1974-04-01

OFFICIAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
SECOND SESSION-TWENTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT 23 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under the authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada Available from Information Canada, Ottawa, Canada
1013
[Stage Direction]
Monday, April 1, 1974


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, today Newfoundland completes 25 years as a province of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is obvious that all hon. members join me in expressing congratulations and offering best wishes to the people of Newfoundland on this happy and historic occasion.

At midnight on March 31, 1949 that old dream of the Fathers of Confederation finally came true. The oldest settlement in North America became the newest Canadian province and we then understood the meaning of the words "A mari usque ad mare."
Newfoundland has made appreciable progress during its first twenty-five years as a Canadian province and this is a source of satisfaction for all of us. It is also a source of satisfaction to have the irrefutable proof that Newfoundlanders have considerably enriched our national life. [English]
With their rich traditions, their centuries old distinctive culture, their strong, independent spirit and their many talents, Newfoundlanders have made a very significant contribution in virtually every sphere of Canadian endeavour. I am sure this will continue to be the case for during the past 25 years Newfoundlanders have been loyal and dedicated Canadians. They have a deep commitment to national unity. Yet, no group offers clearer proof that it is possible in Canada for people of varied and differing backgrounds who have common objectives to work for the advancement of national purposes, while at the same time maintaining their individuality and their affection for their special and unique heritage. We all hope that Newfoundlanders will never lose these qualities and, knowing them as we do, there is scant likelihood that they will.
Several among us have enjoyed from time to time the generous hospitality for which Newfoundlanders are so rightly known. A greater number of Canadians will
undoubtedly make that experience during the year of their 25th anniversary. Among them will be the members of the federal cabinet, because we have decided to underline that important event of Canadian history by holding a meeting of the cabinet in St. John's on June 24, 1974.

This celebration affords yet another opportunity for us to remind ourselves of our great good fortune in this richly diversified land. During the past few years we have observed our national centennial, as well as similar anniversaries in Manitoba, British Columbia and Prince Edward Island.
Now, our youngest province has very much come of age and all members will join with me in saying to the people of Newfoundland that we wish them well in the future, and that it is good to know that we will continue to work together to achieve a stronger, more united Canada of which Newfoundland now forms such an important part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, this is a great anniversary in the history of our nation, and I join with the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in expressing the appreciation of all Canadians for what it has meant to our nation to have Newfoundland, as he said, complete Canada from sea to sea.
It is worthy of note that 25 years ago in this House the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent spoke of what it would mean to Canada to have Newfoundland join with us. Only two members in the House of Commons today were here when confederation was indeed completed, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: At that time Mr. St. Laurent became, as it were, a belated Father of Confederation. It was his leadership that made possible the agreement that was entered into some months before the terms of union. At that time he said:
We are taking a major step in the life of Newfoundland and of all Canada. The people of the nine older provinces and those of Newfoundland are equally aware that one circumstance that has contributed to union is our common loyalty to His Majesty the King. That common loyalty will continue to be one of the most important forces in the life of our united nation.
I mention that as the only living Canadian who is a member of Her Majesty's Imperial Privy Council. Indeed, what the then Prime Minister said was pregnant with thought and powerful in its prophesy, for Newfoundland has been associated with the British Crown since Sir Humphrey Gilbert proclaimed the sovereignty of Elizabeth the First. Through all those centuries the loyalty and devotion of Newfoundlanders to the Crown have become a byword.

April 1, 1974
Newfoundland
My mind goes back to July 1, 1916, when Newfoundland, on that historic occasion at the opening of the battle of the Somme, wrote its name on the records of valor for all time to come. In the intervening years, as the Prime Minister has said, all of us have enjoyed something of the fervour, the strength, the character and the frankness of the Newfoundlander.
Others had a dream of confederation with Newfoundland. Sir John A. Macdonald, Georges-Etienne Cartier and George Brown strove to bring it about. The representatives for Newfoundland at the conference in Quebec in 1864 were Frederick Carter, afterwards Sir Frederick, and Ambrose Shea, afterwards Sir Ambrose Shea. They strove to bring about confederation, but in consequence of an election campaign in 1869 their hopes and those of the rest of Canada for the entry of Newfoundland into confederation were rendered of no avail.
Canada earned much with the entry of Newfoundland. I think I can do no better than to quote from one whom I have always regarded as Canada's greatest poet, a Newfoundlander, E. J. Pratt. I was able to obtain this quotation only a moment ago. He said of Newfoundland:
This is their culture, this-their master passion Of giving shelter and of sharing bread.
Of answering rocket signals in the fashion Of losing life to save it. In the spread Of time-the Gilbert-Grenfell-Bartlett span-
The headlines cannot dim their daily story,
Nor calls like London! Gander! Teheran!
Outplay the drama of the sled and dory.
In the modern world but still maintaining the traditions of the past I join with the Prime Minister in saying it was good for Canada to have the Dominion of Canada finally completed in accordance with the hopes of the Fathers of Confederation. God bless Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, one of the
joys of our parliamentary system is to listen to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) agreeing with the right hon. member for Mount Royal (Mr. Trudeau).


John George Diefenbaker: With you joining in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert anticipates me, Mr. Speaker-with me rising on behalf of my colleagues and myself to agree with both of them.
I would find it somewhat presumptuous of me to sing the praises of the Newfoundlanders or, indeed, the praises of any people in any other region of Canada. But it is a fact that as one travels across this country one of the impressive parts of that kind of experience is the indigenous culture, habits and traditions that one finds in each area of Canada, and there is no doubt at all that Newfoundland added a tradition and a culture that were distinct and are distinct in this great country of ours.

I want to make only one other point. The Prime Minister said on behalf of all in this House, and the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert echoed him, that all of us wish the people of Newfoundland well-and so we do. As we wish them well I suggest that we in the parliament of Canada ought to keep in mind that their future welfare will in large measure depend on the success this parliament has in eliminating inequalities in this country and giving people in a province like Newfoundland the same conditions of life and the same opportunity for progress as other parts of the country enjoy.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: I always find it comforting, Mr. Speaker, to be able from time to time to congratulate fellow citizens for wise decisions they have made. In the world of politics, it is easy to criticize the doings of our fellow Canadians, but after 25 years in the Confederation, Newfoundland has shown its dedication and its ever-increasing contribution to Canada.
I would not certainly be able, as the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) did, to remind the House of Newfoundland's entry into Confederation especially since I did not live through it. But before I came to this House I had the opportunity on several occasions, through my work, to communicate rather closely with Newfoundlanders. I can say I gave a bit of myself in Newfoundland in the development of its micro-waves system. But, most of all, I have learned there the joy of living of its people. I think that we, Canadians of the other provinces, can look up to Newfoundlanders, because they are hard workers and do not shun work. Despite the hardships they have experienced at times, Newfoundlanders have managed to remain joyful, and this should be a lesson to us.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Went-worth (Mr. Kempling), the following motion:
That on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the founding of the Royal Canadian Air Force, all members of this House join in congratulating the past and present members of this great service on the contribution they have made to making the Canadian Air Force one of the outstanding air forces in the world, and in so doing have brought great honour to themselves and to their country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings is suggested under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
April 1, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: There is unanimity. The motion is carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that certain journalists in the newspaper business in the province of Alberta are reported to be under investigation by the RCMP, and in view of the fact that some of these reporters have been involved in attempts to organize employees of Alberta newspapers into a trade union organization, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), the following motion:
That this House call upon the government to establish a one-man judicial inquiry into the activities of the RCMP in their reported investigation of these individuals and to report to the government on all matters concerning this case and its affects on the civil rights of the citizens of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the hon. member's motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



FINANCE


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table, in both official languages, the preliminary report concerning private and public investment in Canada, 1974.



MEDICAL RESEARCH GRANTS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 on what I consider to be a matter of very urgent and pressing necessity. Inasmuch as it has been revealed that medical research grants have been reduced, thus seriously undermining research and medical development within this country, with grants to deans of medical colleges having been reduced by 25 per
Information Canada
cent, research scholarships by 35 per cent, and awards to visiting scientists by 50 per cent, and also in view of the fact these grants have not kept pace with the inflation caused by this government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this government immediately take steps to refund medical research grants within this country so that we keep up at least to present medical research.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has some doubts as to whether this motion is in order because of the fact it is not accompanied by a royal recommendation. Motions, even those under Standing Order 43, are subject to all the rules of the House. Because a motion is moved under Standing Order 43 does not mean it can escape the constitutional requirements, particularly the one to which I have just alluded. However, I will simply inquire whether there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



INTER-AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT BANK PARTICIPATION BY CANADIAN DELEGATION IN MEETING-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact a Canadian delegation is taking part in a meeting of the Inter-American Development Bank in Santiago, Chile, thereby lending moral as well as financial support to the military regime in Chile, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House protest Canadian participation in the meeting of the Inter-American Development Bank in Santiago, Chile, and instruct the government to follow the example of the British government and withhold all aid to Chile until the regime in that country accepts common standards of humanity in regard to fundamental human rights.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of recent remarks

April 1, 1974
Order Paper Questions
made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that increases in government expenditures are brought on by public pressure, opposition pressure and pressure from the media, and noting that there has been no public pressure, no opposition pressure and no media pressure to sustain the operations of Information Canada, and in light of the fact that there are 747 current information officers who are already duplicating the work of Information Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the Prime Minister consider the immediate phasing out of Information Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore the motion cannot be put.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Rowland: For each Canadian Forces base, station or other installation, how many ex-military personnel now receiving service pensions are currently employed as public servants in the Department of National Defence and, of these, how many are war veterans?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The information required by this question is not readily available and would necessitate a search of thousands of files. In view of the continuing heavy commitments and workload of departmental personnel officers, additional staff would be required in a large number of CF bases, stations and other installations to compile the data. The department does not have the resources that would be required to employ such additional staff.


NUMBER OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL IN RECEIPT OF PENSIONS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplement added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less then $20 per month (b) $20 to $29.99 per month (c) $30 to $39.99 per
(Mr. McKenzie.]
month (d) $40 to $49.99 per month (e) $50 to $59.99 per month (f) $60 to $69.99 per month (g) $70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80 to $89 99 per month (i) $90 to $99.99 per month (j) $100 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $249.99 per month (m) $250 to $299.99 per month (n) $300 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired Armed Forces personnel and also the number of widows of Armed Forces personnel or of retired Armed Forces personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans or Armed Forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. As of February 28, 1974, the number of retired Armed Forces personnel receiving monthly pensions totalled 41,849 as follows: (a) Less than $20.00, 42; (b) $20 to $29.99, 70; (c) $30 to $39.99, 136; (d) $40 to $49.99, 252; (e) $50 to $59.99, 248; (f) $60 to $69.99, 207; (g) $70 to $79.99, 288; (h) $80 to $89.99, 379; (i) $90 to $99.99, 499; (j) $100 to $149.99, 3,257; (k) $150 to $159.99, 6,496; (1) $200 to $249.99, 7,962; (m) $250 to $299.99, 6,313; (n) $300 and over, 15,700.
2.	The number of widows receiving monthly pensions totalled 4,069 as follows: (a) Less than $20.00, 63; (b) $20 to $29.99, 52; (c) $30 to 39.99, 45; (d) $40 to $49.99, 52; (e) $50 to $59.99, 97; (f) $60 to $69.99, 133; (g) $70 to $79.99, 196; (h) $80 to $89.99, 240; (i) $90 to $99.99, 228; (j) $100 to $149.99, 1,117; (k) $150 to $199.99, 830; (1) $200 to $249.99, 502; (m) $250 to $299.99, 231; (n) $300 and over, 283.
3.	Retired Armed Forces personnel and widows residing in each province;
Provinces	Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	174	14Prince Edward Island	337	33Nova Scotia	3,744	348New Brunswick	1,376	145Quebec	3,598	417Ontario	16,867	1,778Manitoba	1,764	176Saskatchewan	531	75Alberta	3,406	274British Columbia	8,775	665Territories	78	4Outside Canada	1,199	140Number of orphans, 91.	Average monthly	amount,


$45.59. DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES OF SPEECHES MADE BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,827 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament, what are the names and addresses of the 1,845 people to whom copies of addresses by the Minister of Agriculture to Liberal Party meetings were printed and distributed at public expense?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The 1,845 copies of addresses by the Minister of Agriculture to all public meetings are distributed as follows to: News media, 376; Members of Parliament, 307; Senators, 102; Provincial government and their employees, 283; Agriculture Canada
April 1, 1974

employees (including extra copies to fill requests), 224; Other federal departments and agencies, 72; Individual members of the general public, 269; Organizations and associations, 82; Businesses, 62; Universities, 29; Diplomatic Corps, 22; Libraries, 17; Total, 1,845.


CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI-PURPOSE EXHIBITION PROGRAM
Mr. Gleave: 1.	How much of the $10 million program for the construction of multi-purpose exhibition buildings, announced by the Minister of Finance in the House on October 14, 1971, has been allocated?
2.	What is the provincial allocation of money under this program?


Eugene Whelan: 1. There were $5,561,150 committed by signed loan agreements during the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73.
Order Paper Questions
2. There was no stipulation under the program that specific amounts be set out for each province.


TENDERS FOR CONTRACTS FOR LIFEBOATS
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Were public tenders called for the contract awarded to Eastern Equipment Limited of Lachine, Quebec, for the supply of four 44-foot shorebased lifeboats, as required by the Department of Transport and, if so, how many companies tendered for this contract?
2.	What were the names of the companies and the amounts of their bids?
3.	What was the value of the contract as awarded to Eastern Equipment Limited of Lachine, Quebec?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. Tenders were called on July 27, 1973 (closing date October 17, 1973) and three companies submitted tenders.
2. The tenders were publicly opened in Ottawa on October 17, 1973, the bids were as listed below:
Company
Eastern Equipment Ltd. Lachine, Que.
P.E.I. Lending Authority, Georgetown Shipyard, P.E.I.
Caraquet Marine Industries Ltd., Caraquet, N.B.
Bid
(evaluated Total)

(vessels only) $
1,062,000
1,032,000
1,216,332	1,187,132
1,221,985	1,198,000
3. Value of the contract awarded to Eastern Equipment Ltd., $1,039,271.32 as detailed below:
Cost of Ships	Tender Price $1,032,000.00
Less: Design Check (cancelled)	17,000.00

Plus: One Set of Machinery and
Electrical Spares	5,452.32
Four Sets of Electronic Spares	18,819.00


$1,039,271.32 ACCIDENTS INVOLVING FEDERALLY SUPERVISED BUS TRAFFIC
Mr. Forrestall: For each of the past five years, what has been (a) the number of accidents involving federally supervised bus traffic on Canadian highways (b) the number of such accidents that involved fatal injuries (c) the number of fatalities?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: There are no federally supervised bus services. The Motor Vehicle Transport Act (1954) assigns federal responsibility in this area to the provincial motor carrier regulatory boards.


ACCIDENTS INVOLVING SHIPS IN CANADA'S COASTAL WATERS
Mr. Forrestall: For each of the past five years, what has been (a) the number of accidents involving ships in Canada's coastal waters (b) the number of such accidents that involved fatalities (c) the number of fatalities?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Total Marine Accidents Involving Commercial and Fishing Vessels in Canadian and Adjacent Waters as Reported to the Canadian Ministry of Transport
1969	1970	1971	1972	1973(a)	Number of vessels involved	401	438	420	460	417(b)	Number of accidents involving fatalities	20	17	13	13	9(c)	Number of fatalities	36	50	62	34	15
Note: The foregoing total number of vessels involved in accidents include all incidents in which a vessel reported any degree of damage.
1018

April 1, 1974
Order Paper Questions


ACCIDENTS INVOLVING FEDERALLY SUPERVISED TRUCK TRANSPORT
Mr. Forrestall: For each of the past five years, what has been the (a) number of accidents involving federally supervised truck transport (b) number of such accidents that involved fatal injuries (c) number of such fatalities?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: There is no federally supervised truck transport. The Motor Vehicle Transport Act (1954) assigns federal responsibility in this area to the provincial motor carrier regulatory boards.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-GROSS TAKE HOME PAY
Mr. Forrestall: By rank, for officers and men, what percentage of gross pay to Canadian Armed Forces personnel was actually taken home by CAF personnel in 1963, 1968, 1972, and 1973?


James Armstrong Richardson: To provide the information as requested by rank, would entail heavy expenditure in terms of man hours and dollars, and in view of the heavy commitments and workload of the department, these resources are not available. However, the following information may provide the required comparison.
	Officers	Men
	percent	percent
1963	84	881968	77	831972	74	791973	73	79
Note: The above data represents gross pay less deduction for income tax, pension, supplementary death benefits and unemployment insurance.


AMOUNT PAID INTO CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND BY CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
Mr. Forrestall: With reference to Article 47 of the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1973 (a) where is the $2,724,000 which the Auditor General feels should have been paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Canadian Commercial Corporation (b) to whom is that money available now (c) is that money currently gaining interest and, if so, at what rate?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: (a) The money was disbursed by the Canadian Commercial Corporation in repayment of authorized advances from the Defence Production Revolving Fund, (b) To the Department of Supply and Services, responsible for the administration of the Defence Production Revolving Fund in accordance with the Defence Production Act. (c) No.
[Mr. Guay (St. Boniface).J


TAX REVIEW BOARD PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Tax Review Board on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: 1. 1972-73, none; 1973-74 to date, $237.22.
2.	St. Catharines Standard, St. Catharines, Ontario, $54.72. Notice of sittings for appeals. Kitchener-Waterloo Record, Kitchener, Ontario, $65. Notice of sittings for appeals. The Spectator, Hamilton, Ontario, $117.50. Notice of sittings for appeals.
3.	Not applicable.


MILK SUBSIDY
Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the Prime Minister's statement of September 4 as recorded at page 6,184 of Hansard that there will be a milk subsidy of five cents per quart, for what reason has there been a recent one cent a quart increase in the Province of British Columbia, with a further one cent increase to be put in effect January, 1974?


Eugene Whelan: The
agreement between Canada and British Columbia regarding the federal consumer milk subsidy provides for price changes to the consumer only when the cost, as determined by the legal formula under the British Columbia Milk Industry Act, changes by about one cent per quart. Such a cost change occurred and the consumer price thus changed by one cent. Thus throughout the life of the agreement the consumer will be paying five cents less per quart than would have been the case had the federal government not put this program in place.


INVOLUNTARY STERILIZATION OF PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS
Mr. Rowland: 1.	Is the involuntary sterilization of persons undergoing psychiatric care permitted and, if so, is consideration being given to amending the Criminal Code so as to render such practices illegal?
2.	Has the involuntary sterilization of persons under psychiatric care been carried out in Canada in the past five years and, if so, in what jurisdictions and in what numbers?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Justice and National Health and Welfare as follows: 1. This question seeks a legal opinion and, therefore, may not be answered.
2. Only the provinces can provide a reply to this question as they have sole jurisdiction over the treatment of those under psychiatric care. Sterilization performed in National Health and Welfare hospitals occurs after the written and signed consent of the patient and the spouse has been obtained. This consent is granted by the person affected and the spouse only after a full explanation has been given them.
April 1, 1974


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE EXPENDITURES AND NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	For the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 what amount of the total expenditures for the Department of Agriculture were spent (a) outside of Canada (b) within Canada (c) in each of the 10 provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?
2.	(a) What was the total number of employees in the Department of Agriculture as of March 31, 1973 (b) how many of those employees would be considered employees of the headquarters and are employed on the (i) Quebec side of the national capital (ii) Ontario side of the national capital (c) how many employees does the Department have in each of the 10 provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Eugene Whelan: 1.
	1971-72	1972-73
	($000s)	($000s>
615	487
	255,498	281,887
Newfoundland	865	1,169Prince Edward Island	3,868	4,218Nova Scotia	3,370	3,455New Brunswick	6,411	7,088Quebec	60,653	80,122Ontario	89,970	102,530Manitoba	17,130	18,945Saskatchewan	14,716	17,014Alberta	22,772	27,234British Columbia	11,396	13,360unallocated as to province	24,347	6,752
2. As of February 28, 1973: (a) 10,614 (b) (i) 135 (ii) 2,536 (c) Newfoundland, 95; Nova Scotia, 279; Prince Edward Island, 207; New Brunswick, 397; Quebec, 1,341; Ontario, 4,511; Manitoba, 882; Saskatchewan, 846; Alberta, 1,115; British Columbia, 941.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AGRICULTURE MANPOWER AGREEMENT
Mr. Laprise: Is there any agreement between the government and the government of the province of Quebec concerning farm manpower and, if so, on what date was this agreement signed and for what period of time?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Yes, there is such an agreement concerning farm manpower. The federal-provincial Agricultural Manpower Agreement for fiscal year 1973-74 was entered into by signature of the Quebec Minister of Agriculture and Colonization on June 29, 1973, for the period covering April 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974.


IMPORT OF TURKEYS
Mr. Howie: What was the volume of turkeys imported into Canada from the USA during the period January 1 to March 1 in each year 1972, 1973 and 1974?


Mr. Rayrtald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Statistics Canada
Order Paper Questions
reports that: Statistics on imports of turkeys are not tabulated separately in the Canadian trade totals but are included in a "basket" category entitled "Live poultry not elsewhere specified". This class includes ducks, geese, guinea and other fowls but excludes baby chicks, turkey poults and game birds (partridges, pigeons, wild ducks). Shown on the table below are figures for the above class as well as for the turkey poults which were imported from the United States in January and February of 1972 and 1973 and January 1974. The statistics for February 1974 are not yet available.
"Turkey poults"	Number Imported from

January and February 1972	27,390
January and February 1973	89,650
January 1974	150,268
"Live poultry n.e.s."
January and February 1972	133,690
January and February 1973	198,284
January 1974	140,810


AVAILABILITY OF REFRIGERATOR CARS
Mr. Howie: 1.	How many refrigerator cars were available for rail transportation of agricultural products on January 1 in each year 1972, 1973 and 1974?
2.	How many refrigerator cars were purchased by CNR or CPR from January to December 31, 1973?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. CNR and CP Rail combined inventory of mechanical refrigerator freight cars is 1529; 1513 and 1506 as of January 1 of years 1972, 1973 and 1974 respectively. However, this does not include the rail fleet used exclusively to move agricultural products requiring heat protection in the winter and/or ventilation in the summer.
2. Nil.


BEEF IMPORTS
Mr. Diefenbaker: How many pounds of beef have been imported from (a) the United States (b) Australia (c) elsewhere month by month since July 1, 1973?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, in view of the lengthy reply I have to give, I would like to ask/that it be considered as read into our official report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: Text of foregoing reply reads as follows:]
Statistics Canada reported as follows:
Statistics on imports of beef by month since July 1, 1973 from the United States, Australia and elsewhere are shown in the table below. The figures include fresh and frozen beef and veal, cured beef, canned corned beef and
27451-2.1

April 1, 1974
Order Paper Questions
other canned beef and veal. Imports of sausage are not included since a distinction is not made in the data between the pork and beef variety.
Imports of Beef July-December, 1973
		- pounds	-	
Month	U.S.	Australia	Others	TotalJuly	3,422,600	7,830,500	108,347,600	119,600,700August	4,091,800	4,451,800	84,018,100	92,561,700September	3,010,800	4,959,900	77,346,400	85,317,100October	6,312,900	6,866,600	94,376,000	107,555,500November	4,362,900	26,222,700	113,695,600	144,281,200December*	3,205,900	9,274,300	60,624,300	73,104,500
*Most recent data available.


John George Diefenbaker: Provided the answer is to appear in Hansard. If it is to be shunted off Hansard, I object.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the question asked by the right hon. member was whether the answer would appear in Hansard. The answer to that inquiry is yes.


DISTRIBUTION OF ADDRESS MADE BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AT STE. ANNE, MANITOBA
Mr. Cossitt: Was a political address made by the Minister of Agriculture to the meeting of the Provencher Liberal Association, Ste. Anne, Manitoba on Monday, March 11, 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?


Eugene Whelan: No. (a) to
(c) not applicable.


