1978-05-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Over the past week, in Toronto, we have been told that 12 people lost their lives due to fire. I do not feel we should stand idly by without taking some positive action. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker):
That the Government of Canada withdraw the federal sales tax on smoke detectors and smoke detection equipment.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I address my question to the acting secretary of state: it concerns the situation in Angola, the overnight developments. While the reports of the operation differ, there seems to be little doubt now that South African troops did cross the border into Angola. Would the minister, first of all, clarify the nature of this operation? Also, in light of the strong criticism which the United States has levelled against South Africa, can the minister say what the Canadian reaction is?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to add very much detail, except to tell the hon. member that we have asked our embassy in Capetown to tell the government of South Africa that Canada is deeply concerned about this military incursion into the territory of a neighbouring sovereign state. We are particularly concerned that this activity should have occurred at a time when negotiations are taking place with the object in mind of achieving a peaceful solution in Namibia.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations concerning Namibia have been described as reasonable middle-ground for both parties to seek. What is the effect on the negotiations which have been advanced by Canada, along with its partners on the Security Council representing the western nations? What is the effect of those proposals now, in light of the overnight developments of South Africa invading Angola?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is a little premature to assess the certainty of the effect on these negotiations, but it can only be unsettling. It is a time when restraint ought to be exercised, rather than military activity of this kind, in order to achieve the success of the negotiations.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, the time has come for Canada to clarify the meaning of the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on December 19, to the effect that "Canada is going to withdraw government-sponsored, commercially-supported activities in South Africa." What has been the effect of that announcement?
I ask this question in light of the meeting of the external affairs committee yesterday during which the committee was told that Canada, with respect to the code of conduct which was one part of the follow-up to the announcement of December 19, has no way of knowing what the conditions are for the black workers employed by Canadian companies in South Africa. There is no way of knowing what those conditions are, so there is no way of knowing whether the code is effective. Can the acting secretary of state clarify the real effect of the step Canada took on December 19 to cut commercial relations with South Africa?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the action taken by the government speaks for itself. Its effect is clear. I cannot add any further detail to the announcement made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

May 5, 1978
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance follows directly on the questions of my colleague. Given the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on December 19, that Canada is phasing out all its government-sponsored activities in South Africa, why is it possible for part of the standby credit the government is negotiating through Citibank to go to South African banks? Why did the minister say yesterday in committee that he did not put any restrictions whatsoever on where the money should come from?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this question was raised yesterday in committee. I said at that time that we are negotiating with a lead bank, that is, Citibank of New York. Of course, they have to gather the credit. I said I was going to look into this question. I am not in a position to answer at the moment. When the question was put to me in the House yesterday, I did not realize the meaning of the question. I am looking into that matter now and will report to the House.


TRADE WITH SOUTH AFRICA-ALLEGED CONTRADICTION IN GOVERNMENT POLICY
James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I will put my supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It seems to me there is a direct contradiction here in government policy. On one hand, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said that the government is phasing out, and will not have, any operations with South Africa of a commercial nature. Yesterday, in committee, the Minister of Finance said, "We do not put any restriction on the people who should participate in the extension of credit."
Is it the policy of the government to have one set of standards for the private sector, and another set of standards for the government in its dealings with South Africa?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No. Mr. Speaker, we do not want to have two sets of standards. I think the Minister of Finance is correct in saying that he will investigate this matter. I must say that as an uninformed amateur in what is being borrowed and the way it is being done, I cannot particularly see that a man who is going to borrow from somebody else and asks him to lend him money worries where that person is getting the money. This is in the nature, I would think, of a tertiary boycott: we are going to borrow from some people, then we are going to find out where they got the money from, who lent it to them, and so on.
It seems to me that in the nature of a commercial operation, you borrow money from a respectable lender and that should settle the matter, as far as I am concerned. However, I am

prepared to be informed further by the inquiry that the Minister of Finance says he is going to embark upon.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I cannot follow that reasoning at all. Either the Government of Canada has a policy of not dealing in commercial transactions with South Africa, or it has not. The fact that the government is going out to borrow money would indicate to me that it has an obligation to make very clear whether it is dealing with South African commercial transactions or not. It seems to me that the fact the government needs the money should make no difference either way: we either have that policy, or we do not.
I ask if Citibank, the lead bank, is negotiating with South Africa or, to put it the other way, will the government instruct the lead bank in this standby credit not to deal with South African banks in the development of the resources?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member is making a case that the government should not be borrowing money from South Africa. In fact, the government is not borrowing from South Africa, if I understand it. I see the Leader of the Opposition has some thinking on this matter. I would be glad to hear from him, too; but for the moment I am speaking to his colleague on his left, through you, Mr. Speaker.
We are not borrowing from South Africa; we are borrowing from Citibank. Where Citibank gets the money is not an immediate problem to me. If it is to the hon. member, I would be interested in hearing argument. The Minister of Finance said he is going to look into that. I have risen in this House against the idea of tertiary boycotts. Maybe this is a case where the hon. member is suggesting this is the way we should proceed. We are borrowing from somebody who wants to lend to us. Do we have a right to say to this lender, "You should not be borrowing from such and such other people"?


Mr. Lawrence:: You are telling the private sector that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are not telling the private sector that they cannot deal with companies dealing with South Africa. We never said that. We do not withdraw our trade services from a company that is dealing with a company in Brazil because it is discovered that the company in Brazil has dealings with South Africa. It seems to me that if we want to deal with both sectors in the same way, my reasoning is good.

U)


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has just said that in terms of international borrowing he would describe himself as an uninformed amateur. Concerning the letter that he tabled yesterday which was sent to Premier Davis of Ontario on April 10, I can only say that in terms of
May 5, 1978

automotive trade and his knowledge of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement, the Prime Minister is also an uninformed amateur.
Considering that in the letter which was tabled yesterday he said, "The automotive agreement does not include a provision respecting 'fair shares' ", in terms of investment in jobs in the auto industry, and considering that clause (b) of article I of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement reads as follows, "Both countries to participate on a fair and equitable basis in the expanding total market of the two countries", will the Prime Minister now admit that he misinformed and misled Premier Davis, because this clause which was put in at Canada's insistence in 1965 was put in to clearly state that the Government of Canada did not accept the free trade interpretation of the pact? Will the Prime Minister now admit he was clearly wrong?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member suggests that I misinformed Premier Davis. Surely that is one of the most ridiculous statements we have heard this Friday morning, and we have not heard too many yet. I wrote a letter to Premier Davis based on information that my officials gave me on the auto pact. The hon. member brings in the question of article I, subsection (a) about fair markets-


John Edward Broadbent: Fair shares.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -fair shares of markets. My letter, if I recall, refers to investment and development of the industry. I do not see any contradiction, but I agree with the hon. member that I am not an expert in the automobile trade. I know the agreement was put together by a Liberal government with the United States. I know that the former hon. member for Westmount was the minister at the time.
I know that it brought great benefit to the Canadian industry and to Canadian workers, I know that we have repeatedly tried to improve it, and I believe that the workers rely on this government to get the best possible deal out of the pact. As far as the wording of the letter is concerned, I defer to the hon. member's interpretation, but I just want to check whether he is right.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's disarming modesty at this point surely cannot stand as an acceptable answer. I remind the Prime Minister of the words he used in the letter tabled yesterday, "The automotive agreement does not include a provision respecting 'fair shares' ". Then the Prime Minister went on to talk about free trade. I just quoted to the Prime Minister a section of the pact that, if it means anything-I remind him that it was put in there at Canada's insistence-refers to sharing, " .. . participate on a fair and equitable basis in the expanding total market..." That is, both countries are to participate on a fair and equitable basis in the expansion of the total market in the future.
I would ask the Prime Minister, considering he just said that he sees no contradiction between these two points, what could that mean in the auto pact? What could the Canadian negotia-
Oral Questions
tors have intended when they insisted that that clause be put in the pact, if they did not mean that it should pertain to future investment and future job-sharing so that Canadian workers would not end up being shortchanged by some 25,000 jobs as they now are?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the hon. member's argument. "Fair share" can mean a fair share of the workers in the industry; it can mean a fair share of the sales; it can mean a fair share of the trade; it can mean a fair share of the revenue to the working population or to governments through taxation. I accept the hon. member's point, and I will look into it. I do not know, quite frankly, what the details of the auto pact are. Certainly, I do not think Premier Davis will take such a high-horse attitude about my trying to mislead him. I think he will read the letter, and if he has an argument, he will put it. I do not think the premier needs the hon. member to get indignant about my trying to mislead him.
[DOT] (U22)


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to accept, without any exaggeration at all, what the Prime Minister is saying. He may well have been mistaken: that is fair enough. When he checks into the matter with the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and finds, as I think he will, that he was misinformed about what the pact actually says, will he do what Prime Minister Pearson did in 1965 when the pact was first signed between him and President Johnson? The Government of Canada followed the signing of this pact by getting from the three principal automotive manufacturers letters of commitment which pertained to investment in Canada for the following three years. During that three-year period we got our share of investment.
Will the Prime Minister now take steps to ensure that the Government of Canada gets from the automotive industry a commitment for the next three years, so that we will once again get our share of investment which will produce the jobs we ought to get on this side of the border?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows, or ought to know, that the government is constantly attempting to get a better deal in our trade with other countries, in all areas, including the automotive area. There is a pact: we have gone through successive phases in the application of this pact. I remember a time in this House not too many years ago when the Americans were complaining the Canadians were getting more then their fair share of the pact; I think it was when Mr. Connally was Secretary of the Treasury. They were talking about reopening the pact. The hon. member who was just speaking rose at that time and said, "How dare the government even talk about reopening the pact. We do not want to reopen it. It is working for us. We do not want it to be touched at all." Now that it is not working for us, he says we should touch it.
You cannot argue at one time that the pact is sacrosanct, as that party was doing, and at another time say we should seek to improve it all the time. A Liberal government brought in

May 5, 1978
Oral Questions
the auto pact, and we are constantly trying to get a better deal for Canadians through it. The Americans are trying to do the same for themselves. Obviously, the interests of Mr. Davis, the Premier of Ontario, and his government are the same. We want to get a better deal for Canadians. I will hear any reasonable argument from the hon. member indicating how that can be done. I just do not think it is sufficient to stand up and say we should get more than the Americans. The problem is, how can you get it in a better fashion?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS COMPENSATION TO QUEBEC FOR LOSS OF SALES TAX REVENUE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister and concerns the Ottawa-Quebec conflict over the sales tax reimbursement.
As there is more and more agreement with the fact that Ottawa should respect the provincial jurisdiction over the sales tax and that it should therefore reimburse the province of Quebec the $186 million which is at the base of the present discussion which is going on through the media, is the right hon. Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance prepared to meet the premier or the minister of finance of Quebec to come to an agreement which would be in the spirit of the constitution, rather than trying to buy votes in Quebec by reimbursing each individual, as the latest rumours would have it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member speaks of respecting the constitution and adds that the sales tax comes under provincial jurisdiction. We wholeheartedly agree. That is why the Minister of Finance went to all provincial finance ministers saying: You have this tax, would you be willing to cut it if we reimbursed you? Nine provinces said yes. We never said that this tax came under our jurisdiction. We offered the provinces money to do something. Nine said yes, the tenth one, Quebec, gave no reply.
We never maintained and we do not maintain now that we have the power to lower the sales tax in Quebec. We only said that if Quebec agreed to do certain things, like the other provinces, we would give it money. If it does not want to go along, we certainly will not interfere in its jurisdiction. We will arrange for this money to go to Quebeckers through some other means. The hon. member seems to object to the fact that this money would go to individual Quebeckers, I do not know why; perhaps he could indicate it in a supplementary question.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.

In his reply, the Prime Minister stated that he does not interfere in the provincial administration or in the provincial jurisdiction, but by laying down to the provinces a condition which is explicitly rejected by Quebec he is compelling Quebec and the other provinces to meet the requirements of the federal government. This is the central issue of all current discussions and disputes between Quebec and the federal government. It is a bad approach for future discussions on a new Canadian constitution. Now I am concerned about the dangers of giving directly all those funds to Quebec and this is the question which the Prime Minister asked me-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gérard Laprise: -he asked me to make myself clear on how to give those $186 million directly to Quebeckers. I say the federal government should give that money to Quebec in an envelope, for the province to manage as it is entitled to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a new version of social credit. I thought their theory advocated giving money to the people but not to the government.
The hon. member spoke of the conditions or demands the federal government imposed. He did not understand what happened. We imposed no conditions. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), met his provincial counterparts. They all agreed that it would be a good idea to cut the sales tax, and I think the taxpayers agree with it too.
Now, Mr. Chretien said to the provincial ministers: If you reduce your sales tax, that falls within your jurisdiction. We are not imposing any conditions nor making any demands. We say: How would you go about it? Let us discuss the matter. And seven provinces agreed with the formula suggested by Mr. Chretien. Two others said: No, we do not agree with that formula, we will change it. Mr. Chretien agreed with that. So the formula was changed for Saskatchewan and British Columbia.
The tenth province, always "La belle province", Quebec, replied: No, we have no answer to give to you. Go ahead with your budget, and we will let you know after. Mr. Chretien brought down his budget, then Mr. Parizeau started "shadow boxing". He was going to hit in the mouth the guy who was no longer there. That is no way to negotiate.
May 5, 1978

[DOT]	(1127)


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Last week the Liberal Premier of Nova Scotia forwarded the right hon. gentleman a telegram protesting the arbitrary action of the federal government with regard to the imposition of federal restrictions on fishermen in the Bay of Fundy area. He has asked that all restrictions be lifted until settlement is reached between Canada and the United States over fishing rights on Georges Bank.
In view of the economic hardship created by what the premier has called high-handed and arbitrary tactics by the Minister of Fisheries, I ask the Prime Minister what action he proposes to take to rectify this unfortunate situation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have been notified that the Minister of Fisheries is presently meeting with the directors general of fisheries for Newfoundland and the maritimes; he is meeting with them in Halifax. Perhaps the hon. member should make his concern known to the meeting there. I see the hon. lady from Kingston has something to say about fisheries, too. I shall be hearing her question as a supplementary, but for the time being I am answering her colleague, and maybe she could let me finish that answer.
I was telling the hon. member that the meeting is taking place now. Perhaps he was not informed of it. But I think the officials at the meeting should be told of the concerns of the hon. member. I am sure Mr. Regan's officials who are there will be able to express their point of view, but I am also sure they would be thankful to have the hon. member's help.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer, but I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that he mentioned consultations which I think he said were being held in Newfoundland, whereas the area in question concerns the fishermen in Digby, Nova Scotia. There is quite a bit of difference between the two provinces.
[DOT]	(1132)
I raised this matter with the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment in this House on April 28. His reply was very brief and I will read it to the Prime Minister for background. He stated, "As for the complaint of the minister from Nova Scotia", that is, the minister of fisheries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is on a supplementary question and I wonder if he would come to the question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment implied that he was not interested in consultation with the minister of fisheries of Nova
Oral Questions
Scotia or with the Premier of Nova Scotia. Therefore, I am asking the Prime Minister whether he will undertake to discuss this very urgent matter with his Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, and will he do so in the hope that the minister will consult, rather than confront, Nova Scotia's fishermen on a matter which could have direct and very important economic effects upon them and their livelihood?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I really have some difficulty understanding why the hon. member is making these representations to me when I have just said that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is meeting in Halifax with representatives from Newfoundland and the other maritime provinces. I think possibly the hon. member did not understand because the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands was making a lot of noise during my answer. However, I am now repeating it. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment is meeting in Halifax with ministers and officials of the Nova Scotia government. Therefore, it seems to me that the hon. member is perhaps jumping on the minister's bandwagon by telling me that I should tell the minister what the minister is already telling people in Halifax.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It has been reported in the press that about 15,000 Canadians have received unemployment insurance overpayments. These people are in the provinces of British Columbia, Quebec and Nova Scotia. The overpayments amount to about $4.3 million. Have figures regarding further overpayments come to the attention of the minister and, if so, were they directed to persons in provinces other than those I have named?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has the figures correct and the overpayments took place in the areas he has suggested.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House upon what basis these overpayments were made? Can the minister assure the House that the overpayments were not the result of cheating or ripping off the system on the part of the recipients of those overpayments?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. No, it was not the result of cheating or ripping off. It was a mistake, a human error made by an official in my department. We have found it out and we are taking action to correct it. It had to do with the extended benefit phase structure of the program but nothing to do with the individuals themselves. There was no ripping off; there was no cheating.

May 5, 1978
Oral Questions


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, if my information is correct, most of these overpayments go back to the year 1977. When the minister says the situation is being corrected, is it the intention of the government to collect this money back from the recipients who were overpaid and, if it is, what means is the government using, keeping in mind that some of these recipients are not in a position economically to meet a claim for overpayment which, as the minister has said, was certainly not their fault?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are going to collect the money because it was an overpayment. We will do so imposing as little hardship as possible, given the fact that it was our mistake. We have written letters to the individual claimants informing them of our error, that we have to get the money back and that we will make whatever arrangements are necessary in order to impose as little hardship as possible.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: 
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Begin:: -and that it is going to be clarified after consultations with the various parties involved.


