connections, the port of Saint John could be developed as a container and other type of port for the benefit of the whole Canadian economy. This has not been considered by the Minister of Transport. Apparently no money is to be made available for a major development in this area. Are we to be served on the Atlantic coast by another domain merely because our government fails to recognize the value of this port to Canada and to the whole east coast of North America.
This House and the Department of Transport will dillydally until we learn that somewhere along the coast someone chose to build an island to create a port to service the east coast of the North American continent. With a little initiative on the part of this government such development could be created at the port of Saint John for the benefit of all Canada. It would provide service to all the people of the east coast of this continent. This plan, however, is not forthcoming. The view of the government today is land locked. The government looks inward at development in the main metropolitan areas of Canada and cannot see the relative value of the periphery of this country as it plans its policies in respect of transportation or anything else.
I am very much concerned about the basic operation, for instance, of Air Canada. At one of the meetings of the transportation committee we heard a great song and dance

April 3, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
about the capability of Air Canada to handle air freight and its intention to develop this business. We heard how it had pioneered in this business and had sought it from one coast to the other in Canada to serve the world. The lobster industry of the province of New Brunswick took up the challenge. It expanded its market opportunities. It sent its salesmen throughout the world. It developed markets. The result was a very major increase in the income, particularly of the lobster fishermen on the Atlantic seaboard. Now, we find there is no possibility of any guaranteed space in the Air Canada freight structure. We find that the lobster industry has become so thoroughly disgruntled with the service rendered by Air Canada that it is seriously considering moving its base of operations to the Boston area so that it may obtain service from foreign carriers for Atlantic provinces' products because this service cannot be obtained otherwise.
I wish the Minister of Transport were here. He has been noticably absent from this House during the entire debate to the detriment of transportation and his portfolio. Bear in mind that this market to which I referred was developed because Air Canada, in the promotion of air freight, offered an opportunity to an industry on the Atlantic coast which has virtually been withdrawn because the service offered cannot be maintained. Remember the lobster industry shaped itself for the benefit of Air Canada's freight operations. We are asked to pass this bill while an engineering fiasco is taking place in the harbour of Saint John. I shall not go into this in great detail. However, it is virtually a fiasco. The government of Canada failed to undertake its responsibility in respect of harbour development at Saint John, but insisted upon laying on the engineering structure under which the province of New Brunswick would pay the bills. Perhaps the Minister of Transport should make an all-inclusive statement to this House in respect of the fiasco which has developed.
We are being asked to pay the bill while in my constituency a branch line of one of the railways is being considered for closure. This branch line happens to serve an area in which a new fish plant has been built, where a paper mill is being expanded and where a confectionery industry needs the transportation facilities. I think there is some discussion under way about the closing of this branch line. Apparently a branch line closure can take place at the whim of the railway. The Canadian Transportation Commission has made no comment in this regard. There is merely a rumour that this is to take place, but no suggestion has been made that hearings will be held concerning the needs of the area served and the transportation situation generally there. Neither the commission nor the minister appear to have authority. So, we pour hundreds of million of dollars into a system which the people of the country own but over which the public has no control.
Yes, the money must be voted, but we should not allow this organization to run helter-skelter through our dollars while it continues to do what it sees fit without any control being exercised over it by the House of Commons or the people of Canada. We see the socialistic tendencies and the bureaucratic attitudes which exist. We have the aerospace industry. There is plenty of money for that, although it could very well come from the private enterprise sector. The same situation exists in respect of the business of providing shelter. However, when services are

needed for national development, we are denied the moneys required for this by this government and the province of New Brunswick loses faith in the loyalty of the government to its people and the members from this area.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly on Bill C-5, the CNR financing bill. Although I spoke during second reading, I feel there are a few additional comments I should make so far as a transportation policy for Canada is concerned. We are presented with a bill like this every year, and members have an opportunity to discuss the transportation problems which effect not only their own ridings but various other parts of the country. Yet during the period that I have been a member of this House I have not seen too much progress made in updating and upgrading our national transportation system. In fact, the minister expressed this rather ably not too long ago when he said transportation policy in general was in a mess.
There are a few points I would like to make. I believe other hon. members have raised them, but I think we should again request that action be taken along certain lines. One of the points repeatedly brought to my attention by railway workers in my area concerns the need for better railway line maintenance. The lack of proper maintenance has led to a number of derailments, not only in Kootenay West but in other areas across Canada. There is growing concern on the part of railway workers that the situation in becoming worse.
Just the other day hon. members received copies of a very interesting brief submitted by the Canadian Railway Labour Association, stressing the need for something to be done with respect to safety on our railway systems. It is a matter that has appeared in numerous reports. The railway workers are requesting that something be done to ensure that we examine the safety factor in a much more critical way than we have in the past.
I am convinced that the Canadian Transport Commission should be doing a lot more to ensure that safety measures are carried out, particularly measures respecting maintenance. I wish to read several paragraphs from the railway workers' brief because they outline the problem very clearly.
There is a growing concern about the number of derailments and other accidents which occur on railways. One aspect of this problem is the fact that railways are not required by law to make public the reports of its officers concerning the cause of accidents. Section 225 of the Railway Act requires that railway companies and certain of their employees report to the Canadian Transport Commission in respect of certain kinds of accidents and their causes.
The law also provides that the Commission may, by regulation, declare the manner and form in which such information will be given, the class of accident to which the law applies and that information given in compliance with the law may be declared privileged.
The Commission (Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada) gave effect to this law by promulgating General Order 0-1. In addition to setting forth the details about the making of reports the Order contains Section (6) which reads as follows:
Every accident report, or information respecting the same, furnished the Board by any railway company pursuant to the provisions of the Railway Act and of this Order and the report of any person appointed by the Board to inquire into and report upon any accident
April 3, 1974

