1981-10-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I trust that those on the other side of the House will give consideration once more to this motion and concern themselves with the dire and immediate necessity for relief in the Austrian refugee camps. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That the government take immediate action to implement a program that will assist a larger number of Polish immigrants in coming to Canada in order to relieve the overcrowding in Austrian camps and, in addition, to provide adequate food, clothing and medical supplies for those remaining in the refugee camps.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, this coming Friday marks the 25th anniversary of the invasion of Hungary by the U.S.S.R., a date that should be important to all those who cherish freedom. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That this House condemn the U.S.S.R. for the events which began on October 23, 1956, and express its deep and abiding commitment to the return of a free democracy in Hungary and in all other nations similarly suppressed, and urge that the House leaders consider interrupting our proceedings on Friday, October 23, at noon so that we may observe one minute of silence in memory of those thousands who gave their lives in the fight for freedom and against totalitarianism.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On behalf of the thousands of railway pensioners in Canada who have seen their pension income decimated by inflation, and who must have improved pensions if they are to have the quality of retirement which they deserve, and on behalf of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who, I am sure, would be moving such a motion were he able to be with us this afternoon, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House convey to the Canadian National Railways and to the Canadian Pacific Railway its wish that these two railway companies abandon their callous indifference about the well-being of former employees, immediately provide a significant cost of living increase to Canada's railway pensioners, and be willing to consider structured and regular protection of such pensioners as a way of avoiding for good the injustice which railway pensioners now suffer.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to introduce the following motion. Whereas officials in the Department of Finance are recommending that the remission order on the taxation of northern benefits be discontinued, and whereas the ensuing unfairness and strife would likely result in large-scale strikes involving at least 10,000 Steelworkers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House calls upon the Minister of National Revenue to keep his word to the electors of Labrador in his own constituency, as well as to other northern Canadians, and calls upon the Minister of Finance not to remove the remission order, thereby unfairly penalizing northern taxpayers.

October 20, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, in view of the overwhelming public support for the retention of the Atlantic Limited, the crucial service that it provides to Atlantic Canada, the fact that the minister's own officials have stated that it can be retained and improved without adverse financial results, and in view of the minister's madness to continue with his berserk obsession of destroying the rail passenger transportation system in Atlantic Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass):
That the House demand his resignation and recommend his committal to an institution other than this one, which will do him some good.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move a motion under the provisions of S.O. 43. The government's high interest rate policy has resulted in a new boom industry in Canada. Indeed, it seems Canada is short of competent people acting as bankruptcy officers and receivers as scores of businesses of every nature, farms, and individuals, go broke. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration immediately set up a crash training program to train more bankruptcy officers and receivers to satisfy the burgeoning demand for such people caused by the government's economic policy.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Merci beaucoup, madame l'Orateur. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House deplores the pressure that the federal cabinet used, including financial offers, to entice Volkswagen Canada Limited to change the proposed location of its new plant from Barrie to Montreal. The Government of Canada should be using its influence to get industry into Canada, not favouring one province over another.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the recent decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to permit the operation of the STOL passenger service between Toronto and Montreal, and the financing and feasibility of such a service continue to be seriously questioned, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That this House refers to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the recent decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to grant a licence to City Service Airways to operate a STOL passenger service between Toronto and Montreal, and that the committee be authorized to investigate all facets of this proposed venture, particularly the financial implications for Canadian taxpayers.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In question period yesterday, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) revealed his incompetence and inattention to duty by failing to be aware of a Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation document predicting that 100,000 families will lose their homes by 1983 due to the government's policy of high interest rates. He also suggested that mortgages were
October 20, 1981

readily available at 19.75 per cent. However, on checking with Ottawa area banks this morning I found the average mortgage rate to be, in fact, 21 per cent. Therefore the report predicated on a 21 per cent figure is completely valid and, in fact, these
100,000	Canadians may lose their homes. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn):
That due to the inaction and incompetence shown by the minister irresponsible for housing, he resign his position, effective immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the majority decision today by the Supreme Court of Canada, allowing members of the RCMP to refuse to disclose to the Krever Royal Commission of Ontario the names of those doctors who violated their oaths and broke the law, in releasing confidential medical information regarding their patients; and in view of the grave ramifications of this decision, a sweeping extension of police powers in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House call upon the Solicitor General to waive immediately the new privilege in the 368 cases of illegal disclosure of patient information by doctors, and disclose the names of those doctors, and call upon the government to forthwith amend the Canada Evidence Act to end this threatening extension of privilege in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the forced march to metric is on again in the retail food stores of Canada. No one wants it; no one can afford it; and no one can understand it. It will cost Canadians over $1 billion in extra food bills in 1982. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this Parliament condemns the government for forcing metric on the citizens of Canada against the will of the grocers, the consumers, the producers, and just about everyone except the foreign scale manufacturers of Japan and the United States, who love it.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[DOT] * *


