1978-02-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the event scheduled to take place in the parliamentary buildings on Friday, February 24, allegedly involving the setting up of 26 bars and the participation of approximately 4,000 people as part of a convention being held by the Liberal Party of Canada. 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this constitutes abuse and blatant misuse of the privileges afforded to members of parliament, as well as degrading the dignity of the parliamentary buildings, that particularly at this time these buildings should be used for solving the problems of unemployment and inflation, rather than as a gigantic cocktail lounge for members of the Liberal party and, finally, ask that the Speaker review the matter in order that the parliamentary buildings will not be debased by a booze-bash and become known as "Trudeau's tavern".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have some difficulty about putting the motion. There are notices of questions of privilege to be raised about the same matter, and I am certain it will necessitate a long discussion later. It involves a decision that 1 made in terms of the initial permission for the use of the parliament buildings. However, the question involves legitimate discussion concerning the extent of the arrangements since the original permission was given; therefore, I will give the benefit of the doubt to the hon. member and ask if there is unanimous consent that the motion be put.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PRIME MINISTER URGED TO CANCEL PLANS TO USE PARLIAMENT HILL FACILITIES-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a motion on the same subject, which I agree is extremely serious. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said recently in British Columbia, "There are no free lunches". Considering
that the Liberal Party of Canada plans to turn Parliament Hill into a colossal free lunch for their convention that is to take place later this month, using parliament's facilities, which are paid for by the taxpayers of Canada, to provide what one Libera! officer has described as "a mammoth bash", and considering that another Liberal planner is quoted as saying, "Who wants to drink and dance in some hotel basement room when you can use parliament?", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the Prime Minister to practice what he preaches and take steps to ensure the Liberal party cancels its plans to use parliament's facilities to provide themselves with "a mammoth bash".
[Editor's Note: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) entered the chamber and received loud and prolonged applause.)


Mr. Speaker:: As on many occasions in the past, hon. members have shown their warmth of feeling and affection in welcoming back among us an hon. member of great distinction who has suffered a serious illness. We certainly welcome back to the House the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and wish him good health in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This leaves us with the question of whether there is unanimous consent for the motion put forward by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent). Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It is not with respect to any political bash, but it might concern some political problems. It is of national concern and comes under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that many Canadian households which would ordinarily be receiving house to house mail delivery service have not been obtaining this service for some time, due to alleged restraint by the postal department, and in view of the fact that it is reported that house to house mail delivery

February 8, 1978
service has been implemented in at least one area of the country and the same rules have not been applied to all parts of the country, and in view of the fact that all Canadian householders pay the same postal rates and the same federal taxes and deserve and are entitled to equal service and treatment, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the Postmaster General take steps forthwith to implement full house to house mail delivery service and provide all the adequate and necessary walks and postal carriers, without any further restraint, restrictions or discrimination, right across Canada-not just in a part of the Toronto area, as reported in one of the Toronto papers recently, but right across Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Presentation of such a motion for discussion at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on an important and very urgent matter.
Considering that murders of police officers and prison guards are increasing alarmingly in Canada and in view of the murder of Archambault Institution Warden Michel Roy yesterday, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House urge the Solicitor General to introduce before parliament a bill to amend the Criminal Code and reinstate capital punishment for the murder of police officers and prison guards, or at least a very harsh sentence which would punish and act as a deterrent for those who have no respect whatsoever for the life of others.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT HILL
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada wishes to take over and utilize facilities in the Centre Block and the West Block for purposes of entertaining delegates and other misguided people attending the Liberal party conference in Ottawa during February, so that liquor can be dispensed and gaiety engendered among their gloomy ranks, and in view of the fact that Emperor Nero during the decline and fall of the Roman empire fiddled while Rome burned, while Prime Minister Trudeau now fiddles while our unemployed burn with indignation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Big-gar (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House deplores any suggestion that the parliamentary buildings should be used for Liberal bars, Liberal balls or other swinging Liberal pursuits and requests the government to withdraw its dipsomaniac proposals.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. My motion relates to the current economic crisis which is highlighted by statistics showing one million unemployed Canadians, the highest number in Canadian history. Given the tragedy of this situation and the need expressed by members of the opposition and bodies such as the C. D. Howe Institute to take urgent and immediate measures to alleviate this crisis, and given that the eleven first ministers whose decisions can have a profound impact on the Canadian economy will be meeting in formal session next week, for the first time in 15 months, to deal with, in the words of the Prime Minister "a medium-term economic strategy for Canada," I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That, as a first order of business, the agenda of the first ministers' conference deal with specific proposals aimed at giving an immediate boost to the economy in order to counteract this winter's heavy unemployment.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
February 8, 1978


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
In light of the offer of the Government of Canada to grant immediate landed immigrant status to Anatoly Shcharansky, and recognizing that the Soviet Union has not yet positively responded to this initiative, this House wishes to express its deep disappointment as well as its concern respecting the treatment of Soviet citizens who have attempted to exercise their rights and freedoms as embodied in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and agreed to by participating states at Helsinki and, further, this House asks that parliament's concern on this vital issue be raised at the earliest opportunity at the Belgrade meeting of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe now under way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, can be presented to the House only if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General, who shocked the House yesterday when he said, in response to a question by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock, that he was not prepared to reconstitute the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which deals with penitentiary matters. In case this was another instance of the minister taking a position too hastily, I want to give him an opportunity to extricate himself.
In view of the fact that the subcommittee did its work with integrity and in a non-partisan way, and that it presented the House with a unanimous report, will the minister reconsider the attitude he took yesterday and accept recommendation No. 65 which asks that the subcommittee be reconstituted for this parliament? Specifically, will the hon. gentleman permit that
Oral Questions
Subcommittee to participate in the inquiries which are taking place or which are about to take place into the two most recent hostage-taking incidents?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: First, may I point out that I was replying to a question by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock which referred specifically to the hostagetaking incident in British Columbia. I have stated, with respect to that incident, it was my intention to request the appointment of a formal inquiry. The precise form the inquiry will take will be decided upon in a day or two. I did not think it was necessary to reconstitute the subcommittee for that purpose. However, I am the first to agree the subcommittee has done excellent work, and I do not use those words loosely. It has done marvellous work in terms of the reference made to it. We are investigating its report and all the recommendations which were made, including recommendation No. 65. I shall have a statement to make on that recommendation on a subsequent occasion.


William Herbert Jarvis: The Solicitor General and his predecessor have had eight or nine months in which to consider those unanimous recommendations. Does the hon. gentleman intend to continue the policy of his predecessor, that the recommendations forming the heart and soul of the report will not be implemented immediately, without further consideration, since ample time has now been given to the minister and his predecessor?


Mr. Blais:: The hon. member underestimates the value and, indeed, the logical sequence of the recommendations which were made. If he recognized their importance and the seriousness with which they are being considered, he would recognize, also, that they require considerable analysis-


William Herbert Jarvis: Eight or nine months?


Jean-Jacques Blais: -in order that they may be implemented. I might add that I am in contact with the chairman of the subcommittee in order to accelerate the process of implementation of the recommendations.


William Herbert Jarvis: What the minister underestimates are the murders, hostage-taking incidents and injuries which are continually occurring in Canadian penitentiaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: I ask him again: Will he, first of all, implement these unanimous recommendations with dispatch, and will he with equal dispatch reconstitute the subcommittee?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I think I have replied to both those questions quite honestly and quite openly.


Mr. McGrath:: And quite negatively.

February 8, 1978
Oral Questions


ARCHAMBAULT-DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ON CONDITIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Solicitor General as well. In light of the recommendations made in that report which was tabled nine months ago, it seems that at the time we recognized that the conditions, particularly in the Laval institution, were abominable. Could the Solicitor General tell us if the recommendations contained in that report will be implemented soon and also tell us what has been done about this in the past nine months, particularly with regard to conditions prevailing in the Laval institution?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, the conditions will necessarily apply to the whole system. We must not begin singling out specific situations. I want to tell the hon. member that all the people in my department have worked very hard on this. I have received a preliminary report. Mr. Speaker, at the very beginning when I accepted this portfolio, I insisted that I should meet with the officials of the Canadian Penitentiary Service to assure myself that the recommendations of a subcommittee of a committee of the House be implemented as soon as possible. I am seeing to it that this is done and I want the hon. member to be sure of that.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. The Solicitor General is referring to the standardization of living conditions in penitentiaries throughout Canada. In that report, meetings with various provincial justice ministers were also mentioned. Could the Solicitor General say whether his predecessor had met the Quebec minister to deal with Quebec institutions as far as standardization is involved?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to pinpoint one of the reasons why there may have seemed to be some delay in the implementation. I intend to meet personally my provincial counterparts in the near future, probably in the first week of March if I am not mistaken.


Roch La Salle: A last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Solicitor General says that he intends to meet the ministers in the near future. Could he explain why those meetings have not yet been held since the government was handed that report nine months ago?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that there was no meeting. I merely stated that, personally, I will meet those ministers in the near future.
[DOT]	(1422)


DEFICIT IN AUTOMOTIVE TRADE WITH U.S.-INDUSTRY COMMITMENTS TO IMPROVE SITUATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In an incredible paper released by his department last week, the deficit in automotive trade between Canada and the United States is forecast to reach the alarming figure of $2.5 billion annually by 1981. This represents a 250 per cent increase in the current annual deficit, and would mean the net loss-I put the figure conservatively-of at least 40,000 jobs which would be due to Canada under the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement. Can the minister tell us what commitments he has obtained from the industry to head off this deplorable situation?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, General Motors has agreed to build one additional parts plant in Windsor. We are urging the company, and working with it to negotiate a second plant. Ford has agreed to modernize a plant it is operating in Windsor, and we are working with that company and urging it to build additional plants. I would like to point out to the hon. member that our export of automotive parts increased last year by 22 per cent; our export of automobiles increased last year by 25 per cent. If we can continue to do that, I think we will narrow the gap, rather than increase it.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows as well as I do that in terms of the essence of the argument, the figures he has just given us are meaningless. In spite of the increase the minister is talking about, we had a $1 billion deficit last year. Is the minister aware that the president of the Ford Motor Company said recently that the industry will be investing $58 billion in North America in the next eight years, largely because of new requirements regarding energy and pollution? Is he aware that the minimum entitlement to Canada, at that level of investment, would be at least $750 million a year, starting next year? If so, can he assure the House that we will get anywhere near that figure?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House that we are doing our utmost to get Ford to build additional plants in Canada. We are in severe competition with the southern and northern United States-a bidding match as to who can provide them with the most facilities at the lowest cost to them.
[DOT]	(1427)


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, let me remind the minister that the government of the United States does not have a treaty with the southern states; this is a treaty it has signed with Canada. Clause 1 of that treaty states that Canada and the United States are to share on a fair and equitable basis in the growth of the industry. I would, therefore, like to ask the

February 8, 1978

minister, if we do not have our share of growth, which we do not, why does not the government insist on the United States living up to that agreement, and particularly on getting letters of agreement from the industry to invest in the way it did in 1965 when it signed the agreement?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are working and asking the industry to do just that. I might say that if the hon. member were to look at the publication my department released on the automotive industry, he would see that we have steadily increased our production in both automobiles and parts. In fact, we have doubled parts manufacturing in Canada in the past ten years.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General.
Considering that over nine months ago the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs tabled a very special report concerning steps the Solicitor General and his officials should take to improve our prison security system; considering that hardened inmates who want to boss the prisons have indicated quite clearly that it is the Solicitor General's department which, through mismanagement, is mostly responsible for this situation; and considering also that several acts of violence have been perpetrated in Canadian penitentiaries because of this, could the minister advise the House whether something will be done shortly to protect these guards and especially younger prisoners from older ones, assure law and order in these institutions, and guarantee the safety of all those whose duty it is to maintain law and order there?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, 1 am grateful to the hon. member for his question. This very serious question is somewhat similar to those which other members directed to me less than ten minutes ago. 1 want only to indicate to the hon. member that 1 am eager to implement most of the recommendations put forward by the subcommittee. I should like also to indicate that there is a new penitentiary commissioner who has been on the job for nearly two months now and who is striving to improve the administration in line with the subcommittee's recommendations.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Léonel Beaudoin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In light of the recommendations of the subcommittee and considering what the Solicitor General can do to improve the
Oral Questions
situation if it continues to deteriorate as we have seen lately, does the Solicitor General intend to bring a bill before the House to reinstate capital punishment or at least to urge the Department of Justice to give harsher sentences to those who are responsible for the murders of prison guards or policemen on duty?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: No, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister, I should like to put my first question to the Deputy Prime Minister and House leader. As a private bill entitled "The Inflation Monitoring Agency Act" has been circulated by the Minister of Finance to various provincial government departments, and as this bill sets out in one of its clauses, "Any information, including privileged information, obtained under the Anti-Inflation Act shall be made available to the Agency"-that is, the Inflation Monitoring Agency, will the Deputy Prime Minister indicate what the government has in mind in making this information available to the Inflation Monitoring Agency, bearing in mind that such information was given on the strict understanding it would remain confidential within the AIB and would in no event be turned over to any other body?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am not fully informed on the subject matter, except 1 think it is normal practice for the government to consult with the provinces on matters that are in the common interest of the federal government and the provincial governments. I hope the hon. member does not take serious objection to the practice of involving the provinces in such economic discussions and ultimate decisions.


AVAILABILITY OF STATISTICS CANADA DATA TO INFLATION MONITORING AGENCY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, now that the Prime Minister has joined us, I should like to direct my supplementary question to him. A proposed companion bill to the Inflation Monitoring Agency Act is to be known as the Financial and Compensation Data Returns Act, which has been circulated to various provincial departments. Can the Prime Minister indicate why it is intended under this act to make Statistics Canada a data collection agency with a view to turning information over to the new monitoring agency, bearing in mind that until now the essence of Statistics Canada has been that it is a confidential agency of government?

February 8, 1978
Oral Questions


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is too early for the government or the House of Commons to draw conclusions about how the post-inflation period will be dealt with in terms of institutions. As the hon. House leader just indicated, we are examining different propositions, now, with the provinces and, indeed, in meetings we are having with business and labour groups. From the hon. member's point of view and from our own, it would be preferable to wait until, in effect, we make an announcement or introduce legislation.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You do not want any input.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Does he not feel it is also preferable at least to familiarize members of this House, through a white paper, with what the government is proposing to various provincial jurisdictions and labour unions in this country with respect to the so-called post-control period which the Prime Minister has in mind? We must bear in mind that one of the provisions of the proposed Inflation Monitoring Agency Act provides for the agency to have the power, with the approval of the minister, to communicate or allow to be communicated to any person any privileged information filed under the act.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting a white paper. Let me remind him that we published two such papers on the post-inflation period. One of them was entitled "The Way Ahead"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: You are "away behind".


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The other paper was entitled "Agenda for Co-operation". It is well known to the opposition, and has been for some time, that there would be a post-inflation period-a post-control period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, ho!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: A post-Anti-Inflation Board period. Hon. members opposite have been arguing for the better part of a year that we should get out from under the Anti-Inflation Board and be in an anti-inflation period-a post-Anti-Inflation Board period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The opposition has known this. We have made our intentions clear; we have sketched out the kinds of institutions we see in existence then. As I have said, we have been consulting with the provinces and other sectors of the economy. We are still waiting to receive any constructive proposition from the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


C. D. HOWE RESEARCH INSTITUTE-IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the warning by the C. D. Howe Research Institute that lack of action on their recommendations, which call for generous tax reductions for retraining workers in declining industries, extended unemployment insurance benefits for the long-term unemployed, greater use of differential fiscal policies for regional development, and a significant reduction in sales tax, would mean unnecessary delay and would cause serious exacerbation and concern with respect to the growth of unemployment in the economy, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House what action he intends to take on the very serious recommendations of this respected research institute?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government has already acted on some of the recommendations. As a matter of fact, the recommendations are echoing some of the policies the government has already announced and is following. I am sure that even the hon. member would not want to stand and say his party would advocate applying all those recommendations. With regard to recommendations by various institutes across the country, obviously you accept some and you do not accept others. I am sure this is the position of the hon. member's party.


REQUEST BUDGET BE INTRODUCED TO IMPROVE ECONOMY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the failure of the government, despite repeated demands from the opposition and others in the country, to bring in a budget right now which would provide for the necessary tax credits and incentives to encourage the private sector to expand, will the Prime Minister indicate to the House, if he cannot screw up his courage to call a general election, whether we can expect a new budget?


Mr. Basford:: We want to build a pipeline before we have an election.


Right Hon.  P. E.@Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is now calling for tax cuts. Let met remind him that when we proposed tax cuts in past months the opposition took some 20 days to make up its mind on whether they would vote for them or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: It took you 11 months to bring in the bill.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 warn you, Mr. Speaker, that it is going to become fashionable for opposition members to stand up, beat their chests and say, "We want an election".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Guess why?
February 8, 1978


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was not fashionable to say that a few months ago, but it is becoming fashionable now. I am sure Your Honour will hear more about it. I think they should tell us if they want to have an election before we deal with the pipeline bill, or after. If they want to have an election before, let them say so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Right now.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the opposition has demonstrated already its attitude and its desire to co-operate in dealing with matters affecting the economy, as exemplified by our allowing passage of the employment tax credit bill in one day, the Prime Minister must accept responsibility for the six months' delay in bringing in that bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, on behalf of the over one million unemployed Canadians, if he does not have the guts to bring in a budget, does he have the guts to call an election?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let's get on with it now, Pierre.