or casualty occurring on any such railway is declared to be privileged and shall only be made public or given out by Order of the Board.
The Canadian Railway Labour Association takes exception to section 225 and General Order 0-1 on the grounds that the law and regulations effectively prevent our Association from determining the reported cause of certain railway accidents and efforts to assure that adequate steps are taken to prevent a recurrence ...
We do suggest, however, that the Minister of Transport should take an active interest in the problem to ensure that changes are made which will meet the public need for information concerning the cause of railway accidents while protecting the legitimate interests of the railways.
The point being made is that the railway unions have difficulty in obtaining reports on the causes of accidents. As a result they are not in a position to effectively deal with the railway companies, or the government, by having certain methods of operation improved. This is a very serious matter. People working on the railways whose lives are endangered are entitled to this information. In this way the unions can seek to protect their members. I know that in some cases this may be privileged information, and that some of it may have to be held back, but basically there is nothing wrong with the general public, and in particular the men who man the trains, receiving this information and taking up with management the question of changes that should be made to ensure that more accidents do not take place.
Just the other day before boarding the plane to return to my riding I received a telephone call from one of the railway unions at Nelson in connection with an accident. Several cars had gone off the rail line. I was told there was not too much traffic on this particular line, and that the railway company was not interested in having the repair work carried out for a couple of weeks. At the top end of that line, Mr. Speaker, there is a mill which ships lumber and chips to market by rail. As a result, the jobs of a number of workers were at stake. Such an attitude on the part of big railway companies is not good. The Transport Commission should check on problems like that to make sure the railway companies no longer get away with the things that they have been able to pull over the past few years. I hope that over the next few months the minister, the government, and the CTC will take action with respect to safety in the maintenance of tracks.
There is another point that I have been pressing for a number of years, and on which I feel we should have an amendment to the Railway Act. It deals with the transportation of natural resources from Canada. I raise this so that when general transportation policies come up for discussion, these things will be brought to the attention of the minister and the government in the hope that some changes can be made.
A number of years ago in British Columbia, a provincial railway was granted a charter by a previous provincial government. It was called the Kootenay and Elk Railway and it was a phony, if you want to put it that way, because it had no rolling stock of its own, no engine, caboose or cars. It was incorporated for one reason only, to take the coal from the east Kootenay region of British Columbia down to the American border where it hooked up with an American railway line for connection with the Pacific
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada coast. Fortunately, the present NDP government in British Columbia stopped this railway by a simple process. While it had a charter and could have built line, it was not allowed to go through Crown lands.
I have spoken many times in an effort to have the government take action to stop the building of this Kootenay and Elk line from the coal fields to the American border because of the loss of 600 or 700 jobs. The same thing could happen in any part of Canada, for instance on the prairies, where they could haul wheat to one of the U.S. rail lines to be transported to the Pacific coast. They could take potash or any other raw material. It is my position that when we have national rail lines in Canada our goods, wherever possible, should be hauled on them. This should be the objective of our national transportation policy. The act needs to be amended to make certain that the same situation does not take place in some other part of Canada as that which was attempted with the Kootenay and Elk Railway. I am going to suggest to the minister that he look into the possibility of amending the legislation to ensure that we never get into this bind again.
I have just one further point to make before I sit down, Mr. Speaker. When we talk about national transportation, we mean not only rail transportation but air and every other type of transportation. It seems to me that over the past years very little has been done by our national rail lines in the area of passenger transportation and I do not think they receive much encouragement from the Department of Transport or the Canadian Transport Commission. In my area, the Kettle Valley line runs through the southern part of British Columbia to the coast. Some sections have practically been abandoned and passenger traffic is non-existent. This has happened all over the country, of course.
When we look around at other nations like Japan and some countries in Europe, we find that the transportation systems are being upgraded and great numbers of people are using the trains. A similar policy has to be adopted in our own country. We are facing an energy shortage and there is no doubt that a great deal can be done and could be done if the two large railway companies were prodded by a government that was really interested in improving passenger service. To subsidize an inefficient line whose trains travel a few miles per hour is a sure way of killing passenger traffic in Canada. In many instances this is deliberate and the railways make it so awkward to get a meal or a berth on their trains, and journeys take so long, that people have stopped using them. We should insist that facilities be upgraded.
I have just one more point in closing, Mr. Speaker. We have heard a great deal about raw materials coming to southern Canada from the north and there has been talk of rail systems and of studies being made. I would suggest again that the appropriate committee of this House thoroughly check the possibility of rail connections with the north. We can bring oil, gas and minerals from the north with an efficient rail system and goods could be transported to the north much more cheaply by air.
I urge that this House and the appropriate department conduct an investigation along these lines very soon. I am not going to say anything more except that I hope we are going to see some action regarding the safety and upgrad-

April 3, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada ing of our railway lines. I should like to see a start made this year.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it appears that I may be the last or the next to last speaker in this debate on third reading of the CNR financing bill. I wanted to make a few remarks about the railway's operations and the kind of financing that is being done. It is my opinion that the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and his colleagues early in this debate were designed to hinder if not destroy a Crown corporation. They complain about Air Canada buying 30 per cent of Wardair, but I doubt if the same people would have objected if Canadian Pacific had been buying instead of Air Canada.
The hon. member for Vegreville complained about the CNR and Air Canada not fulfilling their mandate and meeting the transportation requirements of Canadians. I agree with him. I think he is perfectly right and that both of our national railways have failed, since World War II, to keep up with the growing transportation needs of the country. The growth in the movement of goods and people has not been met by the railway systems, private or public. I should like to say more about that in a few moments, and I hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) will be back in his seat by then because I should like to have his comments.
The hon. member for Vegreville says that the CNR and Air Canada are not fulfilling their mandate, and I agree with him, but I want to say that the reason for this is perfectly understandable and logical. I would have thought that he would have realized that, with the kind of transportation policies we have had under successive national governments and the kind of transportation act that we have, Canadian National Railways and Air Canada do not operate any differently from Canadian Pacific Railway and CP Air. All operate within the same framework and on the same ground rules, that is on the basis of competition and profitability. There is little difference between their methods of operation. This makes me sad, because the CNR is not operating as a publicly owned and controlled corporation should operate.


John Napier Turner: Let's denationalize it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Unless the National Transportation Act is changed, and unless the policies of government change, you will not see much difference between the operations of the CNR and Air Canada on the one hand, and the privately owned CPR and CPAir on the other. These two systems are supposed to be competitive. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marehand) has agreed that competition in this field does not work in Canada. We have been saying that for years. My party has said it since 1933. So long as the railways merely want to make profits, they cannot possibly meet the transportation needs of Canadians.