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in view of the widespread concern expressed in the UN and in national legislatures about the treatment of members of the Baha'i community in Iran by the present government of that country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm):
That the government urge the Secretary General of the UN to redouble his efforts to have the Government of Iran desist in its attacks on the Baha'i community and grant them religious freedom.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, in British Columbia we see evidence of growing concentration in the brewing industry. This past summer the three major brewing companies announced simultaneous price increases. Now Labatt's are planning to close their Victoria breweries, throwing 80 more people out of work. Therefore I move, seconded by the honourable and teetotalling member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett):
That this House urge the government of British Columbia to impose a 90-day moratorium on the closure of the Labatt's brewery in Victoria; further, that we direct the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to launch an immediate investigation into the Canadian brewing industry, and that the government establish a fair prices commission to roll back this unjustified price increase so that B.C. people can once again enjoy their beer at a reasonable price.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 20, 1981
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for housing who, I trust, has had an opportunity to read the CMHC report that was referred to yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition and by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. On page 4 the report reads in part:
It is important that provincial rent control bodies allow landlords to pass on the cost increases associated with mortgage renewals. The rent adjustments required to service the mortgage after renewal at current rent will exceed the maximum rent increases allowed under control regulations in certain provinces.
The recommendation is that landlords pass on these increases to tenants, which will result in extreme difficulty for a great many people. Has the minister accepted this recommendation put forward by CMHC? What plans does the minister have to provide some relief to what will be hard hit tenants?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question, I have not accepted the report. Indeed, the report has not been accepted by officials of Canada Mortgage and Housing. It was a document prepared by a person employed in the information section of the corporation.
In so far as the rental aspects are concerned, which the hon. member addresses, it was because of our concern for that market that this government reintroduced the capital cost allowance provisions discontinued by the government of which the hon. member was a part. We have reintroduced this in order to assist the supply side of the rental market so that people with low and moderate incomes can have alternate accommodation.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the minister has yet to tell us whether he has bothered to take the time to read the report which shows the housing industry in this country is in such a devastating crisis. I hope he will be able to assure us tomorrow that he has done so.


RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, leaving the report aside, I want to come to another aspect of the housing industry. Even at the current level of housing starts, a level that would have been considered disastrous a couple of years ago, the residential housing industry is collapsing. The minister could have read that in the paper this morning. Supply companies, for example lumber companies, are also experiencing difficulty, which in turn is causing a tremendous loss of jobs, often in communities where a lumber
mill may be the major source of employment. There is a major spin-off effect when residential construction is in a slump. What does the minister plan to do?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What is your question?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I will be glad to put the question if the howling mob on the Liberal side of the House will just allow me some time to do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What is the minister going to do to prevent even further job losses in this very important sector of the economy?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the report to which the hon. member has referred was an interpretation of background information that I had requested from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation earlier this summer. It was an interpretation of documentation that I have already seen. Therefore, in reading the report I was looking at another person's interpretation of the facts which, by and large, I think the member has indicated are generally known to the industry, to the public, and certainly to people in the House who interest themselves in the subject.


Mr. Clark:: Do you?


Paul James Cosgrove: Yes, I have looked at the report. In that sense it does not offer anything startlingly new except for misinterpretations.
As regards the strength of the industry itself, I would draw members' attention to a report in The Globe and Mail this morning which quotes one of the experts that is generally accepted as leading in so far as its reputation is concerned on analysis of the industry, Clayton Research. The figures of that company on starts are not as pessimistic as the figures the member would give us. For example, the article points out that in September starts were in the range of 190,000. It is the projection over the next 24 months with the assumption that interest rates will remain where they are that does pose problems. I would repeat that our concern for the industry and housing supply was the reason why this government supported the industry with the reintroduction of the capital cost allowance which was terminated by the previous government of which the hon. lady was a member.