VETERANS AFFAIRS-PENSIONS IN EXCESS OF 48 PER CENT
Mr. Dick: 1.	What percentage of the veterans receiving a disability pension have been getting more than 48 per cent?
2.	How many of that percentage have been called in by the Canadian Pension Commission and had their pension reviewed and increased?
Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): 1. 19.69 per cent.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1. How many retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20 per month (b) $20 to $29.99 per month (c) $30 to $39.99 per month (d) $40 to $49.99 per month (e) $50 to $59.99 per

month (f) $60 to $69.99 per month (g) $70 to $79.99 per month (h) $80 to $89.99 per month (i) $90 to $99.99 per month (j) $100 to $149.99 per month (k) $150 to $199.99 per month (1) $200 to $249.99 per month (m) $250 to $299.99 per month (n) $300 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired RCMP personnel and also the number of widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of RCMP personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?
Return tabled.


NUMBER OF CANADIAN ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL IN RECEIPT OF PENSIONS, 1959 TO 1973
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	In each year 1959 to 1973, both inclusive (a) how many personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces have commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (b) how many widows have commenced drawing pensions under the said Act?
2.	In each year 1959 to 1973, both inclusive, how many pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (a) to retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel (b) to widows of such personnel, have been discontinued because of the death of the annuitant?
3.	In each year 1946 to 1973, both inclusive, how many service personnel contributed to the pension or annuity account under the former Part V or under the provisions of the present Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?
Return tabled.


NAMES OF ADVERTISING AGENCIES USED BY DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs since the present Minister assumed his portfolio?
2.	(a) What are the amounts of all advertising contracts given such agencies during this period of time, what are the dates such contracts were awarded and in each case, were tenders or competitive presentations of any kind requested and, if not, who authorized in each case the expenditure of public funds without such tenders or competitive presentations (b) in each case, what was the general subject matter of the advertising contract?
3.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs during the term of the Minister's immediate predecessor and if any of these agencies has not been used since then, for what reason and on whose decision were changes made?
Return tabled.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD BUDGET 1960 TO 1973
Mr. McKinnon: For each year 1960 to 1973 (a) how much was the budget for the National Film Board (b) how much were the sales receipts (c) how many employees has the National Film Board had for each year and, of these, how many were employed in the sales department?
Return tabled.
April 1, 1974


DEPARTMENT OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Supply and Services on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Return tabled.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT RESEARCH EXPENDITURES
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by the Post Office Department on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister prepared to table in the House the Canadian note delivered to the United States State Department suggesting a program of alternative options and proposals aimed at keeping oil tankers away from the coast of British Columbia and particularly out of the Strait of Juan de Fuca?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to table this note. However, out of courtesy to the United States government I think they should have an opportunity to study its contents before I do so. It will be my purpose to table the note in a few days time.


Donald W. Munro: In light of the fact that in reply to my question about tanker routes on February 23, 1973, the minister stated: "Whether the tankers should go to another point farther down the United States coast is a matter for the United States itself to decide", and noting that the Canadian government has now offered alternative routes to the United States for tankers unloading Alaskan oil for the refineries at Cherry Point, may I
Oral Questions
ask whether this recent action of the government in presenting a note to the U.S. State Department on this matter represents a change in government policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. It will still be for the United States to decide. I have never said at any time that I would hesitate to make recommendations.


Donald W. Munro: Can the minister confirm that one alternative for U.S. tankers off-loading oil for the Cherry Point refineries is the option of setting up a terminal site offshore with an undersea pipeline to the refineries?


Mitchell William Sharp: This has always been one possibility. When I table the note in a few days time, the hon. member and the House will be able to see the alternatives we have put forward.


INCOME TAX
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the report he tabled on Friday, the so-called review of the corporate tax measures. Would the minister agree to table the names of the 1,088 corporations to which the questionnaire was sent and the names of those corporations that replied? I am not asking that any of the replies be tabled, because I understand they were given in confidence. I am asking merely that Members of Parliament be given the names of the corporations that replied and the names of those to which the questionnaire was sent. Perhaps the names could be grouped in accordance with the categories set up by Statistics Canada in its census of manufacturers.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I see no
reason why that cannot be done.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO END PROFITEERING BY CORPORATIONS-REVIEW OF TAX INCENTIVES
David Lewis: In view of the fact that 47.2 per cent of the replies stated that the tax measures would have little or no effect on the prices of their products, and in view of a very recent report from Statistics Canada-I believe it was issued only last Saturday-that profits after taxes in 1973 increased by an astounding 42 per cent over 1972, I ask the minister whether he will present to parliament specific measures to end this profiteering at the expense of the consumer, despite the $1.5 billion in tax concessions he made available to the manufacturers in 1973 and 1974?


John Napier Turner: By way of
preamble, Mr. Speaker, may I say the hon. gentleman's figures are not right. It is true a proportion of the replies from corporations said that in the short term the measures would not have an immediate effect on their pricing policies. That would depend, of course, on capital investment

April 1, 1974
Oral Questions
increasing the production base, thereby the supply, thereby lowering the unit cost, thereby moderately affecting the pricing base. As for the hon. gentleman's reference to profits, I believe an objective study of the figures which are being shown to the country every day would indicate that, while profits have increased, more funds than are represented by those profits are being reinvested by business in capital expansion. These are the figures, and those are the intentions. Dividends paid after tax have dropped sharply over the average for the past decade. In other words, profits are being used to increase the capital industrial base of this country, thereby increasing employment prospects and moderating the price structure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Every time the Minister of Finance is asked this kind of question he makes the reply of the Canadian Manufacturers Association, which does not surprise me. I wish to ask a supplementary question-a final supplementary, I suppose, for me. In view of the fact that some members of the opposition are hesitant about using the review procedure provided in the law, in order to win support for the legislation of the same members, would the minister himself initiate a review by the House of the tax measures before we continue to make hundreds of millions available to the corporations at the expense of the ordinary Canadian taxpayer?


John Napier Turner: I am far more interested in the jobs these measures are producing. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that I am less interested in the business community than I am in the new jobs they are producing in this country. I want to say to him also that it would not have mattered what had appeared in that report: he and his party had already taken a position before they ever saw the report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The hon. member for York South rises on a point of order. The hon. member for Peace River rises on a point of order. I suggest this is becoming a debate between the minister and the hon. member for York South. We should try to return to the question period. The hon. member for York South rises on a point of order.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was merely going to say that if the minister was going to make a speech, I would demand equal time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Peace River has a point of order.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is that this pillow talk should take place outside the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might return to this debate later.

If the Minister of Finance does not have any objection, we will now return to questions and answers and, for this

purpose, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix.


COMMUNICATIONS
Gilles Caouette: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Can the minister tell us whether his department or himself have arrived at an agreement with Quebec concerning the request made by this province in respect of cable television? If so, what does it consist of?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no agreement on this matter; moreover, I made a statement in this House on motions, about a year ago, concerning the federal government's views on the Quebec Act 35 and the orders that resulted from it.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since there seems to be lack of agreement between Quebec and Ottawa on this matter, is the minister prepared to make it a test case before the courts?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, we have chosen another avenue of agreement with the provinces. We have chosen to meet them one at a time. I am going to start tomorrow and then we will bring them together to see if it is possible to come to an agreement that both complies with federal government jurisdiction and meets provincial needs. I shall report to this House after the consultations have been concluded.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs is supplementary to the questions of my colleague from Esquimalt-Saanich. As the reports of the secret note indicate that the government is suggesting or recommending alternative routes to Cherry Point, and since you can only get to Cherry Point from the open sea by going either north or south of Vancouver Island, the southern route being very dangerous and the northern route impossible, what alternative routes is the government considering?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to correct what the hon. member has said. It is not a secret note; otherwise I would not be giving an undertaking to table it. The hon. member will see from the note when it is tabled that we have suggested changes such as those suggested
April 1, 1974

by his hon. friend in his own party. Perhaps he might consult him too.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Has the government recommended that a site other than Cherry Point should be considered, such as Neah Bay or Grays Harbour?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of alternatives that might be considered.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked the Minister of Finance by the hon. member for York South. Would the Minister of Finance direct that the report on the success of the corporate tax measures be studied by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that the evidence he intends to file in terms of the companies that reported can be studied by the committee in order to find out whether the report has in fact made a proper assessment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the standing committee is always free, of course, to call the public servants who put together that report. I will be appearing on my estimates before the standing committee in short order. The hon. gentleman, who is a member of that committee, will be free to put whatever questions he would like to ask.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for a further supplementary, but hon. members will appreciate that with all these supplementaries we are still on the first or second question. Perhaps we should try to move on a little more quickly. For the moment I will recognize the hon. member for Mississauga.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the minister is undoubtedly familiar with the fact that the standing committees of the House cannot just enter into anything they want without a direction from the minister concerned. Would the minister allow the committee the opportunity independently to study the report so it can find out whether the statements made therein are correct and the tax changes are in fact benefiting the economy and are not just political buffoonery between him and the leader of the New Democratic Party?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



NOTE TO UNITED STATES CONTAINING PROPOSALS


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of his statement a moment ago that in the note which was sent to the State Department of the United States there is a proposal for an offshore terminal at Cherry Point with an underwater pipeline to the refineries, may I ask the minister whether consultations were held with the government of British Columbia before these various options were submitted to the government of the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: 

FINANCE


Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. On March 27 the minister told the Leader of the Official Opposition that as soon as the energy question had been settled he would be presenting a budget to the House. Can the minister tell the House today, in light of the problems the country is facing and the need for a review of economic conditions, when we may expect the budget to come forward?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I said at that time that a budget was not feasible until we analyzed the division of benefits and burdens across the country in fiscal and monetary terms. I also said to the House earlier, in response to an interjection by the hon. member for Crowfoot, that the budget would not be brought in before Easter. I will make an announcement some time after the House reassembles.


James McPhail Gillies: May we reasonably expect that the budget will be brought down before the end of April?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman may have his own expectations buf I will be making an announcement in due course.



WHEAT AND BARLEY-INQUIRY AS TO INTERIM PAYMENT TO FARMERS

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. All over the prairies today farmers are finding themselves in a position where they do not have sufficient money, except by borrowing at 10 to 12 per cent, to provide for needs in

April 1, 1974
Oral Questions
advance of seeding, by the purchase of fertilizer and registered seed. They are asking when they may expect an interim payment on their wheat and barley delivered to the board.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we announced several weeks ago that an adjustment payment would be made subsequent to the raising of initial prices as of March 1. The Canadian Wheat Board informed me on Friday that they expect the cheques for the adjustment payments to go into the mail beginning April 8 and ending April 26. Over that 18-day period the total amount going into the mail by way of adjustment payments is likely to be between $500 million and $550 million.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the minister's answer. Does the fixing of the date as up to April 26 indicate that the payments are to be made just in advance of an election?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. Following the announcement and the decision by the government on the initial payment increase, the timing of the adjustment payments is the total time required by the Canadian Wheat Board to accomplish the actual writing, preparation and mailing of the cheques. Even the mailing of these several hundred thousand cheques, with the most effective and efficient methods, takes several weeks. I am also frequently reminded that the right hon. gentleman and others find an occasion almost every two weeks to judge that there is going to be an election.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Red Deer on a supplementary, followed by the hon. member for Northwest Territories and the hon. member for Vaudreuil.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is not a supplementary but is a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact the province of Alberta has warned wholesalers that DES-tainted meat will be confiscated within its borders, would the minister consider the immediate implementation of severe restrictions on the importation of such meat?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of National Health and Welfare and I have, in answers in the House and outside the House, stated that it is illegal to sell meat that has been implanted with DES or where the animal has had an additive added to its feed in a form of DES. To sell that meat in Canada is illegal.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister be prepared to bring in legislation requiring importers of

United States meat to post a $50,000 bond to be forfeited on conviction for the importation of DES-infected meat?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly want to talk that over with my colleague, the Minister of Agriculture.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the proposed seismic operation on Bathurst Island by Panarctic Oils Limited. In view of the fact the people of Resolute Bay are clearly opposed to this project because of the effects they have observed of oil exploration on the migration of animals on which they depend for their livelihood, will the minister take into account the wishes of the people and reconsider his decision to allow the seismic work to go ahead?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, when the representatives of the Canadian Eskimo Association met me in this regard, they presented me with three requests. I was able to take two favourable decisions. Unfortunately, in the case of Resolute Bay, the opinion of experts did not support that of the Eskimos and, as the work is very limited, we felt that it was not dangerous to grant the permit to Panarctic Oils Limited authorizing them to proceed with a seismographic project of far lesser importance than those performed last year.


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. Can the minister advise whether his decision to allow the winter seismic program by Panarctic Oils on Bathurst Island was made after approval by the Department of the Environment and subject to the environmental impact procedure announced by the Minister of the Environment recently?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is in fact considerable co-operation between my department and that of the Environment. We consult each other every time we are up against a problem, but decisions were taken, as they should, by my department and the Department of the Environment expressed no opposition.


John Allen Fraser: Can the minister advise whether the decision to allow exploration was made after consultation with and approval of the Minister of the Environment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I make the decisions. Naturally, when problems come up, we have consultations with
April 1, 1974

the Department of Environment and in this case that department had no major objection to the work under progress.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, in view of today's reports that technical interpretation was stalling settlement of the SIU strike, is the Minister of Labour continuing his efforts to settle the dispute?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: Give him a promotion.


Mr. Alexander:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Hamilton West rises on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance indicates that this is sour grapes. It is certainly not sour grapes. It is just a matter of seeing that parliament works as it should work. Rather than answer a planted question, the minister should have stood up and indicated that he wished to make a statement. He has the chance now to revert to motions and tell us what has happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vaudreuil on a point of order.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, there are many reasons we ask questions in the House. One is for the purpose of receiving information. This question is asked for the purpose of receiving information. I therefore suggest I am perfectly within my rights in asking the question, and I request that the minister answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question. He was recognized for that purpose, and certainly the minister has a right to reply to the question.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, if I interpret the point of the hon. member for Hamilton West correctly, I am more than happy to ask for the permission of the House to revert to motions. It will be a very short statement indeed, if I have that permission.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
SIU Strike Settlement



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the parties met in intensive sessions since last Thursday night until this morning about ten o'clock almost non-stop. If I may report to the House, Mr. Speaker, I think there were intensive efforts by both parties. Mr. Roman Gralewicz of the SIU excelled himself, I believe, as leader of the union in the negotiations, and management did also. They certainly convinced each other, convinced me and I believe convinced the people of Canada of their desire for settlement and indeed they achieved one. To the degree that either myself or my officials were helpful in promoting this settlement, that is to be expected. I think the settlement was a good one for all concerned. It was 10 per cent in the first year of a two-year agreement and 12 per cent in the second year.
Before some hon. members start raising what may be an apparent argument to them, that this settlement is inflationary, I would point out that they should take into consideration that it is built on a conversion formula and built into a 40-hour week. I think everyone will agree that the hours of overtime were excessive. Also, the past agreement which expired on December 31, 1972 was a three-year agreement. There was a lot of catching up to be done. When one looks at the rates one will agree that these employees were certainly paid at a very low rate. That being the case, on a comparative basis I do not think the settlement can be regarded as an excessive one. Certainly I believe it was fair and equitable in every way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House thank the minister for his statement which he was forced to make. We welcome the statement because a prolonged strike unquestionably would have been detrimental to the public interest, the interest that we as parliamentarians I think should have uppermost in our minds.
The whole question of the collective bargaining process certainly has been brought into question, and I think rightly so. It appears to me that the third party so vitally concerned about what happens in the collective bargaining process is not represented at the bargaining table. This is the reason we must be concerned about arriving at a happy balance between protection of the collective bargaining system, with the time-honoured right to strike and to lock out, and the public interest. There is a need to see that services are provided and goods are moved.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, speaking personally and on behalf of my party may I say that we place a great deal of emphasis on and have an interest in and sympathy for the public interest and the need to have goods moved and services provided without interruption. This is why we believe we should continually be thinking about new methods whereby the collective bargaining process can work-

April 1, 1974
SIU Strike Settlement


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I notice the Prime Minister is pointing. I do not know who brought him into the act.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I was asking if you support the
agreement.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We must continually look for new methods so that the collective bargaining process can work to the satisfaction of the Canadian people. This is why we have taken the position that a public interest disputes commission should be established which would not only assist the Department of Labour in bringing about new techniques in order to help the parties in dispute but would determine what are the essential aspects of services and how we can determine what are the best steps in order to bring about reasonable industrial peace. In closing, I would just say this-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, take more time.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I will take all the time I want until Mr. Speaker tells me to sit down. I appreciate the Prime Minister's intervention. It makes me look like a hot shot when he has to get involved with the hon. member for Hamilton West.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In closing I would just remind the minister-I have every sympathy for him in his job-that he does not have to be too queasy or hesitant about personal intervention, which is what we asked him to do a week ago.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be very short. I have an ingrown suspicion of hon. members who say they want a new way of settling disputes but are all in favour of collective bargaining.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seeks the floor on a point of order. The Chair has recognized the hon. member for York South. The hon. member should indicate why he is seeking the floor now.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I rise on a question of privilege. I resent the leader of the NDP taking what I said out of context. I said we must devise new methods whereby we can make the collective bargaining process work better for the Canadian people. That is what I said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: My suspicions were not at all allayed by the charming interjection of the hon. member for Hamilton West. I happen to know that such ways have been sought for at least half a century, if not longer, and that all these people who are searching for new ways end up in one

place, namely, compulsory arbitration. That is why I have some justified suspicions.
I merely want to say on behalf of my colleagues and myself, without any reservation, that we congratulate the officers of the minister's department who have worked so hard to reach a settlement and the minister himself for the part he has played. The fact that a settlement has been reached which will avoid hardship for parts of our economy and for people in the west merely underlines the value of collective bargaining when all those involved do it with good faith and with hard work.
I am not the slightest bit outraged by the fact that there will be a reduction in the hours of work. At a time of considerable unemployment in the country, to reduce the weekly hours to 40 is desirable not only for humane reasons as the work affects those now engaged in it but also for the purpose of opening jobs for those who are unemployed. I am sure every member of the House is glad that a settlement was reached without the strike continuing but for a few days.


Mr. Speaker:: We will now return to oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister advise us whether he is giving sympathetic consideration to the very reasonable request of the National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation that a senior citizens identification card be issued, and will he give some thought to my humble suggestion that such a card could efficiently be issued with the first cheque sent to every recipient of the old age security pension?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have had a very fruitful meeting with representatives of the pensioners federation. I have had the opportunity of advising them that I asked my department several months ago to study the items they have put forward, and this is under consideration.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw.


Mr. Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board but as he has left the House I should like to postpone it.
April 1, 1974


ELECTIONS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. Has he instructed the Chief Electoral Officer to ask the returning officers of the constituencies to submit lists of potential candidates and particularly to submit lists of enumerators for those who have urban districts in their ridings?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State-I am acting for him-I take notice of the question of the hon. member and convey it to the Secretary of State.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact six individuals involved in the media in the province of Alberta have supposedly been under investigation by the RCMP, can the minister now inform the House if in fact this is taking place and how this information gained the attention of a newspaper in Alberta? What action does the minister intend to take to protect the rights of these individuals?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned the other day, we do not confirm nor deny when investigations are undertaken by the police. However, I am continuing to investigate the story which appeared in the Calgary paper and I will report to the House as soon as I have that information.


ALLEGED INVESTIGATION BY ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE OF CERTAIN NEWSPAPER REPORTERS ATTEMPTING TO FORM UNION-GOVERNMENT POLICY
William George Knight: My supplementary is for the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact the individuals involved in this investigation by the RCMP were attempting to organize a trade union within the newspaper industry in Alberta, can the Minister of Labour inform the House whether it is the policy of the government to investigate those individuals who seek the right to form a trade union?


John Carr Munro: Not that I am aware of, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


INCREASE IN DRUG PRESCRIPTION PRICES-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the fact that the average price of medical prescription drugs increased by 140 per cent from 1949 to 1965, going from $1.38 in 1949 to $3.32 in 1965, can the minister say if he intends to take some measures enabling low income people and the whole population to buy prescription drugs at accessible prices?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that a whole series of measures have already been taken in this regard. I would refer him to means made available under either the public assistance programs or the provincial health insurance programs.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister. Having spent some time last weekend at the largest air force base in Canada, and having learned firsthand of the great dissatisfaction felt by the men and women in that service that their service should be the only one which remains deprived of its proper ranks and titles, is it the intention of the government in the very near future to restore their ranks and titles to the members of the Canadian air force and thus end this discrimination against a great service?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice for the minister.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last June an Air Canada jet exploded at the Toronto international airport. The investigation which was ordered and which was completed nine months later could not determine the cause of this blast other than the fact that JP-4 fuel was in the tanks. Is the minister now in a position to state that the sole cause of the explosion was the use of JP-4 fuel, and is the government considering further studies of that fuel?

Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I regret that this is all wrong. The report we have does not indicate that the nature of the fuel was the cause of the explosion. I read the report just a few hours ago and the only reference is to the vent system around the tanks. It has nothing to do with the quality of the fuel.


Duncan M. Beattie: In light of the latest report by Flight International which states that JP-4 fuel presently used by Air Canada is a definite hazard, and in view of the fact that JP-1 is acknowledged worldwide as a safe fuel and is used by the Minister of Transport in its planes, will the minister now order that Air Canada use the safer fuel, JP-1?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I do not accept the premise of the hon. gentleman's question.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. When he replied to the hon. member for Assiniboia, he indicated that his department is considering an investigation to determine how certain reports appeared in an Alberta newspaper. Would the minister advise what methods he is using to carry out that investigation, and particularly whether the RCMP are involved in the investigation?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I brought this matter to the attention of the Commissioner of the RCMP, and requested him to find out if there were any members of the force leaking either false or correct reports to the press. I intend to find that out in a few days.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are we to understand that the Solicitor General has issued no instructions to the RCMP to undertake investigations of journalists in Alberta in connection with this incident?


William Warren Allmand: That is right, Mr. Speaker. There is no investigation of journalists in Alberta, but we want to find out if there was an infraction of the Official Secrets Act.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the emergency action he has taken with regard to beef and the new dairy policy he announced last week, can he tell the House when the legislation for an over-all farm

stabilization program, which was forecast in the Speech from the Throne and which he has talked about on the hustings, will be brought before the House? I ask this in particular because of the present depressed hog prices, with the chairman of the Canadian Pork Council stating that producers are in real trouble.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that we are hoping to bring it before the House in the very near future.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: As a supplementary question may I ask the minister whether he has had consultations with his provincial counterparts in Saskatchewan, British Columbia and, indeed, in Quebec on how to give the hog industry some aid before the producers all go broke?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can say this: I am consulting with them as much as or probably more than he consulted with me before they put their programs into effect.


BEEF CATTLE SUBSIDY-SUGGESTED WITHDRAWAL OF PROGRAM
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that grade A Hereford steers sold on Friday for as low as 38 cents a pound, and that there are many signs of discrepancies which indicate that the beef subsidy is not getting back to the producers, would the minister withdraw this program and let cattle trade in a free, open market until he comes up with a better system?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the market shows returning strength. It is returning to normality today, at least in Calgary and Winnipeg. I have not had the latest reports from Toronto today. I can say that there are many producers in real trouble and it would be no aid to them for me to withdraw this program at this time. As I said before, if everybody involved in this program wants to make it work and does not make unnecessary rip-offs, then it can work and be beneficial in assisting the industry to stay healthy, happy, and economically wise.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. Is he in a position to inform the House and the Canadian people as to the number of foreign fishing vessels found in our north Atlantic waters by the Leader of the Opposition and members of his party during their recent expedition?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 1, 1974

Oral Questions INCOME TAX


PENSIONS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In light of the fact that on March 11 he stated in the House that he would be making significant moves in the direction of appointing a commissioner to go into all aspects of railway pensions, may I ask the minister what is the current status of his position on this matter?


John Carr Munro: The matter is under active consideration, Mr. Speaker.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Having regard to the grave and serious concern expressed by all parties in the House, will the minister immediately introduce a government bill to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act to remove the CNR from the scope of that act in order that, without adding substantially to its annual deficit, it may improve its pension plan, noting that private member's Bill C-139, introduced by the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's question, without the hon. member's additional notice.