INSTRUCTIONS TO DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS RESPECTING CIRCULAR
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the minister who initiated this circular, the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the testimony in committee this morning by the Minister of National Revenue to the effect that the circular put out was not the kind of circular he wanted and was, in fact, not even the kind of circular that the former minister wanted, would the minister say exactly what she had in mind when she instructed her officials to bring forward a circular outlining the political activities of charitable organizations in this country?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether or not I must account for the portfolio I held previou' 'y, but I already-Do not get excited, keep quite!
I already said Wednesday afternoon in the House of Commons, as reported in Hansard, that when I was Minister of National Revenue, I received numerous representations from movements, mostly women's associations, pointing out to me that the legal interpretation did not allow social, cultural, educational and other movements which promote social change in our society to be registered for tax deduction purposes. So, I asked departmental officials to refer to foreign laws and practices in order to define what was acceptable in 1977 or 1978 as regards political activities and what was not for charitable purposes.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister of National Revenue. I would like to ask the acting minister, exactly what were the instructions given to the department which resulted in a circular being sent out which was not in accordance with the wishes of the current minister and which he says was not in accordance with the wishes of the former minister?


Miss B6gin:: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the hon. person opposite understands the way administration works-


An hon. Member:: Do you understand it?


Monique Bégin: -when we update an interpretation bulletin. I do not recall in what month this happened, but I do not think this is a trial or that I have to give the exact date. It was during the time I was minister of national revenue. This circular is dated February, 1978, if my memory serves me well. I do not have a copy of it with me, but I had not been minister of national revenue for a few months. I gather that when the work of the small internal task force which worked on that was ready, it was presented for the approval of the deputy minister at the time who, by the way, has also changed.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: The noisy ones over there should quieten down.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister has suggested that perhaps my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, does not understand administrative practices. What is clear from the minister's reply is one more indication that she and her colleagues do not understand the concept of ministerial responsibility. What she is trying to do is blame anonymous public servants for giving effect to an order which was given by a minister. What the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has asked, and what I ask now-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
May 5, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask the Leader of the Opposition to put a question.


Charles Joseph Clark: I was putting a question, sir, but Your Honour was not able to hear me because of the shouting from across the way. The question put by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is of very real importance to this House. What, precisely, were the instructions of the minister which gave rise to the preparation by public servants of this circular?


René Bégin: The question, sir, was to update the circular in light of what Canadians want these days and what they have voted through this parliament as being charitable donations. We know so well what responsible government is that the circular has been withdrawn for clarification, after consultation with the parties concerned.


Charles Joseph Clark: I wonder, just so we might be very clear as to what instructions were given, if the minister would agree to table in the House of Commons any written record or any transcript of a verbal instruction from her or from her successor to officials which gave rise to the preparation of this circular. May we have something more concrete than the word of the minister in this House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: May we have the words which the minister gave to the public servants upon whom she is now proposing to settle the blame for this circular?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the Leader of the Opposition keeps talking of blame. There is no blame in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


René Bégin: We are talking of satisfying the Income Tax Act and recognizing what are appropriate charitable donations in the interface of political activities. I repeat that he is not very familiar with the administration, but everybody in this chamber who is an accountant by training would know that an interpretation bulletin is a bulletin sent to the trade for reaction, and we had plenty of reaction on this one-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: -and readjustment. We are now in the readjustment phase. We have not changed the text of the law without coming to the House, and we have not blamed any civil servants: they did their work very well. It seems to me that we, the politicians, are the specialists in political activity, and we are in the process of defining acceptable political activity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what we want the minister to do, and what she is apparently reluctant to do, is table in the House of Commons and make available for the scrutiny of
Oral Questions
parliament and the public of Canada the precise instructions she gave to her public servants. I would like her to do that. But my question now is the following. The minister has said that this document was withdrawn, or that they are withdrawing the circular. Is the policy stated in that circular still in effect, as her successor, the unavailable Minister of National Revenue, said it was when he appeared before the committee today?


Monique Bégin: The Income Tax Act is in effect and the jurisprudence behind it is in effect. The previous circular, if it has not been withdrawn-that, I do not know-is, of course, the one prevailing. The newer circular defining political activities has been withdrawn. The law stands the way it is. We will produce a new circular defining acceptable political activities and giving examples of non-acceptable political activities. May I repeat what I said about the administration, that a working session is a session around a table with some officials, the minister and eventually people of her staff, discussing ways of improving things for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Monique Bégin: We are not blaming people here; that is the job of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister: it is in connection with the Bell Canada contract with Saudi Arabia about which questions were asked several days ago. Is the Prime Minister aware that the statement of a non-business relationship with the State of Israel in the contract which Bell Canada signed would be completely prohibited in the United States under that country's anti-boycott laws, and would he undertake to see that the Government of Canada will at least direct that a similar course of action be followed by Canadian companies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I take that as a representation and I will attempt to answer the question about what happens in the United States.


David Orlikow: Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that the United States government, having made repeated representations to the Saudi Arabian government regarding that government's policy of religious discrimination in the granting of visas, has now succeeded in establishing a situation in which all Americans applying for visas to Saudi Arabia do not answer questions in the application form with regard to their religion, and would the Prime Minister consider arranging for a similar policy regarding visas for Canada?

May 5, 1978
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think that, too, is a representation. It seems to me that the United States, which sells arms and a lot of important things to Saudi Arabia, is perhaps in a stronger bargaining position than is Canada in some of these matters. We are not selling arms to Saudi Arabia, the United States is, and from the point of view of the interests of the hon. member, this should be a relevant element in the equation.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Last year it came to my attention that a working paper was being produced by the Law Reform Commission on the subject of rape and other sexual offences. We attempted to obtain copies of that working paper late last fall but it seemed to be unavailable, yet there was a meeting some time in December with selected women's groups to discuss the working paper. We were told that the report would be published early this spring on the whole area of rape and other sexual offences and amendments to the Criminal Code.
Can the minister indicate why it seems to be taking so long for the Law Reform Commission to produce that report, in light of the tabled amendments which the minister brought forward this week?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the chairman has not explained to me the length of time, except that I know they have been working on it for quite some time. As I indicated in my press release on Monday, I hoped that the working paper of the Law Reform Commission would be made available to the public and to all of us as quickly as possible, and that the views expressed therein could become part of the general debate on this whole subject. I understand that it is in the course of being printed.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it now appears from direct contacts with the Law Reform Commission that they deny that any working paper was ever produced; but I have a copy here in my hand. In addition, the final, or the major report of the Law Reform Commission in this area, according to the commission, has been either in printing or under translation for the last three months. There are many groups in this country who are concerned with this legislation who feel that the report may, in fact, never be published.
Can the minister give us an assurance that this report will be published, so that we can look at the report in concert with the amendments proposed before the final legislation is put before parliament?


Stanley Ronald Basford: I am sure that that fear is totally unfounded. I am not sure that legally I can give that assurance, because whether the report is published or not is up to the chairman of the commission. Let me say that I have no indication that

there is no intention to publish it and I will do all in my power, as minister, to ensure that it is published.


ELECTIONS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Because of the needless expense in both the public and private sectors, the uncertainty caused in the whole country due to the inability of the Prime Minister to make up his mind about whether or not we are going to have an election, and because it is somewhat of an implied insult to members of the House that they have to read in the press that in his magnanimous way he will be good enough within one week to tell, at least the press, whether or not we are going to have an election in July, I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell members of the House of Commons now, today in the House, whether or not we are going to have an election in July-of 1978.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me this is not an urgent question. I can reassure the hon. member by telling him that I am not having any trouble making up my mind, particularly when I hear the hon. member ask such silly questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My supplementary question is also to the rather touchy and grouchy Prime Minister. I wonder what bolt of clairvoyance from the blue, or what further information or inspiration is going to strike the Prime Minister within the next seven days that he will be able to tell us this next week, rather than this week-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is to the Minister of Transport. I have not had an opportunity to advise him of the subject matter, but it is current and I am sure he is familiar with it. Now that the Sir Robert Bond rail car ferry that has been operating between North Sydney and Newfoundland has been taken out of service on that run and sent to Quebec for renovations to operate on the Labrador coast, can the minister advise the House what steps he has taken to find a replacement or another rail car ferry to operate between the port of North Sydney and Newfoundland?
MayS, 1978


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the analysis which was provided to me indicated that the existing rail car ferry capacity without the Sir Robert Bond would ordinarily be adequate to deal with the movement of cars. It has been made clear that the refitted Sir Robert Bond, while normally serving other routes, would be available as a standby vessel in case there is a clearcut need where it is now serving. In other words, it would be brought back if there was a problem with one of the vessels. Indeed, we would examine as well the situation of a rapid increase in the number of rail cars offering to move across that particular route.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's reply, although it is not too encouraging. As he is aware, there is a backlog of railway cars at the port of North Sydney. Since the Frederick Carter is the only remaining rail car ferry left to operate between North Sydney and Newfoundland to carry goods to that province, and despite the fact that he says the Sir Robert Bond would be available in an emergency, or as a contingency plan, how could that work when they have weld-ed-over the railway tracks, leaving no means of putting rail cars on the Sir Robert Bondi


Otto Emil Lang: 
THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, one aspect of the 88-cent dollar that seems to have eluded this House is that the higher cost of imports confers a competitive advantage on Canadian entrepreneurs selling in the Canadian market. Have we any indication of how much advantage has been gained and to what degree Canadian entrepreneurs have taken advantage of this aspect of the Canadian dollar? Also, are we encouraging movement in this direction on the part of Canadian business?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the answer is in the figures that were released last Friday. From March to March the increase in exports went from $40 billion to $50 billion and imports did not increase from last year. Thus, we had a year-average $10 billion surplus from March to March. What is happening is that we have increased our exports by 25 per cent from last March and we have not increased our imports because Canadian entrepreneurs have been able to supply the Canadian market with Canadian goods as foreign goods are more expensive.


Mr. Huatyshyn:: Let's have a 50-cent dollar.
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT


PATRICIA AIRWAYS-CHARGES UNDER AERONAUTICS ACT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Last February, in Dryden, Ontario, three charges under the Aeronautics Act were dismissed against Patricia Airways because the Department of Justice attorney did not make it to court. I also raised this matter in the transport committee in February and the minister informed me that charges would be laid again. I was informed this week that the federal prosecutor in Thunder Bay, Mr. Paul Gordon, is going to drop the charges because Patricia Airways is now bankrupt. Could the minister confirm that statement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is the information I received. It had been our intention to lay the charges again, but obviously that is simply and practically not possible with the disappearance of the proposed defendant.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware that the owners of Patricia Airways have disappeared. There have been 24 deaths in the north since 1975 and during some of the earlier investigations into these fatal crashes there were very startling revelations. I would suggest to the minister that he reconsider the matter and have the owners of Patricia Airways appear before the courts on these three charges.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is getting bad legal advice, or none at all, in assuming that the defendant could be other than the airline company in question, as the operator of the airline. That is certainly the advice I have before me. I do not think that he helps the situation by once again referring to statistics relating to accidents or deaths. That simply causes people to worry. We have gone over these facts many times before and the hon. member knows that the over-all safety record in northern Ontario, while of concern because we want to improve it, compares favourably with that of equivalent areas. Canadian safety records are very sound and would stand up against any in the world. I wish the hon. member would not continue to indict the companies and worry people with his statistics.


MEDICAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the devasting effect that the reduction in the Medical Research Council budget has had on research in this country this year, I ask the minister whether she has any plans to rearrange her department's budget in order to come up with an extra $4 million or $5 million to at least keep the level of last year's medical research going this year.

May 5, 1978
Oral Questions


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, three witnesses appeared this morning before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs regarding medical research and I understand that the request of the hon. member for an additional $4 million or $5 million was a point they raised. I would like to read the record regarding the testimony that was given. In any event, I am well aware of the fact that the Medical Research Council received a 5.6 per cent increase in their budget this year, which is-


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


René Bégin: 1 beg your pardon; it is, of course, true. This is less than the rate of inflation, but far more than the vast majority of our departments and agencies have received. As I said earlier this week in the House, there is a problem in that field with regard to equipment, 80 per cent of which comes from the United States. I am waiting for the medical research community to provide me with facts and figures on that; then we will see what we can do.


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, the minister's figure of 5.6 per cent seems to be at variance with that indicated in the letter signed by the Prime Minister in which he said it was 7.8 per cent. Of course, both those percentages are wrong. I ask the minister whether she has consulted with her colleague, the Minister of Transport, to determine whether he would be willing to rearrange his travel plans for this year so that at least $700,000 or $800,000 might be reallocated to medical research?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Huron-Middlesex.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of DREE responsible for ARDA. He has left the House, so perhaps I could be recognized on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to put a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, but I understand that he had to leave so I shall put it to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister indicated, in respect of a certain piece of legislation, that if there could be a guarantee that it would be put through all stages in one day, the government would proceed with it. May I ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will consult with the representatives of the parties as to the possibility, which I am sure exists, of putting through in one day a bill to improve veterans pensions? If so, will he do his best to get that legislation through next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, when the decision has been taken to give effect to the suggestion, I will be glad to consult with hon. members.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Robert Elgin McKinley: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion who is responsible for ARDA. In view of the fact that the federal government's agreement with the province of Ontario concerning ARDA ran out in 1975 and has been extended twice since because a new five-year agreement could not be reached, could the minister advise as to the status of current negotiations with the government of Ontario, so that another short extension will not be necessary and that the regular agreement for five years can be set up? More specifically, can he assure us that the province of Ontario will be offered agreements that are as advantageous as those which other provinces have received?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the benefits which will be offered to the province of Ontario will certainly be consistent with those we have negotiated in the past with that province as well as with the others. We have extended the ARDA agreement and we are now discussing the future of ARDA on a longer term basis. We are also considering the proposals made by the province concerning the development of a number of areas in southern and south-eastern Ontario, and I hope that the current discussions will be concluded within the next few weeks or months and result in the ratification of agreements and the setting up of structures to complete a number of projects already under way.
As to concluding a new long term ARDA agreement, I cannot say that it will materialize. It is quite possible, but we are now considering a number of proposals which the government has put forward recently, and this may, of course, affect the future decision on this matter.


Robert Elgin McKinley: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister agree to fund some special projects in Ontario to well over the 50 per cent share, as he has done for other provinces? I am sure it is common knowledge that more money comes to the federal government from Ontario than any other province. Surely that province should be entitled to equal treatment.
May 5, 1978

Order Paper Questions


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct the statement that some provinces benefit more from the ARDA program. As far as I know, it is not the case. The ARDA agreement still provides that cost-sharing is on a 50 per cent basis, and it is only under the special ARDA act which deals rather with projects concerning Indians or native groups throughout Canada that we contribute a large amount. Under the ARDA program, sharing is always on a 50 per cent basis.


PRIVILEGE
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday I rose on a question of privilege because the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) alleged that I had breached some undertakings I had given him with respect to certain sections of the Criminal Code. I indicated that my recollection was I had performed the undertakings given him. I have checked the record of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for November 27, 1975, on this matter. I gave the hon. member two undertakings, and the record indicates that they had been fulfilled. It also indicates that he asked for a third undertaking which I specifically refused to give him.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Otto Emil Lang: for leave to introduce Bill C-53, to promote public safety and the protection of the environment in the transportation of dangerous goods.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: 1,149.


WINTER COLD
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	How many fatalities in Canada were related to exposure to winter cold in
(a)	1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 (e) 1976?
2.	How many serious cases of frostbite were reported in Canada in (a) 1972
(b)	1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 (e) 1976?
3.	To which common illnesses in Canada can the winter cold be considered to be a significant contributing or complicating factor?
4.	What studies have been carried out by the government into the risks offered to the health of Canadians by styles of clothing affording adequate protection from winter cold?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of National Health and Welfare and National Defence as follows: 1. According to Statistics Canada data, the numbers of deaths reported due to excessive cold (code E901, ICDA-8 revised) in these years were: (a) 1972, 111; (b) 1973, 122; (c) 1974, 123;
(d)	1975, 104. (e) Data for 1976 are not yet available.
2.	According to Statistics Canada data, the numbers of admissions to general and allied special hospitals in Canada for frostbite, excessive cold and freezing (codes 991.0, 991.1, 991.2, 991.3 and 991.9, ICDA-8 revised) in these years were: (a) 1972, 1,059; (b) 1973, 559; (c) 1974, 672; (d) 1975, 590;
(e)	1976,-Data for this year are not yet available.
3.	It is a common observation that an increase in the frequency of colds occurs in the winter. Sometimes this has been correlated with sharp changes in the temperature, humidity or pollution of the air, but the popular belief that cold weather causes common colds cannot be substantiated from epidemiologic observations in the arctic or tropics or from studies in volunteers. Exposure of volunteer subjects to cold did not activate latent respiratory viruses. The reason for the apparent relation between the season and common colds remains unclear. However, winter cold is recognized to be a contributing factor in the syndrome of hypothermia. This condition is not common in Canada. Winter cold is also a predisposing factor in a number of unrelated accidents and illnesses. For example: unusual exercise (shovelling snow) is responsible for precipitating numerous myocardial infarctions, and icy roads and sidewalks cause people to slip and fall, resulting in broken bones, strains and sprains.
4.	With respect to the National Health Research and Development Program, no projects have been funded relating to clothing affording adequate protection from winter cold. The Department of National Defence has carried out long term studies on the research, development, testing and evaluation of winter clothing systems designed to provide optimum protection for Canadian Forces personnel operating in the cold. DND also instructs and trains servicemen on the proper use and care of this equipment and related materiel to ensure that correct and safe cold weather procedures are employed to minimize risks and hazards to health which may result from exposure to winter cold.