RENTAL ACCOMMODATION SITUATION IN TORONTO
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the minister now says he has had a chance to read the CMHC report and that there is nothing new in it. I presume therefore that he verifies the figures contained in that report-
100,000	families going to lose their homes. The minister may not have the honesty to admit it, but the fact is that right now
October 20, 1981

there are many people in this country who cannot afford a home, or who have lost their homes and cannot find any place to rent because of the tight rental market.
My question concerns the situation in large metropolitan areas where the vacancy for rental apartments is nil, approaching zero. Hostels, which provide temporary relief, are overflowing. Mr. Minister, 22 people were reported sleeping in Toronto's city hall garage in this morning's paper, and these people cannot wait for a budget before trying to find better accommodation.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's questions are really extremely lengthy. The hon. member knows that questions should be brief.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my question is: what is the minister going to do about this pathetic situation in his own city, because in a country like this a situation of that nature is a disgrace?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, 1 believe 1 should take the opportunity, in answering the hon. member's question and in addressing her introduction, to say that I indicated I have read the report and I disagree with the report and the analysis that says that those people who pay over 30 per cent of their income toward shelter costs will lose their homes. I disagree with that, and I would like to take the opportunity of saying that to the hon. lady, lest she misinterpret me or not understand what I am saying to her.
With regard to people in the lower income levels and their need for shelter, I indicated to the leader of the NDP earlier this week that the federal government is not alone in its responsibility for serving people in their housing needs. The provinces, for example, administer the Emergency Housing Shelter Program, for example in metropolitan Toronto, and they, as well as municipalities, must assume some responsibility. I am happy to say that on Saturday of this weekend I attended a sod-turning ceremony, the start of construction of co-op housing in metropolitan Toronto under the auspices of the Metropolitan Toronto Labour Council which, by the way, says it appreciates Section 56(1) and is happy that the federal government is approaching and assisting people with moderate and low incomes.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The minister is aware, as we all are, that high interest rates have brought about a slowdown in the construction industry and have indeed been detrimental to this industry. Recently the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has also expressed its concern regarding high interest rates, and that is why, with the support
Oral Questions
of the Minister of Agriculture, it has submitted a brief to the Canadian government asking that new funds be injected into the Farm Credit Corporation, at the same rate of 14 per cent. Can the minister provide some reassurance for farmers who are just as concerned as home owners and tenants?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, a few days ago the new rate for Farm Credit Corporation loans was established in accordance with a formula which has been in existence. Even though these rates have been increased, they are substantially lower than rates which might be available to home owners and other persons seeking funds in the market. In those circumstances it seemed to me in the interest of equity it would be necessary to maintain some balance among the rates available to hard-pressed citizens. I did say also, however, that the Minister of Agriculture and I are considering what further steps can be taken in order to assist the farmers of our country.


Roch La Salle: The minister has given us some bad news; that is, the Minister of Agriculture who had made a commitment to safeguard the 14 per cent rate has failed to get a satisfactory reply from the Minister of Finance, since the rate has increased by nearly 3 per cent. Can the Minister of Finance-


An hon. Member:: Two and three quarters.


Roch La Salle: -two and three quarters. As I was saying, nearly 3 per cent. Can the Minister of Finance tell the House whether he is willing to increase funds set aside for the Farm Credit Corporation in view of the increase in interest rates, and would he urge farmers to borrow more, and in this connection I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware of the fact that in the province of Quebec alone the number of farm bankruptcies has already doubled since January 1.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am not so sure that a general infusion of funds into the Farm Credit Corporation is the answer to the special difficulties of certain groups of farmers in the country. Certainly in various parts of Ontario- and now the hon. member adds parts of Quebec-there are special problems. It is to these special problems that I am addressing my attention as I prepare for the budget.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Joliette has the floor for a brief supplementary question.


Roch La Salle: A very brief question, Madam Speaker. The minister is not sure whether such action would help farmers, but the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, backed by farm