John Napier Turner: You haven't said anything new since 1933.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member for Vegreville believes that the idea of nationalizing the CPR is simplistic and socialistic. I repeat: transportation is an essential public

service. The field is a natural monopoly, and therefore must be classed as a public utility. A transport system operates best in the public interest when it is publicly owned and controlled. Another hon. member on my right complained earlier about parliament and the government not having control over our publicly-owned railway and air carrier. Indirectly, he was trying to say what I am trying to say. A publicly-owned and operated transport system must be under public control. This has been the experience of other governments of the world, conservative, liberal, communist, socialist or what have you. Rail and air transport systems in most countries, regardless of political stripe, are publicly-owned, operated and controlled.
I want to say a word about some moves made by our sort of supernumerary minister of transport, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. He announced a program for the emergency movement of grain. My goodness, the CPR was even to run four more trains in an attempt to meet targets. I do not know if the minister in charge of the Wheat Board consulted the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marehand), the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) or the Canadian Transport Commission before giving his blessing to something both railways have been doing since Christmas, namely, abandoning branch lines in western Canada which were blocked with snow. I am not aware of any permission given by the Canadian Transport Commission for the railways to abandon such lines. Some branch lines have not had trains on them for weeks and weeks, some not even since the new year. There are thousands of country elevators on those branch lines which are full of grain. What did the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board do? He gave his blessing to the railways, allowed them to abandon those branch lines, and told farmers that they are to undertake longer hauls, which means that they will need to go to alternate delivery points or further, to main line shipping points.
The problem with that kind of plan is that starting this week or next week, municipal and provincial officials will place bans on the use of our municipal roads and highways for certain purposes, so farmers will not be able to haul grain to the nearest delivery point, let alone to the alternate delivery point. Again, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is doing things backwards. The Minister of Transport, or some CTC official, or even railway officials, should point out to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board what is likely to happen. The railroads should be instructed to make extra efforts to clear these branch lines of snow and empty the elevators of grain, because if this does not happen the farmers will be in trouble. They will not be able to haul away their grain. I hope that my good friends on the other side of the House will point out these facts to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and put a stop to the nonsensical program he initiated a few days ago.
As the Minister of Finance is present, I want to talk about the subject matter of the bill. This is last year's CNR financing bill. No doubt another financing bill to cover this year will be brought in shortly when the government House Leader needs a bill to fill in time. These financing bills are pretty well identical, although the money amounts may vary. There is little evidence to show that money is to be spent on different priorities. The Minister

April 3, 1974
of Finance may recall that I asked him in the House a number of weeks ago if consideration was being given to the problem of handling the Canadian National debt, and whether consideration was being given to its refinancing. Paraphrasing his answer, he said that this matter was being looked at again. I should appreciate it if he could elaborate on that answer today.
Since the Second World War both our national railways have not placed enough emphasis on spending money on the improvement of roadbed, track, the acquisition of rolling stock, and on locomotives, with the result that events have caught up with them. It will take several hundreds of millions of dollars of expenditures to update and improve to a good standard thousands of miles of roadbed and track and to acquire thousands of pieces of rolling stock, by which I mean not just boxcars, but also refrigerator cars, livestock cars and so on. In addition, they must buy enough locomotives to meet demand at all times of year. In committee, I asked the former president of Canadian National, Mr. MacMillan, just before he took his well-earned retirement, if he would ask the board of directors and management of CNR to look again at priorities and examine again projected needs for rolling stock and locomotive power for the years ahead. Obviously, the railway has allowed its stock of rolling stock and locomotives to fall below what it ought to be, and this fact has caught up with it.
Before bringing in the CNR financing bill for 1974-75, I wonder if the Minister of Finance would meet with the Minister of Transport as well as the managements and boards of Canadian National and Air Canada, and discuss all these things. Let him see if he can get from the railway a commitment to put a higher priority on doing those things I have mentioned, as our transport facilities need updating and enlarging. Even though this may involve an expenditure of another couple of hundred million dollars in next year's financing bill for improving track, buying new rolling stock and locomotives and improving yards in Vancouver and Thunder Bay and for improving track at Churchill and Prince Rupert, it will be well worth it. At least we shall do something to put right the errors which the railways have committed during the last 20 years. I hope the minister agrees that my request is reasonable. Surely, the railroad should place a higher priority on meeting its operating requirements than on the acquisition of real estate or other esoteric projects.
If this is not done, we will still be in the same mess this year, next year and in years thereafter, and the Minister of Transport, poor man whoever he may be, will still get up and talk about the confusion and inadequacy of our transport policy and our National Transportation Act. If the minister asks the managements and boards of CNR and Air Canada to place higher priority on the purchase of new equipment which will improve service, I think, when this sort of bill is debated next time round, he will receive a much more sympathetic hearing from all sides of the House and the bill will be given speedier passage.
I am sure the minister is probably tired, as are many other members, of hearing the same complaints every year. The CNR financing bill would be an excellent mechanism to begin to redirect the priorities of the railway and
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada Air Canada. It may then lessen some of the complaints, so the next financing bill would get more support and an enthusiastic welcome from members, particularly those on this side of the House. I know the minister would miss hearing the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and myself making railway speeches every year. That will only come about if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) brings in a much better and, if necessary, larger financing bill in the next few weeks.
In closing, I want to repeat my main point. We cannot meet Canada's transportation needs until our major modes of transportation, rail and air, are returned to public democratic ownership and control. I emphasize the word "control" for the benefit of the hon. member for Vegreville. They should be operated as any public utility is operated. We must forget about the nineteenth century railroad baron-profit way of running a railroad.
It is illogical to think you can properly operate a transportation system with competition and profit as the objectives. It is an essential public service. It is just as illogical as attempting to operate two competing sewer and water systems running under a main street or two competing highways. If one were to follow the argument of the hon. members to my right to a logical conclusion, we would return to the 1830's and have competing toll roads, owned and operated by private enterprise. If anyone suggested that, they would be laughed out of town. They would certainly be laughed out of this House.
The time has come to integrate our rail and air transportation system with other modes of transportation, including bus and water transportation. When we do that, we will be on the road to a transportation system suitable for a country as large as ours, with a northern climate and thinly scattered population. We will be able to do something about equalized or subsidized or a combination of both, passenger fares and freight rates. We will be able to put an end to discrimination against some people because of where they happen to be located in this country. We might be able to arrange it so that someone can fly from Toronto to Inuvik for the same price as someone flying from Toronto to Winnipeg. It might be possible to purchase a quart of milk in Yellowknife at the same price as in Regina. Over half the price of milk in the north is the cost of transportation.
In this way low and middle income families in the north will be able to purchase the quantity of an essential food which they should be purchasing. With a system of equalized and subsidized rates for essential food and other commodities, people all over the country will be treated much more fairly and equitably. This would do as much for national unity as anything else which members on the government side talk about repeatedly. This has continually been a sore point among people in Atlantic, western and northern Canada.
I am not suggesting that what we in the New Democratic Party propose would be 100 per cent right, but I am suggesting it is the only alternative left. We can no longer tinker with a little bit of public enterprise here, private enterprise there and a combination of both somewhere else. Surely, we have learned our lesson by now. What we have is not working as it should be. The only alternative is

April 3, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
a publicly-owned, operated and controlled public utility for our rail and transportation system in Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay).