James Aloysius McGrath: The sooner, the better.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Why wait for spring: do it now!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the events of the past weeks have shown that the opposition can learn something from the feelings of the people, after having opposed the tax cuts before the House for some 20 days.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Great stuff.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Then they got the message and they screwed up the courage to vote for another good government bill in one day. I hope they continue using that good example.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is pretty weak.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In light of the procrastination and vacillation with reference to the reconstitution of the subcommittee of the committee on justice and legal affairs which deals with penitentiaries, and because there is now an emergency situation respecting penitentiaries across Canada, I should like to ask this very serious question: What
Oral Questions
investigation is being carried out now to meet this emergency and to make certain there will be no further tragic incidents such as the execution of a warden? What emergency legislation is there to protect correctional institution officers across this nation and preserve their morale?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member brought to the attention of the House a very tragic event which happened yesterday in Montreal. As regards the tragic death of Archambault Institution Warden Michel Roy, I should simply like to offer his family my sympathy and the sympathy of the House, and to assure all employees of the Canadian penitentiary system that we are doing everything we can to help provincial authorities-and, we hope, municipal and police authorities in Montreal-to continue the inquiry and prosecute those who are responsible for this absolutely inexcusable and in fact very wild and very barbarous act.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sure every member of parliament wishes to express sympathy to the family, but condolences will not bring a public servant back to life. I will ask my question again. What emergency steps are being taken right now to protect correctional institution officers, not only in the penitentiary mentioned but in others, so that such tragic occurrences such as murder and the taking of hostages will not continue? There is a state of emergency in the whole penitentiary service. If the minister cannot see that, he cannot see anything.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that his question did not make clear the fact that this tragic event took place, not close to the penitentiary but close to Mr. Roy's home. Under the circumstances, I would want to have more time in order to ascertain the circumstances exactly, not only the actual slaying but the circumstances and whatever evidence might be brought forward, prior to making any further comment on the matter.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have one further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It is with respect to the Poplar River power project near the south Saskatchewan border with Montana. Can the minister

February 8, 1978
Oral Questions
say whether the government of the province of Saskatchewan has yet provided all the information requested by the 1JC on that project, lack of which prompted the commission to ask for work on the project to be halted? If the IJC now has that information at hand, do we yet have any indication from the commission as to whether or not they regard it as being sufficient for their purposes?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as is always the case with IJC reports, of course, the government took seriously the comments of the commission with regard to the failure, or the reluctance at least, of the Saskatchewan Power Corporation to provide all the material that was necessary at that time. I have since been advised that more information has been provided to the commission. Obviously, this will be examined by the IJC and we will then determine what representations we will make to the United States in light of the new recommendations that come from the IJC.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it has to do with a related matter, it being the Garrison Diversion project. Is it the government's position that the Canadian government is still-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I point out, with respect, that that is not a supplementary question.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Labour, but I assume he is away tackling Harold Ballard in order to save the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. Therefore, I will put my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that on December 18 the United Steelworkers of America presented the Minister of Labour with a proposal for temporary stockpiling of nickel, which brief the minister was supposed to communicate to the cabinet for a decision to be made, and in view of the fact that the lay-off of thousands of people in the nickel industry will happen in five days, on this coming Monday, and I understand that the minister has not even responded to the steelworkers with respect to their proposal, can the Prime Minister tell the House, since his cabinet has chosen not to respond to the request of the United Steelworkers, whether or not he is going to act on these proposals?
[ Translation]


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that the Minister of Labour is in Vancouver, not to try to save the

Tiger Cats but to try to help Canadian workers. To answer the hon. member's question, I should say that there is still a discussion going on and that no decision has been made up to now.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER OF MINES HAS UNDERTAKEN COST-BENEFIT STUDY ON STOCKPILING
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it gets curiouser and curiouser. My next question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that when I last spoke to the president of Falconbridge Nickel Mines I was informed that the only contact he has had on the question of nickel stockpiling was one brief phone call asking very few questions, and in view of the fact that although it would cost money to undertake a temporary stockpiling program, much of this money would be saved in areas such as UIC, manpower mobility and retraining and expenses under the Canada Assistance Plan covering the social costs of unemployment, can the minister tell this House if the government undertook a detailed cost-benefit analysis on the question of stockpiling nickel and, if such a study was done, will the minister table it in the House?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as I have said before, the department and I have met with senior officers of both the corporations, Inco and Falconbridge, to examine the question of whether or not a stockpiling system would, indeed, assist that industry. Quite clearly, the conclusion of those discussions and that study is that it would increase the problems of the industry, that there is a significant overhang of nickel inventories in this country and elsewhere in the world, and by adding to that overhang we would be delaying the period of adjustment and therefore keeping more people out of work longer than would otherwise be necessary.


INDUSTRY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I knew it was absolutely useless to ask the minister that question, I will now direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that 2,800 workers will be laid off next Monday in the Sudbury basin and this will do massive damage to the community, and in view of the fact that the minister told the House on February 2, and repeated it today, that he is negotiating with the three automotive companies for the location of three parts plants in Canada, can the minister tell the House if he has made any suggestions to the manufacturers in question to locate one of the plants in the Sudbury basin? If he has not, will he undertake to do so, making them aware of the DREE program or other available incentives?
* *

February 8, 1978


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is, quite clearly, a representation-a forceful one, but a representation nevertheless.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious problem to which the minister should respond.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


STEPS TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT TO ASSIST MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. His department's study, entitled "Manufacturing Performance", released on Monday, states:
Manufacturing output remains no higher than it did in 1974 and the country has lost 80,000 manufacturing jobs.
In view of this, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to outline to the House what he and his department are doing to pull the Canadian manufacturing industry out of its present nose-dive, and in that way start to overcome this country's $11.5 billion trade deficit in manufactured products, the ones that produce jobs?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are working on many fronts in an attempt to assist the growth of manufacturing in Canada. I should like to inform the hon. member and the House that last year our export of goods went up from $38 billion to $44 billion-a tremendous growth-and 65 per cent of that was the export of manufactured goods.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: So we are both manufacturing and selling.


George Harris Hees: Is the minister not aware of the fact that our international trade deficit in manufactured goods increased from $10.2 billion a year ago to $11.5 billion a year later? If that is his idea of progress, I do not know what he thinks progress is. Does his answer not indicate the government is doing nothing, and is this not another good indication that the country is in a hell of a mess so far as trade in manufactured products is concerned?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In reply to that long-winded speech, Mr. Speaker, may I say that our exports have increased. We did have a surplus in total trade of nearly $3 billion, which is a near record. With respect to manufactured goods, the hon. member keeps referring to $11 billion. That is an end-product figure, and there is a difference between our exports and our imports. Our exports have increased, although not as fast as our imports.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: In no way do I believe we should limit the ability of Canadians to buy goods made in other countries.


Some hon. Members:: Boo!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. While he may prefer to procrastinate about an election or a budget, there are some things of immediate interest, namely, the first ministers' conference which is to take place next week.
In view of the fact that when the Prime Minister wrote to the first ministers on December 9, he said the objective would be to determine a medium-term economic strategy for Canada, in view of the fact that since then the economic situation has deteriorated considerably, and given that there are representations from members of the opposition and from the C. D. Howe Research Institute that the government take immediate action to cope with the unemployment situation, can the Prime Minister tell the House if he has any specific proposals to put before the first ministers as the first order of business, aimed at giving an immediate boost to the economy in order to deal with this winter's heavy unemployment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the detailed agenda will be made public as soon as the premiers have agreed to it. I have been in contact with them about it. The hon. lady will see that one of the items deals with the economic situation as of now, and another is in the medium term.
As far as the hon. lady's repeated suggestion that we act on the C.D. Howe Research Institute's very recent recommendation is concerned, I repeat what I said earlier, that we have already done what the C.D. Howe Institute recommends we should do. If the hon. lady had been attentive, she would have seen that two of the important recommendations have been implemented. The first was that the provinces cut their sales tax. Let me remind the hon. lady that the Minister of Finance proposed to the provinces last October that they should cut their sales tax as recommended by the C.D. Howe Research Institute. In addition, the Minister of Finance made the offer to the provinces that we would pay half of that cut. Therefore, this recommendation is not new to us; it is something we have already attempted to do.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We invented it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the Minister of Justice says, we invented this idea and, as usual, the opposition is trying to climb on the band wagon.

February 8, 1978
Oral Questions
On the second matter, that of regional incentives, if the opposition look at the March budget and at the November statement of the Minister of Finance, they will see that those two statements contain incentives for regional development and particular incentives for the areas where there is high unemployment-so thank you very much for your support.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. After that recital, that litany of the Prime Minister's statement as to what his action has produced-namely, one million unemployed Canadians-I must say that is not the kind of band wagon that we choose to be on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I thought the Prime Minister was discussing the agenda with the first ministers two months ago, but he does not seem to have arrived at an agenda-so he says-in all that time. I should like to ask whether he will now consider canvassing them this weekend with specific proposals to deal with the unemployment situation, or is he really telling us that the one million unemployed Canadians will be the forgotten group at the first ministers' conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady cannot have it both ways-recommend that we adopt certain initiatives recommended by the C.D. Howe Research Institute and then, when informed we have already taken them, claim that they are not right. Either she thinks they are right, or she thinks they are not. If she thinks they are right, she should congratulate the government for having taken the action.
As far as the agenda is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding in the normal way, through consultation with the provinces. I realize the opposition would be much more heavyhanded and would decide unilaterally what the agenda should be, but that is not our way. We have proposed an agenda to the provinces. There has been not only an exchange of correspondence, in which they have suggested modifications to the agenda, but there have been at least two full-scale meetings of provincial officials with federal officials. It is as a result of this that I am today proposing to the provinces the final agenda, taking into account their various suggestions.


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In all that wriggling and evasion, the Prime Minister failed to answer the specific question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Is the Prime Minister, and the government of Canada, making specific proposals to the first ministers' conference next week for immediate action to help the unemployed of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is no evasion in indicating that over a period of months we have been proposing various initiatives, some of which have been belatedly espoused by the opposition. Next week the opposition will again have the occasion to evade its responsibility by not supporting more of the government's suggestions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for the fourth time I put the simple question. Will the Prime Minister be making specific proposals to the first ministers' conference regarding action that can be taken immediately to create jobs for Canadians? This is the fourth time the question has been asked today.
Will the Prime Minister continue to evade the question, or will he tell this House whether the government is accepting its responsibility and will propose specific policies to the first ministers' conference to provide jobs, now, for Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, by asking the question four times, the Leader of the Opposition indicates that he does not have a very good grasp of the subject.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this charade cannot go on-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -with one million Canadians out of work, and the Prime Minister of Canada laughing and playing word games with parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have asked whether he is going to propose immediate action that can help Canadians who are out of work to find jobs. We have asked that simple question four times, and four times he has evaded it. I now ask a fifth time: Will the Prime Minister face up to his responsibility and say whether he is going to make that kind of proposal next week to the first ministers' conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is, indeed, beginning to look like a charade. This question has been asked repeatedly by the opposition, and from this side of the House we have repeatedly given answers. I will repeat some of them. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that I am not sure the opposition really wants the answers, nor, having received them, whether they understand them. I will repeat a few of them given by the Minister of Finance and other ministers on this side.
In the course of a 12-month period we have cut personal taxes and ensured that consumers benefit from these tax measures to the tune of $2 billion. We have also cut corporation taxes to the tune of $900 million. We have, also, budgeted and begun spending for direct job creation to the extent of $1 billion. The opposition says today-and I understand the Leader of the Opposition had occasion to say it yesterday in Toronto-that we should be cutting $2 billion from spending. Our answer is that we have already done that.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you very much for supporting the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can see that we may get into a rather protracted debate on this subject, and I think the matter should conclude now, it being three o'clock. The hon. member for Edmonton West on a question of privilege.
February 8, 1978

Mir. Lambert (Edmonton West): Mr. Speaker, 1 had a question, but if Your Elonour is now calling it three o'clock, 1 shall proceed to my question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in compliance with Standing Order 17(2) I sent to your ofice the terms of the question of privilege I am going to raise today, along with the nature of the motion I would put in the event you agreed that I had a prima facie question of privilege. The subject matter I wish to refer to affects all the members of this House and of the other place because, in my view, it is a very serious misuse of parliamentary facilities.
It was my privilege some years ago to occupy the chair that you now occupy. I have a full sense of responsibility for the proper administration of this building and its facilities as well as their use for parliamentary purposes. To that and I can do nothing better than quote what you, Mr. Speaker, stated on June 27, 1977. At that time a question was raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester-North (Mr. Coates) concerning the use of parliamentary facilities by commercial or other bodies for their purposes. It was reported at pages 7103 and 7104 of Hansard. You said, among other things:
I have attempted to develop a policy that whenever these premises are used by hon. members to receive Canadian people who are taxpayers or visitors, there ought to be some parliamentary connection. We have attempted to do some things which would on the one hand encourage that activity to take place, because it is at the very root of our democratic system. However, on the other hand we must see to it that this does not become a commercial establishment and that events are not held here when they ought to be held in commercial premises. Therefore, wnat I am attempting to do is to exert some influence over the content of what takes place on these premises and to bear in mind that when the buildings of parliament are being used the activities should have a parliamentary flavour and a parliamentary purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair cannot hear the hon. member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Even if that were the motivation, which I feel all hon. members endorse, it would not be expected that I would want to inquire on every occasion into the full details of the agenda and of the arrangements, but I think it ought to be expected that since the parliament buildings are being used, I, on behalf of all members of parliament, ought to attempt to encourage the highest possible use and the appearance of the highest possible use, to the best interests and motivations of the premises.
I apologize, Mr. Speaker, in some degree for the length of that citation, but I think at that time you had addressed yourself to the nub of the question.
On this occasion we have a proposed use of the premises on Parliament Hill which, I suggest to you, is not of a parliamentary purpose and not of a parliamentary activity.
Privilege-Hon. M. Lambert
Of course, it may be said all the party caucuses hold parties on the Hill. They hold a Christmas party and they occasionally hold another gathering of caucus members in the restricted area of the West Block where there are eating facilities and other entertainment facilities. There is a limited guest list. But I am of the opinion, having read what has appeared in the press as given by representatives of the Liberal party-in that connection I do not think it is the Chair that forms part of and has intimate knowledge of what goes on in the Liberal party- that it determines what is going to be done here, in this building, the use of the Hall of Honour, the Confederation Room in the West Block and the West Block cafeteria, and possibly of some of the other areas as well. There has been no consultation with other party representatives on what will be done with those premises.
We have the news reports, and 1 believe they will stand being put on the record. In Ottawa Today, Monday's edition reported the following:
To keep them entertained, Liberal party organizers are planning 26 bars- dispensing booze at a mere 75 cents a shot-and three bands to fill the West Block cafeteria, a ball room, a parliamentary meeting room and the stately Hall of Honour that separates the Commons and Senate Chambers.
And then in quotes it states:
"Who wants to drink and dance in some hotel basement room when you can use Parliament?" one planner quipped.
In the Ottawa Citizen of last night, February 7, the following appeared:
Organizers of the February 24-26 Liberal pre-election convention intend to use a West Block cafeteria, a ball room, a committee room and the Hall of Honour, which separates the House of Commons and the Senate in the Centre Block, to welcome-
And here is the point that is the big difference:
-3,000-4,000 "party"-goers.
And in quotes it states:
"Who wants to drink and dance in some hotel basement room when you can use parliament?" said a Liberal organizer.
Entertainment for the event will be furnished by three bands and drinks will be available at any one of 26 bars.
These premises are subject to security control at all times. In the past we have had party functions where there were limited numbers and there have been security problems. There is no parliamentary function with a parliamentary purpose that will admit, in this building and in the West Block, some
3.000	to 4,000 persons, without the creation of very distinctive security problems.
What about the use of these buildings by other members who have a right to be in the West Block?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is no time stated but
3.000	to 4,000 people will be invited to attend. The party organizers are not going to screen visitors, they want to have as many as possible. That goes well beyond the proper use of these buildings.