October 20, 1981
Oral Questions
organizations in Quebec, firmly endorses this report, which recommends an injection of capital into the Farm Credit Corporation Fund, and their representatives know, Madam Speaker, and I am saying this to the minister, that such money is needed. However, the fact remains that excessively high interest rates caused the problem in the first place. Can the minister assure the House that he will introduce measures in his budget or tomorrow morning, aimed at helping the agricultural industry, in order to avoid the same situation now prevailing in the construction industry?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not know how long the question would be if the hon. member had said it was to be a long one. He assured me his question would be very brief.
I want to assure the hon. member that all the concerns he has raised in his several questions are under consideration at the present time. It is my determination, as I prepare for the budget, to take into account the special problems that are being presented by members of the House of Commons so they can be dealt with in an appropriate way.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It is also related to housing. It is reported today that the federal housing minister, the Minister of Public Works, has made a firm promise that there will be assistance in the federal budget for home owners who are threatened by mortgage renewals. I would ask the Minister of Finance, first, if it is true that there will in fact be assistance provided in the budget for home owners? Second, will that assistance take into account the very high interest rates that a large number of Canadian families have been forced to assume over the course of the last four or five months, and therefore be retroactive in order to assist them in their plight as they try to hold on to their homes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, all those points will be kept in mind. It was stated in the Speech from the Throne which opened this Parliament and this session that the Government of Canada took a special responsibility and interest in the home owners of this country, and it certainly will be my intention to attempt, in every way available to me in the present circumstances, to discharge the commitment which was made in the Speech from the Throne to home owners of this country. How I do it and with what measures, if any, is a matter the hon. member knows I cannot reveal before the budget. It is easy enough to ask whether "A" will be in the budget and whether "B" will be in the budget and, by a process of daily questioning, presumably, the budget would be
produced by instalments, and then hon. members would be saying, "Well, why have you broken budget secrecy?"


REQUEST THAT ASSISTANCE BE MADE RETROACTIVE
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I want to set the minister's mind at ease. If he would like to tell us what is in the budget, we would not accuse him of breaking the secrecy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: The problem is that there are large numbers of people in Canada-and the minister well knows it-who have been promised time and again by the minister responsible for housing that there would be assistance forthcoming, and during the course of the last two or three months and, in fact, in the next week or two many of those people have been and will be required to sign mortgages, probably and almost definitely at levels in excess of what they can reasonably afford. The minister responsible for housing has once again made a commitment that there will be assistance, and I am asking simply, whatever form the assistance takes, whether that assistance will be retroactive in order to ease the burden on people who have already been caught by the financial squeeze brought on by this minister, the Minister of Finance, and the Bank of Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I will give consideration to his representations as to what ought to be in the budget.


HOUSING
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, if I may, I will put one final supplementary question to the minister responsible for housing. The minister is reported to have indicated that one flaw in the report we have been talking about for the last couple of days is that it concludes that anyone spending more than a set amount, 30 per cent of his income on shelter, is in danger of losing his home. The minister is quoted as having said:
I've been spending more than 30 per cent of my income on shelter for five years-
Frankly, I doubt that, but does the minister think that 30 per cent of his income is in any way comparable to 30 per cent of the incomes of Canadians earning $22,000 and $23,000 a year who cannot possibly meet the 19 per cent and 20 per cent interest rates that are being charged? Is he making his representations based on his own personal circumstance, or is he making representations to the Minister of Finance based on the circumstances of Canadians who are of average means?
October 20,1981


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that I was making my observations based on all of the representations I have received since the middle of August and since interest rates approached and exceeded 20 per cent. In other words, I made that analysis based on studies, individual interviews and reports prepared for me. About 40 people made representations to me on September 15. People made representations to me yesterday morning. As I look at the figures and try to understand them, it is my conclusion that the figure of 30 per cent the hon. member has used does not relate to what he has described as a person of average means or average difficulty faced with that situation.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, from whom a strange silence has emanated only in the last few weeks. Upon taking office the minister indicated certain thrusts with which he hoped to redirect the Canadian economy. In recent times we have found that he has been besieged by a certain senator. Then only this month the Minister of Supply and Services has set out his own industrial policy which he says should include the supplying of "incentive to further investment in Canada from outside". He also said, "We must find ways to attract multinational dollars" to Canada.
Did the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce commission, as a new service to be supplied by the Department of Supply and Services, the making of this speech on his behalf? Second, is this in fact government policy concerning the important subject of productivity and industrial strategy in this country?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I have not had the pleasure of reading my colleague's speech, but since my hon. friend is so impressed with it I will obtain a copy as soon as possible.
I would like to thank the hon. member for confirming that an industrial strategy is a very important priority of this government, and I hope he will be very pleased with the decisions we will be announcing before too long.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, the speech was given only last October 5, so we can see that it is more than the mails which are slow on the government side.
Oral Questions


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, as the minister appears to be virtually becalmed in a sea of indecision over there, I will take him back to a statement he made in this House on July 14, 1980. It was not last July but a year ago last July when the minister stated, and I quote:
It is my intention to introduce to Parliament on behalf of the government, after Parliament resumes in the fall, a package of measures designed to strengthen Canadian participation in the economy and improve the performance of the foreign controlled firms in that economy. These measures are-
The first measure was to deal with FIRA. Then the minister spelled out three particular things he wanted to change with respect to FIRA.
Will the minister at least try to introduce such a measure this fall, or will he once again postpone it still further? In short, what has gone wrong? Can the minister not make up his mind on anything or, if he can, can he not in truth sell to his colleagues?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I was simply referring to what was in the Speech from the Throne. I am glad to note my hon. friend's conversion to the cause of having Canadians play a greater role in the Canadian economy.