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, I will gladly defer to the hon. member for Crowfoot. I am not certain whether he wants to speak first. If he does and with Your Honour's permission, I will gladly let him go first.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: If the House agrees, the Chair is willing to recognize the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner).


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, that is on the understanding that the hon. member for Central Nova will still have an opportunity to speak on third reading.


An hon. Member:: No.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not think that is the understanding of Mr. Speaker. Am I correct that in rising now with the generous offer-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In that case, it would be better for the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Central Nova.


John Napier Turner: I thought you would need a little more time to recuperate after that election.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) that, in recognition of the serious problem that has now beset my province, I am wearing my black suit.


Mr. Foster:: It is a serious problem for the Tories.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: It is a serious problem for the province. In any event, I apologize to Your Honour for the momentary confusion about me deferring or not deferring to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). Because of the tangled history of this particular piece of legislation, it was to be expected this confusion would arise, even at this point in time.
Bill C-5 has been an interesting focal point for many months for opposition members to show how inept and generally incompetent this government has been in such a routine matter as financing our two main Crown corporations. I do not intend, as some members opposite have suggested, to filibuster at this point, but I wish to make a few remarks that may be relevant. If nothing else, the proceedings to this point in time have shown the curious reluctance of not only the people who make the policies for our Crown corporations, but the management of Air Canada and CNR to be frank and honest with members of parliament from all parties who are attempting to find out their policy guidelines and what their key officials are doing.
Some members feel it is a pity that our terms of reference did not include the power to have officials of CPR appear before our committee. I certainly agree with that contention. I notice, for example, that the earnings of CP have shown a considerable increase in the past year. May I quote from a newspaper article to illustrate this point:

The company said record earnings for Canadian Pacific Investments, substantial increase in income from the Soo Line Railroad and marginal raises in CP Telecommunications income were "more than enough to offset the lower earnings of rail, highway transport and containership operations, attributable, in varying degrees, to the effects of the strike of Associated Non-Operating Railway Unions".
We on this side have suggested it would be beneficial if CNR would get back into its primary role of moving goods and people cheaply and efficiently, and forget about some of their more esoteric roles like building hotels, getting into the aerospace business and getting their finances mixed up with Air Canada. I think it is only fair to suggest it would be a good thing if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) would have a serious look at encouraging or directing CP to divest itself or well, to some extent at least, of those associated enterprises which might distract it from its primary role of moving goods and people efficiently. It seems to me the reluctance to disclose precisely what the railways and Air Canada are doing is carried over into other areas beside the area of management responsibility.
For example, last November a study was released indicating that rail costs in connection with moving Alberta coal into Ontario markets were much less than those quoted by Canada's two major railroads. The Ontario minister of transport and communications told the legislature the study indicated that computed unit train costs-I do not know whether this is the correct way of putting it- were at least 35 per cent lower than the rates quoted by CN and CP rail. Surprised by this information, the minister said that Alberta coal was substantially more competitive in the Ontario market than had been previously believed. He went on to say that if CN and CP did not disclose unit train costs he would press the Minister of Transport to conduct an inquiry. To my knowledge, though, the information in question has not yet been disclosed. It is still being awaited by those government officials and by the Canadian public. This is symptomatic of the lack of control exercised by the Minister of Transport over the railway companies and other transport agencies.
Since this bill was introduced the minister has stated very frankly that he does not possess either the authority or the overall policies which would enable him to do his job properly. If the minister really believes he lacks authority, a view which is apparently not shared by the President of the CTC, let the government bring forward amendments to the legislation, and do so quickly. I see no reason why the support of most members of the House should not be expected.
As to the financial aspect of Bill C-5, I should like to stress the apparent lack of leadership forthcoming from the government over the last several years. When he appeared before the committee, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) addressed himself to some extent to the question whether it would be advisable to separate the financing of Air Canada from the financing of the CNR. He stated that while he himself was not close to this particular issue he could tell the committee that it had not come before cabinet in any concrete form. He added "I could not tell you what the policy dispute is. All I am
April 3, 1974

saying to you is that if there were a reasonable proposition to split the capital structure, I think it would be a good idea." Well, that seems to be a straightforward statement by the minister and one with which I happen to agree.
The President of the CNR takes an opposite view, and while he is entitled to do so the question does arise: Who is running the financing of the CN and Air Canada? Is it the government of Canada, as I think most Canadians would like to believe, or is it being run at the whim of the executive officials concerned? Mr. MacMillan made an interesting comment when he was asked to define the primary role of the CN. The discussion had centred on whether the CN was paying sufficient attention to moving people and to moving commodities. He stated in the course of his most recent appearance before the Committee on Transport and Communications:
I think it would be quite wrong for us to restrict ourselves to rail movement because in that way the public is not properly served. The future, I think, .will go even further into the intermodal methodology of handling business.
"Intermodal methodology"; that is a very interesting term and we would like to know exactly what it means. Unfortunately, so far, we have not been able to find out either from the President of CN or from the President of Air Canada what they consider their basic guidelines to be. Mr. Pratte is on record as saying on several occasions that he is not certain what the primary role of Air Canada should be and it appears that Mr. MacMillan is also confused to some extent. Perhaps not, but that is the way it appeared to me, as a member of the committee.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) stated quite clearly in his speech today that he felt the Minister of Transport does have sufficient authority to direct the affairs of the nation's carriers to the extent he feels they should be directed. In support of his argument, my hon. friend quoted from the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act and gave examples of what could be done. For some reason, the minister has been reluctant to crack the whip and assert the authority he possesses by virtue of existing legislation.
I conclude by saying that, if in fact the minister honestly feels he needs more authority in order to expedite a solution of Canada's transportation problems he should, without delay, bring forward the necessary amendments to the National Transportation Act. It is not as though this were a new situation. It is not as though the government has not had time in which to act. It is not as though this were not a matter of great importance to Canada. As I mentioned earlier, the lack of a transportation policy at federal level has tremendous implications for the future of our regional development programs, particularly in eastern Canada, since in the absence of an efficient and comprehensive transportation policy any meaningful efforts to reduce regional disparity are doomed to encounter needless complication and expense.
Once more, I ask the minister and his cabinet colleagues to remedy the situation which they themselves have caused, and to bring forward quickly any legislative changes which they feel would help to bring Canada back into the forefront as far as transportation generally, is concerned. We do not stack up too badly when it comes to certain aspects of moving commodities but judging from
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada the complaints which come across my desk, as far as moving particular commodities is concerned, it appears we are getting into as bad a situation with regard to moving timber, potash, wheat and apples as we have been in for years when it comes to transporting people. This situation must change before it deteriorates any further, because if the present rate of decline is allowed to continue the effect on our economic development will be very serious.