John Carr Munro: As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to a private member's bill introduced by a member of this party, the hon. member for St. Boniface, who has been championing the cause of the railway workers for many years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: The concept that is embraced in that private member's bill is under very active consideration with respect to measures the government can take to rectify the situation dealing with the pensions of railway workers. I have this matter under discussion with my colleague, the Minister of Transport. We hope to come up with a solution very shortly.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Would the minister not agree that a government bill would carry far mere weight than a private member's bill, and would be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is of course, argument. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport rises on a question of privilege. I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton Centre in a moment.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I would like to ask through you, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre would agree that we do the same with this bill?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


PURCHASE OF T4 SLIPS AT DISCOUNTS-INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION TO CONTROL
Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the minister advise the House whether legislation is proposed to curb the so-called income tax service firms that are buying T4 slips at fabulous discounts? These loan sharks are operating and preying on people who can ill afford-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply to the question without the argument which the hon. member wished to add to it.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am consulting with my colleagues, the Minister of National Revenue and the Minister of Justice, about this question. I appreciate the hon. member bringing this point once again to our attention.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Has his department made a decision to cease using private placement agencies for acquiring casual help in the Public Service here in Ottawa and, if no decision has been made, when can we expect a decision?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the use of private placement agencies is something done not by the Treasury Board but by departments to fulfil urgent, unforeseen needs. As long as there are no abuses from the taxpayers' and the government's point of view, the practice probably will continue.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if his department is considering taking over this operation?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I replied to the same question a few days ago by saying that while we are looking at it we are not now authorized to operate an overload system. We will explore and are in fact exploring this question with other departments of government.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Inasmuch as the

April 1, 1974
Oral Questions
person who has been using the identity and social insurance number of one of my constituents is now in custody in Stratford, Ontario, and inasmuch as the Minister of National Revenue has stated in the House that it is not his responsibility to investigate fraudulent use of social insurance numbers, will the Solicitor General have his officials now investigate the various charges standing in my constituent's name, including outstanding income taxes?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to bring that to the attention of the RCMP, and I will communicate with the hon. member to get more information on the case.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Will he indicate to the House in general terms what proportion of the employees working on the mechanical sorting devices now established or to be established in the Post Office have been recruited from within the postal services?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is seeking statistical information which normally ought to be given by way of a statement on motions or in reply to a written question. If there is urgency the matter can be considered at the time of adjournment.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Since dairy producers have shown, with supporting evidence, that it costs $10.15 to produce 100 pounds of milk and since they have requested government assistance so that they may enjoy an increased income, can the minister tell the House whether he considers seriously that the new policy, which is effective today and guarantees only $8.50, is an adequate response to the dairy producers requests and that it will be such as to invite them to remain in business and invite young people to carry on with farming?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's question is most interesting, but he is inviting the minister to express a view or make a very general statement which, normally, should be done on motions.


HISTORIC SITES
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On a day on which such well deserved tribute has been paid to the late Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, I wonder whether the minister in his capacity as the minister responsible for national historic sites can advise that the government is now prepared to take over the residence of the former Prime Minister in Quebec City and declare it a national historic site?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada has decided that the best way to honour the memory of the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent was to buy the house where he was born in Compton. It is not the practice to buy two or three residences of former Prime Ministers.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice may I put my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that some 13 people have died in rooming house fires in Toronto in the last three months and serious concern has been expressed by municipal administrations over inadequate fire protection in private rooming houses in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Montreal, Toronto and other Canadian cities, and in view of the fact there was a unanimous request last week by the city of Toronto executive committee that the federal government amend the Criminal Code to make it an offence to maintain a multiple occupancy dwelling without proper fire protection and exits, would the minister indicate whether in any criminal legislation that is to come forward this session there is an amendment planned along these lines?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to bring that question to the minister's attention.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, then the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, and then call orders of the day.
April 1, 1974


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the assimilation by the Department of National Defence of the Defence Research Board has had the effect of wiping out five bargaining units of employees, what steps is the President of the Treasury Board going to take to preserve the collective bargaining rights of these employees?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any sort of final conclusion yet as how these vested or earned rights will be adequately protected.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture regarding brucellosis and the compensation paid in respect thereof. I understand that in the first place the government is willing to increase the compensation, but I direct my question to the second part having to do with the fact that the producers are being forced to sell to federal government inspected slaughter houses and that they have been taken advantage of in not getting a fair return for the slaughter of their infected cattle. Has the minister caused an investigation to be made in this field and, if so, when does he expect to receive a report and will he table it when he gets it?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I have informed some hon. members, including members of the committee, that we have asked for a complete report on this matter. The report will be made public as soon as it is submitted to me.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, March 29, consideration of the motion of Mr. Gray that Bill C-7, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and to repeal an act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Competition Bill
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to continue the debate on the competition bill, C-7. Because of the numerous government interventions in the activities of the rural and agricultural society we are justified in examining the nature, the form and the result of such interventions. The mechanics of receiving and shipping grain from our country elevators to the terminal elevators have remained practically unchanged in western Canada. It is interesting to note that the most successful operation takes place when the deal between the buyer and the seller is by agreement. On the other side, the marketing of our grain products is now completely under the control of the federal government through its agent, the Canadian Wheat Board.
Over the years the grain industry in western Canada has complied with all the laws requiring standards of behaviour in almost everything it did. Market forces have required the industry to meet another set of standards, and to look to the efficiency of management and its ability to develop customers. These requirements were all well understood. However, within the last year there has been a new set of requirements imposed by various agencies and tribunals set up by the government, and we now learn there is a so-called "confidential" or "secret" set of proposals that will probably be taking effect on August 1 of this year. It appears to me that a number of proposals contained therein could be judged as restraint of trade and will cause our courts to be filled with grain officials.
It is interesting that after the close of the commodity market in Winnipeg every day a small group gets together to establish the prices at which flax, rapeseed and rye are bought from producers across the growing areas of western Canada. This fixing has been condoned by the government over the years. Surely here is a case of restraint of trade, but I must admit that it has been going on for years quite satisfactorily.
I know of no industry in Canada that is more controlled and regulated by the government than is the grain industry. It is worthwhile noting that no less than 15 royal commissions have investigated the exchanges, and marketing in general, but not even one has recommended any serious amendments to the system. However, in the present crop year the government effectively closed the market for feed grain in Winnipeg. The result has been complete chaos, bringing more foreign grain into Canada for feed, more United States cattle into Canada for slaughter, and emptying the feedlots across western Canada. The point I want to make is just how political grain marketing in Canada has become, and how politics play a part in that marketing.
In September 1943, the federal government took to itself, through its agent, the Canadian Wheat Board, the sole right to market and set the price for all prairie wheat. The problem we are now facing relates to the fact that the board has not remained flexible enough in its programs. Our grain industry people now must deal in a highly individualistic society. It is clear that interaction between the supplying companies and the market place has become a two-way street and the companies, through skilful product development, research, and marketing effort, must be able to steer a course that will be beneficial in the future.

April 1, 1974
Competition Bill
It seems to me that as we move into a more intricate society, we shall have to depend more on the free marketing system to give producers clear signals about changing values and expectations of consumers.
Those who have been around for some time and worked for government, or, I should say, struggled with government, know that government cannot exactly tell the truth. The government says what it finds convenient to say. This very simple fact is not going to go away, because the government has to deal with problems like unemployment, inflation, strikes, and taxes. This means, simply, Mr. Speaker, that our business community must be given flexibility of operation and not disjoined change that will disturb and confuse.
I should like to return to the report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture of June, 1960. It reads in part:
1.	The feeds industry is an integral and essential part of the livestock industry, and feed mills perform necessary social and economic services, expansion of which-is desirable in the interests of economical and efficient production of livestock and poultry and the products thereof.
2.	The feeds industry has grown, and aided the general prosperity of local regions under a system of flexibility and the Committee finds that too much inflexibility in the allocation of quotas to feed mills is not in the best interest of either the producer or consumer of grains for feed. We, therefore, recommend that the former practice be continued.
Following the tabling of the report in the House of Commons, the Canadian Wheat Board took it upon itself to consider the message in this report as a dictum that instructed them how to deal with the marketing of feed grains in the local markets of the western provinces. In other words, it was parliament, the Parliament of Canada, that set up the system of non-quota, non-board marketings in western Canada. That way of doing things lasted from the beginning of 1961 until the end of July, 1973, when the present minister in charge of the Wheat Board brought in his decrees; as a result, confusion has reigned supreme. For example, we have at least seven different prices for feed barley in western Canada.
The argument that the Canadian Wheat Board is a government board stems from the fact that it is the government which appoints the commissioners to the board; the producers virtually have no say in these appointments. I suggest that no grain producers in western Canada would choose civil servants to be commissioners on their board. The government's habit of instructing the board to do this and to do that, to set initial prices and even the final payments, is just a facade, I suggest. It makes it appear that the government is controlling the board, but again I would say that in most routine matters the instructions given to the board by the government really originate with the board in the first place.
The increased interference by Ottawa in board affairs since about 1968 lends a bit more credence to the notion that the Wheat Board is now a government board. A quick review of the origin of the Wheat Board explains the situation a little bit more. Some here, at least, will remember that during the dark days of the depression the three pool organizations in western Canada, along with many other corporations and co-ops in North America and the

rest of the world, found themselves in deep financial trouble. The pools, for they were then called pools, in each province pooled the purchases and sales of farmers' grain, on a voluntary basis, of course. The three pools formed a central selling agency to merchandise all pool grain that farmers delivered to them.
History tells us that in the beginning the pools set initial payments and hedged their purchases on the exchange; however, as the philosophical poolers grabbed power within the organization, they determined to overthrow the Exchange and refused to hedge their purchases. As the depression deepened, the pools found themselves in a most awkward position, having set the initial payments higher than world selling prices, or higher, at least, than the price that their grain could command when sold by the central selling agency. This couldn't last very long, and soon the pools had to appeal to the provincial governments for help in guaranteeing the loans of the pools and in assuring the chartered banks that their advances would be covered.
In return, the federal government said they would appoint all the officials on this Canadian Wheat Board which was to take over from the pool's central selling agency. I think it is important to note that the impetus for the establishment of the Canadian Wheat Board originated right inside the pool organizations, and those producers who preferred to deal with the line elevator companies really played no part in the establishment of the central selling agency or its successor.
Whether the government took over from the producers their marketing board in 1935, 1943 or 1968 does not really matter at this stage. It is still difficult to reconcile the fact that the government does not pay the expenses of operating this board. It leaves this completely to the producers. What happened as a wartime measure in 1943 in essence transferred producers from the tyranny of the market place to the tyranny of the Wheat Board.
The government in Ottawa brought in a partial answer to this when it passed the Grain Futures Act early in 1939. The act was proclaimed and came into force on August 1, 1939. The top position of director was provided for under the act. However, the war came along and the act was left inoperative. It would have been interesting to see how the director who, under this act, was to be appointed to supervise and police the activities of the exchange, would have carried out his job. It would have been very difficult for the supervisor to carry out his duties under the act, as the most consistant violator of the terms of the Grain Futures Act was the Canadian Wheat Board, the government agency itself. A reading of Bill C-7, makes it apparent that the government is still exempt from the provisions of this bill. This, of course, brings up a question that was pondered 2,000 years ago, namely, who will guard the guards? The Latin Phrase is, quis custodiet ipsos custodes, which, translated, means, who will keep the keepers. We sometimes wonder if the government and its agencies are beyond justice, beyond the law.
Insisting that everyone should be subject to a mandatory marketing board just for the sake of making sure that one farmer does not obtain more for his product than another is, to my mind, quite unrealistic. Certainly, there is a place for the great farmer-owned companies within
April 1, 1974

our marketing system. One of their legitimate functions is that of to keeping the market honest.
In the bill before us, Mr. Speaker, the implications for the present system of moving goods to market are so far reaching as to be beyond my comprehension. There is an apparent determination to substitute the judgments of government appointed administrators for the judgment of the market, that is, the forces of the market, in what is acceptable and what is not. It seems to me that the key word to all this is flexibility. Inflexibility is manifest in marketing quotas, formula pricing, adherence to rigid agreements and arrangements. It interferes with orderly marketing. Surely, flexibility leads to beneficial growth.
Unless the philosophy of this government is turned aside, we will end up with an economy in which virtually every business decision will be subject to approval of the government's appointees. There has been a lot of criticism of our grain industry and our transportation industry of late, and probably it can be partly justified in light of today's situation. However, I would ask you to look back on the infamous "task" force on Agriculture of several years ago, which really forecast no future for agriculture. I think it is reasonable to say that industry, the railways in particular, took their cue from this report, made their decisions, and are now being blamed for a shortage of equipment and a lack of foresight, all because of the government's tunnel vision.
The real problem is the same old story. The senior government officials, disdainful of trade, have steered our industry down the wrong track. In this whole question before us today of what is right and what is fair, it seems that we must have some reference to the courts with the accompanying right to appeal. At least this will develop some precedents which are fairly consistent and lay down the guidelines required to keep our business practices under reasonable restraint.
There has to be co-operative consultation between business and all levels of government before and not after policy is determined. Forward planning will become sterile if there are conflicts in and between governments. I fear there is plenty of room for conflicts in the bill before us. We need a competition policy which will permit growth and a restructuring of business according to the market forces, by encouraging flexibility and adaptability in the economy. We will not get it with legislation such as is proposed here. The committee studying this bill will have their work cut out.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I could hardly have asked for a more fitting introduction to the comments I have to make than those provided by my colleague, the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton). He talked about the problems the committee will have when it is faced with this particular bill. My misgivings about this bill are many, but I propose to concentrate my attention on one particular aspect of the measure, an aspect which is absolutely fundamental to the process of governing, to the philosophy of government. I am moved to contribute to this debate because of my experience as a public servant
Competition Bill
and because of my understanding of what public servants should and should not be asked to do.
This bill is directed toward extending the powers of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, created under the Combines Investigation Act. The powers now to be granted to the commission by the terms of the bill before us are to be executive powers. They differ considerably from the powers of the commission as created under the earlier bill. The commission, after investigation, can rule on the practice it has investigated and, depending on the outcome of that investigation, shall rule whether or not that practice is legal and may be allowed to continue or, alternatively, is illegal and shall therefore cease. This is what I mean by the grant of executive powers. The commission is no longer an advisory body. It is first a judicial body and then an executive and operational body in an area of activity where economic and political factors have a strong inter-play. In other words, the government is asking this parliament to delegate powers to a quasiindependent body to take action in an area that is properly the government's sphere of action, the political arena, the determination of the public interest defined in economic and competitive terms.
We have seen this before. We have seen what happens when these quasi-independent bodies get to work with their delegated powers. I will come back in a minute to look at some of the consequences of this kind of delegation of parliament's proper powers, but first I would like to look at some of the philosophy which underpins two of the principal parties in this country.
According to an article which appeared on page 7 of the March 29 edition of the Ottawa Journal, in a newsletter being circulated in the Liberal caucus, an assessment is made of the recent convention of my party which was held in Ottawa 10 days prior to the article being written. Among the "conclusions"-I insist that Hansard put quotes around that word-that are drawn in this letter, of the resolutions presented during the convention, the following was considered of key importance, according to the article. I quote:
"The Conservative party is not, as it claims, the standard bearer for individualism and free enterprise except for the big corporations and those already rich. It is now, more even than the New Democrats, the most government-interventionist party in the Commons.
"The Conservative party would intrude government departments, agencies, commissions and boards into every area of Canadian life, into areas where even angels, much wiser beings, fear to tread.
If these are actual quotes from the Liberal caucus newsletter, I must say that I have to admit to amazement. Such allegations, which were presented as "conclusions"-again in quotes-for the Liberal caucus and presumably the Liberal faithful to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest, are to be explained in only one way. If you are yourself guilty of an offense, the best way to obscure the fact is to charge your opponent with that offense.
Intervene in government departments? Intrude into government departments? Can anyone in this House honestly look at government operations these days and say that there is not now a deep, deep and virtually ineradicable Liberal intrusion into government departments, agencies, commissions and boards? Where are the defeated Liberal candidates from the last election? Are there any left without federal employment? Where are the executive

Competition Bill
assistants of earlier Liberal regimes? Where are the personal nominees of prominent members of the government? I do not propose to put names to each of these categories, but if we were adept at ESP at this moment, can you just imagine the catalogue of names and faces flashing through people's minds as I asked those questions. Some late starters may still be showing up. Therefore, let us have none of that nonsense about intrusion by the Conservatives into areas where angels fear to tread. The Liberals are no angels because there is no area where they fear to tread.
I have been a civil servant, a public servant. My role, as I conceived it, was to serve the public, as the name given to my employment indicated. The manner in which I did that was to advise the government in the area of my professional competence, namely foreign affairs. I could formulate suggested lines of action, suggested policies and even urge that some of these policies be adopted. However, I was not occupying an executive role in the largest sense of that word. I could not put into execution my recommended courses of action, the advice I offered. One time I recall being sternly reprimanded for having fired a cook. I was not even permitted, though head of post at the time, to execute even that sort of a recommendation.
There are limits within which public servants can act. The line is not easy to draw but a good public servant, properly motivated, knows where it lies. In the administrative field over which he has been given jurisdiction there should be no need to question his executive powers, provided, of course, he has been properly chosen for the job on the basis of proven competence. If, however, he is allowed to assume he is more powerful than he actually is, he may draw the line in the wrong place. He is then obviously not fitted for the job to which he is assigned. He can act on his own if he is acting within an area which has no political implications. He can act in the political area, however, only when specifically instructed to do so, and instructions in this instance must issue from the servant's political master, his minister. But here, in the bill before us, is a case of parliament being asked to approve a measure which will authorize the government to deprive itself of a power which it ought to retain, power to decide whether this or that activity ought to cease or be allowed to continue in a modified form. This is the area of the public marketplace.
Why do I say the government should retain the power to act in this area? I take this view because I believe in maintaining the power of parliament to hold governments responsible for their actions, and unless this power is retained, the government itself cannot be called to account. Let us consider this measure more closely. In clause 12 we find such expressions as "The Commission may order...", "The Commission may make an order prohibiting ... ", "The Commission may direct that no measure be taken in Canada ...", "The Commission may by order direct.,." and so on. Then, in the proposed amendment to 31.1, the bill indicates quite clearly that failure to obey an order of the Commission becomes an actionable offence, because 31.1 makes provision for collecting damages from those who have failed to comply with an order.

April 1, 1974
Perhaps I might read from the bill itself at page 14:
Any person who has suffered loss or damage as a result of conduct contrary to any provision of Part V, or the failure of any person to comply with an order of the Commission or a court under this Act may... sue for and recover from the person who engaged in the conduct or failed to comply with the order ...
There is no doubt but that the government is striving to empower a body of appointees, backed up with public servants, with authority to make their decisions stick, and this in areas of the most complex economic and political interest, without at the same time making provision for the agency responsible for those decisions and orders to be answerable to this House-not even through a minister, if I read the bill correctly.
Are we sure that this is the way in which we want to bring harmful competitive practices under control? No one questions that from time to time such practices are being followed. But is this the way in which we want to deal with the situation? Let us be sure on this point before we give approval to the measure before us.
I should like to quote briefly from an editorial which appeared this morning in the Toronto Star, dealing with this very subject.
Amendments to the Combines Investigation Act now before parliament would give the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission vast new powers to regulate all business.
Including, presumably, the football business.
The problem is that the commission, now an advisory body to the government, would function as an arbitrary authority with virtually no restriction or precise guidance from the law. In effect, it would make its own law ...
No businessman would be able to tell from looking at the amendments what constitutes adequate competition. If the bill passes in its present form, the philosophy of the people appointed to the Commission will determine what the phrase means, and until that meaning is spelled out by a series of decisions, no one will be able to determine what he has to do to obey the law. That is the wrong way to go about things.
I agree fully.
The rule of law requires that parliament, not an appointed Commission, determine the public interest, which in this case means providing guidelines as to what is meant by adequate competition. If the public does not agree with the law, then in an election it can replace the people in parliament; but if it does not agree with the rules of the men on the Commission, the public has no recourse.
The last paragraph of the editorial is also worth putting on record. The minister is not in the House, but may I quote?
There are good intentions in Gray's bill and the consumer needs better protection against unscrupulous operators in business. But it is wrong to try to achieve this by infringing basic principles of justice in a free society. The ordinary citizen has a right to know what is expected of him under the law, and parliament has an obligation to spell out what the law means rather than delegate that right to an appointed body.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the burthen of my argument. Once it has conceded this point and granted to the Commission the power the bill would have us confer upon it, parliament has completely lost control of that Commission except by way of amendment of the Commission's statute, an initiative normally reserved to the government in power. Parliament, as such, will have been excluded from any further voice in the matter.
April 1, 1974

Before we proceed further, I submit we should examine the whole philosophy of the bill most carefully. Do we want to see the mess which now admittedly exists in transportation extending to the whole area of marketplace competition? This is what could happen if we were to hand over to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission the full powers for which the bill provides. In the same way, a previous parliament handed over extensive executive powers to the Canadian Transport Commission. Parliament, and the people of Canada, cannot really get at the CTC via the committee structure. Although the President of the Commission deigns to appear before the appropriate committee from time to time, he cannot be hailed before the committee and required to defend his activities in the same way as the government can be compelled to do on the floor of the House, in committee and at the ballot box to justify actions it has taken.
So we must be ^ery certain, before we finally give this bill our approval, that it extends to the Commission only those powers we want to see extended. In order to be sure of this, we need time in which to hold hearings, to hear witnesses, to obtain reactions from those who may find themselves affected by the provisions of this measure. Let us not be tempted into precipitate action by the impatience of the minister. Let us be sure we are doing the right thing. The government may want to pass the buck in this area of competition; it has done it before. Let us be quite certain that we agree that they should be permitted to pass this particular buck before we let them do it.
Does the minister, or the government for that matter, have detailed terms of reference for his commission? To my understanding, they do not. Is the commission, then, to be assembled-as the Foreign Investment Review Board is now being recruited, with 50 economists, I am told, at pretty high wages-and asked to write its own terms of reference, as the Foreign Investment Review Board is about to be asked to do? Is this the way to govern a country? Here, surely, is abdication of responsibility by the government. Governments in this country must continue to be answerable for actions of boards and commissions created by statute. Nineteen eighty four is only ten years off, Mr. Speaker. Let us not hasten the process.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-5, an act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973 to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Before we proceed to the consideration of the report stage of Bill C-5, an act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada, perhaps I should communicate some comments to hon. members on the different motions that are to be moved. It is not my intention at this time to invite hon. members to participate in a procedural debate, but I think we should proceed in an orderly way.
It is suggested that motions Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are acceptable to the Chair from a procedural point of view. This will permit the House to proceed immediately with motions Nos. 1 and 2, which might be grouped together for debate, if hon. members agree. A decision on motion No. 1 will also dispose of motion No. 2. Motion No. 4 could be considered separately. It has been suggested that motions Nos. 3 and 5 are out of order in that they seek to introduce a provision that is outside the provisions of the clause and the bill that they purport to amend. Motion No. 6 also appears to be defective in that it is consonant neither with the provisions of the recommendation accompanying the bill nor the title of the bill.
When the House proceeds with the examination of these motions, the Chair in due time will invite hon. members to comment. It is not the intention at this time to render a decision on motions Nos. 3, 5 and 6, which will give hon. members time to look at the procedural aspect of these motions.
I will now put to the House motions Nos. 1 and 2.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: ;
That Bill C-5, an act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, be amended in paragraph 3(1) (a) by (a) deleting the figure "$225,500,000" in lines 3 and 17 on page 2 and substituting therefor the figure "$211,021,000" and (b) deleting lines 13 and 14.
That Bill C-5, an act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, be amended in paragraph 3(1) (b) by deleting line 22 on page 2 and substituting therefor the following:
"lines but excluding any amount in respect of hotels or C.N. Tower
Limited) in the calendar year 1974, prior to"
He said: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the amendments are precisely the same amendments that were before this House when this House was apprised of them with regard to Bill C-164 during the last session on January 7. Since January 7, I have had an opportunity to travel across Canada and look at some of the activities of the Canadian National Railways, particularly in respect of hotels. While I do not intend to bore the House with a repetition of what I said on January 7, I believe it is only