May 5, 1978
Order Paper Questions


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 916 and 1,434 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 916 and 1,434 be deemed to have been made orders for returns?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


TEMPORARY ASSIGNMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Alexander: 1.	Since the establishment of the Temporary Assignment Programme, who has worked for this Programme and what assignments did they undertake?
2.	Of all Programme assignments, which ones were internal Treasury Board Secretariat and which ones were in response to external (departmental or agency) demands?
3.	For each fiscal year since the Programme was established (a) what has been the expenditure on salaries for Programme employees (b) how much of the expenditure, in each Fiscal year, was recovered from departments and agencies
(c)	how much of the expenditure, in each fiscal year, was paid by the Treasury Board Secretariat?
4.	What is the average length of time between assignments?
5.	Who was working for the Programme as of December 12, 1977 and, in each case, what was their assignment on December 12, 1977?
6.	Which employees on December 12, 1977 were working on (a) internal Treasury Board Secretariat assignments (b) external (departmental or agency) assignments?
7.	Was responsibility for administration of the Programme shifted to the Program Branch, Treasury Board Secretariat and, if so, for what reason?
Return tabled.


ELECTORAL REDISTRIBUTION
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Since the redistribution of constituencies, what is the (a) total population (b) number of voters, in each constituency in the Province of Quebec?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, May 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Abbott (for Mr. Lang) that Bill C-17, to amend the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act and the Railway Act and to amend and repeal certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass, and of the amendment (Mr. Murta) (p. 5176).
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: ment to come forward and to say that by transferring this debt the CNR will be in a better position to go out to the private markets and acquire money for its operations and capital expenditures.
In respect to this particular bill I am concerned about the failure of the government to respond positively to suggestions made by my colleagues at different times during the course of debate and during the course of committee hearings. These suggestions were for a stronger and more thorough process of accountability as far as this Crown corporation is concerned, and generally with respect to Crown corporations.
We have experienced some dreadful horror stories of spending within Crown corporations during the course of this parliament. There is one lesson that should have been learned by all members of this House, that we must all come to grips with the concept of accountability as far as Crown corporations are concerned. I say this in the context of the CNR. Of course I am not suggesting by my remarks today that a finger should be pointed to the CNR particularly, but that there should be some system set up to strengthen the accountability of Crown corporations to parliament. We have many examples, and I do not want to stray too far from this particular legislation. But I am sure an exasperating feeling comes on a member of parliament when he starts to ask questions about Crown corporations.
I remember asking a question once about the CBC. I had heard a rumour-my questions are only sometimes based on rumours-but I will put it this way that I had heard a story that the CBC had spent considerable amounts of money for the creation of a new logo. As a parliamentarian, due to inquiries I had received from constituents about this expenditure, I felt it was my duty to inquire into how much was spent for the production of this new logo for the CBC. In response to a question on the order paper I was told that it was not in the interests of the corporation to give this information to parliamentarians, let alone to the public, that somehow this was a matter of internal financial management and concern, and therefore was not available to me as a member of parliament. Commercial considerations notwithstanding, that kind of approach is all too prevalent with respect to questions relating to financial operations of Crown corporations.
If we are to create these Crown corporations and have them go into public markets and into business of one sort or another, and if we are expected to fund and pay for these Crown corporations, the very minimum we should expect is to have some reasonable ability through parliament to examine and scrutinize the legitimacy of expenditures and the advisability of spending, not just in the past, but also in the future.
The committee, in this particular instance, dealt in an unfortunate way with the suggestions that I made about strengthening the accountability of the CNR. The committee, dominated as it is by government members, used the flimsy excuse that this request was an attempt to stall passage of the bill. As a result it refused to allow the Auditor General or a
Railway Act
representative from his office to appear before the committee respecting suggestions that might be coming from that office relating to the examination of expenditures, policies, and procedures within the CNR.
I want to deal at this point with the CNR in terms of rail transportation and in particular with an aspect of vital interest to me and, I am sure, to all members from western Canada. This concerns a theme I have been bringing forward in parliament from time to time with the government and particularly with the Minister of Transport, without much success, I am sorry to say. This relates to the effect of the recommendations of the Hall commission. In my view, in the terms of the efficiency of the operation of the CNR, and indeed the operation of the other railway system in Canada, and the implications as far as western Canada and the Hall commission are concerned, these recommendations are of the utmost importance. As parliamentarians representing not only the interests of western Canada but looking at the situation in the national context we should be most interested in and supportive of these recommendations.
What brings me to talk about the Hall commission as it relates to the CNR and the other railway is the attitude which the minister has been taking regarding the recommendations of the Hall commission. Reluctant is maybe too soft a term to use about the attitude which I have detected coming from the Minister of Transport concerning the total package of the Hall commission.
Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the minister with respect to the proposal in the report of the Hall commission concerning the extension of the Crowsnest rates relating to livestock, meat, and finished products. I received a negative answer. The gist of the minister's answer was that this would somehow involve an enormous amount of money. He could not see his way clear, I suppose, to recommend to his colleagues in cabinet that the amount of money required to put into effect the recommendations set out in the Hall commission report would be legitimate expenditures for western Canada. I was sorry to hear that negative response from the minister, coming as he does from western Canada.
I get the impression more and more that the minister in his own mind thinks these proposals will mean a large amount of money, which he indicates, but he does not specify what the amount is. He talks about vast amounts of money. The fact of the matter is, in my opinion, that the amount of money involved is not in the first place an increase in the expenditure that we are now facing respecting transportation facilities in western Canada as it relates to rail, but indeed they are nominal expenditures to place western Canada more in a position of equity concerning freight rates paid on the products to which I have referred.
I do not think there is any question the railways should be adequately and properly compensated for the goods which they carry, as a general principle. However, if one examines the record and looks over the past financial statements of the railway, the years in which the profits were greatest were the years in which the railway carried a large tonnage of grain.

May 5, 1978
Railway Act
That is a very important comparison. When the railways carried a lot of grain, that was the time when profits were the highest. Somehow I think the people in Canada believe that the moneys expended through Crowsnest and other methods are being poured into western Canada particularly as some sort of unrecoverable subsidy. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
The expenditure for transportation of grain is an expenditure and investment by the people of Canada in their own interest. I made this point in the last debate we had on transportation policy on the last allotted day. It concerned the motion of my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I tried to demonstrate that payments which are being made for the delivery of grain, and payments with respect to grain generally, in the final analysis accrue to the benefit of people in central Canada. This relates to the cost of bread as well as in other ways in which the western farmer, out of his own pocket, subsidizes the consumer in central Canada. That should be understood. The fact is the government has a very peculiar concept of the way in which subsidies with regard to grain delivery ought to be handled.
When I first came to this House I was confronted with a speech made by the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, in Edmonton. At that time he cast some doubt on this government's determination to retain the statutory Crownsnest Pass rates within Canada. That caused me the greatest of concern. Since that time the minister has wriggled and wriggled to avoid coming down and getting away from the original statement. However, there is still suspicion in the mind of every western Canadian as to his dedication to the retention of the statutory Crowsnest Pass rates.
By subsequent statements the minister has merely exacerbated that concern in western Canada. Although he has not yet articulated it fully, it appears he has some idea of changing the whole basis of payment of any compensation to western Canadians. Rather than the proposition of payments to the railways for the short haul, payments will be made directly by cheque, I take it signed by the minister, to farmers across western Canada, on a cultivated acreage basis. The minister has the idea of individualizing these payments. While that proposition may be politically attractive in the mind of the minister, it is a waste of the taxpayers' money. It is an inefficient and wrong attitude to take toward the payment of the subsidy.


An hon. Member:: Shades of Jimmy Gardiner.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague says "shades of Jimmy Gardiner." One reason people in western Canada are so adamant about retaining the statutory Crowsnest Pass rates is that it takes away any sense of arbitrariness, either on the part of this government or the Conservatives when they form the government after the next election, with regard to the basis upon which payments will be made with respect to Crowsnest.
There is a built-in advantage now with Crowsnest as far as international trade is concerned. It helps us remain competi-

tive in the sale of grain. It assists in maintaining some reasonable balance of trade. However, once it is left at the discretion of any government, whether Liberal or Conservative, an arbitrary aspect comes into the matter. This makes western Canadians very nervous. It should be left in the statute. In that way, any changes are made by act of parliament and public discussion, not by order in council or some order taken by cabinet in the dead of night without the fullest discussion and public participation.
From what I can gather, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board feels that the farmer should pay the full shot, that is to say, the compensatory rate for carrying grain, and the difference between the Crow rates and the compensatory rates would be paid to the farmer by the government. I suggest that on this basis the farmer would be without the use of his money for a period of 12 to 18 months. This is another suggestion put forward by the minister.
I want to deal with another aspect before terminating my remarks, that is, the concept of extending the Crowsnest Pass rates which I raised in the House yesterday. The Hall commission recommended that rates on livestock and meat products be set at levels which do not discriminate against the national locational advantage of prairie livestock producers and processors. Presently the compensatory level of rates on meat and meat products and the low statutory level of grain rates distort the locational advantage.
The Hall commission further recommended that the present statutory levels of grain rates remain in force. Therefore, a subsidy would be required to remove the current rate distortion on livestock and meat products. What does this amount to?
The Hall commission recommendations must be construed to mean that livestock and meat rates are to be "Crow related" or subsidized to the extent of grain consumed by the animal unit concerned. The often stated belief that the Hall Commission advocated the extension of Crow rates to livestock and meat is just not correct.
In the case of beef, a 1,050 pound live steer will have consumed 4,120 pounds of barley to reach that marketable weight. If you look at Volume I of that report, table 9-6 at page 306, that is the basis of the contention and point that I am now making.
Second, a 1,050 pound live steer will dress out at 550 pounds of beef as meat and meat products. Assuming that the costs of moving grain are 2.6 times the Crow rate, the movement of grain is subsidized to the extent of 35 cents per 100 pounds. The Crow subsidy of 35.2 cents per hundredweight equals $14.50 per steer. This is based on the assumption that a steer consumes 4,120 pounds of barley times 35.2. That would equal $14.50.
The $14.50 per steer subsidy equals $1.38 per one hundred pounds subsidy on live cattle, or $2.63 per hundred pounds on dressed meat and meat products. In 1974, the last year the commission had before it, the movement of live beef from west to east totalled 160,000 tons, and the movement of meat and
May 5, 1978

meat products totalled 157,000 tons. This is verified at page 294 of the report. The subsidy "Crow related" rates on beef and meat products totals, live beef 160,000 tons times (1.38 x 20), $4,416,000, and dressed beef 157,000 tons times (2.63 x 20), $8,258,200, for a total of $12,674,200.
I now move on to deal with hogs. I want to document this because I know the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board will read this speech very carefully. I do not think he understands the recommendations of the Hall commission. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) is often in the House. I know he listens. He will pass on the basis of my remarks to the minister and aid him in understanding the recommendations of the Hall commission.
Notwithstanding this very important report, the minister unfortunately has not taken upon himself to see its author and architect in order to get an explanation so that he can fully understand what is going on as far as the report is concerned. A 200-pound live hog consumes 600 pounds of barley and dresses out at 160 pounds of pork products. In 1975, the flow of pork west to east equalled 6.5 per cent of Canadian production of 7.5 million head, or 490,000 head. A Crow subsidy of 35.2 per hundredweight on grain would be the equivalent of $2.11 per head of hogs on the basis of their consuming 600 pounds of barley. The total subsidy necessary to equalize hog rates to Crow grain rates totals $1,033,900 per year.
I put forward these statistics to show that any increase in livestock production as a result of equalization of rates through the extension of the Crow subsidy to livestock would not result in an increase in total subsidy expenditures, since the difference would be made up from increased grain shipments. This is a point which seems to have escaped the minister.
In his answers to questions put to him from this side of the House the minister shrugs off suggestions we make to improve the transportation system in western Canada. He tells us the government is already making large sums available for transportation and that, in a period of restraint, it is not possible to consider further large expenditures. However, he knows that the effect of rail line abandonment as recommended by the commission-I believe some 2,160 miles of branch line are involved-will be a saving to the federal treasury of roughly $400 million annually.
What happens when we come forward and ask that maybe $30 million extra a year be considered with respect to extending the Crow rate in such a way as to help the livestock producers of western Canada? The minister says he cannot afford the money. How can the minister justify this parsimonious attitude? Does he not have sufficient influence in cabinet to persuade his colleagues to accept the reasonable proposition I have put forward? The minister always puts his case in terms of spending money in western Canada, though he must realize that we in western Canada are losing money which has been forthcoming directly or indirectly through the subsidy program.
Railway Act
If we consider the Crow rates on cattle and hogs, if we include rapeseed and payment upon an equalization basis on rapeseed and on other products, even with an inflationary factor of 10 per cent based on the figures I have quoted for 1974 on an annual basis-I have been a little generous; I did not want to understate it yesterday in my question to the minister when I mentioned $35 million, because I think the figure would be in the neighbourhood of $30 million-


An hon. Member:: Is that $30 million?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, $30 million. That would be required to give western Canadians a small indication that Ottawa understands and is sympathetic to the hopes and aspirations of western Canada and our desire to take advantage of our location as the breadbasket of the world and the centre of the livestock industry in Canada.
The minister's attitude mystifies me. After all, only a week or so ago we were asked to agree to extend the scope of the EDC to $25 billion. Here is a request from western Canadians for an expenditure of something like $30 million. If it were accepted, the gesture would go a long way to making westerners feel that there is at least some concern being shown by the federal government about the way in which rates have been treated in the past, and some desire to encourage farmers and processors. It is not asking for the world, by any means, especially in the light of the savings which will be made by the closing down of branch lines and the cutting off of certain subsidies.
It is not hard to see where the government's priorities lie. Its interest is, as ever, political: win the two central provinces and forget the hinterland. That is what the government thinks and talks about.
My hon. friend from Carleton-Charlotte was misquoted by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). He is a spokesman for the interests of Atlantic Canada and the maritime provinces, and he expressed a natural concern about the situation there. What he said was not that western Canada was getting all the attention but that eastern Canada was getting no attention with respect to its serious transportation problems. He got up on a question of privilege to correct the record, and I can understand his exasperation. The government is concerned only with keeping its power base, regardless of the consequences for western Canada and the maritimes. The hinterlands are a low priority when it comes to transportation policy.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we can always tell when our arguments are cogent and accurate because, all of a sudden, there is squealing from the back benches opposite. They try to shout us down, they try to make a noise, because they know what we are saying is completely accurate. People in western Canada and Atlantic Canada understand this too, as they will demonstrate when the Prime Minister screws up his courage and makes the trip to see the Governor General. They will express their opinion in no uncertain terms of this kind of manipulative approach-