Mr.  J. H. Homer@Crowfoot: Mr. Speaker, the other night when the amendments to Bill C-5 were up for discussion I dealt mainly with the question of rail transportation. On third reading I should like to deal briefly with some of my thoughts about the lack of an air policy in this country of ours.
I listened to my socialist friends to my left speak of nationalization, and this reminded me of our study of this particular bill in committee last year when the question of the government, through Air Canada, acquiring Wardair was being discussed. I tend to think a fabulous price was being asked for a 30 per cent ownership in Wardair. Wardair did not have any planes of its own. It ended up owning one DC-9 and an old Bristol freighter, leasing the remainder of its aircraft. But what the committee study boiled down to in regard to Air Canada buying Wardair was: What did Air Canada really want from Wardair? The answer given by the president of Air Canada to the committee was: "Charter flight know-how".
Never before have I seen a Crown corporation admitting it did not have all the answers and was prepared to go to private industry to buy know-how. To me this is a prime example of why nationalization and socialism will eventually fail. It will fail because it will fail to stimulate and germinate any new thoughts. Approaches become narrower and narrower. To me this was a great admission that nationalization and socialism is not the answer, no matter whether it be in regard to air operations, rail operations, industry or what have you. Eventually, it will have to be admitted that socialism stifles initiative.
One might ask, how has initiative been stifled in Air Canada? Some time ago I spoke in this House about Air Canada owning Viscounts and flying them for 22 years when no other airline could afford to fly them. They were nice, safe little planes. I felt secure when I flew in them. But their fuel costs were astonishing. Today a 747 can fly just as cheaply as a Viscount, yet Air Canada flew them for 22 years. I suggest that is narrow thinking on the part of a Crown corporation. They should have gone out and bought know-how far sooner than they did when they thought of purchasing Wardair.
What else is wrong with our air policy? The other evening I pointed out that the National Transportation Act of 1967 was deficient, and I said so at that time. I roundly debated it with the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Pickersgill, and I still think the act is deficient. But Mr. Pickersgill did create the CTC, and a job for himself. In all fairness to Mr. Pickersgill, in 1966 he did produce a workable solution to part of our air policy when he brought in what is commonly referred to as our regional air policy.

April 3, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
Our two main line carriers are Air Canada and CPAir. CPAir has about one-fifth the number of planes Air Canada has, yet it turns in a profit. This particular measure is to cover debts incurred by Air Canada of $140 million and a recurring debt of $13 million to pay for engines for the Lockheed 1011-and I will be dealing with that in a moment.
Our second largest carrier, as I say, is CPAir, with very limited routes in Canada. A year after we gave Alitalia the right to fly into Toronto from Rome and Naples, the government finally made up its mind to give CPAir the right to fly into Milan. That year of delay and indecision on the part of the government without a doubt cost CPAir quite a bit of traffic from Italy to Toronto, and from Toronto to Italy for that matter. Delays cost private industry money. Delays caused by government, whose tentacles reach out into every corner of private industry, cost private industry a huge amount of money.
Today we have our two major carriers and five regional carriers, and as I said in 1966 the regional air policy is a workable one. The five regional carriers are relatively sound. Air Canada had the bulk of the routes and could fly into any city in Canada, but declared it was losing money on short hauls. It claimed they were too expensive to operate and that they should be given to some of the regional carriers. The regional carriers took them up and made money from them. Pacific Western has grown to the point where it will soon join the big two. Transair, Nor-dair, Quebecair and Eastern Provincial are all doing very nicely. I have a question I should like to ask my socialist friends to my left. If a nationalized Air Canada cannot make money flying short hauls to the small cities of Canada, how can private enterprise prosper from the same routes? I think my friends to my left should analyze that situation.
Let me move one step further in our air policy. There are something like 125 different carriers smaller than the regionals operating in Canada. The regionals now have grown so big they all use DC-9,s or the equivalent 737's. But they either cannot or do not want to fly to some of these small towns, particularly in northern British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, Yukon, some parts of northern Quebec and so on, and these 125 carriers are begging the government to make a decision on a third line carrier policy. The third line carriers are hamstrung today by government regulations, and they want the government to make a decision so they will be allowed to operate services which are very much required. In the committee the other day Mr. Benson, president of the Canadian Transport Commission, was asked what was the government's policy on third line carriers. He replied that it was not for him to develop government policy, but he had been asked by the minister to assist in developing such a policy. I say that is not good enough. There will be continued delay. This government body is trying to grant licences and make rules under a policy that does not exist.
Only recently a third line carrier was granted permission to fly into Grande Prairie, Alberta. This third line carrier would have been very happy with this decision, but the CTC placed so many regulations on the operation that it has made it practically impossible for this third line carrier to operate that particular route. I am referring to