April 1, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada fair that I should bring to the attention of the House some of the activities of our national railway with regard to its operation of hotels, and indeed with regard to its operation of a number of activities, although hotels and a tower are referred to in these amendments. I say to you, Sir, and to this House that this Crown corporation is spending much of its efforts and energies on the great and grandiose and is not concentrating as it should on supplying proper rail transportation to those who need rail transportation in Canada.
With regard to hotel operation, the activities of this railroad over the past many years have been a horror show. The railway became involved in the hotel business after it was organized because it decided it would like to emulate the Canadian Pacific. It proceeded to acquire and build a number of hotels throughout Canada. At one time it had hotels in Brandon, Thunder Bay, or Port Arthur, and in Charlottetown. It had lodges in Ontario and in Quebec. It still has a lodge, as you know Sir, in Jasper. The result of its management of hotels over its entire history has been that it has been one great big loser.
With regard to the 1972 statement, it became apparent in the committee that the five hotels managed by the Canadian National Railways have a book value of some $43 million and that the total profit generated was only some $400,000 or a return of less than one per cent on the capital investment. Looking at the income or revenue from these five hotels we find the revenue was $23.9 million. So, the profit of $400,000 received on revenue is a return of less than two per cent on the total turnover of cash. This is bad enough, but when we compare it with the Canadian Pacific, we find that the Canadian Pacific has a return of 5.7 per cent after taxes in the management of its hotels.
This railway continues its desire to go further into the hotel business. Indeed, when the President of the railway was asked in committee about the new project in Moncton, he said he hoped this new project would provide the railway with a return of 12 per cent on the money invested. If this should occur it would be the first time this railway ever returned 12 per cent on anything. But even if it did return 12 per cent on money invested, is that a realistic return when one looks at the fact that the rates on first mortgages are now 10 Vi per cent and 11 per cent. There is ample private money to build hotels and provide hotel accommodation and this is no longer necessary to the operation of the railways. People do not, as a practical matter, travel between cities by train. They travel by air. Private concerns like Commonwealth Holiday Inns of Canada and so on have been building hotels and hotel facilities all across Canada through the use of private funds. Hotels are really organized to serve conventions and to serve the public generally in the cities in which they exist.
Hotels are not a necessary adjunct to the transportation system. There are sufficient hotels. They are being built by private concerns as investments. They are built through the use of private capital. Public capital must be preserved for the provision of service to the people of Canada. Yet, Sir, the railway decides to come to this House of Commons and ask for appropriation of some $5.6 million to expand its hotel business. It is a disgrace that this should happen. I am glad the Minister of Finance (Mr. 
Turner) is here today because when he appeared before the committee he said he looked at the problems of the railways in terms of the global aspect and did not go into the detail of hotels. I am sure that had he thought about the money of the people of Canada which goes into hotels he would at least have read the glorious account of the Canadian National Railways as related by the author G. R. Stevens in his book that was published in 1970. Mr. Stevens talks about the losers in the hotel business and the fact that the hotel operations of the railways do not work and do not produce a profit.
When appearing before the committee, the minister asked what about the Queen Elizabeth Hotel in Montreal. When one examines the figures one finds, in fact, that this hotel does produce a return of about 10 per cent on the money involved. The Hotel Vancouver produces a return of 6.7 per cent on the money involved. These hotels, however, while they might be owned by the railways are not really Canadian National Railways hotels at all but are Hilton hotels. The Canadian National Railways realized it could not manage hotels, at least these two structures, and turned them over to that American hotel chain management company. When one looks at the profits of the railway in its operation of hotels one gets the picture that on, $43 million of public money invested as a minimum we receive a measly $400,000 return in the form of a profit.
Let us look at these hotels. First, we have the Hotel MacDonald in Edmonton. The Hotel MacDonald is a huge hotel in the city of Edmonton. It is a well-built structure; it is an impressive building. It has ample rooms and facilities for conventions and the like. This hotel returned to the railway $15,000 in 1971. In 1972, it had a good year and showed a profit of $32,000. The investment in that hotel is $8.9 million. In such a situation, I suggest that it is the responsibility of the government to say to the railway that it is not doing a good job in this regard and that it should get out of the field because it is not competent in it. Yet the government is prepared to bring to this House an appropriation that would enable the railway to use $5.6 million to expand its hotel operations.
For a moment I want to relate to the House a horror story that is almost as bad as the story of the Bonaventure. You remember that famous aircraft carrier, Mr. Speaker. I want to recount the horror story of the Hotel Bessborough. The Bessborough was built in the depression with good, hard brick and was well trimmed out. It has fine panelling and it is located in what is probably the best site for any hotel or any structure in the city of Saskatoon. It is between the two bridges and it owns all of the property there. It is right in the main business section of the town. It is a glorious site. In 1971, the hotel lost $400,000. In 1972, it lost another $400,000. Then, in 1972 we spent $214,000 on renovating the hotel.
Then, the CN decided to sell the hotel and they scratched around for a buyer. A promoter from the province of Saskatchewan went down to Montreal, sat at a table with the directors of the railroad and asked them what they wanted for their hotel. He was prepared to pay a fair dollar for it, even despite its losing history. They said: "We don't know; make us an offer". So, he lowballed them, by his own admission. He made them an offer of $1.6
April 1, 1974

million. They snapped at it like a large fish going after a small one because they did not know any better. They spent $214,000 on fixing the place up. They did not know that you could make money on hotels in Saskatoon, and yet the Sheridan Hotel chain has a hotel right across the street from the Bessborough, a swinging place where the liquor flows, and they are making a fortune. The site of that hotel is not even comparable to the site on which Bessborough stands.
Did you know that the Bessborough has two floors in its building that were never opened up? The original broad-loom is still on these floors and some of the original furniture is still there. Yet, a new hotel can be built across the street and make a profit, while the hotel operated by the railroad can suffer loss after loss. That is because the railroad is not a competent manager of hotels. Yet, they come again before this House of Commons and ask for $5.6 million to pour into some more liquor lounges and into some more bedrooms. I do not know what it is for, because we really do not need to use the money of the public of Canada to finance the grand hotels that the railroad insists on building.
These hotels are not for poor people. A week or so ago this party had a convention at the hotel down the street, the Chateau Laurier. I will tell you that the service was not as good as it might be, but the prices certainly were. That hotel is not designed to care for the poverty-stricken traveller. Yet, this is where public money is going to be put, not into social housing or into the necessary things for the ordinary working men, but into building hotels in competition with private people who can make them pay and who pay income taxes. This operation run by our national railway system cannot even earn one per cent on its money invested. It is very nice for us to own Jasper Park Lodge. It is very nice for the people of Canada. But is Jasper Park Lodge something that the ordinary constituent in your riding and mine can visit and for which he can pay the bill? Not at all. Yet, we are able to earn 2.5 per cent on our money invested in Jasper Park Lodge.
Here again when I talk about money invested, the properties that this railroad has covered with hotels are very valuable properties but they are in the books at their original book value, that is the value of those properties when the land was given to Mackenzie and Mann and to Grand Trunk. The land is not properly valued there-it is of historic value-in some cases $10 or $15 an acre. If you only sold the land on which the Bessborough stands you would get a heck of a lot more than $1.6 million. Yet, the railroad does not value this in the true sense of what the investment really is worth. When they value it at $43 million, they get less than 1 per cent of their money, but if you valued it at the real value, of what the money invested by the people of Canada is really worth, then you would get even less, .1 per cent. Yet, they come to us and ask us for $5.6 million. Of course, it is not very much to this government.
This government does not look at $5 million or $6 million as anything to worry about. The government says: if the railroad wants more money for another venture, they are entitled to it; let them have it. Let us not cross-examine them and tell these fellows that they must account for their management. This is not an operation to move grain,
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada potatoes or corn. It is not moving oil but rather looking after the privileged. It is an unnecessary public service, although hotels are necessary in our organized communities, but this is an activity that can be undertaken by any private investor. Is it fair to the people of Canada that they should be putting their money in four per cent, no-payment-ever shares in a national railroad so that it can build another hotel, especially in view of its history and the way in which this national railroad operates its facilities?
I want to leave that subject for a moment and go on to the matter of a tower, because this is also part of this amendment. The Canadian National, together with Canadian Pacific, own some 186 acres in the downtown part of Toronto. There is a partnership agreement between the two railroads for the development of what is called the Metro Centre. It will be a very good development. Somewhere along the line the CNR had the idea that the way to make the development successful was to build a communications tower. I am quite sure, having examined Mr. McMillan in committee, that the reason for that tower is not to attract people to the site as much as to supply facilities for the CBC. So, indirectly, we would have the CNR financing the CBC. We have enough problems with the CBC asking this House for $300 million a year without having the CNR also kick into the CBC.
But be that as it may, we have a project that was estimated to cost $29.5 million. The CPR, as a partner, in the project wanted a breakdown of the costs of that project; it wanted a projection of profits. A projection was taken on the basis of a cost of $29.5 million. They found that the project would return 7 per cent if it were amortized over 25 years, or perhaps 12 per cent if we were really lucky and the people went up the tower to do various things, including enjoying the 400 seat revolving restaurant. Again, this is a restaurant not for the poor and the under privileged and not for the rail traveller, but nonetheless the railroad will be involved in using public funds to build a revolving restaurant. This leads one to consider whether the railroad is really interested in supplying the people of Canada with transportation or in building towers in the sky for their own edification.
This project is supposed to yield 12 per cent on investment. I inquired in committee, and received confirmation that they did not base that calculation on the cost of the land. Of course, land in the Metro central region is very valuable. Conservatively, it can be estimated at $50 a square foot, and it is probably worth more than that today with land prices as they are now in Toronto. But just at $50 a square foot, the tower will occupy $7 million worth of land, so you would not calculate the return on the basis of $29.5 million but on the basis of $35 million or so.
Then, of course, the estimate was based on 1970 construction costs. And they estimated the fares they could charge people to go up the tower-$3 a crack-on a 1973 basis. I say the construction costs of this tower in Toronto, including the value of the land, will probably exceed something in the neighbourhood of $45 million. Here we are asked to use the scarce social capital of the people of Canada to build a tower, to which the partner in the real estate venture, CP Railway, said, "No way." They said "No

April 1, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
way" because the tower is economic idiocy. Of course, I am sure the tower will be a fine, a marvellous place, and I might have enough money one of these days to take my wife up there for dinner. But really, Sir, there is a place for the use of social capital. We have a housing problem. We need more serviced land. We have a transportation problem. We need more boxcars and a rationalization of our transportation system. But do we need to use public money to build what are clearly speculative ventures, that have nothing to do with transportation, and are just for the glory of the directors of the Canadian National?
I suggest it is time the government called on the railway to halt these ventures, and to perform its proper function in our society. It should not continue to get involved in one scheme after another. Remember, Sir, at one time this railroad had a bunch of steamships. It lost a fortune on them. Then, it got into the radio business, and later peddled that off to the CBC. Now, it is getting more into the hotel business. It lost money on almost every hotel it owned, yet it continues to build new hotels, while selling the old ones off so that someone like the promoter in Saskatoon will make a bundle, as he undoubtedly will through his purchase of the Bessborough Hotel.
It is a disgrace that I, as a member of the opposition, should have to present these amendments to the House. It is especially a disgrace that this bill should be back for debate today since less than a week and a half ago the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) declared that he could not control the railroads, that he wanted a full investigation into the way the railroads operated, and that he was disturbed about the lack of transportation planning in this country. That was a tremendous admission that the government has no policy in transportation, and clearly, Sir, it has no policy in connection with hurdy-gurdys in the sky, or in connection with hotels.
Why are we again being asked today to approve this bill without saying to the Canadian National Railways, "Fellows you have no right to continue to use the people of Canada as a well from which to grab more money for more of your grandiose schemes." Until it can operate transportation properly, until it can move freight and passengers, which is the prime duty of the railroad, then surely it has no right, no licence to come to this House and ask for money for schemes of dubious value, schemes that are not likely to assist in the transportation of people or goods, and schemes for which its management is inept, according to the history of the railroad in this class of activity ever since its inception.
The Minister of Finance should amend this bill and tell the Canadian National, "Here is enough money to carry on with track laying, and to provide the necessary additions to rolling stock that are required. We are going to have a full investigation into railroading, but here is the money in the meantime. But also in the meantime, just get out of a business you do not know the first thing about." "You are losing the people of Canada money on hotels. You are not making a profit. You are building fancy bedrooms and fancy lounges. That is not the business of Canadian National."
There is no excuse for this railway to be in the hotel business, to be building towers and the like, since its

management in past years has indicated how inept it is in looking after this class of business.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on motions Nos. 1 and 2 pertaining to Bill C-5, and to deal not only with the financial aspects but also with the internal operations of Air Canada. An immediate investigation must be launched into the operations of Air Canada, especially at the Dorval base. It would seem that instead of spending money on towers and hotels we should be directing our efforts to improving our national transportation systems, including our national airline, Air Canada.
To say why there should be an investigation into Air Canada's operations may I point out that morale and safety are two of the company's major problems. I would like to quote from a recent publication of the airline's "Lodge News" as follows:
Unfortunately the shop stewards in customer service have to deal with first level Air Canada supervisors that are not interested in resolving grievances or applying the collective agreement. The supervisor's only concern is trying to run a schedule operation at all costs. The result of this attitude causes one of our largest problems and most frequent violation of the collective agreement, i.e. safety. The collective agreement is quite clear in that management is specifically charged with the duty of initiating and monitoring all practices necessary to ensure the safety and health of employees as well as ensuring the safety of all equipment.
Because of the attitude of first level supervision and their refusal to initiate safety, the shop committee is presently handling the problem at the second level of the grievance procedure which is the regional vice president or his designated representative.
I would like to give an example of what I am talking about in regard to air safety in Air Canada. Last Tuesday flight 531 out of Quebec was climbing at 14,000 feet. The plane lost cabin pressure. Masks were deployed, but only 40 per cent supplied oxygen. This is a condition that has been prevalent with Air Canada planes for some time. It is a matter which I brought up before the Standing Committee on Transportation last spring, and apparently nothing has been done about it. At that time I read this letter into the record:
On November 23, 1973, I boarded Air Canada's flight 280 to attend an archeological symposium at the University of Calgary. Within 20 minutes of take-off I experienced that sense of continuous "ear popping" (for want of a proper medical term). The aircraft became instantly chilled, and to my horror the oxygen cabinets opened and we were instructed to use the orange masks. You can well imagine the anxiety, especially among the more aged passengers. In addition, not all the masks produced oxygen. The man sitting next to me tried in vain to operate his, but without success.
As I say, I quoted this letter last spring, and apparently nothing has been done since. That is why I am calling for an investigation into the operations of Air Canada. I saw a recent news release which informed us that the vice president of maintenance for Air Canada is being replaced by an American who is being brought in to take over, so obviously there are problems at Dorval.
I brought another matter to the attention of Mr. Pratte last spring at transport committee meetings, and drew his attention to a document signed by eight Dorval employees. I should like to read this letter into the record as follows:
April 1, 1974

Attached to this letter, please find a Submission related too the Unit and Support Shops Inspection functions. It is a critical report presented in the interest of achieving a more effective Inspection program and hopefully to create an awareness of an existing low morale condition.
Copies of this Submission have also been forwarded to Messrs. J. B. Russell Chief Inspector and G. Belanger Inspection Foreman.
It is our hope to have a full discussion on the report and we hereby request a meeting with Messrs. Russell and Belanger in the near future, to review it in detail.
We also request a subsequent meeting with you, at your convenience, in order to clarify and review this Submission.
This might seem a little off base, having regard to these amendments, but this is the reason we should be taking a serious look at the funds we are allotting Air Canada. I should like to read some of the comments made by these eight employees who signed and presented this document to Air Canada. They stated that in their opinion the quality development program has not been thoroughly and adequately developed and that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I always hesitate to interrupt hon. members or prevent them from expressing their views, but at this time the House is considering the report stage of the bill before us and two specific amendments. I am sure if the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) takes the time to read the amendments he will see they both refer directly to the CNR and not Air Canada, and that the objective of the two amendments is to reduce the sums of money requested by the bill in respect of hotels and the CN Tower Limited in Toronto. I would hope that the hon. member will defer these remarks to a later debate in respect of further amendments that might be related to this particular point, or until the debate on third reading when he will have the latitude to bring forward his points and complaints about Air Canada.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, will I be able to speak on this point under Motion No. 3 which pertains directly to Air Canada?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair is not inclined to give advice on a judgment that might be rendered later, but I am sure the hon. member will have more latitude then as the amendment is related more specifically to Air Canada. The two amendments now before us for consideration relate to the CNR and, particularly, to hotels that are administered by the CN.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will wait until you make a ruling on Motion No. 3 in respect of Air Canada.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, this is an unexpected pleasure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: For us too, Paul.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I listened with great interest to the speech made earlier this afternoon by the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn), and I was impressed by his remarks.


An hon. Member:: You are easily impressed.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As a matter of fact, I am not easily impressed; I am a realist, but I thought the hon. member's speech was very well documented and very thoughtfully prepared. It is for that reason I listened to his remarks with considerable interest.
I notice the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) stroking his chin, Mr. Speaker, as well he might, as he of all people in this Chamber should be concerned with the expenditure of public funds. Had he been as careful in his attention and as impressed by the arguments put forward by the hon. member as I feel he would have been had he been paying full attention I think he too would be on his feet expressing grave reservations about the proposal of the Canadian National Railways, as did the hon. member for Mississauga.
As pointed out by that hon. member, the CNR experience in railway hotel management has been an unhappy one. One would have hoped that over the years the management would have learned that you have to keep up-to-date with the times. A matter of considerable regret to many of us, and to many members of the travelling public, has been the fact that CN hotel management has not been aware of changing conditions. The examples one can cite in this field are many.
For years now in most well run hotels one has been able to expect to have nicely coloured towels in the bathrooms, something which adds an element of warmth to the reception of an hotel, yet in so far as CNR hotels are concerned, years after everyone else has departed from the sterile white, and sometimes not quite white because of the lack of sufficient soap, chlorine or bleach in the wash, these same old bedraggled towels have appeared giving many people the impression that the CNR hotel management just does not care.


An hon. Member:: They don't.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: So, it has been with other furnishings and with the quality of soap. Long after most first-class hotels decided to improve the quality of soap, and sometimes for the ladies to have little bars with just a little French perfume added, or something of that sort, the CNR was still back in the age of hand-laundry and outside laundries, just not keeping in touch with the times. This is indicative of the failure on the part of CN management to pay attention to changing times and to details which are important to the travelling public.


An hon. Member:: The old soap and towel operation.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The furnishings in the rooms were often not well kept, and the artifacts were not as tastefully chosen and assembled as one would find in an hotel run, say by Western International, which has developed a level of expertise that offers a standard which other hotel chains, including the CNR, might well attempt to emulate.
One finds, when travelling, a whole range of small details which seems somehow for one reason or another to have escaped the attention of CN management. I know there are many people who believe that television sets are an unnecessary luxury and that they really have some intrinsic evil property which no government organization should associate itself with, but on the one hand we have

April 1, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
these vast estimates before us in respect of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the production and distribution of television programs, and on the other we find that years after most hotels and motels in this country began installing television sets the CNR was a holdout, and came along well after the others in providing what has become virtually standard equipment in most hotel chains in Canada.
As for the insignificant little key, that grotesque little red abomination which CNR hotels hand you every time you go in to register, I do not know who dreamed it up. Whoever it was, he should get a special award. For that the corporation should have its estimates cut to $1. And, speaking of all the hundreds of attachments to keys I have seen in travelling across Canada and in many parts of the world, I have never seen one anywhere in the world which can match closely that of the CNR in sterility of design. No other attachment has aroused in me such feeling of coldness and lack of appreciation with regard to design. Without doubt, some great study was undertaken in arriving at a design which would be appropriate, attractive to potential CNR hotel customers and, in some way, enhance business. If that was the object of the exercise, it failed miserably, I have talked to a number of people about this minor item, and they share my view. The question is often asked, how can anyone do a study and then come up with something which is as basically ugly and unattractive as the CNR hotel key?


Mr. Foster:: Now, start on the door mats.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am glad the hon. member opposite mentioned door mats. I might have overlooked them. In my experience, many door mats were unsatisfactory. They were threadbare. So, too, were blinds and drapes in some cases. They gave you the feeling that you were going backward in time, not forward to some new and enlightened age. The impression was that you were going back in time, to an age when society could not afford and had not developed what is essential in the field of hotel accommodation, to the time when there were not standard products, unattractive as they are, which are available today. That this is so is tragic. I feel let down and disappointed as a Canadian taxpayer.
I felt, and still feel, that many of the natural locations of these hotels are extraordinary. As the hon. member for Mississauga said, the lands on which these hotels stand today are worth many times book value. They stand on very valuable pieces of real estate, in many cases real estate which should be put to better use. So, Mr. Speaker, I think we should look carefully at any proposal of Canadian National Railways for extending their hotel business. This is not their primary business. Their primary business is moving passengers and freight. Heaven only knows, they have enough trouble with that.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) reminded us recently of the difficulties he has encountered in making sure grain moves to markets. As I pointed out the other day when I was so rudely interrupted by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), five or six years ago the CNR was doing a study on how grain might more efficiently be
 moved to market. The study looked into whether new terminal facilities are required, whether changes are required in methods of grading and cleaning, whether new equipment is required, and whether we should move to the adoption of unit trains for moving grain across the country. These are matters which are ultimately the concern of Canadian National Railways and their primary raison d'Etre. One would think the company would turn their attention to things with which they are primarily charged. If they relieve themselves of responsibility in other areas which are peripheral, they can concentrate on establishing a first class transportation system in this country.
A few years ago when I was in Japan I had the honour of riding on that famous train, "The Bullet." I admit I was favourably impressed with the technological advance of those very up-to-date people. The Bullet was designed to provide comfortable, fast transportation for the Japanese. It is a decade ahead of any Canadian ground transport system for moving passengers. I think that organizations like Canadian National Railways and Air Canada should not be involved in fields which are not their primary concern. They should not attempt functions which can better be carried out by others, such as the operation of hotels, such as, in the case of Air Canada, going into the aircraft manufacturing business. We shall touch on this later.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) told us this afternoon that Air Canada finds it difficult to maintain its aircraft. How much more trouble would it experience if it found itself in the aircraft manufacturing business about which it knows nothing. As Canadian National Railways has been declared by Parliament to be a work for the general advantage of Canada, I hope it will live up to its responsibilities, concentrate on those functions which are legitimately within its purview and provide the Canadian people with the kind of extraordinarily good service they have a right to expect from their nationally owned railway.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley)-Sports-Establishment of camps to train athletes for Olympics-Suggested use of abandoned Canadian Forces base at Clinton, Ontario; the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn)-Penitentiaries-Government action to alleviate shortage of psychiatrists.
It being five o'clock, the House will proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
April 1, 1974