STATEMENT MADE BY UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR TO CANADA
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last year the minister said that he was going to propose new powers to provide performance reviews of how foreign-owned companies operate in Canada for the benefit of Canadians. He said he was going to amend the act so that public notice of foreign takeovers would have to be given in advance, and he would give assistance to Canadian companies wishing to submit competitive bids.
The United States ambassador to Canada, Mr. Robinson, has said he has it from the highest authorities "that FIRA will be in my terms 'contained'," and "that FIRA is going to be reined in". The minister is reported as denying that.
Is the minister proceeding with these three specific proposals in the form of legislation to this House, or has the minister been reined in or rained upon by his cabinet colleagues, or contained, or rained out, and is he not going forward? Is the United States ambassador properly informed, or is the minister going ahead?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend was referring to what was in the Speech from the Throne. I repeat what I said when asked about the comments of the distinguished ambassador, that we had made no decisions along the lines the ambassador has allegedly suggested in the press report.

October 20, 1981
Oral Questions
Speaking of reined in, there is no comparing anything on this side of the House with what the hon. member's leader did to him in shuffling him into another position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: You were shuffled right out.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, about the worst advice I could give the minister is to be himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The minister has been shuffled away from FIRA; we can see that.


STATEMENT MADE BY CANADIAN AMBASSADOR TO UNITED STATES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Canadian ambassador to the United States, in a speech down in the United States on October 13, said this to the American Gas Association:
Canada's National Energy Program... will not be followed by similar initiatives in other economic sectors.
He said:
Energy is a special case ... there is no other shoe to be dropped.
The minister might be dropped, but there is no other shoe to be dropped. Will the minister advise whether the Canadian Ambassador to the United States has properly informed Americans of government policy, and is there in fact a new industrial strategy similar to the new energy strategy, with the same kind of biased discrimination against foreign investors? Has that been dropped? Is the Canadian ambassador correct or not? If he is correct, is the minister going to resign, as he promised to do if his interest rate policy was not successful?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend must have been busy studying his file of bad jokes. He did not notice that in the National Energy Program document the government stated exactly what the Canadian ambassador to the United States stated some months later, that the NEP approach with regard to Canadian ownership was not intended to be extended to other sectors. The Minister of Finance said the very same thing several months ago in August. I can only suggest to my hon. friend that he himself seek an invitation to speak to that American Gas Association. He is most fitting for that kind of forum.


EXTERNAL AID
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address my question to the
Secretary of State for External Affairs. Many British Columbians right at this very moment are donating fishing gear and are totally prepared to assist in the transfer of the 26 fishing boats, bought back by the federal government, to the Nicaraguan Fisheries Institute. In view of the great interest of the Nicaraguan government in being able to have these fishing boats and their great need for them, can the minister tell the House how soon this much hoped for transfer will be effected?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to give the House that information today.


PARLIAMENTARY SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if his answer means that policies in relation to the transfer of the fishing boats and, indeed, broader policies in relation to Central America in general, particularly the latter, are awaiting the report of the subcommittee of the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on the subject of Canada's relationship with the Caribbean and Latin America. In other words, is he looking forward anxiously to this report before making the kind of decisions I have asked him about today?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, we are indeed looking forward with anticipation to the report of that subcommittee, but that is not connected with the question the hon. member asks today. Indeed, the evolution of a general policy for Central America is not, in the first instance, dependent upon the report of that subcommittee, although of course it will subsequently be influenced in its development by that subcommittee's report.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. The minister is no doubt aware of a rumour that an important decision was taken by the Australian government with regard to the type of defence aircraft they will use in their country. Can the minister give any truth to this rumour? Also, does he have any details of the agreement and/or decision, and can he present us with details of the impact it will have on the Canadian fighter aircraft program?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member has asked me that question. I congratulate him on his continued interest in defence matters. I am pleased to advise the House that the Australian government has selected the F-18 as its defence aircraft. As I understand it, they will be purchasing 75 of these
October 20, 1981

aircraft. Undoubtedly their decision was influenced both by the quality of the aircraft and, of course, the wisdom of the Canadian government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


IMMIGRATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As he knows, some 30,000 Polish refugees face a bleak winter in the camps in Austria. Last week the minister announced that he would not increase the quota of refugees from eastern Europe. Then, under some pressure over the last few days, he announced he would have meetings this past weekend with the Polish Congress and others interested in the refugee situation. Will the minister now share with the House and interested Canadians the results of those meetings?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I would like to provide one small correction to the hon. member. I did not say we would not increase the level of Polish refugees. I said that we had already substantially increased the level of refugees coming from eastern Europe. In fact we have doubled the number this year over last year. We sent a special team to eastern Europe, to Vienna, to interview applicants under a special consignment, and we have now accepted close to 1,500 additional places for refugees from eastern Europe coming to Canada under the special designated class. That is not a levelling of the quota; that is a substantial increase.
I also said we would want to look into the issue of Polish visitors who are in Canada and who are making application for landed status. I had meetings on Saturday and Monday with a wide variety of members of the Polish community. I will continue those meetings and discussions with my colleague from External Affairs. When we are ready to make an announcement, we will make it to members of this House and the hon. member will be one of the first to know.


REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN QUOTA
John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, will the minister give serious consideration to increasing the quota from the refugee camps in Austria immediately, and announce it this week?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member, because I know he will have an ongoing interest in immigration, that it is the practice and requirement about this time each year to table an immigration levels document in
Oral Questions
Parliament. It is my intention to table that document in the first week of November. Within that document we will be outlining and indicating the new levels of refugee acceptance for the following year. At that time the hon. member will see what our commitment and direction are for the following year, in relation to the problem, not only of Polish refugees but refugees whom we take from around the world, because we have a world-wide immigration policy, not a policy for just one area.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, many men and women across Canada are discovering that their job skills are becoming obsolete as the job market becomes more sophisticated. At the same time there are thousands of new jobs requiring more specialized skills becoming available. Can the Minister of Employment and Immigration tell me if he and his department have an accurate list of those jobs and when that will be made available to us?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member likely knows, in the last three or four months we have had a major report by a parliamentary committee, outlining the areas where the shortages exist. We also had a very major research document which was prepared by my department, outlining where action could be taken. We have now conducted very extensive consultation with the unions, private business, and the provincial governments. We have held meetings with the provincial governments to arrive at some new directions in those areas. I would say to the hon. member that we recognize that issue very much. We consider it to be one of the most significant priorities of this government in responding to the economic prospects of the future. We will be developing a number of new policies and agreements over the forthcoming weeks and months.


TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I understand that to mean there is no list. The minister's response brings me to another question. Thousands of men and women would be happy to fill these new jobs. The problem is that, on the meagre allowance the government offers, they do not have the opportunity to enter retraining programs and at the same time look after their families. Will the minister consider the report that came from this task force to which he referred, the employment opportunities for the eighties, and in particular the recommendation to increase immediately the allowance for retraining opportunities so that people will not have to make the choice between looking after their families and retraining or upgrading their skills?

October 20, 1981
Oral Questions


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it is our intention to consider all the recommendations of that committee. We treat them all with a great deal of seriousness. We are examining the entire range of proposals that we received from the parliamentary group. The hon. member talked about the need to provide further incentives. The program we introduced last year to provide particular incentives to women in non-traditional work has been a substantial success. This year, compared to the same time last year, an additional 2,000 women are now training in non-traditional work. This shows the government is taking significant action to meet that problem.


WILDLIFE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Almost a year ago the Prime Minister gave a gyrfalcon to King Khalid of Saudi Arabia. Since that time, and for the first time ever, 50 harvest and export permits were issued for gyrfalcons in the Arctic. Has the Prime Minister at any time asked his staff to arrange for the export of either peregrines or gyrfalcons to the Middle East?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Madam Speaker. I am unaware of such a large number of export permits having been issued. I do know of the case I was involved in; but I know of no others. I will inquire.