February 8, 1978
Privilege-Hon. M. Lambert
There is a further question-the policy convention is not going to take place here in this building. The Liberal party is not going to use committee rooms for actual policy convention doings. No, this is going to be the social adjunct, the hotel, the ballroom, the bars-everything. As my friend from Central Nova says, this could be the casino for the convention. Any party could hold a policy convention, and that is perfectly all right, in one of the hotels or one of the other centres designed for that purpose in this city, commercial premises for which they pay. But here they may pay for security service and they will pay for dining room facilities, all at a very nice rate, of course, but there is nothing that will be charged to them for the premises, nothing whatsoever.
It is a buckshee bonus for the gathering of the Liberal party that they should use these facilities for an adjunct, the social side of a policy convention. If they had made arrangements and there had been agreement that they would use committee rooms for some of their policy discussions, there might be some difficulty, but it would be much more acceptable than using Room 209 as a bar and Room 371 in the West Block as another bar.
Once or twice a year Mr. Speaker puts on a very gracious, dignified reception for members of parliament, Senators, and representatives of other countries, in the Hall of Honour. This is as it should be. However, you, sir, are the host for parliament and the function is under your patronage. In this case, not one of these functions is going to be under Your Honour's patronage, or they should not be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have before me the letter Your Honour wrote to the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in his capacity as House leader of the official opposition with regard to these matters. I will only refer to the letter. It was rather strange that it was written the morning the article appeared in Ottawa Today, before there had been any representations by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton who wrote to you on February 7.
The last point I want to make is this. There is a very fine dividing line with regard to the catering facilities, including the provision of drink, on Parliament Hill, used by an indiscriminate group and whether this is in competition with the restaurateurs and hotelkeepers of the city of Ottawa. This is always a very sore point. Having been on the members' services committee and so forth, we know that sometimes there is a question with regard to the cafeteria facilities being used by members of parliament for visitors. It creates a division.
We have major hotels with ample facilities for all sorts of social functions, but they are being completely disregarded. One Liberal organizer, and I suppose he reflects the thinking among those who organize this sort of thing, seems to think that Parliament Hill belongs to their party, so why use the hotel facilities or drinking rooms of a hotel? In other words, they equate Parliament Hill facilities to cocktail lounges and

dance areas in hotels. I suggest this is a grave affront to the privileges of members of this House.
In the due administration of the facilities of this place, they can and should be used for activities with a parliamentary flavour. A party convention is not that. Certainly the social side of a party policy convention has nothing to do with parliamentary facilities. To that extent, the use of these premises as proposed should be denied by Mr. Speaker.
My colleagues have suggested that I draw to Your Honour's attention, if it is worth anything in the argument, that the last policy convention held by this party was held in Quebec city in entirely commercial premises. We certainly paid for them. That is as it should be. Under no circumstances should any political party use these premises for the social side of a convention which is held on other grounds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in the interest of shortening the discussion on this subject and in the interest of getting on with the legislative program, I wish to make a very few comments with regard to the question of privilege that has been raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
It is to be understood and accepted that the hon. member's material has been derived substantially from anonymous sources in newspapers, which have been clothed in anonymous expressions like "Liberal organizers", and "a Liberal organizer said that". This is the first time I have heard the hon. member for Edmonton West attach such importance to anything a Liberal said, let alone an anonymous Liberal organizer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Are you denying that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am saying he has information, for example, that is being put forward which is quite incorrect. He admitted himself in his statement, and I attempted to take his words down, that "We have had party functions in this building." Those are the words of the hon. member for Edmonton West.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We had a Christmas party, our caucus party.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It would require a hypocrite of dimensions that has not yet entered the House of Commons to attempt to cast the notion that activities of the kind described have not ever taken place in these buildings. We have all been invited to the press gallery dinner which takes place in this building. It is late at night.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: The Governor General goes to that. Is he going to the Liberal convention?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 would hesitate to divulge all the confidences we respect when we attend that marvellous annual occasion, with many hundreds of people coming into the
February 8, 1978

building. It is a selected group of people. The facilities are available and used in many original ways, as I have learned.
I remember not so many months ago when I was coming into the building, I had to fight my way in the main door. I was coming in at a time when the lawyers of Canada were leaving the building after having what might be called a mammoth reception. We would not call it a bash. It was just a reception. However, there were many people, probably including some members who are here, who participated in that reception for the legal profession. Is it argued now that the ordinary poeple of Canada should not have access to the building?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is it to be argued that it is possible for members of the professions, such as lawyers, to come into the building, but the foot soldiers, as they were so eloquently described by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), should not be permitted? I do not think anyone would agree to that. However, I just want to mention these things so that this can be put into perspective. Those on the other side who do not recollect these events must have had a better time than I expected.
On this present particular issue, it is true that availability for functions has been explored with Mr. Speaker by officials of the National Liberal Federation and members of parliament. No final decision has been made, but I want to make this perfectly clear, Mr. Speaker: you have laid down guidelines; you are the protector of the dignity of parliament.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Lock the doors!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are ready to accept whatever decision you may make. We shall support it 100 per cent, and we on this side will observe any guidelines which you propose to ensure that horrendous security problems will be looked after, and to ensure that members of parliament who are going to work in the West Block on Friday night at eleven o'clock will have privacy and quiet.
Furthermore, in the interest of amity and in the interest of the requirements of the Canadian political system I am prepared, as House leader for the government, to consult with the Speaker, to consult with the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker), to consult with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and with my colleague in the Social Credit party on this subject if that would help. We quite realize that the Liberal party will flourish even if it does not hold a reception in these buildings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join briefly in this discussion. The Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) said that the argumentation in connection with this motion earlier in the day was derived from quotations attributed to
Privilege-Hon. M. Lambert
certain anonymous Liberal organizers-he implied that this was not a very reliable source. I want the hon. gentleman to know that any Liberal organizer in the country today, if he is an organizer, sure as hell wants to remain anonymous!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to get to the substance of the issue. The Deputy Prime Minister has tried to dismiss this question as one which has been raised in connection with a function which is entirely analogous to other functions which take place in the House of Commons. I submit that the argument he put forward rests on such an assumption. I further submit that the argument is completely fallacious.
In my experience there are only two other functions of comparable magnitude which take place in parliament, gatherings which are large in scale and festive in nature. They are Your Honour's annual function and the press gallery annual dinner. I would point out that there are unique features attached to those functions. First, they are non-partisan, in the sense that they are not associated with any of the political parties-in one case they are associated with Your Honour, and in the other we have a get-together of representatives of the press and old associates, along with members of parliament, for an annual bash-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is the size that is important.


John Edward Broadbent: I submit that an annual, frivolous, good-natured function of that kind is in order precisely because it is not restricted to any one party and because it is very limited in terms of the frequency of its occurrence. I am talking about two functions, Your Honour's and the press gallery dinner. I think it is important that the social aspect of parliament be restricted so that we do not find ourselves in a pattern of associating the House of Commons with frivolous, good-natured parties which are, to a considerable extent, subsidized by the people of Canada. Particularly, I submit, this should not be the case when functions are organized on a partisan basis. In my view, neither my own party nor the Liberal party nor the Conservative party should, in the first place, submit a proposal to hold such a bash here. Having been submitted, on the basis of bad judgment, it should not be accepted.
It is appropriate for any of the parties to use the facilities here on a limited basis for a conference or for a serious meeting, but to use these facilities as an extension of a national convention is a serious mistake and would put in jeopardy the esteem, to the extent it still exists, which the people of Canada have for parliament and its members. If we get into the habit of using this building for regular bashes organized by each of our political parties at the expense, in good measure, of Canadians generally-


An hon. Member:: Ah!


John Edward Broadbent: Some members opposite say "Ah!". I hope they will reconsider this proposal.


An hon. Member:: Quack, quack!
2662

February 8, 1978
Privilege-Hon. M. Lambert


Steve Eugene Paproski: Donald Duck again!


John Edward Broadbent: A quacking backbencher in the Liberal party interrupts me. The reference is to conventions of political parties. I want him to know we pay for our conventions, not the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The Deputy Prime Minister would have put his finger more directly on the issue if he had given it more thought. We must not get into the habit of turning parliament, for which the people pay, into an extension of a convention.


Mr. MacFarlane:: Let us not waste time!


Walter David Baker: The Liberal whip has interjected. He said we ought not to waste our time upon what 1 believe, quite frankly, to be a dreadful case of the Liberal party assuming it has a right to wallow in the public trough all the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I think the Deputy Prime Mininster and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) ought to be reminded that today is Ash Wednesday. Perhaps it would not hurt if he were to cover his head with just a few ashes.
I do not think it will be lost on members of parliament that the offer of consultation with opposition parties comes, for the first time, only after the matter has been raised.
I would be the last to argue that there are not appropriate parliamentary functions, functions coming within Your Honour's dictum, which can be held here. Of course there are. Nobody is arguing about that al all. The question is whether it is proper in the circumstances for members of a political party to use the facilities to the extent and for the purpose that they are reported to be wanting to use them. That is the first thing. I have not learned from the government House leader what the extent and purpose are. I have not learned from the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois) what the purpose is and how far this has gone.
I have been told that Your Honour consulted the hon. member for Chicoutimi with respect to this matter as a result of some statements which were made and which Your Honour heard on CBC radio earlier this week. The letter Your Honour wrote to me-I think properly; I do not fault Your Honour for that-obviously crossed the path of my letter expressing concern to Your Honour. Under these circumstances I think the House of Commons is entitled to the facts.
As Your Honour said in your letter, Your Honour sought and received assurances that there is no intention to permit attendance at this event by other than registered convention delegates and convention workers. I think past experiences confirm the numbers which will be here to use the facilities. There are 200 parliamentarians in the Liberal party, more or

less, counting members of parliament and Senators who, under the rules, are entitled to use the facilities. If each of those parliamentarians invited ten people-and under the rules that would be quite proper-there would be 2,000 registered delegates.
I suppose the information Your Honour received from the hon. member for Chicoutimi, or whoever provided the information, did not refer to the number of registered guests, observers, spouses and others who are legitimate attenders at political conventions and who, I am sure, are now included in a blanket invitation. The number could reach nearly 4,000 people using the House of Commons on that day. From the information your Honour transmitted to me I am satisfied that Your Honour has no way of knowing the number, and I think that is serious from the point of view of security. If the government House leader wants to make light of security problems, that is fine, but I do not make light of them.
It is true that members of parliament use this building for entertaining members of the public. Your Honour uses it for entertaining heads of state, representatives of state, members of parliament, visitors from other parliaments and segments of the community. The Governor General sometimes uses it, and on any occasion when it is appropriate that Your Honour be present, whether it is a Christmas party or anything else, this building is used properly. That is not a bad guideline for Your Honour to use; any event which is parliamentary in nature is appropriate in this building.
Aside from hotel operators, restaurateurs, and other commercial considerations which are great indeed and are a constant source of irritation between the city and the Hill, I think the importance of using these buildings for events of a parliamentary nature is being overlooked. I respectfully suggest that this particular use is unprecedented in our political history. I agree that we have used this building for political purposes. We have used the restaurant facilities, but never have there been 4,000 people here in connection with a political convention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Hon. members opposite laugh. I am sorry this strikes them as strange. I will not be sat down because the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is exercising a sense of ethics which is similar to the ethics he used when he flew a nanny here from Great Britain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There are two bites at this apple. I assume that the delegates to this convention are quite properly using the Election Expenses Act to benefit under the taxation system because of their rather high registration fees. They are similar to those in the Progressive Conservative party, $175, but the difference is that they will be using a public facility for nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 8, 1978


Walter David Baker: Hon. members say that is not so. If they establish that what I am saying is not true, I will withdraw that statement.
I am happy to note that the arrangements have not been finalized and that they are still subject to cancellation. That being the case, I think it might be presumptuous if, in the promotion of this thing, members of the Liberal party have been told that they are going to use the parliament buildings. There has been no consultation as yet on this matter, and I am happy to know that the arrangements have not yet been finalized.
For Your Honour to have agreed to this use of our facilities, I cannot help but feel that someone in the Liberal party misrepresented the situation to you. I say that quite candidly; it must have happened that way. I just want my hon. friends opposite to know-


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: You don't have any friends on this side.


Walter David Baker: An hon. member talked about a day off. Part of this meeting is to be held on a parliamentary day. Before any motion to suspend sittings of this House on Friday is proposed, 1 hope this matter will be resolved to the satisfaction of the House of Commons.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Typical blackmail. Now we know what it is all about.


Walter David Baker: There has always been co-operation on these matters. We have always co-operated. That has been a hallmark of this place, but this is the first time we have been asked to clear the House of Commons for a shindig. I think the government House leader should live up to his reputation with regard to consultation. I suppose the first person to consult would be Your Honour, and then the House leaders should be consulted so that we can get back to the system of consultation and co-operation.
Most important, these premises should be used appropriately. 1 am open to consultation. I always have been. I just wish that someone had had the good grace to suggest that it might be a good idea to sit down and talk about this before presuming anything.


Mr. Speaker:: There will have been representations from all parties on this matter after I have recognized the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise). There are several other hon. members who are seeking the floor to make interventions. I am going to conclude the discussion with the hon. member for Abitibi because that will complete an all-party discussion. At the conclusion of the remarks of the hon. member for Abitibi 1 may have some remarks to make.


Mr. Brisco:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Leonard C. Jones: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-
Privilege-Hon. M. Lambert


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


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, no doubt you have noted as all of us did that the request made by Liberal party officials to use available premises in the Parliament Buildings for what might be termed a giant reception at the political convention of their party has given rise to strong feelings in the House. I think it is unusual that the organizers of such a large demonstration ask permission to use public premises such as those available to members in the Parliament Buildings. Such a demonstration could give rise to future complications and I think that even if it established that members can use those premises to receive delegates from their ridings, or groups of electors visiting the national capital or meeting ministers, I think that on those occasions those rooms can be made available for members or even for a caucus. But when it comes to large gatherings such as the convention of a political party, not only a Liberal convention, but the convention of any Canadian party, I think that such requests should be turned down. Ottawa and Hull are not small towns and have organizations in a position to host conventions and groups as large as that expected during the weekend of February 24 and 25. Now, Mr. Speaker, when the convention for the selection of a leader for the Social Credit Party of Canada was held in Ottawa in 1975, we rented some facilities in the city and our convention was held there. I think that the Liberal party was ill-advised when it asked you for permission to use the public premises of the House of Commons to hold such large convention which, as we know, could have serious effects when we realize how preparations are going on to serve refreshments to some 3,000 or 4,000 guests at a party. It could have serious consequences which would remain in the history of Canadian parliamentarism.
So I think we should avoid this kind of things. In my opinion the Liberal organization is not made up of beggars and I think they have enough money to look for facilities in town because there are places where they could be accommodated and I suggest they go to those places to host their delegations and their guests.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of other hon. members who seek to make an intervention in this regard; I know the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) is one, and there are others including the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), the hon. member for Northumberland-Mirami-chi (Mr. Dionne), the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier). I have no intention of preventing their intervention in any way. At this moment I am simply going to defer the matter until a later time when I may hear these other representations. The matter has been raised, and I want to give the House a brief history of it. I would invite hon. members to exercise some patience while we do undertake the kind of consultations referred to by several participants.
80031-27'/2