PRIVATE MEMBERS MOTIONS


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should give consideration to bringing in an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to ensure the Canadian veteran with overseas service that such service be counted for time in Canada for the purpose of the Old Age Security Act whether or not he has resided full-time after discharge in Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting this motion to the House today in order to correct what I believe to be a discriminatory situation. This is caused by an interpretation of the rules and regulations by the officials of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in Victoria. On January 7, I received a copy of a letter written to one of my constituents by the regional director of Old Age Security in Victoria. I quote from the letter:
For our purpose we cannot consider you as physically present in Canada when we have confirmed that you were overseas with the Canadian armed forces from June 8, 1940 to March 1946 and in addition left Canada again in November of 1946. The Old Age Security Act does not permit us to consider overseas service as physically present in Canada for Old Age Security purposes.
I think we must emphasize the phrase "physically present". I immediately thought it was an outrage that this government actually wishes to, and does, discriminate against proud veterans who served overseas. Why should there be a difference in interpreting the rules as they apply to me, who never went overseas, and one who did? If after the war I had gone out of the country under similar circumstances, presumably when I came back I would be eligible. Surely, that is discrimination against those veterans who served overseas.
Under the present legislation, there are three ways a person may qualify for an Old Age Security pension. First, if he has resided in Canada after reaching the age of 18 for periods which total at least 40 years; second, if he has resided in Canada for 10 years immediately before approval of his application, and third, if he has been present in Canada after reaching the age of 18, and prior to the 10 years mentioned above, for periods which equal when totalled at least three times the length of his absences during the 10 year period and has resided in Canada for at least one year immediately preceding the approval of his application.
The legislation then states that some types of absences from Canada during the qualifying periods referred to above may, under certain circumstances, be considered not to interrupt residence in Canada. These include, among others, absences while employed by the Canadian government, as a member of the Canadian armed forces, as a missionary, by a Canadian firm or by an international agency. It was the decision of the Old Age Security pension board that my constituent's overseas service would not be counted as physical presence in Canada. It would
Old Age Security Act
appear that this ruling was based on the third provision which states:
Have been present in Canada after reaching the age of 18 and prior to the 10 years mentioned above for periods which equal when totalled, at least three times the length of your absence during the 10 year period and have been a resident in Canada for at least one year immediately preceding the approval of your application.
It does not refer to physical presence. It is on this basis that I believe the whole problem stems from a misinterpretation of this rule. The Canadian government defines a resident of Canada for the purpose of Old Age Security under rules and regulations, one of which is Section 15(1) (i):
a)	A person resides in Canada if he makes his home and ordinarily lives in any part of Canada.
Subsection 3(b) reads:
b)	That any interval of absence from Canada of a person that is a member of the Canadian armed forces pursuant to act in connection with the requirement of his duties shall be deemed not to have interrupted that person's residence in Canada.
Under Section 20(f) the government claims:
c)	The right of defining residence in Canada and in defining intervals of absence from Canada that shall be deemed not to have interrupted residence in Canada.
This, I believe, strengthens my argument that the interpretation of my constituent's case is incorrect and that he is being discriminated against.
When my constituent applied to join the service, he did not choose to be sent overseas. If he had been stationed here in Canada, as I was, there would be no trouble. However, he went where his country sent him and for this he is being penalized today. This is discriminative and unjust. I do not think a man's courageous war service in defence of this country should be used against him. My constituent did not choose to go overseas. He was sent; he returned home, was discharged in Canada in March 1946, and did not leave again for England until November of 1946. I cannot find any rule or regulation that gives the government the right to define presence. I am, however, satisfied in my own mind that the rules and regulations give a member of the armed forces the same status and rights as a resident of Canada, whether he is servings overseas or not.
Look at the income tax laws. They treat him the same when in the armed forces, whether he is in Canada or overseas. Family allowances are paid to members of the armed forces whether they are serving in Canada or overseas. An overseas member of the armed forces has a vote in Canadian elections. In other words, he is treated as a Canadian citizen. We now find, by an interpretation, that his overseas service does not count as presence in Canada for the purpose of Old Age Security. What discrimination.
The minister has not, however, seen fit to have these rules and regulations interpreted any differently from that which was set down by his officials in the letter of December 18 to my constituent. This letter even goes so far as to use the phrase "physically present." I have been unable to find the word "physical" in any of the statutes, rules or regulations. Our proud overseas veterans are being discriminated against. We are denying them the rights and privileges they fought so valiantly to earn and preserve.
1042

April 1, 1974
Old Age Security Act
The minister has said that an amendment to the act would be necessary so that overseas veterans in this category could receive their old age pensions. The minister stated in a speech on January 10 and, I quote:
Let me assure you that I am indeed looking at this particular matter and I have asked for even the legal opinion to be reviewed. If this can be done without any amendments to the act, I would certainly try to do it if the appropriate regulations could be amended.
However, I am afraid that the advice I will get is that the legal opinion which was given to the government must be maintained, and I will have to come before parliament with an amendment to the legislation in order to provide for cases such as this one. I waited until after the Speech from the Throne, fully expecting an announcement of amendments to the act to which the minister referred. The minister claimed to be sympathetic and interested in veterans of Canada, but still an amendment was not proposed.
It is for these reasons I have taken the initiative and am proposing this motion as well as bringing forth a private members' bill on the same subject. I believe this motion is straightforward and self-explanatory. It simply asks the minister to amend the act so that my constituent, who served this country overseas from June 1940 to March 1946, and others I have heard from, can receive their Old Age Security pension.
It should be pointed out that time is of the essence because my constituent would qualify on April 1, 1974, if the interpretation of the act had been different. I believe the amendment should be brought forth immediately, and that it should be backdated so there is definitely no discrimination in this case. If the minister and the government are serious about this, I am sure they will let this motion pass and not endeavour to talk it out. To talk it out on the basis that the minister is bringing in a bill to take care of the problem is, in my opinion, not valid. This matter could be disposed of very quickly. The minister, I am sure, is going to bring in the amendment embodied in a bill that has many more proposals in it. It will be necessary to have them all analysed so none can be taken in isolation. This is bound to take time and my constituent will have to wait because of an interpretation pronounced by a section of the minister's staff.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) for bringing before the House a motion whose purpose is to improve the Old Age Security Act by means of an amendment. Improving the Old Age Security Act has been an on-going policy of Liberal governments, and the present government in particular has introduced several additional measures which, in total, have given us one of the finest old age security programs in the world. It is, however, not perfect. Hon. members recently came upon an anomaly in the regulations which govern the existing act. The government is in complete agreement with the intent of the hon. member's motion to allow time spent overseas by a resident of Canada while a member of the Canadian Armed Forces to be deemed as not to have interrupted presence as that is presently defined by regulation. It could be done through an amendment to the act, so that a person will be deemed not to have interrupted

presence in Canada if he returns to Canada at the conclusion of his duties.
That is a complicated technicality, and one which for a long time I did not understand myself until I spoke recently with officials of the department. The question before us is a confusing one. It concerns regulations but certainly, no question of principle is involved here. The hon. member, along with other hon. members, is now aware of the difficulty and we all wish to improve the Old Age Security Act to correct the problem. The hon. member has certainly brought his representation to the right place because he will find a ready response from this side of the House.
Ever since 1908, successive steps have been taken to enact old age security legislation in which we can all take much pride. Income security measures directed to older persons developed gradually in Canada over a considerable number of years. The first legislative action of the Canadian parliament in this field was the passage, in 1908, of the Government Annuities Act, which was designed to promote habits of thrift so that Canadians might be encouraged to provide for their old age. In succeeding years, a series of committees studied the problems of the aged and an old age pension system was recommended to provide assistance on the basis of a means test to British subjects with at least 20 years of residence in Canada, under a federal-provincial cost-sharing arrangement.
Resolutions were submitted to the provincial governments for approval in 1925, and in 1927 parliament approved the Old Age Pension Act. Under this legislation the federal government was to pay 50 per cent of the cost of the program, which was administered by the provinces. Between 1927 and 1949 the federal share of the cost was increased to 75 per cent and benefits were increased to a maximum of $480 annually. Admittedly, by today's standards that is not a princely sum. By 1950 this program provided benefits under restrictive eligibility rules to over 40 per cent of Canadians aged 70 and over. In 1950, a joint parliamentary committee was appointed to look into the matter of pensions for older persons and to make recommendations to the government. This committee was composed of members of the Senate and of all parties in the House of Commons. As a result of the study, it was decided to adopt a universal flat-rate type of pension, with eligibility based solely on age and residence in Canada, to be administered by the federal government. Legislation was then introduced to bring into being the present Old Age Security Age, which became effective on January 1, 1952.
The Old Age Security Act provided for a universal flat-rate pension of $40 monthly to all persons who could fulfil the age and residence requirements. The eligible age was 70 years. The basic period of residence was 20 years in Canada immediately preceding the approval of the application for pension. A person who had not resided in Canada for the full 20 years could make up for the absences by presence in Canada prior to those 20 years on a two-for-one basis. In addition, the applicant must have resided in Canada for the year immediately preceding the approval of the application for pension. The requirement of the one year's residence was introduced because it was felt that persons who had been absent from Canada for
April 1, 1974

some years should have a recent attachment to the country in order to be able to obtain the pension. It was also intended to discourage former residents from returning to Canada solely for the purpose of receiving the pension.
The joint parliamentary committee which examined old age security in 1950 pointed out, with respect to residence requirements, that for a program such as the old age security plan, which had no citizenship requirements and under which no record of contributions had to be demonstrated, it was not unreasonable to expect an applicant to live in Canada for a substantial part of his productive years. The committee suggested a period of 20 years, which was written into the original legislation.
It was recognized that some persons would be required to be absent from Canada in connection with their employment. It was felt that for a resident of Canada who was absent from the country for specified reasons and who returned to reside in Canada at the termination of his employment, such period of absence should not interrupt his residence in Canada. A resident of Canada is defined, for the purposes of the Old Age Security Act, as one who makes his home and ordinarily lives in Canada. The original regulations provided that certain periods of absence from Canada of a resident of this country would be deemed to be periods of residence in Canada if the specified conditions were met. This covered members of the Canadian Armed Forces, federal, provincial and municipal employees, employees of Canadian firms abroad, Canadians employed by the United Nations or engaged in missionary work, and so on. It also covered married women accompanying their husbands in these circumstances. If a resident of this country absented himself under such conditions and returned to Canada at the termination of his duties, the period of his absence could be counted as residence in Canada. A little later on, the regulations were amended to provide that these periods of absence in prescribed circumstances, could also be considered as not interrupting presence in Canada.
In 1957, the basic period of residence in Canada required for eligibility was reduced from 20 to 10 years. The purpose of this amendment was to provide for persons who came to Canada late in life but who, nevertheless, had become permanent residents and were considered to have some claim to benefits on reaching pensionable age. The amendment had, however, a further result: since the two-for-one make-up formula remained unchanged, the maximum amount of earlier presence that could be required was decreased from 38 to 18 years. Thus, a person who had resided in Canada for the first 18 years of his life and had then left the country and spent all of his productive years elsewhere, could return one year prior to his seventieth birthday and qualify for pension at age 70.
Later, the Old Age Security Act regulations were amended to provide that where a resident of Canada was absent from the country in specified circumstances, including service with the Canadian Forces, his absence would not interrupt his residence in Canada if he returned to Canada at the end of his service or if he reached pensionable age while so engaged. The provision for counting the period of absence as presence in Canada- that almost sounds like double talk, Mr. Speaker, but it really does make sense-was rescinded because it was felt
Old Age Security Act
that the change in the amount of make-up time under the two-for-one requirement brought about by the reduction in the basic period of residence in Canada from 20 to 10 years would make it possible for a person to qualify for the pension on the basis of a very short period of actual presence in Canada if a period of absence could be counted as presence.
In 1965 also the Old Age Security Act was amended to reduce the age at which pensions could be paid from 70 to 65. This was done by reducing the eligible age one year at a time over a five year period from 1966 to 1970, so that in January 1970 it reached age 65. Effective from December 1971 the two-for-one requirement became three-for-one, with presence in Canada only after the 18th birthday to be counted. This increased to 27 years the maximum amount of presence that could be required to make up for absences in the 10 years immediately preceding the receiving of the pension; that is, the 55 to 65 years of age period. If you were absent during that 10 year period, you had to make up for that time by actual presence in Canada on the basis of three-for-one. So simply put, if you were away two years, you had to have a physical presence requirement in Canada in the preceding time of six years, which is three times two.
This change was brought about as a result of complaints. This is usually why we change acts or bring in legislation, because there is pressure from the public indicating something is wrong or that something different must be done. There were complaints by residents of Canada about the situation described earlier, wehre persons who had left Canada at an early age were able to return to Canada and qualify for the old age security pension after only one year of residence. Many of these persons who had spent their working years in the United States had also qualified for social security benefits in that country. They had those benefits and then they returned to Canada and received the benefits that had been passed by the Canadian parliament.
The Old Age Security Act provides that payments are to be made from the Consolidated Revenue Fund and charged to the Old Age Security Fund. In former years the Old Age Security Fund derived its income from a special tax on personal income, corporation income and sales. This special tax was eliminated with effect from January, 1972, and provision was made to credit the Old Age Security Fund from general revenues in respect of each fiscal year with an amount equivalent to what would have been collected under former provisions. Although entitlement to the old age security pension is not based on the insurance principle, it seems reasonable to require a period of residence or presence in Canada during which a person would presumably have made some contribution to the economy of the country and thus to its ability to finance social security benefits.
In 1965, it was recognized that there were persons who had spent all or the greater part of their lives in Canada and who might wish to leave the country after retirement and before reaching pensionable age. There are certain qualifying regulations governing people who wish to do this, so perhaps I might spend a moment or two commenting on this aspect. An additional method of fulfilling the
27451-3 i

April 1, 1974
Old Age Security Act
residence requirements was therefore added. This provides that the pension may be paid to anyone who has completed a total of 40 years of residence in Canada after age 18, regardless of where he is residing on attaining pensionable age. In computing the 40 years of residence, periods of absence that meet the specific conditions laid down by the legislation are counted. They are counted as years of residence. In addition to absences resulting from employment, a resident of Canada may be absent for temporary periods not exceeding one year or for the purpose of attending a school or university without interrupting his residence.
Originally, the pension could not be paid to anyone outside of Canada. This was changed by an amendment to the legislation in 1960 to permit indefinite payment of the pension outside the country, once the initial requirements had been met and the pension approved, to a pensioner who had resided in Canada for at least 25 years after age 21. In May, 1972, this requirement was reduced to 20 years after the 18th birthday. A pensioner with less residence is entitled to payment for only six months following the month of his departure.
The provision for indefinite payment outside Canada applies only to the basic pension. The guaranteed income supplement may continue for only six months after a pensioner leaves Canada, regardless of his history of residence. The guaranteed income supplement is, of course, the supplementary payment added to the basic pension on the basis of an income test. It was introduced in 1967 to assist those pensioners who had been unable to make adequate provision for later life and who were not in a position to benefit fully or at all from the Canada Pension Plan or the Quebec Pension Plan, under which benefits are paid in direct relation to contributions made from earnings over a qualifying period. The supplement was originally intended as a transitional measure while the retirement pension programs of the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan were maturing. It was later adopted on a permanent basis. Both the guaranteed income supplement and the basic old age security pension are now escalated quarterly to compensate for the rise in the cost of living.
A pensioner who has qualified for the pension on the basis of having resided in Canada for a total of 40 years, even though a considerable portion of those 40 years was spent outside the country under conditions considered not to have interrupted his residence, would automatically be entitled to indefinite payment of the pension wherever he might choose to live, on the basis of having completed 20 years of residence after age 18. A person who had spent only 10 years immediately preceding pensionable age as a resident of Canada and who had qualified for pension on that basis would, of course, have to complete an additional 10 years of residence before becoming eligible for payment on an indefinite basis outside Canada. In other words, the particular regulation does not apply if a person stays here but only if he goes somewhere else, outside, of Canada.
In the same way, a person who had been absent during the final 10 years and who had qualified on the basis of having had sufficient earlier presence to make up three times the length of those absences might have to complete additional residence after becoming a pensioner to make

up the 20 years necessary for entitlement to indefinite payment outside the country. So all of this has to do with receiving pension benefits when you decide to retire outside of Canada.
As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has stated, the old age security regulations provide that certain absences from Canada of a resident shall be deemed not to have interrupted that person's residence in Canada if prescribed conditions are met. Those include absences while a person is employed or engaged by the United Nations, one of its specialized agencies, a Canadian firm or corporation, the federal government, as a member of the Canadian forces pursuant to and in connection with the requirements of his duties, as a missionary or other similar employment or engagement.
It should be noted here that the types of employment covered fall into two specific groups. In the case of a resident of Canda employed outside the country by the United Nations or one of its specialized agencies, by certain other international agencies, or by a Canadian firm or corporation, he must have had in Canada, during his absence, a permanent place of abode to which he intended to return, or have maintained in Canada a self-contained domestic establishment, and he must have returned to Canada at the end of his employment or reached pensionable age while still absent in this capacity. For other types of employment, such as with the government of Canada or a provincial or municipal government, as a member of the armed forces, as a missionary, as a person performing services with a development or assistance program sponsored by the federal or a provincial government or by a non-profit Canadian agency, as a member or an officer of an international charitable organization, and so on, the requirement is simply that the person concerned must have returned to Canada at the end of such employment or reached pensionable age during his absence.
However-and this is the key to the difficulty in which we find ourselves-the regulations do not provide that periods of absence under these circumstances may be deemed not to have interrupted that person's presence in Canada in determing his eligibility under the three-for-one presence requirement. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is faced with this dilemma. He, simply on his own authority, cannot alter the regulations, and so he wants as quickly as possible to bring before the House an amendment to the act that will give him the authority to alter the regulations and to deal with specific cases such as that which the hon. member has brought to the attention of this House concerning a problem which a constituent of his is facing. Therefore, the minister is of the opinion that such periods should be counted as presence in Canada, as he indicated in the House some weeks ago when the matter arose in connection with an application for old age security by a person who had been overseas in the Canadian army during world war II.
In this case, the date on which he became eligible was set back because the period of overseas service could not be counted as presence in Canada. The person in question also had only intermittent residence in Canada. An amendment to the Old Age Security Act is required before a regulation can be made to deem prescribed absences of
April 1, 1974

this kind as not interrupting presence in Canada. This is the dilemma in which the minister finds himself. We have a government, with the desire to help people who have served Canada well, such as the constituent of the hon. member, but because of the way Parliament passes legislation and the way in which regulations are drawn, the minister finds his hands tied. He feels badly about this and wants to do something about it.
I should point out as well that investigation has revealed that the number of cases where a resident of Canada could not qualify for the pension on the normal date of eligibility because he was unable to count an absence from Canada, as a member of the Canadian forces, as presence in Canada was very small and occurred only where there had been extended periods of other absence from Canada. Although the number is small, the government appreciates the difficulty a delay in eligibility for the pension may cause the person concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. He may be allowed to continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the members for the courtesy extended to me to continue. I wish to say what the minister plans to do. What is required is an amendment to the Old Age Security Act to authorize the making of a regulation defining presence in Canada, and intervals of absence from Canada that shall be deemed not to have interrupted presence in Canada. If you understand that, Mr. Speaker, I wish you would explain it to the rest of us. However, after some prolonged discussion with very learned officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the front lobby of this House, I can say that I do understand it now. A regulation could then be made whereby absences from Canada of a resident under prescribed circumstances would be deemed not to have interrupted presence in Canada if such a person returned to Canada at the termination of his duties or reached pensionable age while so engaged.
In certain circumstances such a person would be required to have had in Canada a permanent place of abode to which he intended to return or to have maintained in Canada a self-contained domestic establishment during his employment out of Canada. The government intends to introduce an amendment to the Old Age Security Act, and if this is approved by parliament-and I believe there is no doubt that it will-it will allow for appropriate changes to the old age security regulations. The government is anxious to ensure that veterans and all other Canadians receive just and fair treatment under all types of legislation. So we expect that amendment very soon and I am sure it will pass all stages without undue debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) launched into his speech, I felt sorrier for myself than I already did that I have the kind of voice that will not let me speak for my full time today. When I looked at the motion in the name of the hon. member for Okanagan
Old Age Security Act
Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), I realized it related to one very narrow point in the Old Age Security Act and I assumed that the rule of relevancy would require that we confine our remarks to that point. But my good friend from Thunder Bay did me the honour of reciting the whole history of old age pensions in Canada. I say he did me the honour because he started that history from the very day I was born, June 18, 1908. That was the day, these several decades ago, that the Government Annuities Act was given second reading and put through the House of Commons.
I followed with interest the history of the subsequent pension legislation which the hon. member for Thunder Bay recited, and the various changes in the Old Age Security Act and in the regulations thereunder. I was hoping he would carry right on and tell us of the further improvements that are to be made in the near future.


Mr. Whicher:: Tell us where we are going to get the money while you are at it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend should not worry about money these days. When three young men can visit Toronto and while there obtain contracts for $1 million each, why worry about money? As I say, I am glad the hon. member for Thunder Bay made clear that the necessary amendment will be introduced, and that it will be in keeping with the resolution of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. However, I was hoping he would tell us at the same time that other changes would be made in respect of old age security. We have come a long way from June 18, 1908, but what we need now is a provision for pensions of at least $200 a month payable at age 60 and, in addition, a few other improvements.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Tell us where we will get the money?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend from Bruce (Mr. Whicher) agrees with me completely. He is one of my publicity agents. He has already drawn attention to the way my clamouring for these things over the years has paid off. I am still clamouring.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Now the public is paying.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Never mind about the fact that the public pays, because it is according to ability to pay. The fact that we have pensions of at least $100 a month, plus quarterly escalation, on a universal basis, means we have provided for our older people a relatively better position in society than was the case 20, 30 or 40 years ago. As we go along with this program on a universal basis, projecting the principle of equality, we make our society that much better. So, Mr. Speaker, I am glad you did not stop my good friend from Thunder Bay in his interesting recital of the 65 years and nine months or so in which I have lived and through which we have had improvements in the pension legislation of this country. I trust that, like the good Liberals they are over there, when we have further gains they will all stand and applaud those further improvements.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 1, 1974
Old Age Security Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Good; I hear they are applauding even now. Maybe they would like this parliament to carry on a little longer so they could go to the government and say it should do something in this pension field; that is one way this parliament might be made to last.
I wish to support, without reservation, the request of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. His motion asks that the government give consideration to the introduction of an appropriate amendment. The hon. member for Thunder Bay says such an amendment will be forthcoming. I hope there will be no loss of time in this being done, and that when it is done there will be sufficient retroactivity in the regulations so that my hon. friend's constituent will be covered so far as his pension is concerned.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay sought to explain the situation and was afraid that at times he was confusing it. It can be confused, but I think it is relatively simple. At least, I shall try to make it that way. The point at issue with respect to the constituent of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary comes up only in the case of a person who does not have the last ten years, before age 65, of residence in Canada and has to make up for any shortage of years in that last ten-year period by three times as many years during the period from age 18 to age 55. It just so happens that the act and the regulations, in providing for that shortfall of years between 55 and 65 to be made up by three times the number of years between 18 and 55, require as the legislation now reads, that any of those years between 18 and 55, if used for that make-up purpose, must be years of actual presence in Canada.
It seems to me, in view of the fact that in interpreting other parts of the legislation it has been possible to define residence in Canada in such a way that absence for certain specified purposes did not destroy that residence in Canada, it is grossly unfair that in this one instance it should be ruled that a man who was overseas as a veteran serving in the armed forces cannot count those years for the purpose of making up the shortage between the age of 55 and the age of 65.
The request is obviously one that should be met as quickly as possible. I understand that there are not a great many cases affected, but the law is wrong when it does an obvious injustice even to one person. I think it is particularly wrong when it does an injustice like this to a Canadian veteran, and I hope this matter will be resolved very quickly and that the next time the hon. member for Thunder Bay tells the story of old age pensions since 1908, there will be a few more chapters that will make the story even better.


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, these debates are never a waste of time and never without merit because there is no time when we really do not learn something. Today I learned something that I did not realize before. I knew that 1959 was a great vintage year for Bordeaux, and that 1965 was a great year for Burgundy; but I did not realize how great a year 1908 was for Winnipeg North Centre and for the House of Commons as a whole. That was indeed a vintage year because it started us along the right path toward pensions in this country.