Railway Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest we all squeal back to the subject under discussion, Bill C-17.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am encouraged that you are stopping the squealing from the other side, and I know you are as repulsed as I am by the interjections. As far as transportation policy is concerned, we on this side are interested and extend our congratulations to the president of the CNR. As I say, he has taken hold of this Crown corporation, and I congratulate him on the admirable job he has done. I have no quarrel with Mr. Bandeen. Every once in a while I write to him about a particular grievance I have.
We all know in western Canada that CN transport is "out" as far as Saskatchewan is concerned. Many of the towns in my constituency have suffered a loss of services. It is my duty, as it is the duty of every member representing a Saskatchewan constituency, to attempt to resist what we consider to be a short term and misguided policy. But as to the operation of the railway there seems to be a new sense of enthusiasm and optimism. I repeat that I do not take issue with management in a serious way. I do object to the attitude of the government with respect to transportation and the constraints within which the government places the operations of our railways.
I want to allude just briefly to another grievance we in western Canada have about the way in which rail passenger service is developing. I realize that support for rail passenger policy is sometimes based upon a rather romantic view many of us have with respect to railways, but for a long time we have heard the argument that rail passenger service is on the way out. I am concerned that rail passenger service is not being given a serious chance. I hope that VIA Rail will do something to change my mind in that regard.
As we look at what is happening to trans-continental rail passenger service, there is nothing but apprehension and concern on the part of western Canadians. My colleague, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), has pointed out some of the ludicrous scheduling propositions which are being laid down for transcontinental passenger service. It is not the kind of scheduling which will encourage people to travel on trains.
I took my family on a train east from Saskatoon last summer when we had a chance to take a little holiday. It was a superb trip. The service was excellent. There was a fine staff and fine food. I do not think we are doing enough to encourage patronage at this very crucial time, in view of energy consumption forecasts and energy costs, to retain the basis of our rail passenger service, especially in terms of trans-Canada service and passenger service. I support policies which encourage continuation and expansion of fast, efficient, and enjoyable rail passenger service. I think that point of view is shared by members of my party generally.
I have indicated my concern about accountability of Crown corporations and the necessity of having a serious look at that, especially in terms of legislation such as this which deals with refinancing the CNR. We had an excellent opportunity to

have the Auditor General come before the committee to give us his views on the expenditures and the control of expenditures within the corporation, but the government backed away from that on very flimsy grounds.
As pointed out by my colleagues, this bill should have been deferred until the Royal Commission on Government Management handed down its recommendations, or at least until the government produced the legislation promised by the Minister of Transport for the next session regarding Crown corporations.
In my opinion this bill is premature. I do not want to speak much longer, but I want to express as strongly as I am able to do some of my concerns and some of the concerns which have been expressed to me by western Canadians generally with respect to the direction in which transportation policy in this country has taken us. The most important aspect of that in western Canada relates to rail transportation.
I want to leave with the House and with the minister some of the concerns of hon. members on his side of the House with respect to the way in which this government and the Minister of Transport have failed to deal with the key recommendations of the Hall commission. As I said before, it is our view that the chief commissioner, the Hon. Emmett Hall, should be consulted. He is the architect and chief spokesman of the Hall commission, and his expertise with respect to the implementation of the recommendations contained in his report ought to be used. If the government persists in refusing to do this, we can only assume that it has no interest in putting into effect the key recommendations of the commission. The Prairie Rail Action Committee was set up by the minister rather than by the prairie rail authority which was recommended by the Hall commission.
There is every appearance of a stall, and this will put us right back to where we were before the commission handed down its recommendations. We are going to be under the control of the eastern-dominated Canadian Transport Commission. The people of western Canada are concerned that they will not have enough input as far as transportation policy is concerned in western Canada. They do not feel that they are getting a fair hearing. 1 am simply reporting that the people of western Canada do not feel a sense of participation in the development of transportation policy in western Canada. There is an opportunity to have consultation on the Hall commission recommendations.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: So soon? May I finish a few sentences?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the development of transportation policy in western Canada is of great concern and the subject of much debate. We are surprised to find out that the
May 5, 1978

the railways themselves, because they are their most lucrative lines in the main. Those are the secondary main lines and the most heavily used branch lines on which the railways do not railways in the past have been receiving too much taxpayers' money without having to account for the way it is spent as it relates to western Canada. I am not sure whether any of the subsidy for branch lines was ever put into rehabilitation or into maintaining branch lines in western Canada. I think it went to the general fund.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: To build the CN Tower.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) points out that the money was probably used to build something like the CN Tower in Toronto instead of being used in western Canada.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I see that the minister is back. I want to finish my remarks. The House wants me to finish my remarks as well. I want to leave these things in a logical manner so that even the minister can understand and comprehend the points I am making.
We in western Canada are concerned about the fact that there is no government policy to assist the prairie livestock feed industry or oil seed crushers by offsetting the low statutory freight rates for grain.
I think there are some fundamental things which have to be done, and I have tried to point them out in the course of my remarks. We on this side of the House stand behind the statutory Crowsnest Pass rates. We will not tolerate any tinkering whatsoever with that concept for the reasons I have mentioned in the course of my remarks. We think that the government must pick up the difference between the Crow rate and the compensatory rate and pay it directly to the railways. There should not be some other method of payment directed to farmers, which I am sure the minister would like to see.
We on this side of the House are in favour of the concept of having a subsidy to remove the current freight rate distortion on livestock, meat products, and oil seed products.
The railroads must be responsible for maintaining and upgrading their prairie rail network on the basis of the recommendations contained within the commission report without further subsidy from the taxpayers. That is a position which I think is well taken.
I appreciate the fact that this House has given me an extension of time, and I want to thank you again for your attention in this particular matter, Mr. Speaker. I hope my remarks will have some therapeutic effect on the attitude the government is taking in respect of transportation matters, particularly relating to western Canada. I would simply terminate my remarks by saying that as far as this bill is concerned some very legitimate concerns have been expressed by my
Railway Act
colleagues, not only in the course of this debate but also in the course of committee hearings. These are concerns to which the government might well pay attention in the interests of a more efficient transportation system.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take part in the third reading debate on this bill in order to refer to some ramifications, such as further public and private action in respect of transportation, particularly rail transportation in this country, and I hope this action will be taken with some measure of urgency.
At the outset let me say that in our caucus we approved of the passage of this legislation. We have been asking in this party for recapitalization of the CNR both long before and ever since I came to this House in 1968. In fact, sir, we could make some arguments in favour of greater recapitalization than is proposed in this bill.
I have difficulty understanding the reasoning of the official opposition in moving a six months hoist. We spent many days on this bill, and colleagues in the Conservative party seized many opportunities to go into detailed questioning of the management of Canadian National, of the minister, and other witnesses. Members of the committee obtained the passage of one amendment to the bill which was approved of by members on all sides. We obtained the passage of another amendment yesterday at the report stage. All members agreed to that, but now members of that party want to hoist the bill for six months. I had thought they might now be happier with the bill and that, other than a few hours of debate at third reading, we could proceed to let it pass. In spite of that inconsistency on their part, I hope this legislation receives approval over the next few sitting days so that we can get on with the job that needs to be done in this country, particularly in respect of rail transportation.
If the passage of this legislation makes it easier for the CNR to do a better job in respect of its cash flow and in terms of capital expenditures for the needed improvements to the system, then it seems to me this is a worth-while bill. It seems to me also that additional public investment and direction by this parliament and the Ministry of Transport are required both in respect of the investment of monies and the priorities on the part of the railroads regarding improvements to be made to the system over the next five or six years.
There is also a need for a change of heart on the part of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in terms of the activities of that group in the prairie provinces which is in some respects subverting and perverting the recommendations of the Hall commission. I refer to the Prairie Rail Action Committee which should at this point be disbanded. The minister should ask for the resignations of its members. In fact I would even suggest a reconstitution of the Hall commission to carry out the decision-making over the next year or two regarding the two thousand and more miles of track to be considered for improvement and inclusion in the basic rail network.
This PRAC group has made three recommendations recently that I suggest are horrendous. They fly in the face of the

May 5, 1978
Railway Act
demands of the people in the areas affected; they fly in the face of the wishes of the railway companies as well as the elevator companies, and are contrary to the submissions to the commission and the recommendations of the Hall commission itself.
Surely when the Prairie Rail Action Committee makes recommendations concerning certain branch lines or parts of branch lines, which fly in the face of all these things, the Minister of Transport should make a journey out west to sit down with these boys and have a heart to heart talk, or get their resignations. As a minimum, the minister should reject these three recommendations out of hand. I want to refer to them a little later in my remarks, but I hope he will reject them in that way.
Rather than spending another minute getting into that, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would allow me to call it one o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for lunch, I was suggesting that this legislation deserves to be passed, even though I do not think it goes far enough, and I was in the process of illustrating one or two areas where I thought the railroads, parliament, and the Minister of Transport should be taking some urgent and top priority action. The item which I was discussing before we adjourned for lunch had to do with the Prairie Rail Action Committee, a creature of the Minister of Transport, despite what Mr. Justice Hall and his commissioners recommended, which has been making recommendations in recent weeks to the minister which fly in the face of the Hall commission's recommendations, of what the wheat pool wants, what the citizens and what the producers want.
I wish to mention specifically four items which are under the purview of this so-called Prairie Rail Action Committee-it is more of a destruction committee. The committee has recommended that the line from Shamrock to Courval be abandoned, in spite of and in the face of what the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool says, that is, that there are three primary elevator points on that line which they intend to upgrade or build new facilities. That is in the constituency of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), and I sus-ect the Minister of Transport will be hearing further repres itations on that.
Another one is in my own area, the Colonsay subdivision where, in spite of the fact the Hall commission recommends that the entire line is a heavy grain line and, to quote the Hall commission, must be maintained, the minister's committee

recommends that the south end of the line from Liberty to Dilke be abandoned. That line moves 60,000 bushels per mile per year, and there are a couple of viable communities there, particularly Holdfast. I feel sorry for the poor Liberal candidate who runs around in that area. They will run him out of town, tarred and feathered, and send him back to the Minister of Transport.
Another line that is even more serious runs from Eston to Lacadena. That line moves 90,000 bushels of grain per mile of track and CNR wants to keep it, but the minister's committee recommends that it be abandoned. We do not need that kind of help in western Canada.
Members of the commission told me-I have already mentioned this on another occasion in the House, but I will remind the minister of it-that in the case of the Colonsay subdivision, for example, their reasoning for recommending that it be put under the proposed prairie rail authority was so that it would receive first priority for rehabilitation, rebuilding, and returning it to the basic rail network in western Canada. That was their reason; otherwise they would have put it in the basic network in the first place.


Otto Emil Lang: Could I ask the hon. member a question?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course.


Otto Emil Lang: I would like to have the hon. member acknowledge that in fact many of the lines in the basic rail network are in very great need of upgrading and the upgrading work on them has already begun. I wonder if he will confirm that in fact what the Hall commission did was indicate it had doubt about the future of the lines it referred to the prairie rail authority, and very clearly said some of these may in fact be abandoned by that authority on further consideration, and in that sense the work of the Prairie Rail Action Committee is very much following the work of the prairie rail authority both in allocating certain parts of those lines for rehabilitation and dealing with some other lines for abandonment?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As I recall the Hall recommendations they did not say that, but said in actual words that it was too soon to judge whether some lines should be kept. The members of that commission made it very plain at a meeting of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool or the National Farmers' Union, and it does not matter which, when I questioned them personally, that this was the case in respect of the Colonsay subdivision, which I specifically mentioned. I understand that in the case of many other subdivisions their reasoning for recommending they be under a prairie rail authority was in order that they receive priority.
The minister shakes his head, but I could call many witnesses to retell him what they heard when the commission was questioned about that particular subdivision and about other lines. It was my understanding, and I may have been wrong, that the basic rail network would be a major responsibility of the railways themselves, because they are their most lucrative lines in the main. Those are the secondary main lines and the most heavily used branch lines on which the railways do not
May 5, 1978

lose any money, or, if they do, lose very little. I just do not understand the priority the minister places on helping the railways to upgrade the lines in the basic network before looking after the ones in the network that need to be upgraded and added to the basic system.
There is another subdivision about which many people are waiting to hear what the Prairie Rail Action Committee has to say. I hope the minister will tell that committee ahead of time that it better not play around with that line which runs from Sturgis to Kelvington through Preeceville. That one had better be upgraded and put into the basic network very quickly. Kelvington is a community of over 1,000 people and Preeceville is a community of over 1,100 people; there are over 12 delivery points on that line with a ten year average of 8.3 million bushels of grain; 73,000 bushels per mile of line. We need a decision, and we need it quickly, for that line to be upgraded, rehabilitated, and placed in the basic rail network, and we do not need any playing around by the tame committee the minister appointed, in my opinion, to give the railways everything they asked for in the first place before the Hall commission was appointed.
Let me move to another area where there needs to be urgent and immediate action involving investment and capital allocation. Whether we recapitalize the CNR to the extent this bill allows, the direction of future capital investment, the direction of the investment of the Canadian Pacific and additional public investment voted by the Parliament of Canada, as well as drawing upon private investment to the tune of several billions of dollars, are a necessity in respect of transportation in this country.
Let me illustrate what I mean. In the area of electrification of rail lines in Canada-North America for that matter-we are lagging far behind other countries. More important, we are wasting energy and wasting an opportunity to move quickly. To do the right thing in the way of operating our rail system in this country would create employment and would be a remarkable investment in the assets of this nation in respect of rail transportation.
The Syncrude project is to cost about $3 billion. To electrify 5,000 miles of rail line in western Canada would cost in the order of $1 billion, including the cost of purchasing electric locomotives. The electrification of 1,000 miles of track a year over the next fives years would mean a total saving in crude oil equivalent of 43 million barrels. In terms of energy value, allowing about $1 billion per year for the electricity required, the savings would be some $400 million a year. With the price of oil being $11, $12 or $13 a barrel, the savings would be far more than enough to complete the entire electrification of the railway system.
I want to tell this House, and I know the minister and the people in his department already know this, that the saving of about 33 million barrels of oil per year, or a total of 43 million barrels of crude oil equivalent, is almost exactly the same as the output of the Syncrude development which is to cost about $3 billion. In other words, the electrification of 5,000 miles of railway track in western Canada would save more oil at a cost
Railway Act
of $1 billion than Syncrude will produce at a cost of $3 billion. What kind of capital investment direction is that?
I suggest the government has gone at this backwards. We could electrify 9,000 miles of railway lines in Canada, including the cost of purchasing the electric locomotives, at a savings of crude oil equivalent equal to the amount of energy equivalent used by Air Canada each year, and at a cost lower than the cost of operations in the tar sands of Alberta. We have to develop the tar sands in Alberta, but it seems to me we have placed the priorities in the wrong order. Other countries have moved into electrification at a rate which we should be moving.
When you have a publicly owned railroad system which is in the process of recapitalizing its capital requirements that it uses out of its own earnings, that it borrows on the private market and that it obtains from the public through the Government of Canada, it has to be directed in an urgent priority manner into its transportation operations, the rehabilitation and updating of them. That means, aside from what will require financial capital assistance from the public on branch lines in the prairie provinces, that there needs to be a doubling of capital investment by Canadian National into its own plant that it considers to be commercially viable and profitable, excluding electrification.
Both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific have many hundreds of miles of railway lines that require hundreds of millions of dollars of investment. There is little purpose in recapitalizing Canadian National if all that is to be accomplished is to make Canadian National more like Canadian Pacific and then it is more profitable. If that is the objective, then I would be inclined to vote against this bill, which is why I said at second reading I could make just as good an argument against the legislation as I could for it. However, I am more of an optimist than I am a pessimist.
I worried about the motives of the government in terms of making Canadian National a private corporation. I received assurance from both the ministers and legal advice from the Department of Justice and others that there is no way they can sell off shares of Canadian National to the public without permission of parliament. Now I am worrying about the official opposition wanting to sell it off. The fact they do not want this bill to pass causes me to be suspicious about their motives regarding this legislation. When are we going to learn in this country that when you give priority to profits and profitability in a public utility, such as a transportation company, then the service that that public utility provides is going to suffer.
The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) talked about statutory rates, not only for grain and grain products but for livestock and livestock products. That is the only thing you can do in a country with as large a geography and as thinly and widely scattered population as we have. If not only your primary production, but your processing of raw products and manufacturing of products are going to occur in
5202