February 8, 1978
Privilege-Hon. M. Lambert
The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has raised this by way of a question of privilege. Indeed, it is a matter that deeply affects the right of all members to access to the building. They have made representations as to the proper use of the building, and I think this is a very proper subject to be taken up in this way.
The House will know that on Monday some hon. members made representations to me. When I wrote the hon. member for (Grenville-Carleton) I was writing to all four House leaders. I was doing so for two reasons. First of all, the press on Monday morning had raised this problem and, secondly, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) had in fact come into my office to speak to me about it, so I was well apprised of the difficulties we were facing and, as well, very much aware of the concerns expressed by hon. members.
I called in the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Langlois), who is the social convener from the House of Commons side of this convention for the Libeial party, and after a discussion I wrote that letter to the House leaders.
That does not tell the whole story. On reflection, going back to the beginning of these arrangements, I was asked, following the necessary step, that I make some of the premises available in the House for an event in connection with this convention. I have my notes here, and on checking back on a request for an examination of precedents in respect of the use of the building in this respect I found, and I may be over-simplifying it, that in principle, as I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) attempted to put it, there were precedents which would support this kind of use of the building.
Certainly on a numerical basis, the formula for inviting a number of guests for each member or Senator would lead to something that could be held along these lines. The difficulty, of course, is that if this were done all at the same time it would so over-tax the ordinary facilities of the building that some special arrangements would have to be made. I only say this to indicate that I did examine the precedents to see whether functions of this sort, or of some sort, had been held in connection with meetings of this kind.
I also re-examined my own precedents that I had outlined to the House some time ago in the way of a statement regarding the proper use of this building because, indeed, as I have said in the past, the building should be used to bring Canadians into contact with their members of parliament in this setting. Sometimes that is done purely for parliamentary purposes, and sometimes for a combination of parliamentary and social purposes. Therefore, in keeping with that, it seemed in principle it would be appropriate to hold some event.
In fairness, I think what has happened is not that the nature of the event was in any way misrepresented to me, but probably, since the giving of permission and the state arrangements have reached at the present time, the proportions of the event have grown tremendously, at least in the understanding of the people who were engaged in the original conversation.
At this point there are two questions. In principle, is there something untoward about the use of these buildings for this

sort of event, and, even in principle, if there is not something untoward, has this matter in this particular instance grown to such a dimension it raises problems that were not anticipated at the time of the giving of permission?
If the House will permit me to do so, I should like to pursue the matter with the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) as he has suggested, and following our conversation I would pursue it with other House leaders, as has also been suggested, to see whether the matter can be resolved in that way.
If it cannot be resolved in that way, then I assume all the hon. members who seek to make an intervention this afternoon that, before finalizing my decision on the motion of the hon. member for Edmonton West, I will certainly come back to the House and give them an opportunity to make such intervention, and that includes, of course, the independent member who was not represented in the party discussions this afternoon.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As you mentioned in your comments a moment ago, I am one of the members who was seeking your recognition on this issue on the basis of the fact that I provided you with notice of my intention to raise this as a question of privilege. I appreciate and accept your comment that you are prepared to bring this forward at another time to allow members to contribute further and express their concerns. My concern, Sir, is that I shall be absent from this House on parliamentary business from February 9 to February 13 inclusive. In light of that, I find it very difficult to accept your ruling. Because I am highly indignant about the entire affair I regret having lost the opportunity to express that indignation and the indignation I feel my constituents inevitably will feel.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Kootenay West insists, he certainly can express his indignation right now.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker I will be as brief as possible. I am not going to deal in legal terms or parliamentary references, like those used by experienced members such as a former Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and our House leader. I would ask you, Sir, as the First Commoner, how you or any member in fact feels he would be received with reference to this proposal if an approach were made to Canadians on the street today? If you were to ask people in Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Regina, Winnipeg, Montreal or Halifax about this matter, what do you think the response would be?
Rarely have I felt as indignant, astounded, and hurt by the responses from the insensitive hon. members on the government side of the House as I have today. These hon. members are not treating this matter seriously.
I had the opportunity of standing in the Hall of Honour and watching Her Majesty the Queen enter the parliament build-
February 8, 1978

ings. The Hall of Honour exists to honour Canadians. When 1 think of it being used for a Liberal convention, I wonder what Canadians will think of the manner in which we treat and remember the people for whom that Hall exists. Whether or not the rules of the House provide for such, 1 think it is grossly wrong. It is a matter of principle, and that basic principle is wrong.
Some hon. Mlembers: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which has nothing to do with the matter presently before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I might as well hear other members on the main subject, rather than on a new question of privilege.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, this matter is very disturbing, as was suggested by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Brisco). Those of us who were brought up as students of parliamentary procedures and practices respect the decorum of these hallowed halls and buildings. We feel great shame because we have to go to our constituents and tell them the type of bash which will take place, and with this precedent set, what types of bashes will take place in the future. This will lower the respect for and the decorum of the House of Commons, as well as each hon. member.
Toward the end of Your Honour's remarks you indicated that consultations would take place with House leaders and that the Independent would be excluded. My constituents are just as important to the operations of the House as any of the constituents of the other 264 hon. members. All members should re-examine themselves as members of parliament. Anyone who has the audacity to make such a proposal to Your Honour should be bloody well ashamed of himself.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Leonard C. Jones: I see the hon. cabinet minister from Newfoundland is putting his collar up around his head. He should do that. He should be ashamed of himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard C. Jones: I am a Canadian-


An hon. Member:: Doubtful.


Mr. Forrestall:: Withdraw that remark.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Who are you? Are you Mr. Speaker?


J. Michael Forrestall: I am not Mr. Speaker, but I do not think remarks like that should be made to any member of this House.


Leonard C. Jones: In reply to the hon. member opposite, let me indicate that I am a true blooded Canadian. I have gone through a lot to get to this House. I expect hon. members to respect each other. The application before the House is stupid and shameful. I hope hon. members opposite can live with it. I
Privilege-Hon. M. Lambert
am sure their constituents will not live with it. I will proudly tell my constituents there is no way, if I was a member of a party-and I do not think I ever want to be-I would want to have a bash in these hallowed halls.
At one time an hon. memer from Cape Breton indicated that the parliament buildings reminded him of a church. Yes, that is so, and there are many vacant seats too. All of the buildings on Parliament Hill are held in awe and are respected. People from all over Canada come here to see parliament in operation, as well as the beautiful buildings. If they knew the Hall of Honour was to be used for receptions and there would be 26 bars, I am sure all hon. members would be ousted out, in one way or another, before the next election.
I will not be present at the consultations which Your Honour will conduct, but I plead with you to use and exercise your jurisdiction to cut out bashes now. There is no need of any further complications. Your Honour should show Canadians that your office is one which can be respected.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment briefly on the question of privilege before the House. I should like to refer to one of the more hypocritical suggestions made today. I am not one of the organizers of the affair referred to, but I should like to point out that the Liberal party will pay for any use that is made of buildings on Parliament Hill. I felt I had to say that because the hon. member for Grenville-Carieton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) left the impression that the Liberal Party of Canada was receiving something for nothing. I should like to correct that impression.


Walter David Baker: How much is the rent?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, I sat here quietly in my place listening to hon. members opposite making rather unpleasant and hypocritical remarks about the Liberal party. Surely I am entitled to the same courtesy from them.
The question has been before the House since three o'clock, during which time the hon. House leader indicated that hundreds of lawyers use the facilities of the House of Commons. There are Christmas parties for the Conservative and Liberal parties, which are attended by approximately 1,500 or 2,000 people. The opposition is attempting to create the impression that unless a person is a member of an elitist group and works in parliament, he should not have the opportunity of using the facilities of the House of Commons.
People interested in politics, whether Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic or Social Credit, should be allowed to conduct social affairs in the parliament buildings. The House of Commons is representative of the Canadian political system and works toward retaining the type of democracy Canada has. I say this for all sides of the House. There is the example of the press gallery dinner. No one is supposed to talk about the press gallery dinner. We all go to the press gallery dinner every year and swear a great vow of secrecy that we will not

February 8, 1978
Privilege-Hon. M. Lambert
talk about it. Well, I feel very strongly that the hypocrisy shown by the opposition, in attempting to restrict the average Canadian member of a political party from visiting the House of Commons and from using the House of Commons for political and social purposes, is a disgrace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Surely hon. members are satisfied that I have heard adequate argument on this question of privilege from all sides of the House. I will reserve my judgment until later.


MR. RODRIGUEZ-QUESTION TO MINISTER OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It has to do with the question I asked today of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner). I recognize that there is at times some difficulty with the acoustics in the Chamber or with the sound system and it may be that the question was not heard.
I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce the following question: can he tell the House if he has made any suggestions to the manufacturers in question to locate one of the plants in the Sudbury basin and, if he has not, will he undertake to do so, making them aware of the DREE program and other available incentives? In fact I was not making a representation to the minister but rather asking him if he had made a representation to the automotive industry with respect to locating one of the parts plants in the Sudbury basin. As Your Honour may be well aware, I am very concerned about positive measures being taken in the Sudbury basin in view of the impending lay-offs which are to take place on Monday.
I asked that question so as to obtain some information from the minister on the government's intentions with respect to diversifying the industry in the Sudbury basin. Unfortunately, the minister has left the chamber, but 1 hope that tomorrow you will catch my eye and I will then put the question again so we can get some answers from the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: As the hon. member knows, I am as interested as he is in the proposition and in the answer and I hope the hon. member will pursue it privately, which I think will be more in order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Will you listen to me, Mr. Speaker? Will you listen to me now?


An hon. Member:: Apologize.


An hon. Member:: Watch your attitude.
[ Translation]


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You may have been distracted by what was being said from both sides of the House, but for a few minutes I have been trying to be recognized on the question of privilege raised by the hon.

member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). In any case, I hope it is not intentional on your part because I did rise well before other hon. members and I hope I will have the opportunity to give my views on the question of privilege before us. I think it would be a denial of justice not to let me express my point of view. You have recognized others. I am as much a member in the House as any others who are here, irrespective of the political party to which I belong. I think-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have tried this afternoon to explain my position on arguments put forward by several hon. members from both sides of the House. For one hour I have listened very carefully to all arguments. I have also proposed to discuss again this subject with the hon. President of Privy Council and then with the leaders of all political parties. If that can settle the problem, so much the better! If not, later I am going to listen to all other members including the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier).


MR. MURTA-PROCEEDINGS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege pertains to the question period. I rose on a supplementary question following the question of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), as you no doubt remember, sir. He had a question regarding the International Joint Commission in so far as Saskatchewan is concerned. My supplementary question pertained to the recommendations of IJC with regard to the province of Manitoba. You ruled that it was not a proper supplementary question.
In view of the fact that I will be away for the next three days, I wonder if I may be allowed to ask a question regarding the government's position vis-a-vis the Garrison diversion project on which a decision is being made by the IJC, and the government's position on the transfer of waters from the south to the north. Is it still the government's position to oppose any transfer of water from the Missouri system to the Hudson Bay system?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course it would be a totally unwarranted extension of the question period to permit the question to be put now. I had hoped the question period this afternoon would evolve in such a way as to permit me to recognize the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) on a new question, not a supplementary question as he had tried to put it. It was certainly a relevant and important question. Unfortunately, as he knows, exposure in the question period this afternoon was limited, as often happens on Wednesdays.


MR. NIELSEN-DISTRIBUTION OF INFORMATIONAL PACKAGE RESPECTING BILL C-25
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief question of privilege which is directed to the President of Privy Council and government House leader (Mr. MacEachen). In his absence, perhaps the Secretary of State for External
February 8, 1978

Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), or his colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), might speak to their colleague.
On Friday, Bill C-25 was introduced. I could, but I will not, mention the fact that it was available to all sorts of persons outside the House before it was introduced in the House. However, what concerns me now is that the package which the minister used on Friday during his press conference, which contains a copy of the bill, was widely distributed to members of the press, members of the public, civil servants, bureaucrats, and employees in the pipeline commission office, but hon. members have not received that package in the mail. I am told that the debate is to commence next Monday on a very important and complex bill.


An hon. Member:: Typical arrogance.


Erik Nielsen: I am asking for immediate restitution to all members of the House so that we might be prepared to participate intelligently in that debate.


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: With reference to the issue raised by the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, I was here on Friday and you will certainly remember the many points of order and the many questions of privilege which were discussed and which kept the President of Privy Council in the House until one o'clock. He had agreed to hold a press conference at 12.30 p.m. to deal with the bill on the northern pipeline, a conference which I was supposed to attend. This press conference was delayed because of the questions which were raised in the House and which were of paramount importance.
When the House adjourned at 1 p.m., 1 personally distributed the packages mentioned by the hon. member: I gave three such packages to the leader of his party in the House, one to the chief whip of his party, two to the representative of the New Democratic Party; however, I was unable to give any to the representative of the Social Credit Party of Canada, for there was not a single hon. member of that party present in the House on Friday at one o'clock. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the hon. member is complaining unduly. We advised all hon. members and distributed these packages to them in the House at 1 p.m., before distributing them elsewhere.
I English]


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not know that we can carry this much further. The hon. member has raised a point of order or a grievance and there has been a response to it. There is no mechanism by which I can go back to the hon. member again. Perhaps the matter can be resolved in another way. If I allow second interventions on subjects of this sort, it may never stop.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise again on a question of privilege. My understanding of the rules is that when a point of order is raised, a member is denied a second or third intervention. However, I will not enter into that. I raise the
Committee Report
matter in a non-contentious way. I wish to inform the hon. gentleman who replied for the government House leader that we have checked with the office of the President of Privy Council, with distribution, and with the pipeline commission office to obtain copies-and that was as late as today-but we can obtain copies from nowhere.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, right after the bill was tabled, when the House adjourned at one o'clock, copies of those documents were made available to the parties of the opposition.


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


Mr. Allard:: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the packages mentioned by the hon. member, he said one o'clock, but I should like to point out that at one o'clock Friday-


Yvon Pinard: No one of the Social Credit Party of Canada was there.


Steve Eugene Paproski: All you gave us was five copies-tha is all.
[ Translation]


Eudore Allard: I know, that is exactly what I wanted to say. At one o'clock the House takes recess until two o'clock so none of the hon. members were there at that time. When the hon. member distributed the packages, no one was in the House. I imagine it must have been because it was one o'clock and the House takes recess from one to two. That is my point of order. He said, that we were not in the House. We were here from eleven to one o'clock, but from one to two we, like the others, went to lunch.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Robinson
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
February 8, 1978
Committee Report EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(1) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of notes which have been transmitted to the Embassy of the U.S.S.R. and to the Secretary General of the United Nations. These notes contain the texts of notifications which we are required to give to the launching state and the Secretary General of the United Nations under the terms of the 1968 agreement on the rescue of astronauts, the return of astronauts and the return of objects launched into outer space.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of a background document for the meeting next week of first ministers. The document is entitled "Canada's Economy-Medium-term Projections and Targets."
 * *


ANTI-INFLATION ACT TABLING OF BOARD S REPORTS
Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 17(2) of the Anti-Inflation Act I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of four reports sent to the administrator by the AntiInflation Board.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Speaker:: Earlier today under the provisions of Standing Order 43 the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), with the support of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), received the consent of the House to present a motion, and in due course the motion was passed.
The motion made reference to a brief preamble put by the hon. member for York Centre. Upon re-examination it appeared that the motion was worded in such a way as to be self-sufficient in its own terms, and in fact it was not. As a result, the Table officers have suggested an editorial change which I understand meets the approval of the mover and seconder of the motion. The motion now reads as follows:
That this House asks that parliament's concern respecting the treatment of Anatoly Shcharansky and other Soviet citizens who have attempted to exercise their rights and freedoms as embodied in the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and agreed to by participating states at Helsinki, be raised at the earliest opportunity at the Belgrade meeting of the CSCE now under way.
Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BROADCASTING, FILMS AND ASSISTANCE TO THE ARTS PERMISSION FOR STANDING COMMITTEE TO TRAVEL
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang):
That the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts be empowered to travel to Toronto, Ontario, and to Montreal, Quebec, on February 13 and February 14, 1978, and February 20 and February 21, 1978, respectively for the purpose of studying operations at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and that the necessary support staff accompany the committee.


Walter David Baker: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Agreed. [Translation]


Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There appears to be some understanding. I believe the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) was consulted as well.


Leonard C. Jones: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker. I do not know who is going to pay for it, but I shall not be there.


Mr. Speaker:: There has been some consultation that the motion should be put at this time. The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

February 8, 1978

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 41, 261, 433, 488, 705, 746, 749, 767, 793, 814, 910, 911,958 and 1,135.


Mr. Cossitt: Has the Minister of Transport looked into the report made on CBC programme /'Cross Country Check-up," on Sunday, November 14, 1976, by a caller, that a DOT JetStar had landed at Saskatoon Airport with five female passengers on the same day that the Minister himself arrived at the same airport on another DOT JetStar and (a) if not, on what date will he do so (b) if so, what are full details involved including (i) names, addresses and job designations of all passengers involved (ii) purpose of their visit to Saskatoon (iii) reasons for use of the government aircraft (iv) point of departure and point of arrival of all flights made (v) total cost to the taxpayer (vi) name and job designation of the highest ranking person authorizing the use of the aircraft?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Yes. (a) Not applicable, (b) (i), (ii), (iii), (v) and (vi) The aircraft was assigned to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) who was using it on official government business. See reply to question No. 2,881, Second Session, answered on October 17, 1977. (b) (iv) Ottawa, Saskatoon, Ketchikan (Alaska), Williams Lake, Winnipeg and Ottawa.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Alastair William Gillespie: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: 1. (a) (i)-(iv) No. (v) Yes. 1975, 189; 1976, 126; (vi) Yes. 1975, 23; 1976, 44; (vii)-(x) No. (b) (i)-(iv) No. (v) Yes. 1975, 11; 1976, 6; (vi)-(x) No.
2.	No-Main estimates.
3.	See following statement.
Order Paper Questions
(a)	(c)
1975	1976	1975	19760)	British Columbia	-	-	-	-(ii)	Alberta	-	-	-	-(iii)	Saskatchewan	-	-	-	-(iv)	Manitoba	-	-	-	-(v)	Ontario	$5.75	$6.50	$184,630	$191,846(vi)	Quebec	$4.69	$5.59	$ 15,619	$ 48,195(vii)	New Brunswick	-	-	-	-(viii)	Nova Scotia	-	-	-	-(ix)	Prince Edward Island	-	-	-	-(x)	Newfoundland	-	-	-	-(b)	Average hourly rate paid to employees is not available: determined by employment agencies.	
Full-time employees
(i)	British Columbia	(a) 1975 1976	(c) 1975	1976(ii)	Alberta	- -	-	-(iii)	Saskatchewan	- -	-	-(iv)	Manitoba	- -	-	-(v)	Ontario	$ .34 $ .33	$7,195	$3,830(vi)	Quebec	- -	-	-(vii)	New Brunswick	- -	-	-(viii)	Nova Scotia	- -	-	-(ix)	Prince Edward Island	- -	-	-(x)	Newfoundland	- -	-	-(b)	Average hourly rate paid to employees is determined by employment agencies.	not available:


Mr. Caouette (T6miscamingue): 1.	Since the Foreign Investment Review Act came into force, how many proposals (a) for new foreign investment (b) concerning the acquisition of Canadian businesses have been received and, in each case, how many were (i) accepted (ii) rejected?
2.	What was the country of origin of each interest (business) that made a proposal to invest in Canada?
3.	How many of the approved investments and acquisitions are located in each province?
4.	How much expansion by existing foreign-owned firms has taken place in Canada i.e., non-reviewable foreign investment?
5.	How much new research and development has been undertaken in Canada as a result of the FIR A guidelines including the number of new projects and their nature and the amount of money spent?
6.	What amount of money has been invested under FIR A?
7.	How many new jobs have been created?
8.	Was there a follow-up review on approved investments after the first two-year period of operation?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Foreign Investment Review Agency is concerned: 1.
	Total Number				Linder
	of Cases*	Allowed	Disallowed Withdrawn		Review
Proposals					
for New Business	466	368	21	39	38
Acquisitions					
of Canadian Businesses	634	466	58	62	48
80031 -28

February 8, 1978
2.
Order Paper Questions
Investing Countries	Number of Investment Proposals* Acquisitions New Businesses	
United States	415	241United Kingdom	90	47West Germany	29	42France	20	21Switzerland	18	14Italy	4	19Sweden	13	10Japan	9	13Denmark	1	10Netherlands	7	4Australia	4	5Hong Kong	1	6Belgium	5	1Liechtenstein	4	2South Africa	-	4India	i	4Netherlands Antilles	-	3Guyana	-	3Luxembourg	3	-Bermuda	3	1Finland	-	2Norway	1	2Greece	-	iMonaco	-	1Mexico	1	Spain	-	1Yugoslavia	-	1Bahamas	-	1Brazil	1Panama	1	Haiti	1Trinidad	-	1Lebanon	1	1Korea	-	1Iran	-	1Philippines	-	1Malaysia	i	-Non-Resident Canadian	1	-Kuwait	1	-
Total
634	466
3.
Newfoundland	Number of Allowed Cases* Acquisitions New Business 3 2	
Nova Scotia	7	9New Brunswick	7	4Prince Edward Island	-	12Quebec	85	57Ontario	236	208Manitoba	16	7Saskatchewan	6	1Alberta	62	35British Columbia	44	33Yukon/N.W.T.	-	-Total	466	368
* Acquisitions: period covered is April 9, 1974 to October 31, 1977 New Business: period covered is October 15, 1975 to October 31, 1977.
4. There are no complete statistics on capital spending to expand existing foreign-owned or controlled businesses in

Canada. However on the basis of data on the extent of foreign ownership or control in particular industries, the results of the Survey of Capital Spending by larger firms, carried out by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and known and projected capital spending by all businesses, expenditures for the expansion or replacement of fixed assets by foreign-controlled businesses is estimated to be approximately as follows: 1974, $7.4 billion; 1975, $5.7 billion; 1976, $7.0 billion 1977, $8.1 billion.
5.	Research and development expenditure commitments to which dollar figures can be assigned, given by investors whose proposals were allowed under the Foreign Investment Review Act to October 31, 1977 exceed $30 million. A more precise answer to the question cannot be given as research and development benefits of many allowed transactions are not readily quantifiable. Frequently investors undertake to transfer technology to a Canadian business being acquired or established on favourable terms or otherwise support R and D activities in Canada. The amount shown above includes specific commitments to establish or expand research facilities but does not include in all cases the costs of continuing to operate such facilities. It includes an estimate of salaries of research professionals, in those cases where investors have undertaken to employ a specified number of such persons in research, but does not include any estimate of capital or other operating costs that would necessarily be incurred in such situations. In addition, the amount above does not include estimated R and D expenditures in those cases where investors have undertaken to spend a specified percentage of future gross revenues or sales for R and D. Commitments with respect to Rand Dexpenditures or the transfer of technology were given in 295 allowed investments in the period from April 9, 1974 to October 31, 1977.
6.	Planned investment under proposals that were allowed under the Foreign Investment Review Act to October 31, 1977 amounts to $2,450 million.
7.	The plans and undertakings of investors whose proposals were allowed under the Foreign Investment Review Act provide for the direct creation of 32,160 jobs. This figure includes a relatively small number of jobs retained as a result of allowed acquisitions in cases where those jobs would almost certaintly have been lost if the acquisition had not been allowed to proceed. It does not include jobs that will be created indirectly, e.g. those that will be created in supplying industries.
8.	Yes, the agency monitors and reviews compliance with all undertakings given by investors at appropriate intervals after allowance of the investment by the governor in council. Usually the monitoring begins one year after the government's decision to allow. However, where there are commitments to be fulfilled in a shorter period of time the investor is required to report on the fulfillment of those undertakings as soon as fulfillment is due. The agency seeks verification of investors' reports of their performance with respect to undertakings
February 8, 1978

when and to the extent considered necessary, consistent with responsible administration of the act.


Mr. Forrestall: Did the National Harbours Board agree with Logistic Corporation or its subsidiary SAAB to move its gantry crane from Quebec city to Montreal and, if so, what location at the Port of Montreal will accommodate the crane?


Otto Emil Lang: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: No agreement has been made between Logistic Corporation or its subsidiary corporation and the National Harbours Board to move a gantry crane from Quebec city.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Did the Medical Research Council sponsor research into Reye's Syndrome since January 1, 1975 and, if so (a) in what locations (b) by whom (c) in each fiscal year since the inception of such research, what amount was paid?
2.	Have there been any findings as to the cause of Reye's Syndrome and has any link with aerial spraying of spruce budworm been established?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned: 1. Yes. (a) Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, (b) Dr. J. F. S. Crocker, Associate Professor of Pediatrics. (c) 1976-77: $14,550; 1977-78: $15,750.
2. To the best of our knowledge a link between aerial spraying for spruce budworm and incidence of Reye's Syndrome has not been definitely established.


Mr. Howie: Has the Medical Research Council funded any research presently underway into rheumatic fever?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Medical Research Council is concerned: No. It is of course possible that basic research underway into the auto-immune response or streptococcal infection could in future have a bearing on rheumatic fever.


Mr. Howie: Since April 1, 1976, what amount was spent for entertainment by the Department of Employment and Immigration?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: $319,110.59. For the Department of Manpower and Immigration: 1976-77: Foreign Service, $206,024.51; All other Divisions, 38,668.87; Total, 244,693.38; 1977-78 (to date): Foreign Service, $48,890.67; All other Divisions, 19,903.64;
Order Paper Questions
Total, 68,794.31; For the Unemployment Insurance Commission: 1976-77, $3,615.44; 1977-78, 2,007.46.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	What was the cost of constructing the workshop for the rehabilitation of handicapped persons at Colombourg, Quebec?
2.	What was the government's participation in the project?
3.	Has the rehabilitation of handicapped persons been entrusted to a private organization and, if so, to which organization?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Minister of National Health and Welfare is concerned: 1, 2 and 3. There was no involvement with the subject of this enquiry.


Mr. Smith (Churchill): 1.	Are monies available to Indian Bands to review their existing educational system and to plan for the eventual takeover of education for their Reserve members?
2.	When Bands take control of education, will moneys be made available to monitor the system?
3.	Are moneys available for the training of Band members in preparation for local control of education?
4.	Do the provincial education Acts enable Indian representation on school boards and, if so, under what conditions?
5.	(a) How many spaces were purchased for Indian children in provincial schools since 1973 (b) how many were purchased in Manitoba?
6.	What is being done to ensure that a disproportionate number of Indian students do not continue to end up in non-academic streams?
7.	What is being done to ensure universal literacy for Indians?
8.	What is the present rate of illiteracy?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Where the need can be established, regions may support various activities which enable bands to assess the feasibility of assuming control of their educational programmes. Federal staff have been seconded to bands for this purpose and funds have been made available for the hiring of outside consultants and for school committees to visit locations where local control has been established. In addition, other programmes such as Educational Liaison and band training may contribute indirectly towards bands' planning for the takeover of their educational systems.
2.	Funds for administration, supervision and inspection are already built into locally-controlled school budgets.
3.	Training for band members in preparation for local control of education is offered as an integral part of the Band Training Program. Specifically, training is provided to members of band committees formed to assume responsibility for band control of education.
4.	British Columbia: The Public Schools Act of British Columbia, 1972, provides for Indians of B.C. to have full and equal rights with other citizens of that province to participate as representatives or as members of school boards. There is no
80031 -289*2

February 8, 1978
Order Paper Questions
restriction on the number of Indians who could be elected to a school board. The Minister of Education may order that a rural area, such as a reserve, is deemed to be a ward and can elect a member to a school district board. Alberta: Presently, reserve residents cannot be members of school boards in Alberta because reserves are not considered to be part of a district, division or county. The province drafted legislation a few years ago which would have enabled reserve residents to participate fully on school boards; however, at the request of the Indian Association of Alberta, the proposed legislation was not enacted into law. Tuition agreements in Alberta contain a clause about Indian representatives attending board meetings; however, the representatives do not have a vote. The Lesser Slave Lake Indian Regional Council (Education Division) which now functions as a school board under the auspices of the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, meets with the various provincial school boards where the children of the bands involved attend school. Saskatchewan: The Larger School Units Act, as amended in 1973, permits the establishing of one or more Indian reserves as a sub-unit attached to a school unit. In the province each sub-unit (usually five in a school unit) is represented on the board by one trustee. This legislation does not apply to city boards, consolidated boards or separate school boards. Manitoba: Where the Minister of Education receives a written request from a Band Council for the inclusion of a reserve in a School Division, and the Board of Reference grants the request, the reserve becomes a ward of the division. The new ward elects a trustee to the board of the division. As in the case of Saskatchewan, more than one reserve ward could be included in a school division. Ontario: The Provincial Education Act, 1974, allows for Indian representation on school boards where the board has entered into an agreeement or agreements with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The appointee is named by the band. Where Indian enrolment exceeds 25 per cent, two persons may be named. If agreements are restricted to either elementary or secondary education, the representatives may not vote on issues outside the area of agreement. Where the Indian enrolment is the lesser of 10 per cent or 100, any appointment of an Indian member is at the discretion of the board. In some cases where numbers have not justified full Indian membership on the board, an Indian liaison person sits with the board in discussions of matters relevant to Indian students. Quebec: The province of Quebec presently does not recognize Indian reserves or Indian communities on provincial crown land as being part of a municipality. Consequently, Indians are excluded from participation on school boards as trustees or school commissioners. The James Bay Agreement created two school boards in Northern Quebec. The Cree Board is composed of a member from each of the communities plus a representative of the Grand Council of the Crees. The Kativik (Inuit) School Board has a commissioner for each community having up to 500 inhabitants. Those communities having more than 500 inhabitants have an extra commissioner and the Northern Quebec Inuit Association has a representative on the Board. The Indians of Quebec Association has in the past expressed opposition to legislation

which would enable reserve residents to serve on school boards. New Brunswick: The Schools Act (consolidated to 1971) allows for the election of school trustees and their appointment by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. In New Brunswick a resident of a reserve within a school district is considered a resident of the district and may stand for election. With regard to those appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council, in practice the Chief and Council nominate a person who is accepted by the Minister of Education. In addition to the foregoing, it is common practice for Indian representatives to meet informally with boards to discuss educational matters. Nova Scotia: Under the Education Act, 1972, it is apparently accepted that to be appointed to a municipal school board the person must be a resident rate-payer or his spouse. For the legislation to apply to Indians, it would be necessary for a reserve to be recognized as being within a municipality and for the province to accept tuition payments as the equivalent of municipal property taxes. However, under tuition agreements and other less formal arrangements liaison committees have been formed by school boards and reserve education representatives. Prince Edward Island: There is no existing legislation which refers specifically to Indian representation on school boards. Newfoundland: Native people are not registered in Newfoundland but people of native ancestry sit on the Integrated Board in Labrador West and on the Labrador R C School Board. Also, a native representative sits on the Humb-er-St. Barbe R C School Board which manages the Cone River School.
5.	(a) 4,277. (b) 486.
6.	The Department and local Indian education authorities aim at ensuring, through their counselling services and discussions with provincial education authorities, that sufficient information and guidance is provided to students and parents to enable them to select educational program in keeping with the students' aspirations, abilities and interests.
7.	On request by band councils, the department organizes literacy programmes according to local needs and preferences. Community resources, including departmental staff, are utilized. Arrangements may also include Basic Literacy and Upgrading Program which are organized by the Department of Manpower to improve the level of literacy among adults on reserves. On a longer term basis the steadily increasing retention rate of students at all levels is the best indicator of the decline of illiteracy.
8.	The Department does not have statistics regarding the present rate of illiteracy since there appears to be no universally accepted criterion at the present time.


Mr. Howie: Did Atomic Energy of Canada Limited enter into a contract with the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission for the sale of uranium and, if so, what is the term of the contract and the price charged for the uranium?
February 8, 1978


Alastair William Gillespie: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: No.


Mr. Howie: What was the total amount on deposit with the Bank of Canada by chartered banks on (a) January 1, 1977 (b) June 1, 1977 (c) December 1, 1977?


Mr.   Ed. Lumley@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: The Bank of Canada publishes its balance sheet as of the close of business on Wednesday of each week and on the last business day of each month. Chartered bank deposits with the Bank of Canada on the nearest balance sheet dates were as follows ($ million): December 31, 1976, 3,169.3; June 1, 1977, 3,302.9; November 30, 1977, 3,517.


Mr. Howie: 1.	(a) What was the cost of the electrical cable installed under the Northumberland Strait linking Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick (b) what was the cost of installing the cable (c) what amount did Canada contribute to the project?
2.	What is the name of the company where the cable was purchased and what was the cost of transporting it to Prince Edward Island?


Alastair William Gillespie: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1. (a) Approximately 536,000,000. (b) The cost of installing the two cables is not available since this element of the project cost was included in the price for supply and installation of the cables, (c) The contribution by Canada to the project totals $27,000,000 comprising a grant of $18,000,000 and a long-term loan of $9,000,000.
2. The cables were purchased from and supplied by L.N. Ecricsson and Sivertz Kabelvorke of Sweden. The cost of transporting the cables to Prince Edward Island is not available since this was included in the price for supply and installation.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1977, how many cosmetic products were banned or recommended against use by the Department of National Health and Welfare?


Monique Bégin: In so far as the Minister of National Health and Welfare is concerned: One cosmetic product has been banned for reasons of microbial contamination. Two non-product specific regulatory actions have been undertaken which will affect cosmetic products. Effective January 1, 1978, chloroform has been banned from cosmetic products and effective the same date estrogenic substances may no longer be included in the formation of cosmetic products.
Railway Act


Mr. Rodriguez: For each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of Nickel Belt by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and those agencies that report to it?


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada does not record expenditures by constituency. Restrictive Trade Practices Commission: same as above.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, Mr. Speaker. He is doing a good job. He should just keep answering more questions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 7, consideration of the motion of 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 second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I commenced my remarks on this bill last night. I must say I am all shook up this afternoon at this surprising attempt to turn our hallowed halls into a beer emporium, but I shall carry on.
I hope all hon. members present read the remarks I made last night so that they have a proper introduction to what I am going to say now. I pointed out that the $808 million that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) wants us to agree that the government should lift from the back of the CNR is not all that is needed to put the CNR on a profit-making basis, according to Mr. Bandeen, the president of CNR. He said four things were needed, according to a report in the Globe and Mail on February 11, 1977, and 1 shall repeat them quickly. He said the CNR can be profitable if four main burdens are lifted. He did not mention the fifth burden-the Minister of Transport, because I suppose he has to watch his p's and q's. There are really five great burdens.

February 8, 1978
Railway Act
The first one was the losses from the almost compulsory provision of rail passenger service which he estimated at $50 million per year. The implication is that we do away with rail passenger service except where it makes a profit.
The second burden was the losses from grain transportation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order please. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on a point of order.


Otto Emil Lang: It is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just thought I should tell the hon. member that I have read his remarks and it would probably be helpful to the Elouse if he did not repeat them but went on to his final remarks.


John Carnell Crosbie: I admire the efficiency of the minister but it would do him good to listen to my remarks twice. His performance might improve.


An hon. Member:: He would still hear nothing.