ACQUISITION OF EXPORT PERMITS
James Ross Fulton: The Prime Minister is perhaps aware that Jim MacDonald, recently of his personal staff, has been arranging a major gyrfalcon export for some months. In fact Mr. MacDonald has ended up possessing all 50 permits which were originally given to the Inuit in the Arctic. In light of the Prime Minister's comments, will he investigate the involvement of his office in this wildlife scandal, and also the presence of Kuwaiti nationals in the hunt?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to me the hon. member is making at least two mistakes. First, Jim MacDonald is not in my office. Second, as far as it being a major scandal in the wildlife area is concerned, I do not know that. I am not sure the hon. member does.
It is certain there are falcons which are bred in captivity. We have plans to ensure that the species does not disappear. There are some that are surplus to our needs.
If the hon. member is talking about wild birds, I realize it is another problem. The hon. member is not unaware that there is a certain amount of poaching of wild birds, since there is a great premium for them. I will inquire whether the alleged action the hon. member talks about is meant to control that poaching in some way.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: My question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It is about the news received this morning that for the seventh time now, the provinces want to postpone the federal-provincial meeting on the Constitution. I wonder whether the Canadian people are supposed to take this series of postponements seriously, and whether the Prime Minister could tell us what his position is on this important meeting of provincial first ministers with the federal government.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked me whether this request for further postponement is to be taken seriously. I must say that I am not privy to the intentions of the provincial first ministers. Obviously, much of their strategy during the past year has been to play for time, for instance, when they launched appeals before the supreme courts of three provinces at intervals of several weeks. I am certainly very surprised that they have been unable to find the time to arrange a meeting with us on any of the six days I have suggested since the Supreme Court handed down its decision.
The hon. member has asked me how I intend to reply. I have not yet dictated my answer, Madam Speaker, but I hope to do so before the end of the day and to send it by telegram to Premier Bennett, who is the spokesman for the provinces, and I may send a copy to the hon. member to support him in his desire to settle this matter once and for all.


THE MINISTRY
Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: My question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Many Canadians are concerned about the recent news report that the minister's executive assistant received part of his salary and interest-free mortgages for his personal home from Petro-Canada. Would the minister please confirm this report and place all the relevant information concerning Mr. Phelps' employment before the House?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Phelps is an employee of Petro-Canada. His salary is paid by Petro-Canada. He is entitled to the same benefits in his level of employment as are other employees. Mr. Phelps is on loan to me as my executive assistant. Upon termination of his employment with me, he will return to Petro-Canada.
October 20, 1981


REMUNERATION OF EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT
John William Thomson: Does the minister believe this practice is morally right? If the executive assistant is employed by the minister, why could his remuneration package not be made above board, instead of sneaking behind a Crown corporation?


Marc Lalonde: The remuneration received by Mr. Phelps has never been made a secret. As a matter of fact, members of the industry and members of the press were aware for many months of the remuneration he is receiving. The practice that has been followed is identical to the practice followed under the Public Service Exchange Program, as with the private sector. We follow the exact same rules. However, Mr. Phelps does not come under the Public Service Exchange Program because he is not a public servant as such. The rules followed are exactly the same as those followed under that program.


METRIC CONVERSION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, today I received a plain brown envelope which contained a notice from the Chairman of the Metric Commission of an announcement to be made next Wednesday, October 28, saying:
Two well-known TV personalities, Bruno Gerussi and Madam Benoit, have been employed by the Metric Commission to appear on coast to coast television to promote the metric conversion of the food stores in Canada.
My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Mr. Gerussi and Madam Benoit will be given $110,000 for a six-week contract. Does the Minister for Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is responsible for the Metric Commission, think the Canadian people want to turn on their television sets and see Bruno Gerussi and Madam Benoit cook up metric souffles at a cost of $110,000?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I believe the answer is yes.


ROLE OF MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Since the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism answered my question, I will direct my supplementary question to him. Do all small businesses in Canada, which are trying to recover from the massive losses they incurred during the summer mail strike, know it is their minister, the minister responsible for small businesses, who is responsible for this atrocious spending of public money?
Petitions


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, I fail to see what is so terrible about setting up information programs to help Canadians use the metric system in the kitchen.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Would he agree with the statement made by the Minister of Agriculture when he said that "farmers are suffering in their credit needs because of the necessity of making loans through the traditional banking institutions that are in a roll-over position and of a short-term nature"?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I agree with the Minister of Agriculture when he said that certain groups of farmers are having difficulties, as are other citizens of the country who have to go to the market and borrow funds at high interest rates.