May 5, 1978
Railway Act
the prairies, the Atlantic region, northern Ontario or the Northwest Territories, then the nation as a whole must share the cost of moving the processed products and manufactured products to the markets of central Canada, the United States, and of other countries in the world.
The only way to share that cost is through statutory rates that apply to the processors and manufacturers of those products, and any deficit in the cost of moving those products is borne by the nationa as a whole. We have to move beyond just the Crow rates on grain. We have to move into livestock, livestock products, and the malting industry. In the Atlantic provinces we have to move into areas where they can process and manufacture because they know how to do it and are very good at it. These areas should not be discriminated against in transportation costs merely because of where they happen to live or be located.
If you have a transport policy and transport legislation that say profitability and competition shall be the criteria for your transportation costs, you will not be able to accomplish what I have suggested in terms of statutory rates. It would reverse the discrimination so that you would be discriminating in favour of, instead of against, areas of this nation and people who live in them. The nation as a whole shares the cost. It is called Confederation and such a policy would be a contribution to national unity.
Mr. Justice Emmett Hall and his commissioners were very wise in the recommendations they made regarding the extension of statutory freight rates to products other than grain and grain products. It is obvious that the principle should apply not only to the prairie provinces but to other outlying regions. It will be expensive, but why expect the industries and the populations of those regions to bear the cost by themselves? We could call it "co-operative federalism" or "renewed confederation," or whatever you like. We must share together if this country's unity is to mean anything at all.
Our nation has over one million people unemployed and yet there are several thousand miles of railway line that need rebuilding, 9,000 miles that should be electrified, plus we require approximately 25,000 to 30,000 new items of rolling stock. In the ten years I have been here it has come up every year-"not enough cars to haul potatoes out of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island-not enough stock cars". The hon. member for Medicine Hat ( Mr. Hargrave) will verify even better than I that that is the case. When I was a telegraph operator in 1948 there were not enough cars then, not enough locomotive power and not enough priority given by the government to rail passenger service. They are just playing around.
A good beginning for VIA Rail is ten sets of trains, but if you are not going to provide the finances and the policy backing, then it is doomed. In five years we will be writing it off as a dead loss unless it is given the kind of priority and opportunity that it deserves. Unless we reorganize transportation and quit the nonsense of flying multi-engine jet planes 200 or 300 miles when you can move passengers on the ground in a fast, efficient, comfortable, and reasonably priced system,

unless that kind of attitude and state of mind take place in transportation management of privately and publicly owned companies, in governmental policy and legislation, we are going to continue with this patchwork, hodge-podge transportation mess that the minister's predecessor baptized.
In making a move to recapitalize our national railway system that is publicly owned-the other one is not publicly owned but it was publicly paid for-and a move to do something about the financial mess and the bookkeeping of that company, it is nothing more than a first step. It is a beginning.
When things are done in my part of Canada that fly in the face of reason, equity, and the proper treatment of people and communities, such as the three recommendations of the so-called Prairie Rail Action Committee, and when primary producers have no opportunity to process their products or convey them to markets in central Canada and the United States because of geographical or climatic considerations, then we know that the difficulties of decades past will remain with us. Transportation is such an essential tool of economic development and national unity, such an essential part of the foundation of any national economy, that it requires a greater priority and capital investment than are envisaged by this government.
A year and one half ago when the government announced the $100 million program for branch line rehabilitation I was very pleased. I think only $30 million was spent on branch lines, however, and the other $70 million was spent on equipment for the railroads-which would have had to be purchased in any case. The minister used the figure of $600 million that I had used many years ago that would be required for that operation. Over the next six or seven years $1 billion per year will be needed if we are to do something about our transportation system. That is not inflationary. I am not going to worry about how much the financial critic of the official opposition or even the minister will cry about it. It just has to be done, and it is something that increases the assets of the nation, increases and strengthens our nationhood. It is not some sentimental desire to have choo-choo trains running around the country. It is an essential reordering of the way we communicate and move around the country. We cannot continue in the way we have been operating since 1881.
This is not some socialistic dogma, Mr. Speaker. It is a priority. We must use transportation in a better manner-as it is used in nation after nation around the world of all political stripes, from the extreme left to the extreme right. Only in Canada and in the United States do we cling to theories and principles that were out of date 40 years ago. Some of these principles and theories in transportation are hangovers from the railroad barons of the 1880's.
Subsequent to this legislation, which I hope passes next week, this government and the next government, and the two or three after that, must give priority to transportation and come up with a provision for the directing of capital investment. When this nation allows the Canadian Pacific Railway
May 5, 1978

to use its capital resources to buy something called the Syracuse China Corporation in Syracuse, New York, that is a disgrace. I think it is time for parliament and the government to tell the CPR that it is not going to buy the Syracuse China Corporation but that it is going to fix up its transportation equipment, invest in improved rail lines, faster trains, and electrification.
We cannot allow the profit motive to take priority over the transportation needs of the country as a whole. We direct that investment, and those who invest should receive a reasonable return and should have reasonable security. That is not too much to guarantee. Surely the government should have some say about that investment. If it means that the shareholders of the CPR have to take 50 cents or $ 1 less per share for a while, that could be regarded as their contribution along with the rest of the country to the rebuilding and enlarging of a transportation system to serve the people.
I regret that the official opposition has proposed a six-month on this legislation. I think the legislation does not go far enough, but we in this party approve of it as far as it goes so we will vote against the motion for a six-month hoist. While we will agree to passage of the legislation, I hope the government will use some imagination in the direction and the amount of funding available for our transportation systems. We could proceed more sensibly and begin now on such projects as rail line rehabilitation, electrification, faster intercity trains and other such improvements.
Another area where we must use better sense is the environment, and energy consumption. The research of energy consumption experts shows that an investment of $3 billion in Syncrude will be required and that one third of that amount invested in the electrification of 5,000 miles of railway track would save the same amount of crude oil as will be produced by Syncrude. Sufficient crude oil would be saved to enable farmers in the three prairie provinces to seed their crops, summer fallow their fields, and harvest their crops.
What are we waiting for, Mr. Speaker? There are one million people out of work and yet we are indulging in financial nit-picking on this bill. Let us get it out of the way. We will not object to passage of the legislation, and indeed will insist upon a lot more from whichever government is in power in order to rebuild and enlarge our transportation system on a scale that has not been seen since the CPR was built, and in a manner that will put an end to discrimination in transportation and which will ensure Confederation and national unity much more than in the past.
t Translation]


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, we have noted that bills designed to make changes in the transportation system give rise to many comments, and that this is the case, of course, of the bill now under consideration since it concerns the transfer of a relatively large amount of money. Such a debate calls for many interventions. When we consider bill C-17, to amend Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act and to amend and repeal certain of the
Railway Act
statutes in consequence thereof, it is easy to see that it aims at solving a debt problem.
We often have the opportunity to discuss debt problems in today's topsy-turvy system. This is an area where Canadian legislators acquire some experience, since the administration is always faced with all types of debt problems. In March 1977, a way was found to convert the $842 million Seaway debt by providing a $625 million loan in shares held by the federal government for investment purposes and by converting $217 million into a loan which will gradually be cancelled by the 1 per cent profit that the Seaway will have to earn every fiscal year.
We have suggested at various times capital works financing methods by the Bank of Canada by means of which appropriate improvements could be made without getting the Canadian people constantly in debt. Unfortunately, the government does not find this procedure appropriate and prefers to remain deep in debt about which very few government members can say when it will be paid off. In the explanatory notes contained in Bill C-17, we find the following about clause 1:
These amendments would provide for a revision of the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways.
The new section 6 allows the governor in council to cancel, and I quote:
-not more than eight hundred and eight million dollars of the debt owed by the National Company to Her Majesty in right of Canada;
This includes the interest due after December 31, 1977. This section also provides for the consolidation of the remaining debts owed by the company to the Crown. Section 7 provides that the minister shall surrender to the company for cancellation all shares of the 4 per cent preferred stock of the company held by him on December 31, 1977. Section 8 provides for a new evaluation in the accounts of the company of its capital stock of no par value. Section 9 establishes the authorized and issued capital stock of the Canadian National at 6 million common shares of no par value and provides the value of these shares to be registered in the accounts of the company.
Under the amendments in clause 10, the company must pay to the Receiver General of Canada a dividend equal to 20 per cent of its annual earnings or to such higher percentage as determined by the governor in council. If we consider the terms of implementation of that financial amendment, we realize that a rather flexible accounting system should be established to adjust the expected variations, which shows that everything is controlled by money and that as usual Canadians will again have to pay high interest under that new debt readjustment plan. It is quite obvious that the difficulty in balancing a budget arises from accumulated debts and astronomical interest.
In 1972, the Canadian National long term debt was evaluated at $1,894 million. Interest paid over the last 25 years
80038-39(4

May 5, 1978
Railway Act
amounted to $1,334 million. As concerns the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in 1972, its long term debt was $845 million. Interest paid since 1954 totals $141 million and, unpaid interest reaches $122 million. We realize that they were not even able to pay that interest and it is shocking that that kind of administration and our politicians continue to splash and flounder in an utterly confused system; they have been looking for a solution for many years without any success and they are facing complex problems. This is probably why the government chose to convert the St. Lawrence Seaway debt, as I said earlier.
Important changes should be made to the rail service. I already mentioned in this House that for various reasons railways have a social role to play. First a well organized passenger service is the safest and most comfortable transportation means, but as I said it should be well organized, which means convenient schedules, enough work crews to ensure the maintenance of the lines to avoid accidents, and comfortable cars, not only from Montreal to Toronto, but for people of every area of the country. Everybody appreciates comfort.
I have had the opportunity to experience the conditions in which rail service operates between Montreal and Toronto, and between Montreal and the Gaspe area. These conditions are not the same, and the lack of comfort inside individual cars is not the same either; why not maintain a passenger service which is universally satisfactory, no matter the region, instead of discriminating among the regions?
Hon. members are certainly aware that the Transport Act which the House adopted in 1960 set up the Canadian Transport Commission, with Mr. Pickersgill as its first President. He had created a position he could fill after retiring from Parliament. It is under his administration that the railways were allowed to abandon a number of passenger service runs, while others were maintained with government subsidies. I understand that people must be allowed to travel as they please either by train, by bus, or by plane, but we must also take the energy problem into account. We hear quite often about energy shortage. I sincerely think that by using the best incentives to encourage people to travel by train, we could make this type of transportation more financially rewarding and possibly also reduce the amounts of subsidies.
Railways in Europe and Asia are still very popular thanks to the improvement made in passenger services. One has to take into account the continuous increase in the cost of gasoline. Today you pay as much tax on a gallon of gas as the gas itself is worth. That is a factor which cannot be ignored and which would tend to increase the preference for a means of transportation which is as cheap as possible. The issue of the day is not whether we need to have the choice of a passenger transportation railway service but rather whether we must start preparing right now for the needs of future transportation by improv-
[Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska).l
ing existing facilities and railway equipment. If we do not start working towards that now, within 10 years we will have to bear the enormous cost of starting anew. This is a decision which must be taken right now.
The issue is no longer whether Canadians prefer driving their cars instead of riding trains, whether businessmen whose travel expenses are generally paid for prefer the comfort of a jet plane to that of a train. Truck and bus services should complement rail services but not replace them. Even for long distance trips, high speed trains are the most pleasant means of transportation. Modern trains could offer restaurant cars, movies and television. You can take a stroll on a train and have a drink with new acquaintances while looking at the landscape instead of the clouds.
Furthermore, with a greater number of passengers, fares should stop increasing. Besides, it would be quite interesting to know how many millions or billions of dollars are spent on the construction and especially the maintenance of freeways and highways. Snow removal, patch paving in the spring, salt and calcium spraying, accident tolls, all these may not be included in the cost of a bus fare but they are actually paid for through income tax. The maintenance of a rail line is ten times cheaper. It is false to say that the public prefers the road network. It is rather the poor service presently offered by a railway system which has not evolved since 1920 which is responsible for it and has compelled people to turn towards the road network.
At first, considerable investments would be required. Stations would have to be made attractive, heated in winter, equipped with stores, restaurants, free parking lots for cars and bikes. It would be healthy for many people to get there by foot; for others, a local bus service would have to be provided. Where would we get the money? Just go around Montreal and look at the mass of asphalt on the roads-I could have named other cities-bridges, overpasses and tunnel crossings, and they cannot seem to be able to find the necessary funds to eliminate railway crossings that kill every year.
The important thing is to improve the train service. This would require the introduction of ultra-rapid trains, the elimination of railway crossings and even the fencing of the track. Today track maintenance is being delayed, and I had an opportunity to talk about this very often. Fences are being neglected, and farmers near railway tracks are always concerned, wondering whether they will be able to keep their cattle on their land or if they will slip through the CN fences. But those investments could become viable with time. The main improvements would be in the quality of life, the ecology and passenger comfort. This reorganization would undoubtedly result in lay-offs but a lot less than in the implementation of the plans now being considered. It would be a matter of giving employees the opportunity of being rehired by the reorganized railway companies.
May 5, 1978

At present, the more we study the federal government transport policy the more confused it looks; its various organizations are working at cross purposes undertaking contradictory projects that have nothing in common except that they all cost the taxpayers millions of dollars. The Canadian Railway Labour Association mentioned in the brief it submitted to the Government of Canada on March 20, 1978, that it still believed strongly that the National Transportation Act and or the Railway Act should be amended so as to include provisions dealing with the protection of employees affected by the changes the government made to Canadian railways in the public interest and by the amalgamation of present railway companies with larger public or private corporations.
I shall quote, from a brief, an excerpt which I consider timely:
In past briefs and, in particular, in those recently presented to the government, the Canadian Railway Labour Association asked that railway employees unions be consulted, and that the government take steps to protect employees when it makes changes in the railway transportation system in Canada.
When we intervene in this regard, because many employees are worried about the future of their jobs, we are always told sweetly: We will protect those employees and transfer them to other services. But the fact remains that Canadian National or Canadian Pacific employees still worry in the face of coming changes. To go back to my quotation:
We are happy to point out the fact that the government has accepted that principle...
It has accepted the principle; it is now a matter of working towards achieving that goal.
... principle for changes it made in passenger services in Canada. Meaningful consultations were held with the government in 1977. One of the results of the consultations with the Minister of Transport and the officials of the Department of Labour and the Department of Transport was order in council P.C. 19772987, which was passed on October 20, 1977.
We congratulate the government on that initiative and we see in the provisions on the regulations dealing with the assistance to be given railway companies and employees who have to adjust to the changes in the railway passenger services a progressive step which should underlie all alterations made in the railway system in Canada, no matter what government brings them in, for the protection of the employees affected by those changes.
Special attention must be given the matter of employees transfers, bearing in mind their seniority in the service. I travel quite frequently by train. I meet a lot of employees who have 30, 32 or 35 years' seniority and who are really concerned about what may happen to them. Last night, I listened to those who, in this House, spoke intelligently about pensions. I know many railway employees who are deeply concerned about the poor allottment of pensions. As for those who feel still capable of working, they have given several years of their lives to maintening the transportation system.
Of course a great many factors cannot be ignored in the reorganization of those services. Members of the United Transportation Union (conductors and brakemen), local 415 Charny and 721 Quebec, and of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, local 558, Quebec and Charny, have brought to the attention of the minister the possible disadvantages of the proposed changes. They produced evidence based on statistics they had to indicate that some of these changes, particularly
Railway Act
those related to the run along the CP tracks via Trois-Rivieres, will be much less popular and profitable than the present CN route via Ste. Foy and Drummondville. I have here the text of a rather recent editorial dated February 27, 1978, of CJRP radio station which clearly indicates that some of the proposed changes are far from improving the services. And I think it will be useful to quote the text of this editorial prepared by people well aware of the situation. It is entitled: Where are our railway services going?, and I quote:
We have seldom dealt with the problem of local railway services in our editorials. The population probably thinks that the removal of railway tracks in St. Roch puts an end to the problem. The Gare du Palais was replaced by some kind of waiting room near St. Sacrement Avenue and the Ste. Foy station was renovated, but now we learn that it will be closed soon.
Of course, I heard many comments on this subject during my trips. The Gare du Palais will probably be reorganized because they will finally understand that this station in downtown Quebec City should be readily accessible to travellers. That is what it was designed for in the first place. The changes made do not satisfy the public. The quotation goes further:
The "Via Rail" service will soon be introduced between Quebec City and Montreal. It will use the Canadian Pacific tracks on the north shore, thereby condemning to oblivion the Ste. Foy station which is very frequently used by the CN rapido trains.
We find a little abnormal that only one station, badly located at that, should serve the localities of the north shore. It seems unthinkable to us that no plan has been devised to provide Quebec City with better installations. Services should originate from a more central point, say Limoilou, at the rear of the Colisee, in order to connect Montreal through Ste. Foy. As a matter of fact, it has been noted recently that the viaducts needed for the CN lines already exist: on Highway 2, at Saules, on Highway 175 towards Chicoutimi, on First Avenue, on 22nd street and on La Canardiere. Consequently, the automobile traffic will not suffer. There is also another alternative, that is to use the maritime station of Foulons, which is already connected to the Ste. Foy station. Before, Quebec and Ste. Foy were well served by two stations, but soon there will be only one, and at a bad location.
Decisions such as those will not help the public see the advantages of train transportation. Moreover, millions are invested to upgrade the north shore lines, namely the CP line, while there is a sufficient number of good lines on the south shore. Besides, it should not be forgotten that it is the people of Ste. Foy who somehow filled the Rapidos. Perhaps that should be considered, instead of improving service by reducing it, in the hope that customers will also possibly decrease, which would be a pretext to discontinue the service altogether. That is a well known strategy of some North American carriers. Perhaps we should not consider Quebecers so dumb.
So, that is clear. I have had the opportunity to discuss it and we observe it regularly. Management tries to cut the staff down allegedly because that spells savings. Maintenance crews look after sections that are so long that they have a hard time doing their job, yet the number of office employees increases. Three or four $10,000 a year employees will be laid off so the company can put another $40,000 a year man behind a desk. That is definitely not the way to run a railroad, but it has been going on for a long time. The schedules are made up by those office people who know almost nothing of what a passenger service should be. I am certain of what I am saying; most of those who draw up the train schedules travel by car or plane. If they travelled more by train they would know what a well planned train schedule is.
Also, there is another thing those divisional office big shots forget, that is to consult the conductors and the train

May 5, 1978
Railway Act
employees. Some of them have 25, 30, 35 years of service and invaluable experience. Instead of consulting these people, our high salaried office big shots decide with pencils and maps where and when the train will stop.
That is the kind of decisions they take, with the result that people have deserted the train. People have tried other means of transportation, and this has created such deficits that the railways can no longer pay the interests and the government has to take over and assume the debt, which is exactly what they are doing. This morning I listened to the answer to a question put by my colleague about taxation, about tax transfer. For example, a new conception of the Social Credit Party of Canada was mentioned, that is not to give tax refunds directly to the citizens. I should say that when it comes to taxes, the government should try to reduce theirs. They have so many taxes in their own jurisdiction that they have no need to rummage in the jurisdiction of the provinces.
I have here a copy of the newspaper Le Devoir. It says it cost $ 100,000 a day to support the dollar. Is that the new idea of the government on how to maintain an adequate financial system? This is a strange conception, and I wonder where this is leading us. It is surely not the way to establish a just society and to distribute fairly among Canadians the opportunities to improve living conditions.
I will add in conclusion that it must be admitted that the rail service has not always received the necessary promotion. This is due to different factors, such as the schedule which I mentioned a while ago and which is often altered without any consideration for regional needs. As I said the officials of the CN passenger service should consult experts to establish their schedules. The conductors who have been travelling on the railroad for years are knowledgeable. They are acquainted with the problems. They have generally a well-disposed crew. I do not criticize the train service as such. The crew is generally well trained. They are nice people but they are under a team of individuals who know nothing about the needs of prospective passengers. I hope that those matters will be seriously studied and that effective decisions will be taken to improve appreciably passenger services in Canada.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, first I would draw attention to a couple of the remarks I made in this House during an earlier stage of this debate. As reported at page 4860 on April 25 I said:
The government has chosen to buy many rail cars for the west. I do not quarrel with that, if that is the right approach, but why has there not been a rationalized program to examine equipment shortages which exist across Canada and not just in the area of Canada in which the minister lives?
I would draw attention to one phrase I used in that quotation-the words "I do not quarrel with that".
[Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska).l
As reported later, I said: "I do not want to be misinterpreted by any member of this House." I would almost think the minister qualifies in that category. I went on to say:
I do not begrudge the St. Lawrence Valley the policy that the Government of Canada is exercising, but I want the same policy in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.
I said I have no quarrel with the ports policy being exercised in the St. Lawrence Valley.
Now I should like to quote from the minister, as reported at page 5053. The minister stated:
I find it extraordinary that a member of the Conservative Party can say that, when a colleague of his, a Conservative from New Brunswick, said in the debate the other day that we in this government are doing everything in transportation for the west.
Mr. Speaker, there is a sharp distinction of meaning between what I said and what the minister said, and he has pictured me in a mood which I did not express. I take umbrage at his accusation.