John Carnell Crosbie: The losses from grain transport at low Crows-nest rates, Dr. Bandeen calculated, could reach about $64 million in 1977.
He mentioned losses from rail operations in Newfoundland in the range of $22 million to $23 million per year. Of course the only way to do away with that is do away with the rest of the railway in Newfoundland-in other words the freight, the cargo, the employees and the passengers.
The fourth burden he mentioned is the $2 billion in long term debt, most of it owed to the federal government, which has been building since the founding of the Crown corporation in 1923.
This bill only does part of what Dr. Bandeen said was needed to put the CN on the even keel. I pointed out last night that we would have an ideal situation if all these things were carried out. We will have a railway with no passengers, no freight, no cargo, no carriages, and then we will have a profitable railway. This is desirable if we look at it from that point of view. But we do not look at it from that point of view where I come from, Mr. Speaker. We believe that transportation is a service not to be based on the principle entirely of user-pay, or boozer-pay. Transportation is a policy.
The four Atlantic premiers suggested to the minister when they met with him a few months ago that transportation should be a positive instrument for regional economic development. Transportation is not just a pay-your-way concept. If that were the case we would never have had the CNR and we certainly would never have had the Newfoundland railway. We would not have had the marine or ferry service in Newfoundland, and the like. The minister and the CNR want to put the railway on a self-sustaining profit-making basis. When that is done they are in a deadly bind for which this government has not been able to find a solution.
I want to point out to the House, when it is stated the Newfoundland railway operations lose $22 million to $23 million a year, that one of the items included in the loss is interest on a $100 million loan made to the CN by the Government of Canada in 1952. A $100 million loan was made to the CNR in order for them to use the funds to improve the Newfoundland service and facilities. No interest was paid on that loan until 1974, a year before the present minister got his hooks into transportation. Since 1974 they have had to pay interest on that $100 million loan and the amount which is included annually in their losses is $5.5 million. So, of the $22 million to $23 million which they say they are losing on the passenger service, $5.5 million is interest on this 1952 loan which should now be cancelled.
I ask the minister the next time he speaks on this bill to say whether or not the Government of Canada will agree to cancel repayment of the $100 million loan to the Newfoundland section of the CNR which was made in 1952.
Some of the items which concern us in Newfoundland have been studied by a Royal Commission on Transportation which should be reporting in a month or two. The chairman is Dr. Arthur Sullivan; Mr. Esau Thoms and Mr. B. Ploughman are the two other members. We do not know yet what they are going to report. It has been suggested before the commission that the railway service in Newfoundland should be closed absolutely. I say to the minister now to forget that, to forget any thought that he is going to close the railway operations in Newfoundland absolutely. He is not going to close them, and if he attempts to close them he will have more trouble on his hands than he has ever had before because we simply will not let the railways be closed. If he and the CNR refuse to operate the facilities, we will operate the facilities and we will take the wherewithal from federal taxes that we will withhold, or from wherever, to operate the railway. So he can forget it. He has no solution to the problem of closing the remaining CN rail operations in Newfoundland.
In 1974 there were 1,891 employees in the railway service of CN. There are 3,000 to 4,000 employees in CN altogether but 1,891 are employed by CN rail. In 1976 there were 1,715 employees, 176 less than 1974. The CN, encouraged by the Minister of Transport and the government, is doing everything it can to squeeze employees out of the system, to lay off more Newfoundlanders who will join our already horrendous unemployment ranks. When the CN are not laying off workers they are transferring them to the mainland. They are blinded by their prejudice for the mainland. Everything has to be operated from the mainland.
In their insidious manner, month after month the CN cut down on their express service, they cut down on the CN telegraph service and they cut back the CN marine service. By transfer they established the main office for CN marine at Moncton, which is 70 per cent of their operations to be on the liberal side. Now they want to transfer the accounting and the computing services to the mainland of Atlantic Canada. I caught the minister and the railway in the midst of that deal some months ago. They are waiting now until they receive the

February 8, 1978

report from this royal commission. This is what is going on. This is the meaning of cost effectiveness in human terms in a province that is already on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. They want the province squeezed. Its railway services have to be squeezed, reduced and cut back year by year in order to save a few dollars.
We know that the railway service is not making money. But what has to be done in Newfoundland is for the minister to spend $300 million or a half a billion dollars to put the rails back into shape again and give the province a decent roadbed and to give us a standard gauge railway. Or, I suppose they could drag along as they are doing now, and if they do that they will be faced with spending some money on the Trans-Canada Highway.
In 1965 the Liberal deal was made between the Smallwood government and the Pearson government. If the Smallwood government did not raise a fuss at the abandonment of the railway passenger lines, 90 per cent of the construction of the Trans-Canada Highway would be paid for by the Pearson government. The Trans-Canada Highway was finished. It is a narrow road. However, in the last 17 years it has completely deteriorated because the freight has now left the railway. CN, being so badly operated and supported in resources, are trying to skimp every corner. The movement of freight has left the CN and is now being hauled by trucks. These huge heavy transport trucks are travelling over our narrow two-lane Trans-Canada Highway, which is subject to some of the most difficult weather conditions in the world.
The Newfoundland climate experiences freezing alternated with mild spells all during the winter and spring with the result that these heavy transport trucks have wrecked the highway. Yet when the government of Newfoundland approaches the Government of Canada together with representatives of the other Atlantic provinces, and asks them to share 90 per cent of the cost of reinvigorating, redoing, revitalizing and repaving the road which is now a danger and a menace, because of this federally induced action the minister says no. "Old cost effective Lang" says "no"-50 per cent, and he will not budge on the 50 per cent.
I think, as the election approaches, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will become less and less cost effective and more and more, hopefully for him, politically effective. There will be a change in policy. But I ask the minister to change it now when he speaks later in this debate again, if he speaks again-all these things-the minister's treatment of the railway, his cost effectiveness respecting the railway, the squeeze on the CN, his refusal to meet their deficits, and so on.
In 1949 the federal government took over the Newfoundland railway. Now it is forcing CN to move all freight on a little highway which is dissolving into the mire. Drive on that highway, Mr. Speaker; it is worth your life! And the minister is not prepared to give anything more than 50 per cent. He knows that the provincial government of Newfoundland cannot raise the money to meet its 50 per cent share of the cost, which would be something like $100 million over ten years. The minister has to change his policy there, and to bend.
Railway Act
We have other problems. The CN bus service was to replace our rail passenger service. It was supervised by the Newfoundland Public Utilities Commission which did not allow exorbitant rate increases. In July of 1976 the Minister of Transport, the "bus snatcher" as we call him in Newfoundland, had an order in council passed and snatched the buses from under the jurisdiction of the public utilities commission and placed them under the jurisdiction of this laughable joke, this Canadian Transport Commission. What has happened since is just what I have said, Mr. Speaker. It is an insidious plan to give rate increases.
First of all they had a rate increase of 8 per cent and they approved it without blinking an eye several months after they gained jurisdiction over the rates. Now six months later CN has asked for another 15 per cent increase; I did not have time to check this but I think that 15 per cent has also been approved. There has been a 23 per cent increase in total since the bus service went under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission-all without consultation with the province. This is co-operative federalism? This is the Liberal view on how to treat the provinces! Does anyone wonder why the province of Quebec wants to separate? Does anyone wonder why any provincial government in Canada today, with one or two exceptions, is angry and frustrated and disturbed at the federal government? They are no longer satisfied with this system. There is one thing that will change that, Mr. Speaker, that is a change of government, and that is coming.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is the Minister of Transport rising on a point of order?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. The hon. member has referred to a lack of consultation in connection with the problem relating to the buses in Newfoundland. I expected that he would have known there was a consultation. At that time the buses were not operating because of the actions taken by the Newfoundland government. Indeed, there were members of his own party from Newfoundland who joined in asking me to act to make sure those buses would operate again. We transferred them to another jurisdiction in order to get them operating again. I hope the hon. member will recognize that fact and that consultation.


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not recognize that fact. I do not have the time now to go into the details to ram that right down the minister's gullet. Here is the minister's idea of co-operation. This is what the four Atlantic premiers said. I quote:
Federal-provincial consultation does not occur when one party merely informs the other of its position or intended action.
That is the minister's view of consultation, "There you are, boys, this is what I am doing." That is his idea of consultation. It does not take place.
I go on with the quote:
It does not take place when the basic information or rationale underlining one party's position is partially or completely withheld from the other party. It does not occur when the dialogue starts too late to influence positions or events.

February 8, 1978
Railway Act
Finally, it does not occur when a point adequately and fairly demonstrated by one party to be in the common interest is dismissed out of hand by the other, regardless of the degree of jurisdiction that each may have in the matter.
That is our view of the minister's kind of consultation. There was no consultation on that bus situation. It was barbaric. The protest from the Newfoundland government will be ample to show that.
The CN dockyard is there. It is owned by the Government of Canada. This crowd opposite owns it. They got it lock, stock and barrel in 1949. CN is operating it at the request of the Government of Canada. That dockyard has had losses for several years. There were rumours that it was going to be closed. It is not going to be closed. As long as 1 am in this House, I do not care what side I am on, it is not going to be closed. There are 350 to 400 people working in that dockyard. It is of tremendous economic benefit to the city of St. John's. It is not closing.
Last year it broke even. That yard could make money if the Government of Canada would get off its fanny and advance a loan of $6 million to the dockyard authority so that they could buy and instal a syncrolift. The yard is old. It has a big graving dock. When you put a vessel or two on that graving dock, as long as they are still under repair you cannot take other vessels. You cannot allow the water out and other vessels in until the job is finished. The consequence is that they have to turn away work while the graving dock is occupied. Last year they turned away over 20 major jobs from ships passing in the Atlantic which got into trouble because the graving dock was in use and they could not guarantee quick service.
With a syncrolift there to handle repairs on all the vessels under 4,000 tons, they will be able to expand their work force by 200. They will then be able to handle all the work they are offered.
When the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) changes the regulations, as he is going to, so that foreign fishing vessels can be repaired in Canadian dockyards and crew changes and cargo changes can take place, that dockyard will really come into its own. That is what we want of that dockyard. We are not even asking for a grant.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) is not concerned. He does not care. Maybe he thinks he is taking it out on me because he has not moved on this. He made a stupid statement in January about a new shipbuilding policy for spending money in Esquimalt and in two places in Quebec, Granby and Lachine. They are giving grants to those dockyards which they own.
After a study of the situation for two and a half years in St. John's, Newfoundland, by a task force of his own officials, the minister says he is still studying the situation in Newfoundland and that he will talk to the Newfoundland government about it. There is no need for further study. What we want is a $6 million loan from the federal government to that dockyard in order to get the syncrolift installed. By the way, relations between the minister and the Newfoundland minister of transportation and communications could not be more abysmal or unsatisfactory. 1 have never seen the likes of it. This minister
[Mr. Crosbie.J
will not give our minister the time of day. There is no consultation there.
CN Marine has just taken over all the vessels and other assets which the federal government financed for the ferry service and marine coastal service in Newfoundland. That went into effect January 1, 1978. The idea is that CN Marine is going to operate as efficiently as they can. The minister and the government are to meet any losses they have in that service. If they can operate more efficiently within the boundaries set by the minister's department, they will make money and so on.
Mr. Gratwick made a speech about this on February 3. He is a very able official. I am supportive of him as I am of all CN officials. They are a fine group, very efficient. The trouble they get into is caused by the government which will not give them the money to do the job. They have been told they have to make a profit. This is what they are trying to do. Mr. Gratwick's speech illustrates the dilemma. This speech was delivered to the Kiwanis Club of Ottawa on February 3. He said:
When I preach the need for vigorous control in the operation of public ferry services, it should be easier to obtain agreement from this group-
He is referring to the group here in Ottawa. He further stated:
Certainly CN Marine is the product of a constrained economic environment.
Why constrained? It is because the federal government has constrained it.
It represents an effort to balance the pursuit of economies with public need.
That is where the rub comes. I quote from page 3:
CN Marine, incidentally, does not set ferry rates. ... Rates and levels of service are set by the federal government.
I ask my people in Newfoundland to note that. It is the federal government that they must hold responsible for the deficiencies in CN's operations in Newfoundland, not CN. Page 4:
CN Marine is essentially a mechanism for applying modern business techniques to control of costs while providing acceptable levels of ferry service at acceptable prices.
That is the rub, Mr. Speaker. Who is going to decide the acceptable levels, and what are acceptable prices?
Last year, the bill for CN Marine operations was $5 million less than the government's budget.
CN is pleased. They think they have done a good job. They saved $5 million on the government's budget. It is the people who use the service who pay for that. They have less than satisfactory service. Every cent was scrimped and pinched. Whenever they stepped over a nickel, their what-not snapped on it. That is how they saved $5 million. That gave a much poorer service to those who use the ferry service.
Last December Otto Lang, the Minister of Transport, and Robert Bandeen, the president of Canadian National, signed a memorandum of understanding.
1 am glad Mr. Bandeen can understand him. I certainly do not. At page 5 he talks about the new service. CN Marine is going to operate the ferries to Newfoundland. It is going to operate our coastal service. This is the new arrangement. They
February 8, 1978

have $125 million set aside for capital improvements. After that they generate their own capital.
The Ministry of Transport will specify in detail the level of service to be maintained. It will establish the fares.
That is the rub. Further on he stated:
But what about the user? Does he get jammed between the rollers of private profit and public cost cutting? I think not.
I think so. This is just what will happen in this new arrangement. The users of this service, the public of Newfoundland, the tourists travelling to Newfoundland, the people using the ferry service and the coastal service will be jammed in the ice. "Does he get jammed between the rollers of private profit", that is CN in its new role, "and public cost cutting", that is the Minister of Transport in his old familiar role? Yes, they do get caught because the Minister of Transport says he believes in user-pay and the user has to pay for these services.
CN believes in profit. The government is not going to agree to a level of service and fares that will satisfy the travelling public. It has not for the past couple of years and will not do so in the future. That is what is wrong with this new set-up. It is not going to work.
On page 9, Mr. Gratwick said:
Distinguishing between what is most desired and what is acceptable or will suffice, and acting on it, is what CN Marine is all about.
There is going to be some rough old times with CN Marine. CN Marine will want to do what will suffice. There will be a bare-bones service to carry people along the Newfoundland coast to Labrador and on the ferry service from the mainland to Newfoundland. They will want to do what will suffice, but the public wants satisfactory service. That is where it will break down. It is inevitable that it will break down.
I now want to deal with the Argentia service. I understand, and I hope it is correct, the minister will restore that service with two vessels. Last year, because of the sinking of the Carson, only one vessel was used on that run. The service given was undesirable, uncomfortable, and unsatisfactory. Last year they took a vessel from the Argentia run but now they have taken it back to Argentia. The people of Labrador and the people of Lewisporte, Newfoundland, want to know what will replace it. The MHA for Lewisporte District asks for this decision to be reconsidered and a replacement to be named for the William Carson. I hope the minister will be successful, first, in obtaining a replacement and continuing the service to Labrador and, second, and most important, in ensuing that a proper service to Newfoundland is maintained.
How can Newfoundland enjoy the benefits of the tourist business, such as they are, if the people who wish to travel in their campers, trailers and cars cannot get across the gulf to St. John's, to Argentia, to Port aux Basques and so on? And once there, they need to get back, which requires a decent system.
The ferry service is not a money-making proposition, and it never will be. The user-pay system will never answer the
Railway Act
problem, not here nor in any other part of Canada. No account is taken, either, of the fact that the user-pay concept drove all the freight and express services off the sea and railway services and on to the highways. All this traffic going on the highway has demolished the highways. The result is that the province with the least financial capacity in Canada has been left with the job of trying to do something about the highways without the wherewithal to do it, as well as looking after the hundreds of other miles of roads.
A hard-hearted, stony-fisted government without any concern for the ordinary person, without even a streak of humanity, has grown arrogant after being so long in office and has ceased to care about the concerns of the ordinary people. It thinks it can get away with anything. It thinks it can move in and take over these hallowed halls and use them for Liberal party rallies et cetera any time it likes without any consultation with anyone. The public realizes this is an unfeeling government and that it no longer cares what is happening to people. We care in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, and the government will learn that whenever the next election is called.
I would like to advise the minister not to fall into any trap by trying to abandon our railway. I do not believe the CTC will suggest that, although I know the minister would jump at the chance to do it if the suggestion were made.
I have an article here about the CN ferry service which appeared in the St. John's Evening Telegram on June 28, headed "Mix-ups, Confusion on the Gulf-Journalist Can't Believe CN Ferry Service So Bad." The article concerns a statement made by a reporter with the CBC's radio show, "As It Happens." We all know about the reliability of the CBC. The reporter said:
At least 70 people turned up last Friday at North Sydney to make a crossing to find their reservations were cancelled.
Imagine that, Mr. Speaker! Seventy people turn up to make the crossing to Newfoundland at the end of June only to find their reservations have been cancelled. That is a great boost to the tourist industry of Newfoundland-for the hoteliers and moteliers and restaurateurs there, the purveyors of hot turkey sandwiches and that kind of thing. Seventy were turned back because their reservations were cancelled. The problem was caused apparently by the switch of the Ambrose Shea with the Marine Cruiser which had reduced vehicle and passenger capacity. A Mr. Scott-I believe he is with the CN- commented:
"I find it strange. There shouldn't have been any problems."
Well, there were problems. This kind of thing went on all summer and it isn't just a matter of the convenience of a few people, Mr. Speaker.
Another clipping I have here shows what is happening with respect to personnel down in Newfoundland. It says:
CN Marine has denied MP John Crosbie's assertion that computer and payroll services are to be moved out of the province-
Well, they think that puts poor old John right in his place. Then they go on:

February 8, 1978
Railway Act
-but admits that major relocations could become necessary if CN Marine becomes an independent corporation next year as expected.
And lo and behold, CN Marine has become a separate corporation as of January 1. So old John's assertion was completely right. After that, the article goes on to say:
-there are no immediate plans to move people out of Newfoundland.
No, there certainly weren't. Five minutes after I made my statement their immediate plans were dropped. Mr. Wes Kelly, the public affairs director of CN Marine, said a more centralized structure had been thought about which would "probably lead to relocation from Newfoundland" and that it was being re-examined. That is the kind of weasel-wording, chicanery and duplicity we are dealing with in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. If I had not pulled that one out of the basket on them in July, 1977, they would already have relocated their computer and payroll services personnel.
Upward of 60 employees could be affected by the decision to centralize operations. But there hasn't been any final decision on the matter as yet. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to let them centralize. They are working out of Newfoundland and we are going to keep them working out of Newfoundland. We have had enough of this. We are not going to allow them out on the airplanes or across the Gulf. To hell with the computers which are over in Moncton or Halifax or here in Ottawa! We are not going to sacrifice Newfoundland to the cost-effectiveness of the CN's computers or of the Minister of Transport's computers.
Here is another clipping dated April, 1977, which says, "CN Withdraws Lay-Off Notices". It concerns the lay-off of several people from the CN Express. We can see what is going on. There is no CN Express left in Newfoundland at all. There is no CN freight service on the island, either. The service has been barbarized by the company's efforts to cut back while trying to make money. The federal government has been on the backs of management telling them they are costing too much. There has been a squeeze in every direction. The rates are too high and the service is too poor.
Naturally a man will put his freight on a truck if it is going to take him 12 to 14 hours to truck it from Port-aux-Basques to St. John's instead of two or three days by rail-if it ever gets there at all. It is their way of discouraging him from using the rail. Of course he will use the truck under those circumstances. So, Mr. Speaker, we have seen the services go down and down. They have done the same thing to the telegraph service. But I must say there has been one improvement. We are getting into French more down in Newfoundland. I had a telegram last week from Jean Pigott. I was holding my nomination meeting that night and she was supposed to speak. She could not get down so she sent me a telegram with her good wishes and signed it Jean Pigott. The man rang me up to deliver the message-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but he can continue only with unanimous consent. His time has expired. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will only take one more minute, Mr. Speaker. In summation I will tell hon. members that the operator told me that there was a telegram for me from John Piquette. So, we are getting much more bilingual in Newfoundland.
In conclusion, I want to say again I am not against the $808 million being removed from the back of CN. I wanted to take the opportunity of outlining some of the problems we face with the service in Newfoundland, not caused by CN but caused by the policies adopted by the government. I would advise the minister that he should approach the solution to these problems and consider the royal commission's report very carefully because we are on a short fuse down in Newfoundland and, as I said last night half-facetiously, if I could I would keep this bill before the House for the next five months until the minister agreed to do something about rail service in Newfoundland, the service which was so casually taken away back in 1965. I ask him, also, when doing his accounting with respect to CN after the bill passes the House, as it doubtless will, to forget the interest on the $100 million he is proposing to charge CN with respect to Newfoundland, because it will, help reduce our losses.
I thank hon. members for allowing me the extra minutes on my time and I advise the minister to be very careful during the next few months.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased as a member of the transport committee to speak in support of the provisions in Bill C-17, to amend the capital structure of CN by establishing a viable debt/equity ratio which would place CNR on a financial self-sustaining basis without the necessity for government borrowing. This would also provide for the government and the public a better opportunity to assess the economic performance of the CN.
Before I go further I think it only fair to all Canadians, especially those who follow parliament and read Hansard, to refer to the irresponsible contribution which was made here this afternoon by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). Surely the Canadians who witnessed this irresponsible performance on television realize that we on this side of the House take our responsibilities seriously, as shown by the dynamic administration of CNR. Dr. Bandeen indicated in a press statement today a positive forecast of profits in the years to come.
Hon. members opposite are negligent in not mentioning the positive performance of Air Canada and other Crown corpor-tions. They refrain from telling Canadians what has really been happening in the field of transportation in recent years. The president and board of directors of Air Canada have brought a profit picture to the government and to all Canadians, and so has CNR. However, this afternoon we heard practically everything, save a few comments in the intervention of the hon. member for St. John's West, but comments relat-
February 8, 1978

ing to the bill before us. The hon. member talked about almost everything that is going on in Newfoundland. He spoke about his concern about meetings which might be held in the weeks to come. He made some irresponsible remarks about the minister, and followed the usual pattern of irresponsibility we have witnessed over the past few years with regard to transportation and with regard to practically everything else.
The homework and dedication which should be applied in order to make a concrete contribution to the daily workings of this House are sadly lacking. The previous speaker might be well advised to spend a little more time in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. If he did that, he would serve his constituents and his province better than he has done this afternoon. The hon. member spent 30 or 40 minutes of the time of this House speaking about something about which he really knew very little. Anyone listening to his remarks would be convinced he had not prepared himself with respect to Bill C-17 or any other aspect of transportation as it relates to the administration of transportation corporations.
Last year the committee travelled to the Atlantic provinces, and I was struck by the presentation made in Saint John, New Brunswick, by the administrators of the port commission there. The hon. member would have been well advised to have spent some time with his people to help them prepare their submission. As I recall it, they spent half an hour criticizing, but they failed to put the real facts on the table and to present any logical and reasonable suggestions.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I was at that hearing, and no submission was made by the St. John's, Newfoundland, port authority. The only submission which had anything to do with the port was from the CN dockyard. It made an excellent submission on the need for a syncro-lift. The hon. gentleman may have been there in person, but his head was somewhere else.


Maurice James Harquail: The remarks of the hon. member in his intervention this afternoon showed clearly which heads are empty. I was referring to the group the hon. member just identified, the people involved with the dockyard. The hon. member would have better spent his time helping them prepare recommendations which could have been considered. An excellent opportunity was missed. By comparison, other submissions we received at Halifax and at Saint John put the facts on the table for our consideration. As a result, we were able to act in a positive way.
It is always interesting to hear from a former member of the former Newfoundland Liberal government. He has made a complete about-face in terms of his basic philosophy and of statements he has made in the past. The hon. member held different positions and different portfolios in that provincial Liberal government. However, we witness that all the time. We witness it in Nova Scotia, which enjoys the benefits of substantial amounts of federal funds not only in the transportation field but in other fields as well.
Railway Act
The amount of DREE money going to the Atlantic provinces and the positive results of that have been mentioned. However, hon. members opposite are not interested in positive things, good administration or responsible government. They are interested only in picking up leads from the press and coming here with ill-conceived and poorly prepared presentations. They think somewhere along the line they might succeed in hoodwinking the average citizen. They hope Canadians will believe them. They never refer to the positive, dynamic administration of, for example, Air Canada and Dr. Bandeen.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What about the last ten years?


Maurice James Harquail: We hear much discussion and criticism about deficits, and when the minister, the cabinet or other responsible corporate officials succeed, people have very short memories.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We give credit where credit is due.


Maurice James Harquail: I am glad that the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) is prepared to state on behalf of his party that it is prepared to give credit where credit is due. I am encouraged by that. I am encouraged to note that he is taking this position, and when he says that I assume he speaks for all members of his party. This is an encouraging development of a kind I have not witnessed here before. If he is prepared to make that statement, then I am certainly pleased to know this is the position of his party.
In terms of all the consultants and experts who have considered transportation matters, particularly in eastern Canada and the Atlantic area, there is no doubt about the importance of transportation. There can be no doubt about the vital importance of the co-operation that must take place among the Council of Maritime Premiers, the provincial governments of the Atlantic area and the federal government. They must work in concert to develop policies that will bring forth actions and results to provide us with necessary transportation facilities so that we can improve the economic situation in the Atlantic provinces.
We must not forget the important aspects I raised earlier before the committee regarding improvements to air passenger service linking the four Atlantic provinces, as well as the necessity for the continuation of a high speed modern rail passenger service between Halifax and Montreal. These are matters we have had an opportunity to discuss in the committee.
I am pleased that officials of the CN have indicated, through Dr. Bandeen and the new president of VIA, Mr. Roberts, in a positive response, that it is their intention to continue with policy directions to assure Canadians in the four Atlantic provinces that the type of transportation facilities required will be introduced as as result of the substantially large amount of federal money being directed into VIA for upgrading the road bed and equipment in general, and in this

February 8, 1978
Railway Act
way providing a rail passenger service we hope will be much improved on that run between Halifax and Montreal.
We are continuing to work very closely with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the Council of Maritime Premiers to develop that concept, which will be supported by all elected representatives in that region, assuring the people that there will be a modern air passenger service linking the four Atlantic provinces as well. There has been much discussion about this much needed service, and various regional air carriers have indicated an interest in developing a corporate structure to carry out negotiations between the airlines and the Department of Transport regarding the possibility of implementing such a service. As I have suggested, this is of vital necessity to the economic survival and industrial development of various sectors within the Atlantic provinces. We must see this modern type of transportation facility implemented at the earliest possible opportunity.
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I support Bill C-17 and its general objective, to amend the capital structure of the CN by establishing a viable debt-equity ratio, putting the CN on a financially self-sustaining basis.
Again, this is just one of the indicators we have of the determination of the government through the department and the Minister of Transport to improve the atmosphere of the situation, by taking the necessary steps to bring forward the necessary changes to the legislation, thus permitting the CN not only to operate, but operate efficiently, successfully and, as we are now witnessing, in a profit position.
Let me take a few moments this afternoon to indicate my dismay and displeasure over the display we witnessed today by the hon. member for St. John's West who took up the time of the House speaking on practically every subject during the course of his speech other than those contained in Bill C-17. I suppose it is too much to hope that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and his critic for this department will have any success in keeping those members who would speak on Bill C-17 more under control, and in this way not wasting the time of the House.
1 suggested earlier that perhaps the opposition critic in respect of the Department of Transport would invite the hon. member for St. John's West to serve on the committee in order to find out exactly what is going on in respect of transportation in Canada. Perhaps then he would show good faith regarding the seriousness of this bill by not taking up any more time in the House, and perhaps even encourage other members on that side to do the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice James Harquail: I will now display good faith by not taking up any more time of the House and by concluding my remarks at this stage.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, without the railways I suggest there would have been no confederation. Part of the agreement which lead to Confederation was that a railway be constructed to connect the Atlantic

provinces with central Canada, Ontario and Quebec as we now know them. It was part of the agreement which brought Britlish Columbia into confederation that the then Government of Canada agreed to the construction of a transcontinental railway connecting the western and eastern coasts of Canada. Without that east-west railway connection, the natural tendency would have been to move north and south. We might then have had the prairie regions of western Canada drawn into the orbit of the great American plains, with British Columbia simply an extension of the mountainous area of Idaho and Washington states. As I have suggested, there would then be no Canada as we know it today.
Just as there would be no Canada without the railways, without the people of Canada and the financial assistance they provided the developers of the CPR in grants of millions of acres and millions of dollars through guarantees of bonds floated by the company, the CPR would have gone bankrupt, as did many of the railway companies built as separate entities. When they went bankrupt they were amalgamated by a Conservative government into what we now know as the Canadian National Railways.
We know that from the beginning the CPR received generous support from the federal government. People like to use the CPR as an example of an efficient, private enterprise corporation, and often compare it with publicly owned and Crown corporations. I should like to take a few minutes to put on the record some of the facts about the assistance the CPR received from the people of Canada, all of which helped to make it the profitable organization it is today. Let me quote one paragraph from a book entitled "The CPR'' by Robert Chodos:
Largely because of the almost limitless aid provided by the government to get the railway started, the CPR was at least a moderate success from the beginning. The total value of that government aid is impossible to estimate. There was $25 million in cash. Large portions of the transcontinental lines were built by the Government and turned over to the company; those sections cost the public treasury $37.8 million. There were the lands: initially 25 million acres of land 'fairly fit for settlement'-
The book continues:
The company's prairie lands were valued at $1.50 an acre when it gave back 6.8 million acres in 1886 as partial payment of an emergency government loan; by 1916, however, the company estimated its net proceeds from land sales at $68.25 million, and carried its unsold lands in its accounts at $119.25 million.
The land grants helped the Canadian Pacific Railway to become the tremendously diversified corporation it is at the present time. That corporation runs a railway; it is involved in land development through Marathon Realty; it operates an airline business through CP Air; it is involved in the mineral business through Cominco; it is involved in the oil business through CP Oil; and it owns the tremendous corporation known as CP Investment. The corporation is based upon the assistance which it received from Canadians in the early years. At the present time the assets of the CPR are estimated to be over $5 billion. It was built by the original largesse of Canadians.
February 8, 1978

Some years after the CPR was created, a number of private investors associated with the Liberal party thought that if investors associated with the Conservative party at the time of Sir John A. Macdonald could make such a good thing of railways, they too should become involved in that business. Thus, the construction of other railway lines was commenced. There was no planning or thought as to where resources were located. They were interested in building lines, posting bonds, selling shares and making money by building railways as cheaply as possible and with as little thought as possible. They did not worry because they knew the government would look after them. Therefore those investors were faced with repeated financial crises. Eventually, a Conservative government had to move in to save the bankrupt properties.
Originally there were five independent railways: the Intercolonial, the National Transcontinental, the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific, and the Canadian Northern. All of them were amalgamated into what is now known as the Canadian National Railways. These railways were brought together because of economic conditions. They were brought together under one management in order to serve Canadians, not to make a profit. The original purpose of the establishment of the CNR was not to make a profit.
In an attempt to figure out what to do with the bankrupt railways, the Borden government appointed a commission to study the problem. That commission made some very interesting recommendations. Once again 1 should like to quote from Mr. Robert Chodos' book, which reads as follows:
The report was a divided one, with two of the commissioners .. .favouring a government takeover of the Grand Trunk, the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern, and the third calling for a reorganization, but with retention of private ownership.
When this commission looked at what the companies were worth, it recommended that the government take over the liabilities. The commission did not recommend what would be done by private enterprises, that is, a payment of two cents or three cents on the dollar, which is probably what they were worth. Instead, it was recommended that the liabilities be paid in full. I should like to refer to what the commission said, as reported in the book. It reads as follows:
-'this is a case for generosity rather than strict justice".."Governments in the past have not taken a stand on strictly legal grounds in their dealings with other companies' that Canadian Northern shareholders could expect any compensation at all.
That is how the government got into the railway business. What did it cost? What did these bankrupt railways, which should have been taken over for nothing cost? Professor Lukasiewicz in his book entitled "The Railway Game" indicated the following:
As of June 30, 1916, $1.9 billion was invested in Canadian railways; of this, almost exactly one-half, $955 million, came from the public purse. Except for the Grand Trunk, public investment ranged from 40 to 100 per cent.
Public ownership did not create the CNR's debt. Public ownership did not hang the burden on the shoulders of the CNR, which it has had to carry for approximately 50 years and which has resulted in losses on paper for almost every year. The hides of the then shareholders were saved. Those
Railway Act
people went into this business to make money, and when the going got rough and they could not make money, then they got out.
We support the principle of recapitalization. We support the idea that the debt of the CNR should be written off. That debt amounts to $808 million, and the CNR has been required to pay interest on it. Indeed, we wonder why it is only $808 million, rather than $2 billion. If the entire debt of the CNR were written off, its debt equity position would be better than that of the CPR. Thus, the CPR would have difficulty competing with the CNR. I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies. If the government is prepared to write off $808 million, then we support it with doubt and with reservations. On the basis of the policies enunciated by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the president of the CNR, Dr. Bandeen, we think this is being done for the wrong reasons.
What is the concept of the Minister of Transport? What is the concept of the present president of the CNR? What are their ideas as to the function of the CNR? To find answers to these questions, one only has to turn to the speeches of the minister and of the railway president. Obviously the minister still believes in the principle of user-pay. He believes if the user is a farmer on the prairies who has to move his grain, then of course he should pay the full shot; if the user is a potato grower in Prince Edward Island, he should pay the full shot; but if the user is a businessman who wants to travel quickly between Ottawa and Montreal, he should travel by air and the price of his ticket should be heavily subsidized. The airlines do not pay for any of the infrastructure, the building or maintenance of airports, or the communications system, all of which are absolutely essential to the operation of airlines. But when it comes to the railways, then of course the user shall pay to travel or to move the product which he produced, that is, according to the minister.
The minister still talks about the user-pay concept, profitability, the value of competition. All these are central to the minister's thinking, even though in fact no country in the world follows a policy of making its railway system pay for everything which it does. Every other country looks on all transportation modes as a necessity for the efficient use of resources and as an efficient way to move people and goods which are produced and required.
A former minister of transport who has now gone to the other place, Senator Jean Marchand, had a much better concept of what the transportation policy should be. Way back in 1962 before he came to parliament, before he succumbed to the blandishments of the Liberal party, when he was still an active trade union leader, he said the following:
Transportation policy is closely linked to economic planning and as such must be linked to the common good and not the profitability of private enterprise.
In 1975, when he was minister of transport, he issued a policy with the same concept, because it was the right and proper concept. He said the following in his policy statement:

February 8, 1978
Railway Act
If you look at the size of this country and the distribution of its population you will see that you cannot have a transportation network which is economic everywhere; you cannot have an economic system of transportation to service the north, for example, or to service those regions of the country where the population is very thin. You cannot have an economic system for regions which are remote from the centre.
Then he said:
-the principle of competition can apply where there is competition in Canada at this moment, but it will not work in the many places in which there is no competition.
Implicit in that approach is an integrated transportation system in which you take the railways, the airlines, the trucking companies and the bus companies and you think through what is the best way to move people and to move the goods which we produce and which we need. Elave we done that? Has the Minister of Transport given any thought to that? Has the president of CNR given any thought to that? Not if you read any of the papers which they have produced, because they are still thinking of CNR, of Air Canada and other air lines and of bus companies as separate corporations. No thought is given to integration. So a couple of years ago we witnessed the minister pouring $100 million or more into STOL aircraft. There is no way in which STOL aircraft could compete in terms of efficiency with a really modern railway system. We would never put that kind of money into our railway system. We could move people by rail from Ottawa to Montreal, from Toronto to Montreal or from Toronto to Ottawa-when you think in terms of city centre to city centre-almost as quickly as the air lines can do, and a hell of a lot cheaper. In this day and age when we have a world energy shortage, when Canada is importing more oil all the time, we are still not using our railways as we should.
Of course, the minister and the president of the CNR would say that they have divested themselves of the rail passenger service and turned it over to Via. Of course, Dr. Bandeen did not want the rail passenger service because CNR does not see the necessity for a totally efficient system of transportation. What we really need to do, they think, is to modernize our passenger railway system, to improve the rail beds, to bring in high speed rail engines, to bring in modern and comfortable cars, and to wipe out most of the air service which we now have between Ottawa, Montreal and Toronto because there is evidence to indicate that the short hauls are losers. The companies lose money on all the short hauls, but we have not faced that situation, we are still thinking in terms of separate modes of transportation and how to make them profitable and commercially viable.
Every other country in the world has realized that competition between these various modes of transport is a mistake, that there is a duplication of facilities, over-capacity and underutilization, but the government does not think that, as is evident in the proposals which it makes with regard to the CNR.
The minister has made frequent statements in parliament about his view of the advisability of private ownership and commercial viability, but some hon. members may not know, and certainly many Canadians do not know, what the minis-

ter's real views are. However, they are indicated very clearly in a letter which the Minister of Transport wrote to the chairman of the board of CNR, Mr. Pierre Taschereau, on January 13, 1977. In this letter he outlined a number of important principles from his point of view, and I want to quote some of them. He said in part:
You will recall that the October 1976 Speech from the Throne stated that 'In a further effort to reduce the size of government as well as expand the range of opportunities for private enterprise, all federal programs will be reviewed to identify those government activities which could be transferred to the private sector without reducing the quality of service to the public.'
In other words, the minister is thinking about some time in the future, hoping the public will forget the hundreds of millions of dollars which had been poured into keeping CNR operating and that the public will agree to leaving the unprofitable services of CNR in the slow growth areas, the maritime provinces, Newfoundland, northern Ontario, the interlake area of Manitoba, northern British Columbia and interior British Columbia, to the public sector so the public will pour in the subsidies, and selling the profitable sections, the sections where there are lots of people and a tremendous volume of trade, to the private sector in this country.
What could be more stupid? What could be more unfair to the Canadian public? Then he said in his letter to Mr. Taschereau:
Although it has generally been conceded that the railway should operate on a commercial basis, in fact the impression has persisted that Canadian National should be used as an instrument of public policy even if at the expense of its commercial performance, it is the view of the government that CN should make every attempt to conduct its affairs with a commercial attitude and in a commercial manner.
I will come in a few moments to what that commercial attitude and manner mean and what their effect would be on the people of Canada. What follows now is a theme which occurs again and again in Dr. Bandeen's speeches. The minister continued:
It would seem to me that the profit centre concept is an excellent basis from which to consider the formation of full-fledged subsidiaries, the ownership of which might, in time, be shared with the private sector.
Now let us consider what the president of the CNR, Dr. Bandeen, sees as the role of the company. We quickly realize that service to the Canadian public is not very high on his list of priorities and that he does not have much sympathy for the needs of slow growth areas in which half the people of this country live.
I should like to quote from a speech Dr. Bandeen made on May 31, 1977, to the Financial Executive Institute of Canada. On that occasion he said:
Most of all, we needed to have strict control of manpower. In large organizations like ours there is an almost irresistible trend for staffs-particularly management and administrative ones-to expand by geometric progression.
I do not have figures to show how Dr. Bandeen has been able to reduce the management and administrative sections, but we do know that in the last two and one half years there has been a reduction of 6,000 people in the employ of the CNR. When International Nickel laid off 2,800 people in
February 8, 1978

Sudbury and 1,400 in Thompson, Manitoba, there were questions and statements and appeals almost every day in this House, and editorials in virtually every newspaper in Canada. Yet the CNR, a Crown corporation, has laid off over 6,000 people in the last two and one half years, all in the name of efficiency.
In explaining how control of manpower was acquired Dr. Bandeen said:
The first step was to start breaking out elements into operating divisions which related clearly to market sectors, establishing for each balance sheets which would reflect all the costs involved in doing business.
Later in that same speech referring to the better profit picture, he said:
The major elements in this performance were, I feel, the impetus given to management by the profit-centre concept and the improved control over performance made possible by our computerized monitoring systems.
When you cut away all the phraseology, that means that the CNR forgets about providing service to the public, and wherever the computer shows it is not making money, it just cuts back. That means that people are laid off, 6,000 of them. I will give an example of what that means in Manitoba as I am in closer contact with people there.
The CNR has centralized its express service in Winnipeg. Employees have been cut back. Some who had worked for thirty years in towns like Dauphin and Brandon or Kenora and Sioux Lookout in northwestern Ontario were transferred to Winnipeg. They were not laid off because they have seniority but the towns they leave die a little because they sell their homes. When they get to Winnipeg the people there with less seniority are laid off. All this means less service.
For years the CNR and the CPR have come to the government and the Canadian Transport Commission appealing for permission to discontinue certain branch lines that are losing money. They say that they can provide better service by the use of trucks. In their ignorance parliament and the CTC agreed, and now, of course, both the CNR and the CPR are discontinuing their trucking service which is being taken over by people who operate more efficiently.
Who loses, Mr. Speaker? It is the people who are laid off- the 6,000 laid off in the last two and one half years who are just the beginning of a move to reduce staff in order to be "more efficient". The people in areas without enough population or money or products to be moved to make it profitable for the CNR, also lose. That means we accelerate the process by giving more to the areas that already have the most- Montreal, Toronto, Hamilton and Windsor, while the rest of the people in Canada are left to whistle in the dark because they are going to get less and less. That is what Dr. Bandeen believes in and it is what the Minister of Transport believes in-commercial viability and commercial profitability. For the slow growth areas of the country it means "the public be damned".
This is completely contrary to the view taken by this party, Mr. Speaker. We believe the people of Canada cannot depend on the competition of profit centres to keep transportation rates fair and reasonable. We are concerned about the areas
Railway Act
where there are no alternative forms of transportation-the maritimes, northern Quebec, northern Ontario and the prairies. These regions have never had the same kind of competition as there is in the golden triangle and cannot choose between rail and water transportation. There are not dozens of flights each day between their cities, as there are in the golden triangle. These are the people and regions who are going to pay the shot for the kind of policies which are advocated and are being implemented by the present Minister of Transport and the president of the CNR. We are not alone in this thought.
I commend to the members of this House a submission made to the Government of Canada dated March, 1977, by the Canadian Railway Labour Association. I will quote some proposals which they have made in explaining their outline of what the national transportation policy of this country should be. I would like hon. members to compare the suggestions and principles, which they make and outline, and suggest this country should follow in establishing a transportation policy, with the types of policies advocated and, unfortunately, implemented by the Minister of Transport and his cohorts in the CN management. I quote from the submission to the Government of Canada from the Canadian Railway Labour Association. It states:
1.	National transportation policy should be an instrument of public policy not an instrument for private profit.
Compare that with what Dr. Bandeen of the CNR is saying. The submission continues on:
2.	Transportation policy must encourage, not obstruct, free flow of people and goods in Canada.
I wish the member from the maritimes who spoke before I did would compare that statement with the very feeble attempts now being made by VIA with not much support from the Government of Canada and the Minister of Transport. I further quote from this same document:
3.	Transportation policy must provide over-all framework for Canadian economic and regional development.
I ask any member of parliament who is not from the golden triangle what Canadian railway policy in the last few years has done for his region? Has it helped or hindered? Any member who is honest or objective would agree that in fact our present transportation policy has hindered the development and improvement of their regions.
The Canadian Railway Labour Association goes on to say:
Freight rates should be based on consistent and equitable pricing, not 'what the traffic will bear'. Rates less than the cost of service to apply in specifically designated circumstances.
Let me just urge members of parliament, particularly those from western Canada, to compare what the Minister of Transport and the president of the CNR are saying about the movement of grain with what Mr. Justice Hall has recommended in his report. There could not be greater differences, Mr. Speaker, if they spoke entirely different languages.

February 8, 1978
Railway Act
Further on in the recommendations from the submission it is stated:
The purchase of transportation plant and equipment, rail cars, locomotives, trucks, container ships, aircraft and pipeline facilities to meet peak demand and/or essential services.
11. Subsidization of inter-city and inter-urban rail passenger service where it is in the public interest to ease congestion of highways, improve the quality of life and to cope with pollution problems caused by other forms of private and public transportation, subject to the railways' equipment, plant, route and frequency standards being approved by an appropriate regulatory body and conditional upon the full protection of all employees affected.
Compare that, Mr. Speaker, with all the lay-offs of workers and you will see how far apart we are from that.
I want to support the proposals which were made by the Canadian Railway Labour Association. I want to support their concept in viewing transportation as a necessity in a modern country as large as Canada. A transportation system must meet the needs of the people. If we do that we must change our idea that the CNR as a corporation must show a profit because that profit will be made. It has been made at the expense of the people of Canada; at the expense of employees who have been laid off and at the expense of people who are now receiving less service than they ever did before.
Having spent most of my time saying what is wrong with the government's policy, what is wrong with Dr. Bandeen's policy, what is wrong with the Minister of Transport's policy and the policy we have followed, I now come back to the only question which we are asked to vote on, and that is the proposal in this bill to recapitalize some $800 million of the CN's debt.
For the reasons which I have indicated earlier we support that proposal. However, we look with a great deal of suspicion at the reasons why this minister is proposing this and what he intends to do with the CNR, if he is permitted to, and if he brings the CNR into a better financial position. We want the CNR in a better financial position and we want the CNR used to meet the real needs of the Canadian people but not by way of permitting private investors to make a profit on a system which the Canadian people have already paid for, not once, not twice, but probably ten times.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, some years ago when I was reading the history of the CNR, I believe it was at university, I read about its recapitalization in 1937 and 1952. I did not realize at that time that I would have an opportunity to speak on the subject of the recapitalization of the CNR at some point in my life. Nevertheless the bill is here before the House of Commons. Once more the question of relieving debt for our great national railway, the CNR, has come up so that it can continue on and compete.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to the complaints of hon. members, particularly those from my far left, concerning the great debt which the CNR had inherited and which, over the last 50 or 60 years, it has been unable to recover from. At the same time I look at the other railway which services this nation. I have often wondered why that railroad could come out from under an almost similar debt, not having any of its debt relieved. It has, of course, taken advantage of

depreciation allowed over the years and in most cases it has been able to pay a dividend to its shareholders.
During the preparation of my comments I came across a 1935 critique of CNR operations. I was not too surprised to read the following statement "The most important financial problem of the CNR is its tremendous burden of debt in relation to the earning power of the system". This argument has been used many times over the years. This statement was valid in 1935, and I suppose it could just as easily have been written today. We are again starting with a debt position of close to $810 million that we are attempting to relieve.
The CNR, as I have stated, throughout its history has been unable to rid itself of its financial burden. As other speakers have outlined the history of the CNR debt, I am just going to gloss over it quickly again. Attempts have been made to eradicate this debt. In 1936 the total long term debt of the CNR amounted to $2.3 billion. In an attempt to reduce this, a Capital Reorganization Act was introduced in 1937, and the effect of this bill was to wipe out almost half of this debt. In 1952 a further capital revision act was enacted.
Thus, through the Capital Revision Act, whereby an additional $736 million of historic debt was converted into 4 per cent non-cumulative preferred shares, interest payments on a further $100 million of debt were deferred and a nine-year direct subsidy was provided by way of purchasing annually further equity equal to 3 per cent of the gross revenue of the National system. The enactments of 1937 and 1952 were both attempts to stem the mounting debt figures revealed each year in the Crown corporation's annual report, and the effect of the 1952 act was to give the CN a debt/equity ratio closely aligned to that of the CPR.
Despite this government intervention, it was again necessary to rework the balance sheet of the CNR in 1962, and here we are in 1978 with Bill C-17 before us, a bill which will allow the CNR to rewrite its balance sheet once more through the elimination of $808 million worth of debt, debt which Mr. Bandeen has attributed to CN's failure to take certain depreciation charges into account in previous years. I suspect this was particularly the case in the late fifties when CN went into diesel service. This contributed to a large part of the debt, and also to its inability to produce profits through the sixties.
Mr. Bandeen stated that the relief of this debt would provide the CNR with a debt/equity ratio of 38 per cent. Again we see that this equity ratio is similar to that of the CPR. Over the years, and it is important that this figure be placed before the House, all these acts, including this bill that we will pass here fairly shortly, will relieve the CNR of some $6.7 billion of debt. That is a tremendous figure. In committee we have to deal with the reasons why, over the years, such a great amount of debt had to be written off in order that this corporation can continue to provide a service.
Given the debt saga on the CNR, our scepticism at claims that this is the last time that the CNR will approach the federal government for debt is certainly understandable. I
February 8, 1978

hope that is the case. I hope I will not have to stand up in the near future and again make a speech about relieving CNR of certain amounts of debt. My colleagues and I are willing to endorse this legislation provided that this assurance can be made to us, particularly in committee, that this will be the last time CNR will appear before us for debt rescheduling.
CN's track record as far as this debt is concerned points to one of the major problems with Crown corporations. In the case of a private corporation, any losses are direct, personal, and keenly felt. As such, losses have the effect of providing a powerful incentive precaution. However, in the case of a Crown corporation such as the CNR, any losses which are suffered are borne by taxpayers, and thus the burden is diffused and is not direct and personal.
In a recent press interview, Mr. Bandeen dealt with the sectors within the CNR which would need improvement if the railway hoped to improve the efficiency of its operations and if it wanted to entertain seriously the idea of preferring public shares.
Mr. Bandeen cited low freight rates as one of the major impediments to financial solvency. He estimated that the CNR would suffer a $64 million revenue loss in 1977 from grain transport at low Crowsnest freight rates. This concern for the effect of historical freight rates on railway revenues was echoed in the Snavely report which was tabled in this House some months ago. It revealed that almost all the groups participating in the report had concluded that the railways were losing money on carrying grain.
It was not long afterwards that the problem of freight rates was raised in another context, the report of the Hall commission. In its report, the commission had offered the following as one of its major recommendations:
The production and processing of agricultural products should take place in regions which enjoy natural locational advantages for such activities. Freight rates and other transport-related policies should not destroy these natural locational advantages.
The joint problem of securing adequate revenues for the railways and providing a strong basis for secondary industry in western Canada is one that should be of concern to this government. Over the years the railways have been complaining that one of their chief reasons for losses is because they have to haul grain and some oil seeds at the Crowsnest rates.
Railway Act
We have to realize that western grain crushers, rapeseed crushers, and the livestock industry as well, are suffering because they do not have the advantages of the Crowsnest rates when they ship their processed goods to eastern Canada or to other markets. We, as legislators, have to sit down and seek advice from our constituents on how we can solve the problem of the Crowsnest freight rates as they relate to the processing of oilseeds and the transportation of products that come from the feeding of grain, livestock in particular.
A number of suggestions have been made. The Minister of Transport suggested that perhaps the equivalent of a subsidy could be paid to the farmers through the acreage payment; and as well a payment to municipalities for the upkeep of roads and to solve other problems that may be encountered as a result of additional truck transportation on these roads.
The Hall report recommends that direct subsidies be paid to the railroads for the transportation of rapeseed oil and livestock products in order that they can compete with the Crowsnest freight rates. The suggestion of some people in western Canada is that the government is helping CNR in its financial problems of hauling grain by providing railroad cars. We have provided many thousands of railroad cars to the grain system in order to transport that grain at Crowsnest rates. We have provided them with equipment in order that it is not such a debt burden on the railroad companies. Surely this example could be used to solve the problem of the livestock producer and the oilseed crusher in western Canada. Buy the cars, provide them to the railroads and allow them to transport these procucts without their having to lay out the amount of money it would take to buy the cars.
Those are some of the suggestions I would make. I am pleased to have had an opportunity to speak on this bill. I hope it will be the last time CNR will have to come before us for debt revision.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member calling it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 9, 1978