I think this is a particularly important afternoon because it is rare that in the House of Commons we come to grips with problems of individual Canadians. I believe we are fortunate as a nation to be so small in the sense that this place is not too big to bring forward the problems of an individual who has suffered injustice. For that we are grateful to the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker). I am also grateful to my colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner), who stated the case so well and in such detail that he left me with little more to say. However, it matters not if one talks out such a motion; the fact that it has been brought to the floor of the House and that the government is responding, as the minister has indicated, is the important thing, and it will be done with dispatch.
I think it is important that we do not get out of whack with regard to injustices in our society in individual cases. However, it does not mean that our society is wrong. I was sorry to hear the suggestion of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary that this government does not care about veterans. I happen to be a veteran and I came out of the forces after five years of war. I do not know of another nation that has treated its veterans better than ours. As a result, the original legislation and legislation that has been passed recently by this government would indicate that there is no inequity or insensitivity toward veterans nor so far as pensions generally are concerned.
It was this government that brought the veterans legislation up to date and is continuing to do so. That is not insensitivity. It is this government that provided the old age security plan which is second to none anywhere in the world. I do not mean by that that it is enough. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we must do more, and we shall do more, and no one will ever be satisfied in that respect.
In effect, it must be recognized that the government has given to senior citizens a guaranteed income and has given pensions to burnt out veterans-although I do not like the expression and the gratuitous way in which the pension is handled in some respects-and we have escalator clauses built in to protect them at least partially against the ravages of inflation. In none of these instances am I totally satisfied, but it is unfair to take a situation which is really not a normal one and accuse the government of insensitivity. The fact is that this government has not been insensitive, nor have Canadians been insensitive. Had we been insensitive, we would not have been in power as long as we have, certainly not with the support of hon. members opposite who, I am sure, share our concern and our interest in this respect.
There are fine differences between the terms "presence" and "residence" and these can be wildly misconstrued, as my colleague the hon. member for Thunder Bay has said. It is a little frustrating for those of us who are non-lawyers and think in ordinary terms. As for the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary, I do not know whether he is a lawyer, an apple-picker or a peach-picker, but I am sure that even if he were a lawyer he would be frustrated by it also, although he might understand it a little better.
We must have reasonable regulations, and I think our regulations are reasonable. As a matter of fact, the amendment that is causing difficulty here was brought in, not by
April 1, 19V4

an unfeeling government to squeeze the veterans a little more but it happened to be brought in in 1957. If my recollection is correct, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister at that time. So if it was an insensitive measure, he would be blaming his own party. But that amendment was an improvement on the legislation as it then existed.
We deal with a small number of cases, and when there is an inequity it is cleared up. However, at the same time we as legislators have a responsibility to see that our legislation is not totally open ended so that anybody can come to Canada from anywhere in the world and enjoy all the benefits of our society. Frankly, I hope that day comes; I really do. I think we are living in such a favoured position in the world today-and we are terribly selfish about it at times-that we must think, not in terms of how much more we can get for ourselves but how we will share it with the less favoured people in the world.
Some people do not like that. They are to be found among members opposite as well as in my own party, I am sure, and even in my own constituency. But we have a long way to go, and when I hear complaints that we are overtaxed and we have such immense problems in our own country that we should forget about people overseas, that charity begins at home, it does not go down very well with me. In fact, it goes the opposite way.
I am a businessman in private life. People say that businessmen are being squeezed out of business. Businessmen have a responsibility to be efficient and to make profits. They also have the responsibility to use those profits to help reduce costs, and this is important. That which is not used to reduce prices must go back into society. Our first obligation, of course, is to our own people. We have to keep our own house in order. But we cannot sit in our own pristine white purity in this country and think that the rest of the world does not exist. If we continue in that way, I suggest that the world will continue to exist but we will not, and what exists will not be white. I am sorry to get off on this track when dealing with a fine point of law.
I think it is a ridiculous point of law that we are discussing tonight. The important thing is that the hon. member has moved his motion, asking the minister to give consideration to it. The minister himself so indicated in the House on January 10. We have had reassurances, in which I have every confidence, that legislation will be brought forward. Of course, if I were in the hon. member's position I would be inclined to introduce the same sort of motion. This is what makes our system work. This is what prods government. This is what brings inequities which affect small, ordinary Canadians to the fore. I think it is a good question to be debated by us this evening.


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) suggested that the question involved in this point revolved on a matter of interpretation. I think the point has already been made that that really is not so. The minister does not have power, under the act passed by parliament, to interpret that act in a way other than it is being interpreted at
Old Age Security Act
the present time. The real question concerns what is involved in "presence" in Canada. Presence, according to the legal advisers to the Crown, means that you have to be in Canada. That is the issue.
What we must do if we are to solve this problem is amend the Old Age Security Act in such a way as to give power to the governor in council to define in fact what is presence in Canada. If that amendment were made, it would be possible for the minister to make recommendations to the governor in council to interpret "presence" in the way that he sees fit, to accommodate the kind of question that has been raised this evening. When replying to a question respecting this matter in the House of Commons on January 10, 1974, as reported at page 9270 of Hansard, the minister indicated that he was very sensitive to the question and that in due course he would be introducing an amendment to solve the problem. I think that is really the long and the short of the matter. That is what we intend to do, and we will do it.
I would now like to turn for a moment to the specific wording of the motion. It contains two elements. The first element talks about the Old Age Security Act being amended to ensure that Canadian veterans with overseas service have such service counted for time in Canada. I think all of us know what the hon. member means, but I think there is a bit of difference with respect to what is said in the motion because the law at present provides for overseas service to be counted as time in Canada in respect of residency. That is "time in Canada" under the law, but not in terms of "presence" in Canada. I think the wording ought to be changed to "presence in Canada."
The second element has not been alluded to in the discussion this evening. At the conclusion of his motion the hon. member indicates that the proposed amendment would cover veterans whether or not they had resided full-time in Canada after their discharge. That is a new element. Even if the period spent overseas as a veteran, or indeed as an employee of the government of Canada, were considered as presence in Canada, this would solve part of the problem but not all of the problem raised by the hon. member because, according to the relevant section of the act, a person has to be in Canada for one year immediately preceding approval of an application for pension. I do not think that aspect of the matter has really been discussed by any of the members who have taken part in this debate, and it should be considered. I am not aware of any decision that the government has made with respect to this question in forthcoming legislation, so I intend to bring it to the minister's attention.
I congratulate the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) on his contribution to this debate. He contributed substantially by reviewing the background of the act and the technicalities involved in this legal problem which affects a small number of individual citizens. Those who take time to read his explanation will understand how these matters have arisen.
At the beginning of his remarks, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) referred to the importance of parliament giving consideration to the consequences of legislation affecting individual citizens. I concur wholeheartedly in his remarks. A matter that has upset me for years, even before I became a parliamentarian, is that

April 1, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
when laws are drawn up they often contain inequities with respect to isolated individual circumstances and far too often the response is that nothing can be done because the law is the law. I am delighted that my minister is not responding in that way.
I also agree with the NDP member who indicated that this kind of question is very important. He said that when an injustice is done to one person, to a thousand people or indeed to a million, the number involved does not make any difference but the injustice itself must be corrected. My minister subscribes to that view. Hon. members can rest assured that the kind of question brought to our attention in this motion and in representations from others will certainly be taken into account and legislation will be introduced to correct the matter.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-5, an act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1973, to the 30th day of June, 1974, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested tonight to see that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and myself were the first in the chamber. I thought for a moment that we would be discussing this bill in its entirety by ourselves. After the speech of the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), I suspect that the Minister of Finance is already getting tired of red keys.
Today we have before us Bill C-5, an act to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the CN system and Air Canada. I had the opportunity to speak on the bill when it was Bill C-164. It has now returned to the House as Bill C-5. The amendments having to do with the deletion of $5.5 million to be spent on hotels and $8.8 million to be spent on the CN tower will be voted on, as well as some amendments having to do with the directors and executive officers. On January 8, 1974, I said the following:
I have no trouble in supporting these two amendments. Even though

CNR has been traditionally involved in hotels, I believe these amendments point out that parliament is concerned about the diversification of the CNR into these many facets. The CNR should have to borrow the money for hotels, TV in hotels and tourist attractions in Toronto from other sources.
During that speech I made reference to the Hotel MacDonald and some of the things I considered were problems of concern to management. Lo and behold, a couple of months ago I had the opportunity of being at the Hotel MacDonald at a convention, and I was not let down. We were supposed to check into the hotel at two o clock, but most of the guests were lined up until well after eight o'clock before any of them got into their rooms. I say that as an aside and an illustration of many experiences hon. members have had with many CN hotels.
I should now like to refer to the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications at page 29:9, where the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) referred to a consulting firm and said:
This particular consulting firm is doing a tremendous amount of work out of the country. Surely, Mr. Chairman, if the operations of the CN hotel chain are less than profitable, perhaps the committee should go on record as recommending that the hotel engage the services of CANAC to study the hotel operations with a view to upgrading them.
I thought this was an excellent idea. The hon. member went on to say:
The MacDonald Hotel in Edmonton is situated in a prime location in a very active city. It only generated a profit of $15,000 in 1971, $30,000 in 1972, so there is something obviously wrong.
I might add that there is some $8.3 million invested in that hotel so obviously there is something wrong. The hon. member further said:
We, as members, should certainly draw this to the attention of the CNR and to the public.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), the chairman of the committee, said:
Mr. Mazankowski, you are an astute businessman and you know that in certain years, expenditures have to be made to renovate, to overhaul, and to modernize your business premises. I think that is what is happening to the MacDonald Hotel now. I know that the enlargement of the hotel will greatly enhance its profitability picture and I expect a better profit picture from the MacDonald Hotel next year.
The following is the point that was made to which I should particularly like to refer. The hon. member for Vegreville then said:
Mr. Chairman, any good business will generate its own capital to renovate its premises.
The main concern of the CNR should be the improvement of rail transportation, not hotels and real estate. While such mundane considerations as rail safety and improved grain transportation do not equal the CNR tower in glamour and prestige, they are nevertheless of paramount importance.
This bill provides for CNR expenditures on rail property, branch lines, new equipment, etc. This brings me to the comments I wish to make regarding expenditures for 1972-73 and beyond 1974. If you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, I would argue that we can use this money elsewhere. I suggest that we could use it for boxcars, hopper
April 1, 1974

cars, the upgrading of track and the other things which are necessary if we are to move goods across this country.
The president of the CNR tells us that the $31 million requested in the bill is for the purchase of equipment, cars and locomotives. The CNR ordered 3,400 cars in 1973 and received 3,000. None of these cars, by the admission of Messrs. MacMillan and Hunt, was suitable for transporting grain. In 1973 the railways also repaired 2,500 boxcars of which 1,500 were suitable for the transport of grain. I notice that the number of boxcars used for moving grain fell from 88,000 in 1963 to 42,000 in 1973. This dramatic decrease pushed the government into purchasing, in 1972,
2.000	additional hopper cars. The government wants to contract them out to the CPR and CNR in order to alleviate the problem and give the railways a few years of breathing space.
Recently, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board announced in Estevan that prairie farmers will get 4,000 more hopper cars to move their grain. These
4.000	hopper cars will cost between $100 million and $125 million. The minister also predicted that short-term measures to improve grain transportation will bring a speedy end to current snarls in the system. According to an article in the Financial Times of April 1, 1974-
Officials in the federal transport department and the grains group under Otto Lang, minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, are relying on the $6.8 million-
That figure, I think, ought to be $3.4 million.
-government-railway program to repair 2,400 boxcars to pull them through this year's snarl, and also prop them up in the 1974-75 crop year.
An aide to Mr. Lang emphasized: "It is his objective to have a system that will handle and transport one billion bushels a year. Then we can challenge the producers and marketers to meet this challenge."
I assume that the 4,000 additional boxcars will be useful in removing the grain. This will also be done at the taxpayers' expense. In addition, the Canada Grains Council recently said that between 200 and 300 motive power units are being maintained in western Canada and largely used in the distribution and collection of grain cars from branch lines. These diesels are light, low horsepower units, among the first generation units purchased by the railways. Many of them are approximately 20 years old and are rapidly becoming obsolete. Under present techniques for moving grain, an investment of over $50 million in the next eight to ten years will be required to replace these diesels.
In contrast, the new diesels being purchased are much heavier. This is creating a serious problem as the weight of the engines, combined with the weight of the newest hopper cars, which weight 263,000 pounds fully loaded, are straining to the limit many miles of track and roadbed which are incapable of sustaining such loads. I am told that a conservative estimate of the cost of upgrading such track is $100,000 per mile. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board has said that he will press the railways to upgrade more lines so that they can bear the weight of a 263,000-pound loaded hopper car.
According to a 1971 estimate, only 10,000 miles of present trackage in western Canada can support such a payload, and approximately another 11,000 miles cannot. If it were necessary to upgrade only half of those 11,000
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada miles, the cost of the improvement would be some $550 million. How far, then, would the $20 million-odd set aside for hotels and the CNR tower go toward the upgrading of this track? It would not go far, but at least if you applied such money to that purpose you would take a step in the right direction.
The CTC railway transport committee has pointed out that the number of derailments caused by track conditions on Canadian National and Canadian Pacific in 1972 is three times that of 1959 and nearly double that of 1969. Because of this continuing increase in derailments to date, it must be concluded that in the future the number of derailments caused by poor track conditions will continue to increase, as will the number of resulting injuries and deaths, unless immediate action is taken. The committee is concerned about roadbeds because of the continuous movement of heavy railway cars over track that is supposedly capable of supporting them. My point is that much of the 10,000 miles of track capable of handling these heavy cars needs rechecking. Perhaps we should apply new technology and upgrade some track. This, again, would add to the costs of the railways.
There also have been announcements regarding cost-revenue squeezes because of inflation, higher fuel and labour costs and increased costs of other equipment necessary in running a railroad. My point is that the costs in future of some subsidiary businesses may also rise and these businesses will compete for the money the railways need. I am referring to hotels, real estate and some of the other businesses in which the CNR and CPR are involved. Recently, at a symposium on Canada's non-renewable resources held in Toronto, F.S. Burbidge, president of Canadian Pacific, said:
Where the railways are concerned there is no longer any substantial economic advantage to be gained by further increase in the length of unit trains, which operate today at gross weights of up to about 14,000 tons.
His revelation, that the full capacity of transcontinental trains may soon be reached, is most serious. In my address I have not even begun to total the required future expenditures of the rail transportation industry or even taken into consideration the possibility that railways may operate at their full capacity in the near future. I know that putting this right would add up to much more money than is provided in this bill, even if one were to average out the cost over eight or ten years.
I believe I know what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) meant when he told this House on March 11 that we do not have what we can call a real policy for the future. He said that if he stayed at his post, he would surely ask for the authority of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in trying to elaborate this kind of policy so we would know where we were going.
The situation is desperate. We need a policy for the future, and we need it fast. Perhaps the transport committee can help the minister in his deliberations. The freeze on rail line abandonment comes off on January 1, 1975. That concerns western Canada and the minister ought to act in this regard.
After studying all the statistics, can one say that the railway companies have really done everything in their power to help transportation in Canada? Canadian rail-
1050

April 1, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
ways are moving money into new rolling stock to meet record traffic demands. In the past year Canadian National Railways has been buying heavily and has placed orders totalling more than $225 million for freight cars and locomotives. CP rail says that since 1970 its orders for new rolling stock have exceeded $215 million, with $20 million on current order and orders for 1975 now totalling $14.3 million, with the probability of more to come. Why is it that every year we are falling behind? When we look at these orders we find that many are not for moving the produce of industries that are falling behind, such as the grain, vegetable and fresh fruit industries. A lot of the cars to be brought into service are to replace ones that have been taken out of service because they are getting old and are no longer functional.
It is a fact that in Canada we have more geographic barriers than any country. Because of this, Canadian producers depend on the railway system more than any other country to meet their transportation needs. Above all else, it is the duty of the government, notwithstanding the hotels, towers and affiliated industries, to ensure that a strong, dependable and prompt transportation system is developed in Canada. The minister says he does not have the power to do this. In a recent speech, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) stated:
-Jack Pickersgill... said the bill contained all the power and authority which the commission wanted ...
So if the Minister of Transport, who has the authority, wanted to exercise it, he could say to the Transportation Commission: "I want you to order the railway companies to provide the cars and facilities to carry the freight and to do so diligently and carefully". Having made that order, the commission could include in the order a provision that if they do not do what is ordered a penalty will be imposed.
Although this bill has come forward in the name of the Minister of Finance, surely the Minister of Transport can say to the railways, "provide the cars, or no money for hotels".


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words at the report stage of Bill C-5 which deals with financing Canadian National Railways, and some of the Conservative amendments attached thereto. When we talk about a national transportation policy it is very enlightening, although not unexpected, to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) finally admit that the transportation system as it applies to railways in this country is in a mess. He admitted that competition is not working between the railways and the profit motive is not working because it means phasing out the uneconomical but nonetheless essential lines. It also means that grain, the stable of the western Canadian economy, is not moving. The farmers run the risk of losing half a billion dollars a year. Lumber from the interior of British Columbia is not moving out of the province due to lack of boxcars and necessary transportation facilites.
We see this transportation mess fostered by succeeding Conservative and Liberal governments. We see the Conservative amendments to reduce some of the funding to CNR; they remind me of the Conservative way of giving a patient a band aid when major surgery is needed. It is time we looked at the whole operation of CNR, a sup-

posedly public corporation, a supposedly nationalized corporation. It is time to really nationalize the CNR and its counterpart, the CPR. The Conservative amendments ignore the crux of the matter, that is, developing a viable transportation policy. If we are to have a transportation policy in this country which will promote regional development, equity among the regions and provide service for all Canadians, we must consider the basic way in which the system is run.
Transportation is essential and we must put service before profit. The freight rate structure, which is designed to maximize profits, has resulted not only in lack of service to very remote regions of Canada, which nonetheless need the railways, as well as poor service but it has fostered and perpetuated economic discriminations in various regions of this country. Our freight rate system perpetuates the strength of central Canada as the manufacturing concentration in Canada, to the detriment of developing secondary manufacturing in my area of the country, northern Ontario, as well as the maritimes and the west.
I do not need to go through all the examples. A few will serve to remind us of this discrimination. Because of our freight rate system, it is cheaper to ship steel from Ontario to Vancouver than from Ontario to Calgary. It is this kind of freight rate discrimination that westerners so often cite. In northern Ontario, it is cheaper to ship raw materials out of the north, thereby perpetuating the resource-oriented economy of the north and the lack of jobs compared to manufacturing. It is cheaper to ship iron ore out of the north than to ship manufactured goods. For example, it costs $8.60 a ton to ship iron ore pellets from Copper Cliff in northern Ontario to Pittsburgh in the United States. However, to ship fertilizer from Sudbury to Toronto costs $90.80 per ton. This is only one of many examples of the discrimination that is occurring. It costs a person in Sault Ste. Marie $15 to buy an identical food basket for which a consumer in Toronto would pay only $13. That is not only due to discrimination by the railways but by the trucking companies as well.
We have a so-called public corporation, Canadian National Railways, and a private corporation, Canadian Pacific Railway. Both are heavily subsidized by Canadian taxpayers and neither is fulfilling the objectives of a national transportation policy. Their service is poor and their freight rates are discriminatory. I had hoped the government and the official opposition would tackle that problem, but no: when we look at the amendments, we see it is not approached. This is fiddling with the essential problem. For example, Canadian National Railways, supposedly a publicly-owned corporation, is being run like a private corporation. The CN debt, amounting to about $811 million, is owed to private bondholders. This debt has been outstanding since the government took over the Canadian Northland Railway, the Grand Truck railroad and other uneconomic lines and formed them into the CNR.
The CNR showed an operating surplus in 1972 of $48 million. The company is able to make money but it has not declared an over-all profit since 1956. Why? Because the company pays off its private debts first. The $1 billion debt to the government and the Canadian taxpayers is not
April 1, 1974

being paid back in line with the corporate policy, the private interest policy of paying off bondholders first. On the other hand, the CN management quickly uses its debt as a convenient excuse for withholding raises from hardworking employees. We saw this last August during the railway strike. We in this party argued in favour of paying a decent wage to the employees, but I am sad to say that the Liberal and Conservative members forced those railroad workers back to work with an unjust wage settlement.
To whom are the company's debts being repaid? Who are the private bondholders the CNR has been paying off? This question has been put to the minister responsible and he in turn has directed it to the CNR. But the CNR refused to give members of this House a list of its private bondholders. However, there is sufficient evidence to point a finger at a few of the bondholders who are being paid off first. One of them is the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. The predecessors of that bank, the Imperial Bank and the Canadian Bank of Commerce, were the largest shareholders in 1917 when the bankrupt Canadian Northland Railway was taken over by the CNR: and on today's CN board of directors we find directors from the Imperial Bank, the Royal Bank and Royal Trust. This is where the money is going-to the private bondholders. It is not being used to improve the rolling stock or to improve the service.
The amounts mentioned by the Conservatives, a couple of million dollars here and a couple of million there, are a drop in the bucket compared with the amount of debt being paid off to private bondholders. In the bill before us the government is asking parliament to grant $225,500,000 to CNR for new construction and rolling stock. At the same time, I find it ironical that $200 million of the company's bonds should be coming to maturity. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but I have the impression there is more to it than that. If the CNR were not obliged to pay off these private debts, it could be putting hundreds of millions of dollars into improving its service and lowering freight rates.
There is one solution to the perennial difficulties of the CNR, and that is to cancel its debts to private debtors. The private debtors have milked the Canadian public enough in the past. We have formed a railway system which has been uneconomic in the long run, yet they still expect to be paid off. It seems to me the solution is a truly nationalized CNR-to bring it under direct government control, although I do not know whether either the Liberals or the Conservatives would have the willpower to run such an organization in the best interests of Canadians. However, I do know that under a New Democratic government a truly national CNR and CPR would turn this country around in terms of service and would end freight rate discrimination.
As I see it, there is no need to play the games the Tory amendments invite us to play. We must introduce fundamental reforms, perform major surgery to make the CNR and the CPR a public utility run for the best interests of all Canadians and to end freight rate discrimination in northern Ontario, the west and the maritimes. That is the way in which to solve the problems of the railways in this
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada country, and I urge hon. members to consider taking such a course.
Mb'. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few comments to those made by my hon. friends on the amendment to Bill C-5 in the name of the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) suggesting the deletion of items amounting to $5 million for hotels and $8 million for a communications tower.
If there is any organization which should be broken up and separated into individual units and be subject to close scrutiny, it is the CN. Why should the people of Canada subsidize communications networks, hotels and the various trucking operations of this company? In the past these operations have been carried out by private enterprise. The people of this nation are being virtually blackmailed by the CN. The CN announces a freight rate increase; one of the provinces objects, so the government intervenes and gives the company a subsidy in consideration for not raising the rate. Then the railway turns around and buys another hotel or adds to one of the hotels it already owns.
The CN announces that it will discontinue passenger service somewhere. Objections are raised by the municipalities concerned. Again the government intervenes and pays a subsidy. Then the CNR builds a telecommunications tower. It threatens to abandon certain railway lines. Again, objections are raised and further subsidies result. Meanwhile, the lines are lying idle and rusted; weeds are growing over the tracks. Certainly, money is not being spent on the maintenance of the rail lines; it is being diverted to other projects, to buy hotel businesses or to build up telecommunications and other interests.
Very often the CN encounters labour difficulties. The company takes a hard position, knowing that if it plays out its hand the government will step in, force a settlement and come up with a subsidy to bail it out. We know the CN cannot move wheat from western Canada in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of our customers. The necessary cars are lacking. After a lot of fanfare, the government buys hopper cars so that the grain can be moved. Two years later the company says it cannot afford to maintain them. So the government kicks in $250 million to maintain the hopper cars. And on it goes. Somewhere along the line it will be necessary to call a halt to this process. There is hardly a municipality in this country with level-crossings in or near a built-up area that has not been brushed off many times by the CNR if they decide to raise the issue of level-crossing problems, stop lights or interconnecting switches. We go on year after year being blackmailed in this way.
How much untold frustration did the rapeseed mess cause western Canada and Canada as a whole? Only after a confrontation with the western premiers did the CNR move to rectify the situation. Only after the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) promised that this matter would be straightened out was something done. But what did it cost the people of Canada before this matter was rectified? Surely the Minister of Transport was only joking when he suggested that the CPR should be nationalized. As one of my
27451-4,1