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has chosen to make that accusation against me I would ask him whether he would not also like on the record at the same time the words he used, as recorded at page 4860 of Hansard:
The government is selecting its political plums and spending its money in an unjust fashion, which brings about disunity in this nation. That is discrimination of the rankest kind. We are talking about the CNR and its recapitalization. We are going to double track through the Rockies, fix tracks across the prairies and examine tracks from Quebec City to Windsor-
That sounds to me like an accusation, a suggestion we are being unfair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think we are actually getting into a debate. The minister is allowed to correct a declaration made by the hon. member but not to make another one. Otherwise, we would have a debate between two members.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this House is debate, and I assure Your Honour that I acknowledge having said precisely what I said. I do not retract it, nor do I qualify my statements in any way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: I do not quarrel with the expenditures in the west.


Otto Emil Lang: You call them unjust.


Fred Alward McCain: I do not quarrel with the expenditures in the west, and I made that extremely clear. The minister has chosen to refer to a single sentence from a speech of about 40 minutes. I said that I do not want anybody to misunderstand- and I quoted that for the record-that I do not quarrel with the expenditures which were being made, but that I do quarrel with the political plums which are being passed to some areas of Canada while the rest of Canada is ignored.
May 5, 1978

I repeat that the minister is responsible for policy and that he has not been capable of a rational transportation policy for all of Canada. Perhaps the minister would care to take note of the fact that at no time have I quarrelled with any recommendation in the Hall report which, among other things, encouraged the Government of Canada to spend more money to bring about a better grain transportation system in the west. The minister chooses to turn a deaf ear and to pay no heed to remarks which he does not care to hear, but I trust that in future he will be fair enough-if his past record does not show that-to quote the spirit of the remarks I make today and the remarks I have made earlier in this debate. I think a member of this House is entitled to fair play and to proper interpretation, not distortion. I submit that the remarks of the minister indicate that he is somewhat of a mental contortionist, and I wonder if his remarks could not be attributed to one who had malice aforethought in the expression of his opinion on the interpretation of my remarks.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) made a few remarks in this House about the wonderful transportation policy we presently have, but there were also things he did not say.
The spade which turns the sod at Charlo is almost worn out. There were promises in 1972, 1974 and in 1978, but we have nothing in Charlo yet. That was one of the political plums the hon. member was speaking about. It is needed. It is part of the government's policy. I have no quarrel with it, but I hope that the people in the area of Charlo and the hon. member who represents them will see to it this time that the government is held to its promises and that it does produce.
In his remarks the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador did not ask the government for a replacement for the Carson. There has been little, if any, conversation about a replacement for the Carson and about the service which is no longer of the same calibre. I was surprised when he was discussing this that the hon. member said he hoped there might be money for the development of transportation in Labrador, a part of his constituency. The hon. member was not as brave as other Liberal politicians have been. He did not promise Labrador that there would be development, but after all these years of being part of this country Labrador should certainly be entitled to federal expenditures of money to facilitate the development of that part of Newfoundland which is so subject to unemployment.
Transportation could well have been the key if we had had a rational, over-all national transportation policy long ago. It is easy to ignore the things which a backbencher cannot correct, so I presume that is the philosophy upon which he based his speech.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) made some extremely pertinent remarks today, but he closed them of in a rather irresponsible way when he referred to financial nit-picking. When we are dealing with a multi-billion dollar concern, I am sorry, but I cannot agree with anyone that any discussion of money in connection with this bill can be
Railway Act
properly termed nit-picking. You cannot nit-pick with billions, and those are the amounts with which this bill deals.
Perhaps the minister would better understand what I mean by rationalizing the policy if I become repetitive. It is imperative in some debates that one be repetitive. I want to refer to a paper entitled "Opening remarks before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture, Ottawa, April 11, 1978 re: Main Estimates 1978-79, Canadian Livestock Feed Board". At page 15 of that submission to the Standing Committee on Agriculture there is a chart indicating freight rates for grains to selected destinations, July 31, 1970-1977. That shows that the rate from Thunder Bay to Moncton in 1970 was about $14.25, to be as accurate as I can reading from this chart. As of July 31, 1977 the rate was $25.20 per ton, an increase of between 85 per cent and 90 per cent, in round figures. The rate from Thunder Bay to Woodstock in 1970 was about $9.75, and in 1977 it was about $15.75, an increase of about 60 per cent to 65 per cent. In 1970 the rate from Thunder Bay to Sherbrooke was about $10.60, but it increased to $18.75 in 1977, an increase of about 80 per cent. From Calgary to Vancouver the rate was approximately $14.25 in 1970 and about $18.60 in 1977, a rate of increase of about 30 per cent.
I fault the transportation policy of this government because there is no rationalization and no basis upon which one can make proper comparisons or justify rate changes and increases. When rates increase by 30 per cent to 80 per cent in a seven-year period, there is evidence that this government is negligent regarding Canada's transportation needs. The fact that the government has withdrawn subsidies for grain transportation compounds the issue. It has voted a fixed sum of money for subsidies for grain transportation. That has distorted the cost of production of that part of the agricultural industry which requires feed for its product, which is detrimental to its competitive position in eastern Canada relative to the rest of Canada. That never was the intention of that part of agricultural transportation policy, yet that is what in fact has happened.
We are just scratching the surface when we talk about the CNR and its recapitalization. We are talking about a Crown corporation, yet since 1972 the minister has not favoured the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications with a single financial report of that Crown corporation. As the bill was introduced, there was no measure by which the House would ever see the financial statement of CNR in a recapitalized structure, and only by virtue of the fact that an amendment has been introduced, which we hope will be accepted on third reading, is there any hope whatsoever that the House shall be responsible to the people and to the electorate for knowledge of what the CNR is going to do.
The government did not choose to have many witnesses present and it did not choose to put many statements, briefs or outlines of what CNR proposes to do after this act is passed; it was only by painful extraction that some facts came to light. For instance, among the subsidiaries of CNR is CN trucking.

May 5, 1978
Railway Act
The Trucking Association appeared before the committee. I do not know whether or not they had these figures at their disposal at the time they made their appearance, but the intention of CNR for this year, 1978, is to spend $8.4 million in capital expenditures for trucking. In 1979 they will spend $8.3 million; in 1980 they will spend $9.5 million; in 1981, $13.4 million; in 1982, $11.6 million.
The trucking industry came to the rescue of Canada when the railways failed to serve as they historically had served this nation in the field of transportation, and people were compelled to turn to trucks. Trucking is now controlled by the various provincial authorities and by an element of influence at the federal level. What I want to point out to the House is that CNR projected expenditures in the trucking industry are in excess of $51 million in the next five years, and $51 million far, far exceeds the capital investment of the trucking companies which may run fourth, fifth or sixth of the individual trucking companies in that range in Canada.
What CNR plans to do is to spend more in five years than most trucking companies in Canada have accumulated in their lifetime, and this is publicly guaranteed, borrowed money which will go into competition with every trucker, bigger or smaller than CNR, in the private enterprise field in Canada. The minister smirks; that is his defence, a smirk or a contortion of facts.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise on point of order. Since the hon. member chooses to refer to the fact that I was smiling, I think it is only fair to say that I was smiling because he obviously missed the point that was made in the committee, that if at any time he is arguing that railway rates are too low, thereby causing an undue problem for trucks, he should let us know and we would be glad to deal with it.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Donald W. Munro: Don't you know a point of order?


Fred Alward McCain: The minister is understandably touchy because he is on unstable and unpopular ground. My information is that this knowledge was not at the disposal of the trucking industry as it appeared before the committee. Whether it is right or wrong I have no way of proving, but I can tell him, as the trucking industry learned when this piece of paper was tabled in the committee, that although major capital expenditure is being authorized to enable CNR to compete with every other company in Canada, government guaranteed money is not available to their competitors, and this is unfair competition in the rankest sense of the word. They do not like it, Mr. Speaker, and I submit that if ever a motion for a six months' hoist of a bill was in order and was needed for the information of this House and for the public of Canada at large, it is on this subject matter.
Let us take a look at the communications investment which is anticipated. In 1978 they plan to spend $42 million; in 1979, $48 million; in 1980, $48 million; in 1981, $53 million; and in 1982, $58 million. In other words, every provincial telephone system, whether publicly or privately owned, will run into competition with government financed borrowing in excess of

$200 million. I submit that this is pretty rough competition by a Crown corporation over which the House has no control. I think the telecommunications structure of Canada needs an opportunity to express itself on what impact $200 million of public money directly or indirectly invested in communications will have upon the systems which we presently have.
The government was made aware some years ago of the fact that telecommunications, the electronic transmission of messages, data, et cetera, were in competition with existing private companies, and they imposed upon every one of those companies in Canada a fee for the use of Telesat, which was premature and not required at that time. So whether it was a private corporation, such as NB Tel, or a public corporation, such as the provincial prairie-owned telephone structure, the subscribers, the taxpayers of Canada, paid extra money because of the almost compulsory subscription to the services of Telesat. Are we, in recapitalizing CNR and in authorizing, according to this sheet, $200 million of capital expenditure in the field of telecommunications again superimposing the investment of public money upon provincial and private money, to the detriment of the returns of either? I think we need to have the answers and the details as to how the $200 million are to be spent in this field.
I submit that the indication in this statement of capital intent by CNR shows that although we discussed the CN Tower in 1972, 1973 and 1974, public money is still going into that tower at the rate of $1.2 million in 1977 and $0.4 million in 1978; and I think this is perhaps one of the examples of how money can continue to be poured into publicly-owned structures or structures owned by Crown corporations.
We need six more months for a proper consideration of this bill and we need it in the worst possible way. We need it because the competition which will be generated through this Crown corporation will borrow all its money with the hidden guarantee of the Crown, because when a Crown corporation borrows money, it is implicit that the Crown is responsible for the repayment of the borrowings of its child. Yet these borrowings will go into competition with a lot of little people and some big people as expenditures are made down the line.
I suppose the greatest weakness in the bill can be found if one goes back and reads the story of the 1952 recapitalization of CNR. One finds that the arguments of CNR at that time were almost identical with those presented by the company today. But once they got rid of the debt which they then had, they went on a spending binge and in a ten-year period found they were further in debt than they had been in 1952 when the indebtedness was forgiven. The history of forgiveness of debt to CNR has been that it was merely a licence to embark upon the same program of indebtedness and obligation that it had practised prior to the time of its forgiveness. This has been the case in every instance.
If parliament, through this bill, can exercise any restraint over the operations of CNR, if it obliged the corporation to report to the House that it wishes to borrow $100 million to $500 million and to explain the purpose, it would be an entirely different kettle of fish; but by turning this creature
MayS, 1978

loose, are we not loosening another menace on the treasury of Canada? Why can we in this House not have an element of opportunity to examine what is going on? I repeat, we have not had the privilege of looking at a financial statement of the CNR since 1971, and that is too long. We are to get a financial statement now by virtue of an amendment introduced by opposition members. That will give us an opportunity to look at the statement, and that is better than nothing; but a statement is a record of the past performance of the company and does not include any of its functions.
It may not be in order, if the Chairman were to be very careful in his rulings, for one to ask of a corporation at a given moment in time what its operating intentions are, where it is going to invest what it borrows and where is it going to invest what it earns. Theoretically and in practice we might be able to ask those questions, but with a minister of the type we presently have I anticipate we would be ruled out of order and not allowed to inquire into items because it would be said they are none of our business. I suggest they also would involve a competitive position with others.
We, then, have utterly and totally lost control of another Crown corporation. When we think of the record which has been revealed by former Crown corporations, I shudder to think of this. Historically the CNR has not acted in a responsible fashion. Historically AECL has been a problem child. Historically Crown corporations have not been coming forward under the policies of this government so that Canada may know what their performance is and what they may cost us.
We are putting another chapter in history where again a Crown corporation may act in the same irresponsible fashion as the CNR has prior to its dire need at this moment in time for recapitalization.
When I take a look at the various business sectors of this country in which the CNR, as a Crown corporation, will be competing, and when I think of some of my friends in the trucking industry, I cannot help but wonder how David can compete with Goliath, which is precisely what we will be allowing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: David won.


Fred Alward McCain: We are letting loose an economic Goliath which plans to spend $51 million to compete with the truckers of Canada, to compete with the communications system in Canada, to compete with the hotel system in Canada and to compete in every field that every one of the seventy odd subsidiaries of the CNR are engaged in now.
I wonder whether the government is prepared to give comparable income tax concessions to those companies which will be in competition, because this Goliath is not going to have to pay income tax as do the other corporations. Eventually, when its profits get massive enough, it has been decreed that it will pay a stipend to the Government of Canada. Are we then prepared to extend to all the competitors of the CNR in all its
Railway Act
fields of endeavour the same income tax concessions? If we are not, we may be doing a favour to the CNR, but we may be doing a gross disfavour to those people in Canadan who depend upon other than the CNR for their transportation services and who find that those upon whom they depend are operating in a position of serious economic disadvantage.
This measure needs a six month hoist, and it needs input from all the fields of business in this country with which the CNR conglomerate will compete.
I think the public is entitled to know why this government would not allow the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of this House to invite the Auditor General to put some of the facts of the accounting and management practices of the CNR before it. What was there to hide? There was something to hide. It seems there was something the government did not want known.
The next question which I think logically follows is, why would the government's power in that committee refuse to allow the committee to invite the Auditor General to come before it to lay a plan for its future accounting before the House and the people of Canada, to outline to people who are perhaps not the best in the accounting field, namely, the members of this House, what plan could be adopted, what plan the government might insist should be adopted, and what one might expect, on the basis of the Auditor General's record in examining the company, to look forward to down the line if the same practices were to be followed? The government has something to hide, but what is it? I cannot see why there has not been a broader consideration of transportation policy just as much as the recapitalization of the CNR.
One of the studies made in respect of transportation showed that it took 23 days in time cycle for a carload of grain bound for an export destination. No country, no company and no businessman can afford to tie up a piece of equipment for 23 days on one round trip. Why should we not be allowed as a committee to go into the reasons for such an extension of time? Some years ago the fact was placed before the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) that it took 23 days for a potato car to make a complete cycle, and that the competitive line took 14 to 18 days, on rather short hauls.
What is needed is a rationalization or study of the management of the railways. Why are they functioning in this way? Do they need more rates? Do they need more equipment? Or do they need better management? What is the minister and the department doing to examine the use of the &equipment which is presently in place? This is what we need to know, but there is no such information available to us because no study has been made, to the best of my knowledge, of management capabilities in the rail transportation system, or, for that matter, in the trucking transportation system in Canada.
Until such time as an evaluation of management capabilities of the CNR can be placed before us, should we be asked to sever from the railway Air Canada, the ferry services, passenger services and express services-all those loss leaders they have claimed? We should not be asked to sever these until there is a measurement of the company's capability in the
5210