Time Air, a small third line carrier that flies from Medicine Hat-Lethbridge-Calgary-Red Deer-Edmonton and which wants to extend its service into the Peace River area. It is a worth-while enterprise that does not make any large amount of money but provides a needed service to smaller cities in Alberta. Since the Canadian Transport Commission under Mr. Benson does not know what licensing policy to apply, it gives Air Canada the right to fly into Grande Prairie, but ties it up so badly with regulations that in fact it cannot fly into Grande Prairie. This is why we need an air policy that will work.
This lack of a policy is causing financial harm to 125 smaller carriers which are providing necessary service in our northland, or what you might call our hinterland, no matter what part of Canada that may be, in the Maritimes, Labrador, Quebec, Northern Ontario, the northern part of western Canada or the Northwest Territories. We must have a policy statement from the minister saying that the third line carriers will be allowed to serve these areas. The regional carriers are now so strong that the third line carriers could not compete with them even if they had the desire. That is all the third line carriers are suggesting. They are suggesting that if they can provide the service into a place like Grande Prairie, a service which the regional carrier is now providing, it should be given the opportunity to do so. They are not going to fly in with a DC-9 as Canadian Pacific or Pacific Western is now doing, they will fly in with a smaller plane perhaps a little more often than the regional carrier would do.
This indecision on the part of the government is causing the Canadian taxpayers to provide this service to the small consumers at a cost of thousands upon thousands of dollars. It is all right to say that by 1980 or the year 2000 we will all be living in 11 cities in Canada. That may be nice, and many experts have propounded that theory, but I do not believe it. I believe there will be lots of Canadians who will want to live in smaller regions throughout Canada rather than in 11 major cities. These smaller communities need the service, and in some instances to an even larger degree than do the larger cities. For example, how do you get to Inuvik or Yellowknife unless you go in by air? How do you get to some of the smaller centres in British Columbia unless you go in by air?
These third line carriers are being hamstrung by regulation upon regulation. Some of these regulations can not even be cleared away by the Canadian Transport Commission. Mr. Benson the other day made a lengthy statement about his concern for the airline carriers, but he said he could not do anything for them because he did not know what government policy is and it was not his job to devise it. Mr. Benson and I have always been cordial with one another, but I have never been a great admirer of his thinking. However, in respect of that statement I go along with him. It is not his job to devise policy, it is the job of the government and the minister. This minister is bogged down with problems of grain transportation and it is the government's responsibility to help him out. He should be moved to some other portfolio which he can handle, or he should be given a smart executive assistant or a smart parliamentary secretary who can devise policy for him.
April 3, 1974


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Give him a sabbatical leave.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Give him a sabbatical leave, that would not be a bad idea. Surely, the government must face up to the responsibility that it is it's job to devise air policy which will coincide with the development of this great country of ours. We should not have a policy that will tie up CPA on the Milan route for a year and not tie up the regional carriers which are fairly successful. They should be given some bilateral agreements in respect of Canada and the United States. Eastern Provincial should be allowed to fly to Boston and some other areas in the eastern United States, and Pacific Western should be able to fly into Los Angeles and other areas in the western United States.
The third line carriers should be allowed to provide service to any of these smaller centres; that is not asking too much. The minister shakes his head and says he has no transportation policy, and he is right. We have no transportation policy, we have no rail policy and we have no air policy, yet this Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) asks the House to pass this bill. It is only effective to July 1, 1974 so out of pity I suppose it will be passed, but it would not be passed if it were handled by the Department of Transport. If this bill were being presented by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) I think it would be a sin to pass it. He admits he does not know what he is doing with the money and does not know where he is going.
Air Canada is buying up the aircraft manufacturing business. It will buy out de Havilland and tie itself down to one type of aircraft. The Minister of Finance knows very well that this idea of STOL aircraft will not work. This scheme to operate STOL aircraft between Montreal and Ottawa is not a workable scheme. There is some suggestion that we should build another airport just north of Montreal. We do not need another airport in downtown Montreal and we do not need another one in downtown Ottawa. It is only a 20-minute drive between the present airport in Ottawa and Parliament Hill, traffic permitting, and we certainly do not need another airport here.
When you come right down to it, with fuel costs going up in the world the way they have been it is cheaper to move poeple by train over relatively short distances. I think the cost of moving people by air versus train is about 15 to 1. We are spending millions of dollars deciding whether or not we need a new airport at Pickering. Mr. MacMillan has suggested that if we give him the $800 million required to build this airport at Pickering, he will build straight track between Montreal and Toronto and beat the airlines all the way in moving people. I believe he could do so.
We have been caught up with this air transport idea. We have said to heck with the railways, we must give Air Canada all the money it wants for all the expensive aircraft it needs. I am not particularly impressed by the new 1011. Many reports have suggested that this aircraft is not going to prove workable. I read about one the other day flying into Calgary two and a half hours late. I suggest in fact this aircraft has flown into Calgary late more often than on time. What the problem is I really do not know, but I question this expenditure for the purchase of the 1011 type aircraft. This is a new type and Air
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada Canada felt it had to have it, so it put in an order for a lot of them. I suggest that the most popular type of aircraft in the United States for years is a type that Air Canada is just now beginning to buy. It has just placed orders for this type, so it is behind the times. Again I have the idea that socialism stifles thinking; it does not expand it. Socialism will never have the capability that free enterprise possesses given an equal opportunity. Certainly, it will never have the capability of free enterprise as long as we have governments that cannot make up their minds.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) announced, I think in 1972, that the government intended to purchase 30 per cent of the de Havilland company in relation to this STOL scheme. I think this was an election announcement. I saw that at the time as an election gimmick designed for the voters of Montreal, and I saw it as a wrong step. He and I normally agree on most things.


Mr. Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Now we know where you stand Flora.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: -but this was a wrong step for the government to be taking, and I said at the time that the STOL aircraft program was wrong, was unworkable and that the government would end up owning de Havilland. That is exactly what is going to happen.
The STOL scheme will certainly not work between Ottawa and Montreal or, for that matter, between any other cities of comparable size, because over a distance of 300 or 400 miles the cheapest way to move passengers today, with fuel costs going up, is by rail. We have to take a new look at this idea of building new track, even in eastern Canada. When I speak of fuel costs, let me point out that Air Canada is implementing an 11 per cent increase in fares to cover the additional cost of fuel. Officials of Air Canada told the committee that fuel costs amount to 11 per cent of its expenditures. I see the Speaker just waiting to get to his feet, so I will finish just this one sentence.