April 1, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
colleagues said a moment ago, we should nationalize the CPR and sell the CNR because, after all, the CPR does make a profit.
We cannot be expected to stand by and watch the CPR become amalgamated with the CNR and then end up in the same mess as the CNR is in today. All the while we see the CNR going deeper and deeper into communications, hotels and other businesses subsidized by the government and the taxpayer. We have no way of knowing, for instance, whether the money they get by way of subsidy for rail line abandonment is actually used for that program.
On the evening of March 17, a CNR train that is made up in Toronto and which travels daily to Oakville, Dundas, Brantford, London and Windsor passed through Dundas 2'A hours late. About 40 people were waiting to board the train at Dundas. The conductor called for the passengers to go to a car beyond the platform, and a little step was put down to assist them to get into the car. When they got aboard the rail car, the passengers found they were in an unheated railway baggage car. Thinking they would be moved into the passenger section, the passengers waited; the train began to move and the conductor told them to sit on the floor. This is in a central part of Ontario, Mr. Speaker. Just imagine people being asked to sit on the floor of an unheated baggage car. The train arrived at Brantford some time later, when some of the passengers were transferred to a coach. The balance rode in the baggage car to London.
We have before this House a bill to grant the CNR $13.5 million for hotels, communications, and so forth; yet they ask passengers to sit in an unheated baggage car while they transport them a distance of 70 or 80 miles. That sort of thing makes you wonder, Mr. Speaker. One of my constituents wrote to me about this and I wrote to the CTC and asked for an investigation. I also asked the president of the CNR to investigate the matter. I have written to the Minister of Transport and asked him to lend the weight of his office to my request.
If the CNR would come before parliament and say, "We are going to electrify a portion of the railway tracks over a period of years and improve interurban transportation systems," we would welcome this. Instead, they come forth and want more money for hotels and communications. If they would come before this House with a plan to eliminate level-crossings, I am sure we would give them our blessing and a good deal of the money required. If they would say, "We have a plan to move western grain to markets in a cheaper and faster way by using new technology and new methods of handling grain", and if they would say, "We will integrate our existing system with provincial and private transportation systems", then I think we would applaud them and assist them in any way we could.
If they would say, "We are going to straighten out some of the curves in the track and improve the mechanical ability of our trains so that we can utilize the unitized train concept to the best advantage", then we would give them a good hearing and our total support. If they were to take any other approach than the one they use, the approach of blackmail or of trading off one segment of their employees against another and then asking the

House to rescue them from their dilemma, then I think we would have a different attitude toward them. If they would come before us with a development plan that would be to the benefit of Canada, then I believe we could support them wholeheartedly.
However, I feel I must support the amendment moved by my colleague from Mississauga so we can try to have some measure of control over the CNR through deleting $13.5 million of the amount provided by this bill. The Minister of Transport has said he has no power over the CNR, and if he has no power then what power has the House? What else can we do, Mr. Speaker, but to take this course of action and try to reduce part of their financing in order to bring them to task?
I think a good example of the lack of power that the minister has over the railways was given in my own riding when I approached the Canadian Transport Commission shortly after coming to parliament about a stop light and interconnecting switch in the town where I live. The town officials had written to the CTC and some nine months had elapsed without their receiving acknowledgement of their letter. I contacted CTC officials and was told, "Well, we haven't had an opportunity to review that file".
I reviewed the file in about 15 minutes and told one of the officials that we wanted this interconnecting switch put on the track so that the lights would turn red when the train was approaching and all the traffic would stop. But this did not seem to interest him. The fact that we had had a couple of fatalities at this crossing and that literally hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of property damage had been caused did not seem to influence his thinking one way or the other. The result was that we had some pretty bitter words. He told me it would take 18 months to comply, and when I applied some leverage by telling him I would go to see the Minister of Transport, he replied, "That won't do you any good; he has no authority, he has no power, over this situation". So I found out where the minister stands with the Canadian Transport Commission. However, by using some additional leverage we managed to get the switch installed within a short period of time.
These are matters that concern me. I know of municipalities who have had trouble with level-crossings. If the CNR were coming forth with a program costing $25 million to $30 million to eliminate some level-crossings, then I do not think any member of the House would deny them that money. But this is not the case. What we have is the CNR coming forth asking for more money for hotels and communications towers. I assume that they are trying to build up a complex that will in fact absorb some of the CNR's continuing debt.
The Minister of Transport has said that he has no control over the CNR-or over his department, I gather, is what he is really getting at. I know we have had numerous royal commissions over the years investigating the CNR. I suppose if one stacked all the royal commissions, hearings and studies end on end, they would fill quite a bit of filing-cabinet space. So far as I am aware-I have heard nothing to this effect in the House-no studies have been going on in the CNR with a view to changing or improving its situation other than becoming involved in hotels and expanding its communications system across this country.
April 1, 1974

I have spoken to people engaged in the railway business. I have spoken to people involved in the laying of track. I have been told about the continuous weld and about the problems we have with unitized trains as well as the large curves. I am told that if we straightened out the track between Montreal and Halifax we would save something like 100 miles in trackage. In addition, it is said that the tracks are not parallel. This is one of the problems. When the trains go around these curves, the cars actually bind to the tracks and three, four or five power units are required in the front to pull them around the curves.
There is a good deal of study and engineering work which could be done to sort out these problems. However, instead of this we see large amounts of money being asked for in this bill to further the hotel business, I suppose also the tourist business, and the communications business of the CNR. I think somewhere along the line we must in this parliament have some control over the CNR. If the minister has no control over it, then somewhere along the line this House must have some control over it.
One hon. member, I believe it was the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), asked what the point is in all this business about the communications tower, since the damn thing is already built. In other words, the CNR just goes ahead and does things on its own without being questioned and without being responsible to anyone but itself. A colleague to the far left here is saying that we should nationalize the CNR. Of course, that is where the difficulty is now. It is nationalized and they know that when they get into trouble all they have to do is create a crisis within the country and we will bail them out by giving them more money or another subsidy.
This is why I say somewhere along the line the rules must be changed or modified so that this House in fact will have some control over the spending and planning of the CNR. If we do not do that, then the CNR in fact is not accountable to this House and the people of Canada and I cannot see how the situation could be improved. It would become worse, the railway would become further in debt and we would have a continuous problem year after year.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add a few comments to this debate, particularly since I have recently been involved in many discussions regarding railways. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in my constituency there are large and small industries which are closing their operations. There are massive lay-offs because of lack of service by the national railways.
I also appreciate this opportunity because recently the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) both in the House of Commons and outside made various interesting statements. He compared the Canadian National Railways with the Canadian Pacific Railway. He said the Canadian National is one of the finest railways in the world. In fact, he said it is the finest railway system in the world. What a statement to make. I wonder what the minister compared it with when he made that statement. Perhaps he looked at the towers and hotels we intend to build. Surely we have the finest hotels in the world. The minister probably wants to compete with the large institutions which build
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada these fine hotels. Perhaps that is the yardstick the minister used. I should like to use other yardsticks to determine what our railways are doing in terms of moving people and goods, getting products to market and maintaining a position for our industries in the markets of the world.
There could not possibly be any industrialized country in the world that does worse than Canada. We make deals all over the world. One year we have a large quantity of products such as wheat in our bins and we go out and sell it at fire-sale prices, only to find out that our railways cannot get it to the market. The next year we do not have anything to sell and, as a consequence, when we do have something to sell again the buyers do not trust Canadian industry. One year we cannot grow it and the next year we cannot ship it.
I should like to compare the Canadian railway system with systems in other countries. We have special problems in Canada because of our great distances and the elements. While I would agree that we cannot build an electric train system throughout Canada, it should also be acknowledged that we cannot compare our railways with those of Germany, England and France which do have electric trains which run in every direction each 15 or 20 minutes. They calculate times by seconds rather than by days and hours as we do in Canada. So what was the minister talking about? He also talks about nationalizing the CPR. I found a paper on my desk, I did not bring it in myself, which reads as follows:
Government takeover of Canadian Pacific Railway is a possibility, transport minister Jean Marchand said in the Commons March 21...
He spoke after NDP leader David Lewis urged nationalization of the "entire shebang" of the CPR.
Mr. Marchand said:
"I do not say no immediately.
"I just say that the first thing we have to elaborate is a new (transportation) policy, a corrected or improved policy, to determine national objectives, and after that see by what weapons we can really attain those objectives."
Then he added:
"Whatever some people may think I have no vested interest anywhere."
I do have a vested interest in this shebang. I do pay taxes and worry about the $20 million or $25 million we spend to build towers and hotels. I worry about the $25 million in subsidies we pay to run trains from one loan to the next. I worry about the $140 million we spend to subsidize the railways. Since we do not have a transportation policy in this country, it would almost seem that the time has come to work out a policy, not a policy that would compare with anything they run in Germany between Munich and Nuremberg but a policy that would run trains from Winnipeg to Vancouver with some grain, or from Prince George to Vancouver with some lumber, to load on a ship. That kind of policy would have to challenge the imagination of engineers and people who create industries which compete on world markets.
There was such a brainwave at the western resource conference where transportation was one of the main topics. A very imaginative proposal was outlined at that conference by the province of Alberta. There were people there who have vision and who can see the challenges of

April 1, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada the twentieth century before us. When looking at all these statistics and the price tags that we have put on subsidies, on the towers and the hotels, I wonder if we could not find enough resources and funds to put to work some imaginative scheme such as the ones outlined at that conference.
Let me go into this matter a little bit. It was proposed that the federal government buy all the railbeds that exist in Canada, whether they belong to the CNR, the CPR, the BCR or the Northern Alberta Railway. We would relieve the railways of the burden of the maintenance and operation of the railbeds, take these over and operate them in the same way that we operate the airways. Where we have air traffic controllers and air terminals, we would have rail traffic controllers and rail terminals. But we would leave the operation of the railways to those people who can do it best, that is, those people who have goods to ship; in other words, private enterprise, people who know how to do something well and make money out of it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: My friends to the left of course would not agree with me. They do not know what private enterprise is all about. They think it is some big deal in which you take part down here because you do not have the guts to do anything by yourself.
The scheme to which I was referring would be a challenge to the imagination. I can see companies losing $15 million in three months because they cannot ship their lumber to the BC coast. They could buy a locomotive with a number of cars and apply to the railway traffic controller or the department that would set up the rail traffic and say, "We are shipping 250 cars a month. We would like to buy a locomotive. Can you allocate us some time on a particular railway to ship our lumber to a particular destination?" To me, that would challenge the imagination of people who realize that we are heading for disaster in Canada.
I imagine that farmers' unions might wish to establish their own co-operatives, buy their own locomotives or trains, new, imaginative carriage facilities, elevators, and so on, to transport grain. In my view, such a scheme would make sense in Canada where our distances are not 75, 100 or 250 miles but 3,000 miles to be covered by trains shipping goods to the market. The minister should really think in terms of whether Canada should not invent its own transportation system which would be responsive to the needs of the country which has very special problems in view of its large distances and climatic conditions.
I should also like to relate some of the minister's statements to some of the things that have happened and some of the things to which we are aspiring in British Columbia. British Columbia is the province on the other side of the mountains. I say that because it is often confused with the rest of western Canada. Although British Columbia is in western Canada, our problems are somewhat different. I wonder who will live in those towers and hotels and who will patronize the cocktail lounges down below. Ever since I have been travelling every week throughout the land-and I consider myself something of an executive and subsidize my own travels- when I go to these places and look around I do not see the
(Mr. Oberle.]
man on the street in there. The people I see there mostly are executives or salesmen heading for sales meetings.
I do not see there people who have a hard time supplying their families with everyday necessities. The man who patronizes these places does not really have a need for any of these facilities, because there are many of them everywhere and they are built by people who make a lot of money out of them because they know how to run them and what services to supply. I really do not think that the Canadian people have any business building any more of these hotels or towers.
Now I should like to speak about British Columbia-a wonderful place. We have some very special problems there. One of them is that we are competing with the coast port, that is, Vancouver. As a result, the rest of the province is totally neglected. For instance, we might buy some steel in Hamilton, Ontario, that goes to the west coast and when it gets to Prince George, which is a city 600 miles of rail travel away from Vancouver, even though it travels by direct route to Prince George it costs 60 cents a hundred pounds more than it would if you shipped it to Vancouver, 600 miles farther. Sometimes such things are hard to understand. That was the kind of message we hoped the minister would get from the western opportunities conference, and these were the kind of stories we were telling him.
One would think that in a province the central city of which has more than 100,000 people living in its immediate area, one would establish first of all an industrial park with rail lines. The industrial park that exists in Prince George is right in the middle of the city, of the whole shebang, as the minister and as the leader of the NDP said. The city council said to the railway people, "We would like you to move the rail lines out 15 or 20 miles and establish an industrial park from which you could branch out to tap the resources of the vast hinterland reaching out 800 miles to the Yukon border. You could tie it to the Yukon and bring down the resources from there that at present are being shipped down the American coast and brought back up by some weird design". The railways do not have the money to do any such thing.
In Prince George we would like to see a main line terminus established. It would branch out to the great city of Prince Rupert and from there to Vancouver. We would like to see the city established as a terminal from which the freight rates would be polarized, such as in Edmonton or Calgary: these cities are central and it makes sense to distribute goods from there, but it does not make sense to use one terminal for the whole of British Columbia. It does not make sense to have the only terminal in Vancouver and to establish all freight rates from there even though goods have to travel 600 miles farther than if they are dispatched from Prince George.
There are some of the questions that people in my constituency ask. We see ourselves subsidizing hotels and a big tower in Toronto. People in Prince George or Fort Nelson are not likely to visit that tower in Toronto. How in the heck would they ever get there? They can hardly make it to Fort St. John, 300 miles away, because CP Air charges almost double the fare charged for the same distance between Toronto and Montreal. These people have serious problems and are asking: Why can we not build a
April 1, 1974

rail system through which we can get our products to the market, if we can build hotels and towers in Toronto?
I am looking at the great subsidies that the railways are getting for running their trains. One subsidy totals $25 million for a train running across the continent. It does not go to central or to northern British Columbia; it goes to Vancouver. It runs along the American border. I am also looking at the subsidies paid on trains running between Toronto and Montreal. Compare that with the maintenance of the branch lines that the railways wish to abandon. Maybe the latter expenditure is big when compared with the commuter trains, but surely in the built-up areas we could model ourselves on the European transportation systems. Maybe we could build an electric train to run between Toronto and Montreal, with a stop at Ottawa. We should concentrate on a new, imaginative system that would carry passengers in all weather conditions without great delays.
These are the kinds of things we should be thinking about, not towers reaching into the sky and things that are out of reach of the ordinary citizen. We should be concentrating on transportation in light of the fact that we are paying $150 million a year to subsidize the railways. This totals about half the unemployment insurance subsidies that we are paying. If we could put the railways on a paying basis, we could invite twice the number of people to be unemployed in Canada. That should appeal to hon. members across the floor. We could invite another 50,000 people to go on unemployment insurance.
If our railways were placed on a paying basis, we could pay our senior citizens almost $250 a month. In light of all this, I wonder what people think who are watching the proceedings here when we are asked to support the railways' expenditures on all kinds of things. Do these people really credit us with much sanity? We must reconsider this kind of skullduggery. We have armed the minister with enough power to be able to tell the railways that we are concerned and to tell them what we, the people who have to use the railways, think of this whole deal. The railways must spend this money on things different from those in their present plans.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) is attempting to make a significant point in his two motions, namely, that railroads have slowly but surely tended to move away from their basic principle which, ever since early times in this Canada of ours, has been the movement of goods from east to west or west to east, west to our export markets or east to our export markets. The hon. member seeks to reduce expenditures available to the CNR on projects which are far removed from this basic concept. This intent is well worth noting, because we have a Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) who after being in charge of that department for two years has thrown up his hands and said we have no transportation policy. That was an amazing statement for him to make publicly. The minister went to great lengths to blame this on the 1967 National Transportation Act. It suggested that competition should be the guiding factor for transportation within Canada, meaning
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada for the movement of goods between the various parts of Canada and to our export markets.
In 1967 I said that competition would not play a major policing role with respect to our railroads. I said in 1967 that the act was wrong. I found it amazing that the Liberal government of that day pushed the act forward as strongly as it could. In fact, at the beginning of the debate on transportation in 1967, many Conservatives also thought that competition would solve our transportation problems. The competition theory arose out of the Royal Commission on Transportation headed by a westerner by the name of MacPherson. Everybody thought that if a westerner accepted the philosophy that transportation could be policed by competition, surely this would solve all the problems. But, Mr. Speaker, it has not been the solution, because really there has been no competition on the prairies between the various modes of transport during the last five years or, for that matter, during the last 55 years.
In the 1967 debate I likened the railway system to a public utility that must be policed and controlled to some extent by government. I well remember insisting on adding the word "adequate" to section 23 of the act. As originally introduced, it called for a sufficient transportation system. I insisted on adding the word "adequate" because to a prairie farmer that has great scope; it means the adequate movement of his produce to export markets. We did not see that adequate movement this past year, and last year was purely an example of years gone by and of years to come.
There must be a public authority to ensure that railroads perform the service for which they were established. In 1967 I argued at length that the "captive shipper" provision would never be used because it would be very difficult to prove a case. I also remember arguing that the public interest provision would only be utilized if provincial governments co-operated. In recent times we had the rapeseed case in which provincial governments banded together, in conjunction with the grain pools, and won their case before the transportation commission. It was a tremendous breakthrough.
Perhaps the act of 1967 was 20 years ahead of its time. I was amazed that initially it was not dealt with more in the House. It was dealt with at length in committee. It was debated all through the month of December. Prominent Conservatives in my party told me it was a good bill, that it was the best we could expect to get. I told them I did not think so and that they would see me here, eating my Christmas dinner in the House of Commons, because I would not let the bill pass before Christmas.
We adjourned on December 23, returned on January 9, and debated the bill every day from January 9 until January 30, or January 31, when it was finally passed but with several amendments suggested by myself and others. Now the Liberal Party say they have changed. They have changed because their front benches have changed. Surely there should have been some kind of guiding principle that they must have believed in at that time and still believe in today, or is it all just political expediency? Can they just go to the public and apologize for these mistakes, saying they are sorry they made the mistakes and asking for forgiveness? That is not good enough for me. They had all the experts over there and they should have had the

April 1, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada foresight to understand the Canadian situation. They formed the government and they had the most members in this House. They should have understood the Canadian situation. They should have been in the position to suggest that competition would not work on the prairies and in the maritimes, but would only work within the province of Ontario where there already exists competition between various modes of transportation.
I think it is appropriate to comment on the Crowsnest pass rates established in the 1967 act. A most amazing thing happened about which the fourth estate did not even comment. In spite of that, it was still a most amazing thing. I remember making a speech at that time and referring to members of the fourth estate as a bunch of vultures who waited on high until they saw someone in trouble before swooping down and feasting upon the bones. In any event, the Crowsnest pass rates were debated at length at that time. We had a standing vote in this House and the government was defeated by a vote of 58 to 57. It was a free vote, and in a sense it was such a free vote that the then hon. member for Medicine Hat, Mr. Olson, who later joined the NDP-


An hon. Member:: The Liberals.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes, he was a Social Crediter then. That was a slip of the tongue. He was right-wing Social Crediter then. He was so mixed up he just sat in his seat and did not vote. He was on the verge of joining the Liberal Party and did not want to vote against western Canada, so he sat in his seat. He could have made that one of the rare occasions when this House of Commons had a tied voted. Had he voted, it would have been 58 to 58; but he was nervous and just sat in his seat. The issue was the Crownsnest pass rates at that time. I said this was wrong, just as transportation competition was wrong. I suggested that the Crowsnest pass rates represented the Magna Carta of western Canada and should be maintained. I still say that today.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board is engaged in a very successful campaign with the railroads in travelling across this country and spreading doubt, in the eyes of the farmers, in respect of the Crowsnest pass rates. There is no doubt about that. He is carrying out a very successful endeavour. But let him go out and issue as a political judgment that the Crowsnest pass rates have to be done away with, and his head will be on the line and the guillotine will not fall at the next election. I predict that will happen if he is brave enough to put that suggestion publicly before the voters of western Canada.
I was elected chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, although that is not a job I particularly favour. Members wanted me to accept the job. I hope I can lend some clarity in the development of new policy. I believe it is my duty to assist members and this country in developing such new policy. Members of the committee on transportation requested its chairman to write to the Minister of Transport and the government House leader suggesting that the committee be given permission to travel in order to study these problems in the general movement of goods.

We have an excellent port facility at Thunder Bay, but we have only one line on which to move boxcars into the port. We have a conglomeration of lines around the harbour which should be straightened out. There should be easier movement of grain into that port. I think the committee should look into this problem and the inherent difficulties with one line for unloading cars. Farmers suspect that huge costs are paid in demurrage charges. We have never been able to uncover how much. The Wheat Board works for the farmers, but it has never disclosed that cost.
Anyone interested in the operations of the railroads on the prairies knows that there is a question ahead in respect of rail line abandonment that will have to be solved by January 1, 1975. It will have to be decided whether the applications for abandonment should be set over for another year. Some people, particularly in the Manitoba government, advocate that point of view. I really do not agree with them. I have a rail line close to my home that moved 132 cars a week last year and received $132,000 in subsidies. That's pretty good-$1,000 per car. I think I could even move that much with my broken down, old Ford truck. Certainly the question of rail line abandonment will have to be looked into. Is the obvious course to put off rail line abandonment? I suggest that in my area the $132,000 would be better given to the municipality so that it could build a road over which the farmers could haul their grain perhaps to a more central delivery point. In any event, this is a question that should be looked at in order that the transport committee could clarify the situation.
Let me refer to the question of grain movement through the mountains. The tracks were laid in the early 1900s. The Crowsnest pass rates were developed following the laying of the track to what used to be called the old Kootenay Valley line.


John Napier Turner: The Kettle Valley line.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I thank the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) for lending us that bit of wisdom. He has been here nearly as long as I have. That line used to be called the Kettle Valley line which was spoken about so often in this House by a former member from the area. This track was laid 50 or 60 years ago. Surely with the advances we have seen in technology, which have allowed us to move mountains, rock and dirt, we should be able to make some improvements. I suggested in this House a year and a half or two years ago that a line should be built across from Kamloops to the British Columbia railroad at Clinton. I am pleased to learn that some surveys are being carried out in the area.