May 5, 1978
Railway Act
management structure. That capability is not always measured by profit alone. It can be measured by degree of profit, but not by profit alone. When we find ourselves in a position of trying to determine what the traffic will bear, as the railways and the truckers do, without any knowledge of the cost of the operation, then we are being asked again to sign a blank cheque.
I should like to see a study of management capabilities and the utilization of equipment as it might relate to other transportation, and as we think it might relate to our own, because what such a study would show is that 50 years ago the time cycle for cars was better than it is today, and I am sure that would be the case based on the actual experience of people using the service at that point in time.
Let me repeat a statement I have made. Under this minister and this government the people of Canada have paid more to and received less from the transportation industry as the years have gone by, and that is something which does not apply to very many industries of a progressive nature in this nation.
Another thing that disturbs me is the fact that five years down the line the CNR will be at least as deeply in debt as it is on the days on which we are considering this bill. Something else that disturbs me is that they have announced this time that with recapitalization they are going on a massive expenditure program of capital investment, including equipment. When this was done in 1953 it was followed in a very short period of time by an expenditure of $751 million on equipment. The argument was, "Well, if we had the capital equipment we could move more stuff and make more money." History shows that they did not move more stock and they did not make more money but in fact had a debt which they never did pay off.
So here we go on another spending binge, another multi-billion dollar indebtedness program for a corporation which, by its record, has proven that it cannot make a profit. What we are doing is turning this Goliath loose and beyond our control where we will have nothing whatsoever to say about it. It is time we came back to what I call the discrimination of the transportation program as it relates to this government.
Do what the government must for transportation in British Columbia, the prairie area, Ontario, Quebec, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, for I will not criticize. I repeat for the minister's advantage, I do not criticize what has been sent to other jurisdictions. But I notice that the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta are not asked to pay for the double tracking through the Rockies. However, to upgrade transportation in New Brunswick, P.E.I., Nova Scotia and Newfoundland the government is prepared to do away with certain transportation subsidies which have been paid there if the four Atlantic provinces, the four poorest provinces in Canada, will match that great Santa Claus, the Minister of Transport, dollar for dollar.
I have no complaint with any other expenditure, but let us not gc on two different courses in different regions in Canada. I will draw to the minister's attention again that I do not
[Mr. McCain.)
quarrel with the expenditures in the port structures of the St. Lawrence Valley, but I do quarrel with the insistence of this government that the province of New Brunswick use its money to develop the port of Saint John, and that the municipality of Dartmouth-Halifax and the province of Nova Scotia use its money for the development in the port of Halifax to any degree whatsoever, unless the same stands are to be applied elsewhere.
I do not complain that equipment is bought for the CNR or the CPR for the moving of Canadian products, but I do complain when Canadian producers of Canadian materials must use American railroads to ship apples from British Columbia to Toronto because of exorbitant Canadian freight rates. I do complain because wood producers in New Brunswick haul wood to Maine to load it on American lines because of exorbitant Canadian rates. I do complain that the rate structure applied in Atlantic Canada does not give us access to Canadian markets. And I do complain that the rate structure of export products through the ports of Canada in the maritime provinces is virtually prohibitive and far in excess of those of our competitors. I also complain that the facilities through which these products must be shipped are not maintained, nor are they expanded as required for the service of Atlantic Canada.
One might say that there is political pressure being brought to bear by Nova Scotia because it is a sort of sympathetic government down there, but it was not enough pressure to get the province and its municipalities off the financial hook for the development of the Nova Scotia harbour. They do not have to spend as much as Conservative New Brunswick, but they could not get off the hook completely.
This bill is just another partial approach to a major problem facing Canada. This country cannot and never will develop until such time as we have a totally rationalized transportation system which will spend the taxpayers' money where necessary for the proper development of Canada and the proper utilization of its resources, human, renewable and unrenewable. Until that time we have no right as a House of Commons to be asked to consider the recapitalization of the CNR, to turn Goliath loose to compete with the Davids in this country and making small businesses compete with the Crown corporation which we are creating. Its magnitude, Mr. Speaker, makes it impossible for the little guy to compete. The minister has suggested that if the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Fred Alward McCain: Whether trucking rates are not competitive, whether they are too high or too low, is not the point that we are discussing in this bill. If the CNR rates are subsidized by Canadian money, then they in turn make it difficult for the trucking industry to survive in the private sector. That is the
May 5, 1978

matter we must examine, and no more snide insinuations by the minister are necessary. We must have a study that will ensure national, rational development of policies in the field of transportation for all of Canada and not just parts.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to follow the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). I have always been an admirer of his voice and his wisdom and I feel somewhat humble having to stand up and follow a man who can deliver a speech in the way that this member has put his shots to the CNR recapitalization bill.
Transportation, Mr. Speaker, is the key to achieving the development of many provinces in Canada. We are a large country and we have to get our goods and services from the interior to the ports in order that we can sell those goods and services. That is why it is important that every member in this House be concerned about the CNR and CPR trucking industry and other modes of transportation that are available to us.
I sat on the tranportation committee when I first came here as a member of parliament, and I enjoyed it very much. The past few years I have had to deal with other responsibilities, and I have not been able to get there as often as I would like. I still have a great interest, however, in the bills that come before this House regarding transportation and particularly in this bill, Bill C-17, regarding the recapitalization of the CNR.
The government has asked us to approve a bill recapitalizing the CNR. We have said, through our experience and questioning in committee, that at this time we would rather take a second look at the bill for six months to see whether it is really necessary that we pass this legislation at the present time. There are many circumstances that have come to light. One is the possible introduction of legislation dealing with Crown corporations. Another is the fact that the CNR is being relieved of one of its greatest non-economic burdens, the railway passenger system. Another that has been talked about by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is the readjustment of the Crowsnest pass rates. I shall come to that later, Mr. Speaker. Yet another is the question of the extent to which the Hall report recommendations regarding transportation will be implemented.
It was pointed out in committee that the projection of profits for the CNR is quite healthy, and I must say I am pleased to hear that. Figures were produced which give a comparison between what the profit for the company would be if this bill were passed and if it were not passed. They show the profits increasing from now until 1982 from $62 million per year to $141 million if the bill should pass, and from $136 million to $267 million if it should not pass.
In his remarks the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte showed that if the bill is passed the CNR will have a great amount of money to deal with and may go into another capitalization project, such as competition in the trucking or
Railway Act
communication industries. It is therefore natural that members of the House would like more time to question the government and the CNR about whether it is entirely necessary to have this legislation at this time.
It bothers me that in committee, when Crown corporations are being considered, members have a great deal of difficulty-and we are elected to be the responsible shareholders of Crown corporations-getting answers to questions regarding their operations and intentions. It is time we took a long, hard look-perhaps even in camera-at giving committees authority to investigate the intentions and direction of Crown corporations. If we had that authority, then when we are asked to pass a bill involving $800 million we would know what would happen to the money. I think most members have experienced frustration in committees through our inability to get information.
I should like now to deal briefly with some of the history of th CNR and the Crowsnest pass rates. I think members of parliament and particularly those from agricultural areas in the prairie provinces will have to discuss these very intensively in the next few years. The Hall report-which this government has almost ignored-said that it is essential that agricultural produce be processed where there is the greatest advantage- that is, on the prairies.
In the beginning years of railway transportation in Canada, tracks criss-crossed many parts of the country that some enterprising people thought would be quite profitable; but it was soon realized that all areas were not profitable. Resolution of the problems involved led to the founding of the CNR. At the same time, the government was involved in building the CPR, so two great rail lines developed.
The various histories of the CPR-and I suggest hon. members should read all views-show that historians agree that when Mr. Van Horne wanted access to the Crowsnest area of Alberta and British Columbia, he was prepared to accept the Crowsnest pass rates in perpetuity. This was to allow the Crowsnest producers in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba to deliver their products to both coasts at a favourable rate.
When the CNR was created, members from all sides of this House realized it was essential that these rates also apply to that company. If we consult the debates of this House on this subject in 1925, we learn that even members from central Canada who had nothing to gain by allowing these rates to become statutory sided with members from western Canada. Thus, the Crowsnest rates were put on the law books of Canada.
Over the last 50 or 60 years, many royal commissions and study groups have examined the problems of these statutory rates. I suggest that all farmers in western Canada should be very cautious about giving them up for some unknown program of $200 million-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of
5212

May 5, 1978
Caribbean Community
private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, private bills.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to resume consideration of notice of motion No. 16 and that the preceding notices of motions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the request of the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed?


Walter David Baker: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Agreed and so ordered.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 16, 1977, consideration of the motion of Mr. Macquarrie:
That, in the opinion of this House, a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons should be established to consider the advisability of taking an initiative in promoting closer commercial and cultural relations between the Dominion of Canada and the communities of the Commonwealth Caribbean and that inter alia such committee should consider (a) subsidization of sea-borne transport between this country and the Commonwealth area (b) Canadian governmental assistance in the upgrading of the sea ports of Atlantic Canada (c) such tariff changes as might facilitate the exchange of commodities between the two areas (d) encouragement of the exchange of students of the two areas (e) recommending assistance towards meetings of political, business and educational leaders of the two regions with a view to stimulating a north-south exchange of goods, people, services and technology in a mutually advantageous way.
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon it gives me great pleasure to resume debate on a motion put forward by our former colleague the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) who, over the years-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I apologize. In the comings and goings of hon. members to this post and that post I apologize to him and to members of the House. It is not that his personality is so insignificant that he should not be noticed, but he used to sit up at this end of the House. One can understand he used to be up here at this end of the House, but he has now been transferred to a geographical location much to the left. But I am glad to say his political philosophies remain over here on the right.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you sure?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Of that I am more than satisfied.
However, this motion fortunately comes back for its second round. I must say that during the period of some six or seven months that this House has been sitting that situation does not happen to very many motions. It was my good fortune to have one come up about three weeks ago, and now we have this one. This motion deserves this further debate. One has but to read Hansard of December 16 when, in a House that appears to have been much more populated on the eve of the Christmas holiday than this one, hon. members debated the motion put forward by my hon. friend.
It is a motion which I think is a classic example of one which should have come to a vote and decision many years ago. Our colleague the hon. member for Hillsborough has put forward the subject for discussion some 13 times in 13 sessions. He has certainly been faithful to his ideals in regard to the Caribbean. I think this House has done a disservice to our colleague in that it has never come to any decision on this. It has not expressed a definite opinion on the subject of Canada's relations with the Caribbean, notwithstanding the ingenuity, linguistic and otherwise, that the hon. member has shown in drafting his motions and changing their tenor. Now we see that he has gone to the extent of suggesting that a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons should be established to consider the advisability of taking an initiative. Gracious me, we have never seen such diplomatic language! It is "to consider the advisability of taking an initiative". That in itself is barely asking this House to breathe.
There is a motion of mine that was debated again the second time about three weeks ago. It is only the first time it has been presented in the House. I did not expect it to have any definite expression of opinion of the House but I have seen by the time of its second reading that there has been quite a different change in attitude toward the motion. There is a good chance that, if such a motion were presented by some hon. member some time next year when the House composition undoubtedly will be changed, it would not fall to a government backbencher to present such a motion and there would be a degree of acceptability.
I am very encouraged by the debate we have had in the House on the subject of removing the mandatory retirement age of 65. We have had expressions favourable to the principle that I have advocated from both sides of the House, and some hon. members on the government side delivered very thoughtful and well prepared speeches on the subject. We know that in the other place the motion has gone to a Senate committee where it is receiving favourable consideration.
I would have hoped that in this place a motion dealing with the relations of Canada and the Caribbean would have come to a conclusion. We have had many debates in which that subject has been canvassed. We have had many visits of delegations
May 5, 1978

from the Caribbean, and vice versa. The hon. member for Hillsborough and myself, under the leadership of the hon. member of Algoma (Mr. Foster) as the president of the CPA, visited Trinidad and Jamaica late in January and early February. From time to time we receive members from the Caribbean legislatures as observers and participants in the Canadian CPA regional conferences. These are valuable exchanges and I hope to see many more.
But I do want to emphasize to hon. members that while my hon. friend from Hillsborough has used the vehicle of suggesting that we should appoint a special joint committee to consider the question, he is after something much more than that. I think he is right, and, of course, he does not exhaust the subject in any way at all. First of all, he has asked for consideration of the subsidization of sea-borne transport between this country and the Commonwealth area. When he and I entered this House there was regular ship traffic between the east coast ports and the Caribbean and it was subsidized. For some reason or another which is lost to me, ever since that sea-borne transport came to an end our relations with the Caribbean have not been nearly so good. Certainly I do not think our trade has advanced to the point it should had that transport remained in position. Then my friend wants to get in a little, shall we say, home development, or, as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) said, a little bit of local improvements, by the upgrading of the sea ports of Atlantic Canada.
Then we come to tariff changes. There have been some tariff changes. I must commend the hon. member for Algoma for his expose of the formal relationships between Canada and the various Caribbean countries, CARICOM, and whatever may be the ultimate results of negotiations under way in the trade arrangements that may exist between Canada and the Caribbean countries. Of course, tariff changes have been put into effect about three years ago with regard to general preferences for developing countries. Mind you, one or two of them may not much longer be developing countries if one examines their economies. In some instances it would be difficult to look upon Trinidad as a developing country. It has a stable government and an enviable financial position because of its resources, and for a number of other reasons.
In so far as other countries are concerned, they have come away from colonial status only in recent years. Their economies are not diversified enough. Others have populations which are far too small and fragmented. The over-all picture must be considered. In Canada we cannot consider our relations with any particular one of the Caribbean countries. It seems to me that here is a heaven-sent opportunity for Canada tc really get down to brass tacks and, to use a trite phrase, "to put its money where its mouth is", at the same time without imposing our own standards. There is a very grave risk of doing that. It is our choice as to what should be done in some of these smaller countries in the Caribbean in order to improve their transportation facilities, whether they be port facilities or airports. There are some countries where educational facilities can help. I do not know whether it is any great help to bring
Caribbean Community
some of their brighter people here to attend university because the tendency has been that they want to stay here. Then they are a permanent loss to their own country. In many instances I would prefer them to establish their own base of education rather than try to jump into the twentieth or twenty-first century in one leap. Let us look at it in the longer term of one or two generations.
In this connection, what happened in Taiwan in so far as education is concerned is a good example of what can be done. In 1949 there was general illiteracy, even down to the primary level. Now there is about 99 per cent attendance at elementary school, there is a correspondingly high attendance at secondary school and a very high attendance at university. Those attending university are not necessarily abroad. However, some are sent abroad and brought back.
The over-all advances in education in Taiwan are a good example of what should happen in countries we can help with education. Our plan should be on the basis of one to two generations. We should start at the elementary level and bring the children up through the high schools. We should not take the top 10 per cent and suddenly convert them into university students. We know that causes problems.
The provincial governments have decided to charge students from third world countries higher fees because of their colour. Most of it is racially motivated. Unfortunately, it has that inspiration. The Immigration Act which this House passed and the regulations come into force this month. A foreign student now has to come in almost like an immigrant. Application has to be made offshore. This is done without the student examining or being seen by the school which he or she wishes to attend. We are going at it in the wrong way. In this area I think we can do a great deal to help our Caribbean friends. I do not think we should look at them down our noses and say, "We will help you". There is then a tendency to patronize.
They also require capital for investment. However, we should not give the impression that we are offering plundering capital, that it is going to come in to skim off and to develop industry, using the people of those countries at the lower levels without teaching them management skills and what-have-you so that they can do the job.
I cannot say that I have a solution. The problem is difficult. There is the question whether there is going to be an investment which will be politically safe and whether there will be an adequate return on it without having negative effects upon the people in any country in which Canadians might wish to invest, whether it be in hotels or other businesses. They need the capital. We needed capital. In fact, we still need it. We resent it if owners of capital tell us how we are to do things or that Canadians in whatever business is developed will be kept down to be hewers of wood and drawers of water.
The idea of the hon. member for Hillsborough is the right way to proceed. Better relations between Canada and the Caribbean have to be developed after mature thought and careful examination.