John Napier Turner: Let him finish the sentence.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would like permission to complete the point I was about to make.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I appreciate the generosity of the House, Mr. Speaker. The point I was making was that representatives of Air Canada told the committee that of its total cost the fuel costs amounted to 11 per cent. If fuel costs increase or if they should double, this does not necessarily mean that Air Canada must increase its fares by 11 per cent. If so, there must be something wrong with their mathematics. They must be using some new method of mathematics. It is impossible for Air Canada's costs to increase by 11 per cent because of this, if its total cost attributed to fuel is only 11 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what I want the government to do is so clear and straightforward I can say it in a very few minutes. I suspect the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) knows what

April 3, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
I am about to say. In fact, he told me a while ago he could make the speech himself. My answer to him is I hope he will go out and make the speech to the Canadian National and also to the Canadian Pacific. Mr. Speaker, this is the third day of April. Here we are into the fourth month of 1974 and there has not yet been any 1974 cost of living escalation in respect of the pensions of retired railway workers either Canadian National or Canadian Pacific. Almost all pensioners whose pension plans are under the aegis of the federal government are now receiving cost of living escalation benefits and in all cases where those benefits are paid they no longer are limited to 2 per cent per year but are made equal to the actual percentage increase in the cost of living.
The Canadian National is an emanation of this government. We are now in the process of voting the Canadian National a rather large sum of money. I contend it is time for the government to tell the Canadian National to get in step with other government operations. It is also my view and that of my party that the Canadian Pacific Railway, although it is called a private company, is at work in the public domain, exists because of public support, and should be told likewise. In other words my request, my insistence, is that the government use its authority, its muscle if necessary, on behalf of the retired railway workers both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific and any others such as those who draw their benefits from the old provident fund or who were employed by some of the companies scattered around the country.
I am aware of the fact that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) on several occasions promised the appointment of a commissioner to examine into all aspects of railway pensions having in mind both the pension provisions for those still working and the pensions of those retired. That is good. I want to see that implemented just as soon as possible and when the commissioner goes to work he can deal with such questions as the formula for calculating railway pensions, which ought to be on the basis of 2 per cent for each year of service. He can also deal with the question of the amount of pension that is payable to a widow and other such changes as need to be made.
But, Mr. Speaker, we do not need to wait for a commissioner for the word to be delivered to these two major railways systems that the railway pensioners should not be asked to wait any longer for a 1974 cost of living escalation. The word I get-you know, we sometimes get word which is correct or may not be totally correct-is that the Canadian National is ready to provide a cost of living escalation and is prepared to do so in accordance with the rise in the cost of living and not just 2 per cent. However, for some reason or other the Canadian National is holding back. One speculative reason is that the CPR does not want to go along. I do not think the CNR should wait for the CPR. On the other hand, I think the government should talk to both of them. I plead very strongly, as I have on other occasions over the past several decades, for the rights of our railway pensioners.
We thought we had won the battle for the right of an annual escalation of pensions. This is happening now with a great many cases. I think it is completely unfair, extremely wrong and a case of a miscarriage of justice, if you will, that these retired persons, widows and others

have to wait for the escalation of their pensions. I plead therefore with the government not just that the Minister of Finance can say he knew what I was going to say but that he use his muscle as Minister of Finance when he delivers to the Canadian National this money we are voting and say to Norman MacMillan and the CNR, "Increase the pensions of your retired employees in accordance with the rise in the cost of living; we want no monkey work and no delay".


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I gave an undertaking to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) that I would make a few comments. I have listened to most of the debate and have read it all. I think the two carriers concerned, the Canadian National Railways and the CPR, will get the message contained in what members of this House are saying about the service and prospects of these two carriers. I was asked by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre about my views concerning the recapitalization of the CNR and Air Canada. I am stating now my own personal views because the government has not really had an opportunity to focus on this. However, I should like to see both Air Canada and the CNR recapitalized and I would like to see their structure separated, getting down once again to my personal views as I gave them to the committee sometime ago.
My responsibility under this bill of course is merely global in the sense that I have responsibility to the government, and to the people, to try to reconcile the various charges on the public purse in terms of direct expenditures and authority for loans. Within the general priorities of the railroad or Air Canada, yes, I have some responsibility. With regard to the direct transportation aspects, the policy of transportation and so on, under the statute, that responsibility lies with the Minister of Transport. I will convey what I have heard to him and thank the House for its usual stimulus.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister would permit a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, if I may I should like to ask the minister, in the areas of the CNR financing bill for which he is responsible, if he would be good enough to make representation to the management and boards of directors of both corporations that they should change their priorities for expenditures to areas such as rolling stock, locomotives and improvements to trackage. This money is not needed for hotels and needles rising up into the sky.


John Napier Turner: I will suggest to them in the strongest terms that they read not only what the hon. member has said, but what other members of the House have said their priorities ought to be.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With the unanimous consent of the House, I would like to ask a
April 3, 1974

question of our very knowledgeable Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
Bill C-5 provides the Canadian National Railway Company with an authorization to raise a loan. Can the minister tell the House under what conditions these loans have been raised by the company last year, since he does not know about this year? Particularly, what was the interest rate, over how many years is the reimbursement spread and what are the general conditions of repayment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, one of the
purposes of this bill is to allow Air Canada and the Canadian National Railway Company to borrow from the government at interest rates much lower than the commercial ones. In fact, they borrow from the government at an interest rate equivalent to the one paid by the government on Treasury bills, plus a provision for administration costs.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, since these loans are indeed granted by the Department of Finance, I imagine that the minister knows the rate at which the government grants loans to Crown corporations in general, and it is precisely that rate that I would like to know, if possible, for last year, for instance.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there were variations from 6 to 8 per cent in the interest rate for 1973 Treasury bills.


André-Gilles Fortin: I would like to make a comment, Mr. Speaker. Since Bill C-5 provides that the Canadian Parliament shall vote an amount of $225,000,000 to meet operating expenditures of the company and since, on the other hand, it is public funds that we are going to vote, that the Canadian government lends public money to that company and that company reimburses the government with public money, I would ask the Minister of Finance whether he does not find it ridiculous that Canadians lend money at a prohibitive interest rate while they could do so at an administrative rate, because the Minister of Finance would not lend money to himself at such a high interest rate.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the theory which the hon. member knows quite well, but I will say in any case that there is a legal difference between the Canadian National Railways and the government.
In short, I do not lend the money myself, I am the trustee of the Canadian taxpayer.