An hon. Member:: That's an example of motherhood.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Someone suggests that is an example of motherhood. But it was not the case two years ago. This should have been done ten years ago. There should have been an avenue for the movement of grain through the mountains other than by way of the Fraser canyon.
I have noted that the government intends to buy another 4,000 hopper cars. I suppose the Liberal Party can use this fact as propaganda. I wonder if hon. members
April 1, 1974

know what the CTC has to say about hopper cars? It has been suggested that they are too heavy to travel on most of the track. It has been suggested by the CTC that the load should be reduced from 80 tons to 70 tons, considering the track in Canada. The real problem lies with the trackage in Canada because it will not stand the load; and the greater the load, the slower the speed. I learned this some time ago from my cousin who is an engineer and moves these cars through the mountains. He told me that whether the hopper cars are filled with wheat or potash, they cannot be moved at faster than 18 miles and hour because on the slightest curve the track will buckle and the cars will tip over into the Fraser canyon. He says he moves them at about 17 miles an hour because he does not want to go into the Fraser canyon with these hopper cars, and I don't blame him.
The minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board may hold out as propaganda during the next election campaign, the fact that the government has bought 2,000 more hopper cars and intends to buy 4,000 more in order to speed up grain movement. If we have to move half as fast as we did before, I wonder how much more grain we are going to be able to carry. I never was very good at math, but I could always hold my own with the average.
Let us consider the Vancouver harbour. The most interesting feature of that facility is that there have been no major changes for years, although we did witness the Roberts Bank development. The Roberts Bank facility, built on 50 acres of land out on a peninsula, is tremendously important for the movement of coal. When asked to build another 50-acre facility like Roberts Bank for the movement of grain, a product more important to the overall economy than coal, the authorities said no. Consequently we move that grain through the congested port of Vancouver.
To be successful, a port must meet two conditions. It must be accessible from the ocean and it must be accessible from land. How does Vancouver stack up? I have put on record figures pertaining to the period between 1967 and 1972. In 1967 this government spent about $8 million on developing Vancouver; in 1972 the expenditure went down to about $2 million. Vancouver handles about 27 per cent of the total tonnage going in and out of this country, but fails to compete with Seattle in the handling of containers and the movement of grain. Why? Because there is a congested track situation on the island side of the port of Vancouver.
What can be done? Additional railway trackage should be built over Indian Arm Inlet on the north shore and over Burrard Inlet. That would facilitate the movement of grain into the Neptune terminals and the Saskatchewan pool elevator terminals. At present it is so difficult to unload unit trains that it is necessary to split them. With additional track they could be handled at the Neptune terminals. Even the Saskatchewan wheat pool has difficulty unloading such trains. They must be broken up into three or four sections before being processed through the wheat pool elevators. This should be looked at. If the government wants to establish a transportation policy, it should tackle such matters as well as looking at the Crowsnest pass rates.
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
Any talk of Crowsnest pass rates invariably brings up discussion of agreed charges.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the hon. member may continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House. I will clarify my point about agreed charges. Agreed charges are much more onerous, under any system of cost analysis, than the Crowsnest pass rates. The Crowsnest pass rates account for about 11 per cent of railroad revenue. Away back in 1954 agreed charges accounted for about 3.5 per cent of total railway revenues. Although I do not have the precise figures, for which I apologize to the House, I suggest that today such charges make up about 30 per cent of railroad revenues. These charges are detrimental to shippers who want to move 100 per cent of their products by rail to any given destination.
A couple of years ago I listened to the secretary of the MacPherson royal commission on transport speaking at a seminar at York University, Toronto. He is far more knowledgeable than I am on this subject. He said that agreed charges are a bigger curse to the railroads and the shipping industry than the Crowsnest pass rates. Agreed charges are outlawed in the European Common Market. They are not allowed in the United States. Yet we allow railroads in this country to offer a shipper a contract for shipping his products by railroad. If a smaller producer comes along and asks for the same rate, he is refused the rate and charged three times what it costs the big shipper to move his goods.
The National Transportation Act suggested that the answer would be found through competition, yet that act did not come to grips with the problem. Agreed charges have been permitted. They have tended to destroy competition. The sections of the act to do with trucking have not yet been proclaimed; consequently, trucks do not provide competition for the railroads. On the prairies, trucks could be the only mode of competition, there being no waterways. So there is much to be done with regard to bringing in a new transportation policy.
I hope that this whole question can be considered during the present session. I certainly hope that the transport committee can assist in helping the government to develop for Canadians a new transportation policy.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, when one talks about the problems in transportation one is really talking of the nuts and bolts of what put this country together, what is helping to keep it together and to keep the economy ticking. It was tragic indeed to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) say that this government has no transportation policy. That was tragic indeed for producers and manufacturers from one side of

April 1, 1974
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada
the country to the other who are compelled by the existing service to agree with the minister. That is the situation in which Canada finds itself.
Perhaps the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) will not object if I say that in many instances the trucking industry is not competitive. The transportation industry should meet Canada's needs. That being so, if the industry is to meet the needs of those who want to move goods across this country, there is a field for trucks and a field for the railroads. Only too rarely are these two modes of transport truly competitive, to the advantage of producers, consumers and manufacturers. Each mode is governed by its own laws. It is tragic indeed to find that the transportation system across Canada has deteriorated to the point at which manufacturers must go into the transportation business, to the point at which they themselves can move according to schedule products which they have produced and, on the return trip, bring back on schedule raw materials they require. At one time the railways performed this service ably. That was the service which helped us to build and develop this country.
If perhaps I repeat some things which were said earlier today, I say them because I think they bear repeating. At one time it was possible in my area to call Montreal at five o'clock in the afternoon Atlantic standard time and obtain supplies or parts for repairs by express, which arrived by noon the next day. This took about 18 hours. Today, I very much doubt if you can get something loaded onto a car in 18 hours, let alone have it transported to a destination 450 miles away. Yet for year after year we have poured hundreds of millions of dollars into our transportation system which abuses this country with the poor service it gives.
There is much talk about building new railway cars. You could build a line of new cars stretching from Vancouver to Sydney, and if you cannot move them on schedule, if you cannot provide service to an industry which needs service, you have wasted your money. I wonder, as the hon. member for Crowfoot wondered, are we not wasting our money by providing cars for the railway system without first imposing on that system an onus for service? They are operating without any regulations, demands or guarantees to provide better service. Our transportation policy is merely a token to the grain producers of this country which in the long range may or may not do them some good. The apple industry in Nova Scotia is forced to buy containers to ship their product with the help of the government of Nova Scotia, yet we hear the Minister of Transport say we have no transportation policy. Every member of this House must say "aye, aye" to that because it is a fact.
We see processors of various goods and services buying their own trucks, delivering their own wares and finding return loads for those trucks in an area in which the rail service has failed utterly to deliver on schedule. Yet we have a bill before us asking to build towers and hotels and buy stock in a railroad-go the full gamut. However, we are not saying to the railroads or the transportation system of Canada, "It is high time you began to deliver." I do not buy the idea that the government does not have any authority over the railroads. One must be compelled to think that when the government has no authority, it does 
not want any authority and that it would not know how to handle the problem if it had. Otherwise it would have the authority. It took no time at all to impose an export tax on oil, a commodity over which it was presumed we had no control. It took no time to make a decision there would be no refineries built on the east coast of Canada, even though that was within provincial rights. They had authority to do that. I submit the government has the authority but does not know how to use it.
It was rather interesting to listen to the report of the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission before the transport committee. One began to wonder whether he should be in the "Ice Capades" or the Winnipeg Ballet. Verbally he has the alacrity to perform in either. Physically he might lack some of the attributes he would require. No answers were forthcoming except that there was no authority, no regulation and the CTC is in fact a completely sterile organization without authority, and Canada suffers along as best it can without control over the transportation system.
We talk about competitive rates. Let us look at some of the rates that exist. Let us look at a product which is moved from Ontario to Quebec, a distance of over 500 miles, for 27 cents per hundredweight. The same product is moved within the province of Nova Scotia, a distance of 210 miles, for 47 cents per hundredweight. We talk about competitive rates. We talk about equality of opportunity in Canada. We talk about equality of opportunity in transportation. It is time we stopped talking and started doing something about this. I can cite another product on which the rates are the same. It involves a haul of something over 750 miles versus a haul of 425 miles. The rates are within one cent per hundredweight. We have no control over or competition in transportation.
I know I am repeating myself, but I wish there were some action. We look at the anomalous situation in which it is cheaper to transport some raw materials in the province of Ontario to the southwest corner of New Brunswick than to transfer them across New Brunswick to the southwest corner. I agree with the minister wholeheartedly that we have no transportation policy. I object to the members of this House being asked to vote money to continue a situation such as this. I have taken up this particular rate in New Brunswick. I get no answers and no satisfaction. There is no reason why it should be cheaper to bring it from Ontario by rail than to haul it across New Brunswick by rail, approximately half the distance.
Let us take a look at the export structure. Until approximately ten years ago it was the policy of the government to encourage trade with other countries and make us more competitive in world markets. However, since the present transportation act came into being, and since competition and supposed profitability of operation on every mile of track came into effect, we are out of competition with the United States on some items which the Atlantic area wishes to export. We are out of competition to the point of something like 25 cents per hundred in farm products. This often means the difference between profit and loss. Why don't we have a policy? Again I repeat myself, but this is a matter which was laid before the House early in the last session.
April 1, 1974

It is time that, along with the hundreds of millions of dollars we vote year after year for the transportation system of Canada, we said to the railways, "Learn to serve." We should tell that system of computers, modern engines and modern cars, "Move this product on schedule for the service of Canadian citizens." Instead, this product is forced to the roads. The highways are cluttered with trucks which seem to be making money while we subsidize the rail system of this country.
It is a strange thing, but under the act all rates for the rails of Canada must be compensatory. Under certain circumstances, the government of Canada has chosen to pay a subsidy here and there. We have spent money from coast to coast in Canada on subsidies to support the rail structure of this country. I do not particularly quarrel with that, but while the Minister of Transport has no transportation policy CNR runs up one deficit after another. Under the act, every rate in Canada must be compensatory. How can this happen? It is illegal. It cannot happen. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we do not have competition. We are not obeying the law which says rates must be compensatory. We are no longer encouraging our exporters. We are no longer capable of hauling processed products by rail. To a large extent, the rails have yielded this traffic to the highways.
We are no longer able to move apples from the Okanagan Valley eastward or southward. They have to be put on trucks and then on cars on the American railroad line to be moved. Tens of thousands of dollars were spent in each of the last three years because our system cannot get them to the border to put them on the existing United States market. The potato industry in Canada is hamstrung by rates, some of which are anomalous, some of which are non-competitive and some of which are exorbitant. We see an act ignored by the government.
We are asked to vote hundreds of millions of dollars to keep a nationally-owned railroad on the rails at the expense of the people, when that railroad does not observe the law of the land because the government does not have a transportation policy. It is a tragic day when this House, by the very nature of the bill before us, is compelled to pass that bill because the service to Canadian citizens would suffer so badly if it did not. It is high time that the transportation policy of Canada was formed. It should include the ports, airways, railways and roads of Canada. It must be made to serve this country in an economic and competitive way so that service will be the by-word of the transportation industry, not just a slang word which is talked about when they are trying to sell and forgotten about when they have sold.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, in discussing CN financing it seeems to me we should take account of policy enunciated by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and by the minister responsible for the administration of the Canadian Wheat Board. I do not know what the minister responsible for the Wheat Board had to do with the abandonment of a hotel in Saskatoon. Incidentally, he shares with me the responsibility of being a member for that city. I do not know how much responsibility the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, who represents half the city of Saskatoon, has for
Canadian National Railways and Air Canada the sale by the CN for a valuable property there at much less than its assessed value.


An hon. Member:: He was consulted.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: At the same time, the same minister makes commitments on behalf of the government and says what the CN or the railroads shall or shall not do for the movement of grain in Saskatchewan. So he hies himself down to the city of Estevan in southern Saskatchewan and says prairie farmers will get 4,000 more hopper cars to move grain, but they will temporarily lose the use of 1,000 grain elevators.
So apparently there is a kind of trade-off. But the joker in the pack is that the minister who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board had nothing to say whatsoever about how many grain elevators there are to be in western Canada or the province of Saskatchewan. I don't know if the Board of Grain Commissioners has anything to say about how many grain elevators we are to have in the province of Saskatchewan or western Canada. They appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture the other day. They were not even responsible for the bonding or for seeing that the farmers were paid in full for the grain they had delivered, at least in the province of Alberta.
I have real doubt whether either the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to whom the Board of Grain Commissioners is responsible know very much about what is happening in the grain business. The minister says the 4,000 cars are worth between $100 million and $125 million. I am quoting from a statement reported to have been made by him. He said the government was prepared to put out the money forthwith, but whether any part of that money would be repaid by the railways was not to be decided until a new grain transportation policy had been worked out.
In other words, he is going to shovel out the dough, but he has received no commitment from the railways as to how they will use these 4,000 new cars or how they are going to pay for them, or how much. Then he went on to say he would predict that short-term measures to improve grain transport would bring a speedy end to current snarls in the system. That is an excellent objective. He went on to talk about some of the lines that are blocked with snow and over which no trains are moving at the moment. He said the lines taken out of service would be mainly those obstructed by snow or wet conditions, but lines would not necessarily be brought back into service as soon as the snow or the water disappeared. What in the world is this man talking about?
Does the Minister of Transport know what he is talking about? Does the CTC know what he is talking about? Has he any commitment, anyway, to a thorough going, serviceable transportation system? Does he know? Does anybody know? The report goes on the say:
Mr. Lang emphasized that closures do not constitute a first step toward any permanent abandonment program. On the contrary, the minister said he would press the railways to ensure they upgrade more lines to bear the 63,00 pounds of a loaded hopper car.
Well, at least the minister responsible for the Wheat Board has recognized that half the trackage in western Canada will not carry hopper cars. One of the first areas of

April 1, 1974
Adjournment Debate
business is to upgrade the railroad system and the roadbed in western Canada so that grain can effectively be moved. Mr. Speaker, the policy and the service of the railroad leaves something to be desired. I am not referring only to the movement of grain. You pick up the phone in Saskatoon when you want to send a telegram, and do you know, Mr. Speaker, that in a city with a population of
160,000	the guy or the girl who answers will say, "If it is a case of emergency, phone Winnipeg to send the telegram." That is the kind of service we are getting in the city of Saskatoon in the province of Saskatchewan.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I will tell you the rest of the story tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak further to the question directed to the acting minister of national health and welfare on March 21 as reported in Hansard at page 731. I should like to bring it to the attention of the ministry that when consideration was being given to the closure of Canadian forces bases in 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said at that time that it was conceivable that in some areas closure would not have the significant consequences about which the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), I believe it was, was concerned. He went on:
But in cases where there would be significant hardship, as the hon. member says, I can give an undertaking that the government would not proceed with the closure without having considered alternative ways of alleviating that hardship.
It was also suggested by the hon. member for Malpeque that what he had in mind was such areas. In another answer the Prime Minister said:
If that is the case, we would give the type of consideration which the hon. member is suggesting before making any announcement of such closures. We do realize that some bases are not economic units and if any such bases were closed in less developed parts of Canada we hope that they would be linked to some other action by the government to ensure that growth centres spring up in the areas where closure is contemplated.
The area I am speaking about tonight is just such a slow-growth area which was greatly affected by the closure of the Canadian force base at Clinton. I should also

like to bring to the attention of the minister some of the facilities that are located at that base. There is accommodation that would practically meet the required needs for living quarters. There are at least 500 rooms available for living accommodation. There are two up to date mess halls at least 200 can be fed at one sitting in each.
There is a tremendous gymnasium of some 20,000 square feet, a swimming pool with adequate changing rooms, and an artificial ice arena available on the same location with year-round ice facilities. There is a wonderful curling rink with all facilities, an indoor and an outdoor 25-yard rifle range, an eight-lane bowling alley and a reasonable amount of housing in the area for families. The base is also within ten miles of excellent sailing facilities on Lake Huron, the cleanest of the Great Lakes. There are also seven golf courses within a 20-mile radius and excellent cross-country skiing facilities in the area. Besides this there are seven or eight other arenas within a 20-mile radius and a 50-acre development area for track and field facilities in the same area as the accommodation. It seems to me that too often there is a tendency to have facilities such as for Olympic athletic training in larger centres rather than smaller centres where more emphasis might be placed on the task at hand.
The present proprietors of this base, the present owners are prepared to finance any necessary changes to suit what is needed for Olympic training provided an adequate contract arrangement is set up. The Ontario Development Corporation has provided the only assistance to date in an endeavour to establish some businesses operating there at the present time. The proprietors have, since purchasing the base, been very active in pursuing uses for the facilities to benefit the surrounding area and also Canada as a whole. In this regard they have been very responsible. I also have a book that outlines all the facilities at the base and I should be glad to pass it on to the minister.
I also recognize that when the minister said on March 17, I believe it was, that Canadian athletes training for the 1976 Montreal Olympics may have use of a national multisport training camp before year's end, he also said that the training camp idea is being given serious consideration by the co-ordinating committee of Game Plan '76. I trust that the minister's representative here this evening will not hide behind this fact. He also said that this was a committee made up of delegates from Sport Canada, the Canada Olympic Association, the Canadian Trust and the provinces.
I wish to advise the ministry that I will have letters going forward to these people tomorrow, and I hope I will get the backing of the Department of National Health and Welfare for what I am asking at this time. Also, many members received a letter from the president and commissioner-general of the Montreal Olympic Games dated December 18, 1972, expressing best wishes and asking for co-operation of all members and leaders in the Canadian community. I replied thanking him for his wishes and asking for his co-operation. I assured him of my co-operation. I mentioned the facilities at the former Canadian forces base at Clinton and asked for his co-operation in recommending to the federal government that it give an undertaking, in respect of providing facilities, to look at this space and in recommendations to the government that
April 1, 1974

it give some thought to using it for training purposes. I did not receive a reply to my letter.
I simply say that in my opinion co-operation in this country is a two-way street and I trust the minister will have a satisfactory answer.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, when this question was raised originally by the hon. member on March 21, I responded indicating that I would bring the question to the attention of the minister. In the passage of time this question has been discussed. I would like to point out that the feasibility of permanent sites for the moment is unlikely because of the difficulty of assembling athletes in any one site for any length of time, and the adaptability of such sites to facilitate the conditions for an Olympic program of some 20 sports.
Up until now our program has used the hosting of multiple sports events such as the PanAmerican Games and the Canada Games to develop facilities of international standards to be used afterwards for training purposes. I should like to point out to the hon. member who suggests Clinton, Ontario, be the site that this is a rather involved question. The decision is not to be taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), but rather by officials of Game Plan '76.
On February 22, 1973, the Minister of National Health and Welfare agreed to the establishment of the co-ordinating committee of Game Plan '76. This committee consists of the Canadian Olympic Association, the Olympic Trust, Sport Canada and some of the provinces and represents the financing agencies concerned with the development of sport and the co-ordination of 1976 Olympic plans. The whole purpose of Game Plan is to give specific thrust to the technical development of sport such as training camps, additional competitive experience, talent identification programs, coaches' training opportunities, sponsorship of national youth teams, sponsoring technical coaches and technical co-ordinators, eventually sport research and two other projects of vital importance.
Game Plan '76 will be seriously exploring for the two winters preceding the Olympics the development of a national multisport training camp. The camp would have access to Olympic class facilities giving our coaches, athletes, sport-medicine and other support people ideal opportunities for working together toward their goal. The decision of Game Plan '76 will be difficult and must take into consideration many things such as the facilities required and climate, to name only two.


PENITENTIARIES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ALLEVIATE SHORTAGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to speak briefly on a topic, one might say a critical issue, which concerns not only me but most Canadians. I am referring to the very serious lack of psychiatric treatment available to inmates of federal penitentiaries.
In reply to a question by me to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) on March 21 and again on March 29, the
Adjournment Debate
minister admitted that the penitentiary service was not able to attract qualified psychiatrists. I find this to be a deplorable state of affairs in this enlightened age in which we are supposed to be living when one considers three basic points: one, that most inmates suffer from some kind of mental or emotional stress; two, that our federal prisons are the most dehumanizing institutions in the country; and three, that most inmates must some day be released into society without proper treatment and rehabilitation.
No wonder society is outraged when convicted criminals are paroled or released at termination of sentence and commit other heinous crimes such as rape, child molesting or vicious assault, all of which are triggered by deep-rooted personality and psychological defects. What good is it to release these persons if they have not been properly treated while incarcerated? Or, one may also ask, what rehabilitative purpose is served on society's behalf to lock up these convicts if they cannot receive proper medical treatment and their term in prison only serves to make them worse?
It is no excuse for the Solicitor General to simply admit, and I quote him from Hansard of March 29, 1974, at page 986, that-
It is difficult to attract psychiatrists away from very large, lucrative practices in the private sector.
Surely he and his officials can come up with a better answer than that. Perhaps they should concern themselves with the reasons it is difficult to attract these highly skilled practitioners from the private sector. I consider the answer which the Solicitor General gave to me in the House as a non-answer.
It is true that some inmates are so seriously ill mentally that they should never be released into society. It is also true that psychiatry in the field of criminal psychopathology is sadly lacking in effective treatment due mainly to the reluctance of governments to spend adequate funds for research, and the reluctance of psychiatrists to practice medicine in such gloomy, anti-professional and dehumanizing environments as prisons. This latter reluctance is understandable; the former is inexcusable.
WTe have only 14 full-time psychiatrists in our federal penitentiary service, and about 45 psychologists, to serve the mental and emotional needs of over 9,000 inmates. This is an utter disgrace. If a son or daughter of a rich father needs psychiatric help, they usually get that help in what the minister terms "the private sector" because money buys that help. The taxpayers of Canada, most of whom are not rich and cannot afford psychiatric help for their own children, pay over $10,000 a year per inmate in taxes to keep our inmates behind bars, only to see them released before they are mentally or emotionally stable enough to be released. This situation is deplorable and society is more than justified in demanding both protection and reform.
I do not accept the faint, half-hearted excuses of the Solicitor General when he says he cannot attract adequate numbers of psychiatrists and psychologists to cope with the problem of proper medical treatment of inmates which has been almost totally neglected for far too long. At the same time, I pay tribute to the few physicians who have the dedication to work under such difficult and demanding circumstances caused by the penitentiary services. It

Adjournment Debate
is indeed a sad commentary on our penal system today that hardened criminals with serious mental disorders which have gone untreated are flung back into society before they are mentally fit for society. It is also an inexcusably dangerous practice that threatens the security and safety of our law-abiding citizens.
Those inmates who can respond to psychiatric treatment should be removed from our prisons which only make them worse. They should be kept under close supervision in special psychiatric clinics or hospitals where psychiatrists and psychologists can treat them in a professionally medical atmosphere. These hospitals should be close to university hospitals where specialists and visiting professors can also assist those psychiatrists in the service. In this way the psychiatrist can work in an urban, not remote location close to his peers and in touch with the latest therapeutic techniques and methods. You just cannot attract psychiatrists to work behind prison walls.
Second, I recommend that the entire medical branch of the federal penitentiary service be removed from the authority of the commissioner and his directives and be set up as a separate unit under the supervision of regional medical superintendents with their own budgets. Doctors resent taking orders from non-medical personnel however competent they may be in administering a penitentiary.
Third, I recommend that the Solicitor General, instead of making lame excuses about salaries, raise the incomes of psychiatrists and psychologists in the federal penitentiary service so that competent personnel will be attracted to the service. If only these three recommendations were carried out we would before long notice a very real difference in the way in which those inmates in need of psychiatric treatment respond to rehabilitation. It is time the Solicitor General brought the penal system in Canada out of the dark ages.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, for many years there has been a critical shortage of psychiatrists in the Canadian Penitentiary Service. This was one of the several reasons which prompted the formation of the Advisory Board of Psychiatric Consultants whose final report "The General Program for the Development of Psychiatric Services in Federal Correctional Services in Canada" has now been widely distributed. As indicated in that report, a major part of the problem was the siting of many of our institutions in areas remote from large urban or university centres. It is our intention in the department to try to avoid this situation in the future, and this is indicated by the recent agreement with the University of Saskatchewan whereby the penitentiary service will construct a regional medical centre actually on the campus of that university.
It is relevant to note that the regional medical centre in B.C. has a complement of five full-time psychiatrists including the medical director, and that the only vacant position is that of clinical director. In fact applications have been received from additional psychiatrists to work at the centre, but we have been unable to accept these as they were not compatible with the position of clinical
April 1, 1974
director, and other positions were fully staffed. A good relationship exists between this centre and the University of British Columbia. The head of the department of psychiatry and the head of the department of psychology act as consultant psychiatrist and consultant psychologist respectively to that centre.
In the Ontario region two vacant positions exist in the regional medical centre, namely, those of clinical director and staff psychiatrist. An applicant for the latter position is being interviewed this week. In the Quebec region we have presently three full-time psychiatrists and it is not intended to make further appointments until the decision with regard to the extended use of the Philippe Pinel Institute is made. A further proposal from the University of Sherbrooke to provide services to Cowansville institution is under study.
Serious difficulty is experienced in obtaining psychiatrists for an institution such as the Saskatchewan penitentiary for the reasons which I have previously mentioned, namely, its remoteness from large urban or university centres. However, I am pleased to say that a psychiatrist has expressed interest in this position and will be interviewed in the very near future.
The formation of the Advisory Board of Psychiatric Consultants has helped greatly to decrease the image of professional isolation which psychiatrists previously held with regard to the Canadian Penitentiary Service. It is obvious from the patterns established in B.C. and Ontario that the formation of regional medical centres is and will be of further assistance in decreasing this sense of professional isolation and attracting an increasing number of adequately qualified psychiatrists. Continuing efforts have been made by the Public Service Commission to attract applications for these positions and in February of last year the director of medical services and a public Service Commission representative visited the United Kingdom, following advertisements in appropriate journals, to screen applications from interested psychiatrists. While only two of the applicants eventually came to Canada, these were individuals of high professional calibre who are making a good contribution to our efforts to provide psychiatric treatment in the Canadian Penitentiary Service. We are currently in the process of negotiating affiliation agreements with the University of British Columbia, the University of Saskatchewan and Queen's University and the success of these agreements will obviously further assist us in recruiting psychiatrists of good professional standing.
While the situation is still subject to further improvement, I think we have come a long way with the establishment of regional medical centres in Quebec, British Columbia and Ontario and our future plans for the prairie and maritime regions should further help us to ensure that psychiatric services of high quality are available to inmates of the Canadian Penitentiary Service. Needless to say, the problem of recruiting psychiatrists is not unique to the Canadian Penitentiary service but is experienced also by the provincial mental hospitals in many provinces.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.21 p.m.

Tuesday, April 2, 1974