May 5, 1978
Caribbean Community
If there is to be a body on parliament hill with the time to draw upon as wide experience as possible in order to examine a problem such as this, I believe a special joint committee is one of those structures. Adequately staffed or populated, the other House could certainly furnish the personnel or the structure for these deeper studies.
On that score I would commend our friend. I would also like to say that this is one of the motions one should be able to put to this House for an expression of opinion after a limited time. There is no sense bringing it forward year after year, which we see so much of on the order paper at the present time. This is an area where our rules committee should be able to make recommendations that can be brought forward for this House to adopt. On ten of these motions a year, for example, there could then be, after suitable debate, the provision of time for a vote. In that way we would be making progress.
The last idea I wish to put forward with regard to this question has to do with our own procedure. It would be very simple to handle. The hon. member for Hillsborough, the hon. member for Algoma, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) and myself went to Trinidad and Jamaica in January. However, there has been no way to report to this House on what we saw. We travelled on a CPA organized tour for which parliament pays. It seems to me there should be some degree of reporting to the committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. The hon. member may continue with unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thought I could complete my remarks before my time expired. I suggest that maybe half a dozen periods of private members' hour should be set aside for reports from presidents and leaders of various parliamentary delegations that go out on behalf of the parliamentarians of Canada. In this way we could share in the experiences of those hon. members and discuss the conclusions they have reached. After all, if the senators have found a way of doing this, there is no reason why we should not. It would be simple, to agree on a trial basis that the report of the president of the CPA, for example, on events at a particular conference might be made here in the House so that members could comment on it. Why has such a thing not been attempted?
I thank the hon. member for Hillsborough for providing me with this vehicle for putting forward some ideas with regard to the Caribbean and consideration of reports from members of travelling groups from this chamber, as well as with regard to bringing private members' motions to a decision so that this hour might be more useful as a forum for expressing our ideas.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, congratulate the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) on putting forward this motion in the first place and on managing to have it debated a second time.
The hon. member is fond of harking back to the days of wind and sail when the normal trade routes ran north and south. This trading pattern, in which the Caribbean area was a vital element, resulted in an era of prosperity relative to the rest of the country which has not been equalled since. As an historian, the hon. member enjoys calling, in this instance, on the lessons of the past to predict the future, and I think he is on the right track now because of the extension of Canadian sovereignty out to 200 miles. There is, I am convinced, a new prospect for the prosperity of the maritime provinces. In the last two years we have added approximately 600,000 square miles to the waters under Canadian sovereignty, and over the next generation this will produce thousands of new jobs, mainly in the Atlantic provinces. The suggestion in the motion that we should now move to strengthen our relationship with the Caribbean is valid. It makes a lot of sense and I hope we can persuade the government to act on it.
One method by which we might proceed is suggested in the motion. If, by chance, we do not get through the debate today in time to vote on the establishment of this commitee, perhaps the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence could devote a number of hours to the study of the subject matter. There have been no discussions about this in advance so perhaps it would not be possible to arrange this today. Nevertheless, we have all known cases where the subject matter of motions has been referred to committees, and this is the suggestion I am throwing out.
There are certain guiding principles which I feel Canadian policy should adhere to strictly in this part of the world. First, we must try to treat all the Caribbean islands in the same way. We should not give more aid to one than to another. Second, we should never place ourselves in the position of creating a Canadian sphere of influence in the Caribbean because this would lead to the creation of an image of imperialism which no Canadian would wish to place upon our great northern democracy.
Finally, I should like to make a suggestion with regard to those islands in the Caribbean which have made overtures to Canada in favour of some kind of special relationship. I refer particularly to the Turks and Caicos. I am opposed to any such special relationship. I feel, though, the time is long overdue for an initiative by the Commonwealth itself which would provide for some kind of supranational authority or arrangement whereby colonies of the Commonwealth which do not wish to remain under colonial status but do not have the population to go it alone, would have an alternative whereby they could transfer sovereignty to a supranational authority in return for assistance and guidance from all Commonwealth countries. This idea might be discussed at some future Commonwealth conference. I hope we can provide an alternative for these small groups of islands which no longer wish to be administered from London but which do not want to try to go it alone
May 5, 1978

for various reasons, possibly because if they did they would risk dangers to their own democratic institutions which would not be worth taking.
There are other things which we could do in the Caribbean as a helpful government if our aid is requested. We have all heard about the sugar cartel, how that London-based monopoly, Tate and Lyle, has over the centuries maintained a stranglehold on the economies of some of these islands. It strikes me that Canada could do more than it has done to assist these island economies to break this commercial stranglehold in line with the objective of the government to create a food policy which would assure long term prices for certain basic food products, of which sugar is one. Sugar ranks among the most important of those products. We could be doing something in the Caribbean which would help the local economies and over the long-term the Canadian consumer. If, however, the only result of our effort to stabilize sugar prices was to benefit this sugar monopoly operating out of London, I am afraid I simply would not support that kind of Canadian effort.
Finally, I want to tell the hon. member for Hillsborough that I personally will strongly support any effort by this House through the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence within the next few week to give consideration to the various suggestions contained in his motion.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute briefly to this debate. I do not intend to use up my full time because I want there to be time for this matter to proceed to a vote. I congratulate the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for the breadth of his view over and above that other proposal which came before us at one time to single out one group of Caribbean islands for preferential treatment. I think the approach that the hon. member has taken in this motion to single out the Commonwealth Caribbean Islands as those to which we should direct our attention particularly is to be highly commended.
I also want to thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) for the notion he brought forward toward the end of his remarks about the great need for all interparliamentary groups who attend meetings outside this country or even inside this country-because some of them do meet in Canada-to report to this House. I think this should not be a permissive operation; it should be mandatory that reports of the visits be made to this House in a formal way, and there should be provision for some sort of discussion on them, if only to indicate where visits have taken place, who has taken part in them, and what profit we as parliamentarians, whether we were part of the visiting group or not, derived from those visits.
There was a time when reports were made to this House. I recall very clearly in the opening days of the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group that reports were prepared regularly and laid on the table here for all hon. members to see. They were entered into the record and were available to hon. members. I happen to have some recollection of that because I was secretary to the first three or four of those meetings in my
Caribbean Community
capacity as head of the Commonwealth division in the Department of External Affairs. I was surprised when I came to this House to find that there was no provision for making reports of that sort.
I just wanted to comment on that and then come back to this Caribbean operation. I like the notion regarding seaborne traffic. I was very happy when there was a connection by sea from the east coast down through the Caribbean Islands to Trinidad and Tobago. A more delightful way of spending a holiday I cannot imagine. Unfortunately, I never had occasion to make use of those ships. I think they were called the Maple Leaf line.


Mr. Macquarrie:: The "Lady" boats.


Donald W. Munro: The "Lady" boats were there before the war and during the war. Unfortunately, some of them were lost during the war, if I remember correctly, some very sadly. In fact, some relatives of mine were lost with them. After the war there was the Maple Leaf line which was a gift, I believe, of the Canadian Commercial Corporation or CIDA to the Caribbean Islands for inter-island trade.
I think there is much to be said for developing a similar route from an eastern Canadian port to the Islands and back to Canada. In that connection I think it is important that we try to develop trade in those products for which the Caribbean Islands are highly reputed, and with good reason. I think it was the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) who mentioned sugar. Sugar certainly is one of them. That is a freight cargo, but there are other perishable commodities which we should be able to buy from our Caribbean neighbours, to our advantage. We now buy many of our products from that producer immediately to the south of us, so much so that our trade has become unbalanced.
It is strange that in the trade figures of many banana exporters in Central and South America Canada is not mentioned. We buy our bananas from the United States which, with the exception of Hawaii, does not produce bananas. We buy our bananas through the United States, and our trade in bananas is regulated with the United States, which is absolute nonsense. When the time comes to work out reciprocal trade agreements with Central American or Caribbean countries-I think Caribbean countries ship their bananas mainly to Britain-we should be buying our bananas directly from the Caribbean and not from the United States, which imports them from Equador, Hawaii, Costa Rica or Nicaragua.
We should be trading with countries of origin, which is a very simple matter. I wonder where our coffee comes from and how much of it is imported directly. I cannot remember on that one. Jamaica produces a very good grade of coffee; I think they call it Blue Mountain coffee. They are proud of it, and rightly so. There are other products as well. I think we buy pineapples from the United States and perhaps a few from the Caribbean. We buy papaws, mangoes and avocados. I suppose we get mangoes from the Caribbean, but not in the quantities we ought. We probably buy our mangoes mainly from California.

May 5, 1978
Caribbean Community
I am not going to push this too much longer, but in the regulation of this trade I do not think it is beyond the wit of man in this special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons suggested by the hon. member for Hillsborough to work out some means for developing a monetary policy which would facilitate transfers of capital and settlement of trade in international accounts on preferential terms between Canada and the Caribbean. There once was a thing called the British preference. That British preference has largely disappeared. If it has not disappeared entirely, I think with the Tokyo Round in Geneva it will have completely disappeared as far as Canada is concerned. Why can we not develop a Canada-Caribbean preferential trade system? That could be done within the GATT, if necessary, to our mutual advantage. It would be advantageous not just for Canada but also for the countries which could supply the things we need. Those countries could provide a lot of produce for us. In that way they would be able to stand on their own feet, knowing that they would be paying their own way, as they want to do, and not just be recipients of aid. They want to pay their own way by producing the things people want.
We would want in return, of course, to visit, possibly under preferential money terms. Why should we not? I am not suggesting a monetary union. Maybe that would be the long term objective, but we can work towards it. We could have a sort of Common Market, if you like; not as the first stage, not in the first year, but we might work towards it.
In these respects-I am thinking particularly of the transport of goods and of the goods themselves-there are many areas where we might give assistance. The hon. member for Edmonton West mentioned schooling. We have assisted in the development of the University of the West Indies. I think we should go on doing that, provided the local circumstances are such that people within the area can improve their educational standards and return and deliver to the countries from which they came the techniques and the cultural development which are so necessary there. And we should send some of our university students there to learn something of the ways of that part of the world.
There is so much to be commended in this resolution that I think it is time we had a vote on it. It is before us now a second time. I hope that it is not the intention of the government to talk it out on this occasion.


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, as others have done before me, I, too, wish to commend the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for presenting this motion. He has been a good friend of the Caribbean for a very long period of time. I attended many Canadian-Carib-bean lunches under the auspices of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, Canadian branch, and these luncheons were hosted by the hon. member for Hillsborough. I would say that hon. members who went to those meetings learned a great deal from the hon. member for Hillsborough, who always
[Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).l
presided graciously and with generous amounts of wit and wisdom.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: I note that the hon. member for Hillsborough is present in the House today, and I wish to express publicly what I have already said to him privately, that we will miss the hon. member here in this chamber. His speeches, as we all know, were always models of good English usage and, I would add, they were never unduly long.
I know all members of the House hope that the hon. member for Hillsborough will find his return to the academic world satisfying and stimulating. We know that his students will be well tutored in the science as well as in the art of politics.
As I said at the beginning, my colleague and my friend, the hon. member for Hillsborough, the mover of this motion, has exhibited a long standing interest in the Caribbean, and he is once again to be commended for the dedication he brings to ensuring that the attention of parliament is directed towards our policy vis-a-vis the Commonwealth Caribbean. Canada's long relationship with this part of the world goes well back in history, to a period when particularly our maritime provinces were in constant contact with the sugar, rum and spice producing islands. What a sight these eighteenth century ships must have presented in the Canadian and Caribbean harbours!
Today's traffic between Canada and these Caribbean countries may be less dramatic, given the absence of sailing ships, but it is no less extensive. Quite the contrary, in terms of cargo volumes and passengers travelling in each direction, the relationship has expanded dramatically over the past two centuries, to say nothing of the increased cultural and other contacts which have become a feature of the last few decades. I shall have more to say on this subject in a moment.
I presume that the motion, in referring to the Commonwealth Caribbean, addresses the entire range of former British possessions in and around the Caribbean, including the now independent countries of the Bahamas, Grenada, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Jamaica as well as the other islands which have different constitutional status. It would be well to bear in mind not only the physical differences among the islands, but also their constitutional variety.
The countries just mentioned are completely independent of Great Britain, while others such as Montserrat, the Turks and Caicos, the British Virgin Islands and the Caymans are Crown colonies. Still others comprise the West Indies Associated States. These states-Antigua, Dominica, St. Vincent, St. Lucia and St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguilla-are self-governing countries for whom Britain retains responsibility over defence and external affairs. Bermuda and Belize are in a similar situation. The House will note that these territories, with different constitutional status, are widely scattered-from Guyana in South America to Bermuda in the Atlantic. Some cannot accurately be described as Caribbean at all, but for purposes of further discussion I shall include them all since they do have the common denomination of a British colonial background.
May5, 1978

The great distances between these islands and their different histories have contributed considerably to their individual identities which, to a casual observer, may not be evident at first glance. The Caribbeans are nevertheless as proud of their individual countries and traditions as we are. Their cultural variety is frequently as profoundly different as is their topography, which can vary from lush volcanic to arid and rocky, most, of course, being liberally endowed with glorious sunny beaches, many of which Canadians know very well. We must not, therefore, make the mistake of considering them as a homogeneous unit even when we speak in terms of the Commonwealth Caribbean.
I have mentioned the constitutional diversity in part to point out another aspect of these island nations' futures, namely that several of them will soon achieve independence and will therefore be taking their rightful place in the international councils of the world. We should not be surprised to see at least two Associated States become independent this year and possibly two or even three in the following year. Even once they become independent, however, they will still share with us, despite all of their rich diversity, the bond of Commonwealth traditions.
Because we are aware of our bond with the Caribbean and of all the elements particular to each of these nations, we have always proceeded, in our desire constantly to develop and intensify our relations with them in a pragmatic manner, without ever imposing rigid and artificial constraints which would not correspond to our mutual interests and would not be a true reflection of reality. Thus our relations have developed on three levels: that of bilateral relations through direct gov-ernment-to-government contacts; that of regional relations within the context of organizations developed by the Caribbean Commonwealth itself, such as the Caribbean Development Bank and CARICOM, Caribbean Common Market; and the third level of relations is multilateral, particularly within the Commonwealth. I should point out that in each of these levels Canadian action has been intensified in the course of the past ten years, nor has it ever before been so visible or varied. We should, therefore, congratulate ourselves on the mechanisms put in place which have permitted us to achieve considerable positive results.
Our aid program in the Commonwealth Caribbean is constantly increasing and is currently set at S30 million per year, which represents the largest per capita disbursement of aid furnished by Canada throughout the world. We began this program in 1958 at which time our assistance went to the Federation of the West Indies, as it was then constituted. At that time it included Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and some of the Leeward and Windward Islands.
Up to that time our aid funds had been reserved for the Colombo Plan. When the Federation was dissolved in 1962 we carried on the program and it has been increasing ever since. Our chief preoccupation at that time was to encourage the development of the common services which the islands needed to facilitate relations among themselves. For example, of the $10 million spread over the first five years of our program, $7
Caribbean Community
million were employed to develop a transportation system between the islands. Subsequently Canadian development assistance was accorded for distinct programs with each of the islands. Guyana, then British Guiana, and Belize, then British Honduras, were not included in the original programs but they did benefit from the commonwealth technical assistance program which was launched in 1958, and since 1963 they too have become CIDA aid recipients.
In 1964 Jamaica, Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago received separate budgetary allocations as well as lines of credit. In 1966 the program had achieved a minimum value of $15 million per year for the region. This did not include such special projects as that of the University of the West Indies, in respect of which we gave $5 million. In fact, between 1966 and 1971 we spent $100 million, which was 33 per cent more than we had committed ourselves to spending. Since then this sum has nearly doubled for that area of the world.
As hon. members know, the Canadian International Development Agency revised its aid strategy in 1966 and modified its priorities in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Of course, the region will continue to receive our largest per capita aid disbursements, but the program will no longer be based on the social and industrial infrastructure but rather on the development of productive employment and agriculture.
This will not eliminate all of their problems considering the current world economic climate and the serious problems which these countries will face in the domains of unemployment, instability of primary material prices, the great expense of imports and deficits in their balance of payments. This situation has brought about certain special measures on the bilateral level and through the international multilateral organizations such as the International Monetary Fund. But Canada is determined to pursue more than ever its policy of development aid to permit these countries to arrive at the economic take-off point.
A number of these developments of the past few years in our development aid to the Caribbean Commonwealth, I am pleased to report, correspond to the recommendations made by the Standing Committee for Foreign Affairs of the Canadian Senate, in its report of 1970 on Canadian-Caribbean relations. As this report suggested, Canada has continued to concentrate a good part of its aid in this region on the smallest of the islands, placing a major emphasis on developing the resources of these countries and giving to the program a maximum effectiveness, thanks to a systematic co-ordination of its initiatives.
Let me say a word on the commercial side. The volume of exchanges is also very considerable, and in 1976 it reached the level of $120 million, which was made up of $90 million of Canadian exports and $30 million of imports from the Caribbean. Unfortunately, these figures are lower than they were in the previous year because we were faced with two serious difficulties. The first was certain restrictions which countries such as Dominica and Guyana imposed on our products, and the over-all effect of the cancellation of preferential tariffs

May 5, 1978
Caribbean Community
which was brought about by the Lome Convention signed between the European Economic Community and a large part of the third world. Nevertheless, we continue to be optimistic about future prospects in this region. The eventual signature of a commercial agreement between Canada and the Commonwealth Caribbean could well serve as a stimulant to this exchange.
From the point of view of investment, if I may say a word about that, Canada plays a substantial role in sectors such as tourism, the aluminum and bauxite industries and banking. It appears that investment possibilities will increase despite the priority given by certain of these countries to public investment. We hope that here, too, the eventual signature of an agreement between Canada and the members of the Caribbean Common Market, called CARICOM, will facilitate this type of development.
Finally, in the political domain we should bear in mind the constant exchange of visits in both directions which, in the recent past few years, have included visits to Canada by the Prime Ministers of Guyana and Jamaica. In addition, in 1977 we had the pleasure of receiving Prime Minister Gairy of Grenada, Prime Minister Bradshaw of St. Kitts-Nevis-Anguil-la, Prime Minister Bird of Antigua, Prime Minister Price of
Belize, President Clarke of Trinidad and Tobago, Governor General deGale of Grenada, and no less than a dozen other distinguished personalities from these various countries who attended the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference held here in Ottawa.


An hon. Member:: Question.


B. Keith Penner: I think some hon. members who are failing to pay attention to the importance of these relations will recall that they met some of these distinguished gentlemen, if they were free to attend the conference.
These meetings were equally numerous in the Commonwealth context both at the level of heads of state or government, such as the meeting in London last spring, and at the ministerial level, such as the finance ministers' conference in Kingston last October. It seems evident to me-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, May 8, 1978