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If legally, the government, as stated by the Minister of Finance, is empowered to lend at 6, 7 or 8 per cent, I would ask the minister, in all honesty, why is he not entitled to lend at 1V4 or 2 per cent?


John Napier Turner: Because it is provided in the legislation, Mr. Speaker.


André-Gilles Fortin: We are here to amend the law.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada [English]


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has again raised the problem of pensions which are currently under negotiation, a problem which is causing a great deal of concern. However, I presume that this matter will be satisfactorily settled.
The manner in which we have carried out this financing of Canadian National and Air Canada over the years really does not seem to be in the interests of developing an adequate transportation system. In this piece of legislation we are repeating the sins of 30 years ago. We are allowing Air Canada to go into commerce an investment portfolio. If ever there was anything which loused up transportation and ended Pierre Burton's dream it was when the railway companies ceased to be railway companies and became investors in everything from land to hotels, to the point where today we do not have adequate rail service to meet our needs, either from the CNR, the CPR, or from both of them in combination.
Now, we are going to allow Air Canada to open its own investment portfolio, and we will lend it the money to do so. It seems idiotic that we should repeat the mistake that we made with the railroads, and that we should not learn from our history in that regard. It might be advantageous for the minister himself to set up another Comstock company, or to manufacture airplanes, but I certainly hope he will not allow Air Canada to do this. Air Canada will never go back to using either the single engine or twin engine Otter, and therefore I do not see any reason why it should become involved in the manufacture of such planes.
I also suggest that if Air Canada is not able to make money on the charter business itself, then the least it should do is buy Wardair out, particularly if Wardair has all the expertise in that field. Why have Air Canada just invested in that company? Why not buy it out completely? Most people believe Air Canada was established and financed by the government to provide service by flying airplanes on behalf of the Canadian people. It was not really set up to make a profit. I repeat that it was set up to provide service to people, but with every day that goes by it is drifting further and further away from that objective.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who represents a rural area somewhat similar to mine, is well aware of the problem we face in air transportation. Really, the government has no air transport policy. It has established an air committee which decides on who gets the licenses. Under the Canadian Transport Act, the minister has the right to override such decisions, and occasionally does so, although so far as I am concerned this is not necessarily done in the interests of the public but for rather obscure reasons.
Air Canada and all other major carriers are well supervised, but this does not hold true with respect to the lower categories. For years Air Canada had to fly from the west through Kapuskasing, North Bay, through to Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, but for a number of years it has not had a connecting route from Northern Ontario to western Canada. The only exception was a route between Toronto and Montreal going through the northland of Quebec and Ontario. But it was interesting when a third class carrier
1138

April 3, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada made an application, and that application was granted, little support was given by Air Canada to see that that carrier received the same assistance that is provided to a national carrier in an integrated system.
In my part of Ontario we make our air reservations through a Zenith number, using Air Canada. Air Canada can make an arrangement for reservations with Nor-OntAir which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northland Transportation, and therefore of the Ontario government. For the other carrier operating between Sudbury, North Bay and Ottawa, Air Canada connot and will not make arrangements for connections. One has to make reservations from northern Ontario via Sudbury and Toronto to Ottawa. This may add to statistics but it does not do anything to transport people in northern Ontario. If a service were available through the national carrier who is already part of the intervention in the transfer of passengers, the people of the north would use it.
Several months ago in committee we heard the president of Air Canada speak about this, and he said that it would not pay to put a service between Montreal, Ottawa and Sudbury. Nordair, the regional carrier is an integral part of our system and should be given the same kind of treatment which would allow them to fulfil a role in an organized and orderly fashion. When Air Canada said they were not prepared to provide the service, Nordair made an application and now we understand that Air Canada is going to apply as well and probably will put in a service from Montreal, Ottawa, Sudbury, Thunder Bay and on to Winnipeg via a northern route.
We have provided Air Canada with money and cushy jobs on the board of directors, although the president does not seem to really know what they do. Perhaps the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) should have all these vicepresidents removed rather than provide $3 million to buy expertise from Max Ward. If we really need the knowledge that Wardair has in order to run a charter system for Air Canada, let us hire Mr. Ward and some others and make them vice-presidents or even the president of Air Canada. If we have a subsidiary, let us make it possible for it to make more money than it is making now or we will just be using it to provide Air Canada with a class of traffic that it is not able to carry now.
After next June, the minister will be introducing another CNR financing bill. We have probably been involved in this exercise three times in 1973-74 and hon. members would be interested in knowing how the financing is being used. Hon. members will agree that railways in Canada should be operated for the service of Canadians, whether with passenger service or freight and other services normally provided by a railroad. But now we are building all kinds of assets for the Canadian National Railways such as this needle that has been mentioned. Now, it may be that with a mast on top it will provide a new public communications system but, Mr. Speaker, that is not running a railroad. In the early days, telephone lines were laid along the railways and therefore the railways got into the communications field. There may be some merit in this, but I think they spend more time on it than they do on developing their services.

One of these days the railroads will be nationalized as public utilities. They will operate trains and probably have stations and maintain track. This bill will not accomplish any of those things but is going to create for Air Canada the same problems that were created for the Canadian National Railways. It is for this reason, Mr. Speaker, that I am opposed to the passage of this bill. Probably it is a necessary bill although there was a three-year period when the railways operated without the bill being passed and seemed to manage quite well. I suggest to hon. members that if we examine the operation of our railways and national air service, we will find many deficiencies in the service. It is not so much the money involved in paying for the transportation that concerns us but what we get for that money. We have not received much for it over the last 20 years. If we allow Air Canada to have an investment portfolio they, too, will fritter away whatever small brain power there is at the top of the organization through developing things not connected with air transportation.


Mr. Deputy  Speedier@: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which reads as follows:
Government House Ottawa, April 3, 1974
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that The Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., LL.M., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, April 3, 1974, at 5:45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Brigadier-General Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.
April 3, 1974

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of the honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Deputy Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Royal Assent
Mr. Deputy Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-17, an Act to amend the Veterans' Land Act-Chapter 3
Bill C-264, an Act respecting the Eastern Canada Synod of the Lutheran Church in America.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 6:07 the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
27451-9*

Thursday, April 4, 1974