FUNDING FOR FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: If the minister agrees with that, because of the need to go to other banking institutions rather than going to the Farm Credit Corporation, and the reason they have not gone to the Farm Credit Corporation is the lack of funds given to that corporation by the government, will the minister fund the Farm Credit Corporation so that it will be able to meet the needs of the farmers who wish to use it as a lending institution?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I already answered a question along the same lines in greater detail earlier in the question period.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Monday, October 19, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

October 20, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Fulton PRIVILEGE


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the speech given in the House yesterday by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and also concerns the meeting of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works on June
1.	At that committee meeting, while native people were present, I asked that a legal opinion be tabled regarding the implications of Bill C-48 in relation to the title of native people, particularly those north of 60, and as it relates to the whole of Canada lands as defined in the bill. At that time the minister said, and I quote, "Yes, I can give a legal opinion".
On August 31 the minister provided me with a letter in which he said this:
Further to my commitment to endeavour to obtain a legal opinion for the committee concerning the impact of Bill C-48 on land claims and aboriginal rights, I regret that I will be unable to meet your request-
Yesterday, following a speech given by the minister, with the unanimous agreement of the House I put a question to him asking for his views on the tabling of the legal opinion. It is crucial that every member of the House be aware of this opinion in order that we may vote in full knowledge of its implications for Bill C-48. At that time the minister had the following to say, and this is the fact upon which I base my prima facie case. I quote now from yesterday's Hansard at page 11922:
I meant that I would obtain a view in writing... The views I expressed then with respect to this ... are quite clearly founded on legal views I have obtained.
Madam Speaker, at the June meeting when native people were present, the minister promised to provide members of the committee with that legal opinion. In a letter to me he said that he was unable to provide it. Yesterday in this House during debate on Bill C-48, he said that he had received that legal opinion in writing, had looked at it but would not provide it to members of the House who have a crucial vote ahead of them.
I believe that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established. I agree with the ruling in Beauchesne that it is a question partly of law and partly of fact. Contempt of Parliament is a matter for this House to determine. This is the most serious contempt of this House that is possible. It strikes at the very root of the British common law, and the right of the aboriginal people to title to land.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Of course the hon. member knows that ministers are not obligated to table legal opinions. They might seek them, and if I understand the argument, the minister said that what he was saying in the House flowed from the legal opinion that he had obtained. It is not a rule of the House that ministers are obligated to table legal opinions; it is a guideline which the government has set for itself. Any documents of this nature which eventually are tabled are always tabled because the government has decided that it feels
that the particular document may be tabled, but the minister is not obligated to table the document.
The question raised by the hon. member does not constitute the basis for a question of privilege. If the hon. member wants to take some action in order to force the minister to table the document, he may move a motion for the tabling of documents. That is the way in which he can proceed to get satisfaction.


An hon. Member:: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: No, I have just ruled on this question so there can be no further comment upon it.



POINT OF ORDER


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I was going to ask your indulgence to comment on a question of privilege raised yesterday by the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), but because of an exchange which took place today between the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), I would request leave to defer that argument and ask that you defer your ruling until tomorrow. In making this decision, may I refer the Chair to page 11904 of Hansard for yesterday where the minister clearly said, "I have not read such a report."
At page 11906 of the same issue of Hansard, in the right hand column, in response to a question put by the hon. member for Oshawa, the minister again said, "I have not read this report". I thought I heard him say today that he had indeed read the report. I also thought I heard him say today that he had quoted a statistic from the report.
That would change the whole nature of the submission which I had intended to make to you today, Madam Speaker. On that basis I would suggest that your ruling be deferred and that I make my submissions tomorrow, to prevent a separate submission having to be made based on only today's proceedings.
If the Chair is in agreement with that, I have a question for the government House leader on House business.


Madam Speaker:: There is certainly no urgency for me to rule on this particular point of order. At the request of the hon. member I will delay my ruling until tomorrow and hear his submission.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, further to the submission made by the opposition House leader, I should like to put his mind at rest and yours as well. It was last evening, after I made those statements, that I read the report. I would say further that there is nothing in the report that was not in the newspapers yesterday.
October 20, 1981


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have been sitting on the edge of my chair day by day since last Thursday, waiting to hear from the government House leader. Indeed, I was rather hoping that we might have some House leaders' meetings so that we could have some idea of in what order the government intends to put the business of the House. As it is, after the expiration of today's business we are pretty well in the dark as to what will happen for the rest of the week.
We all have caucus tomorrow. It would be a relief, and perhaps even a resurrection of some faith in the ability of the government to manage, if the government House leader could inform us what is going to happen on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and as far into next week as he can take us. I understand that this is a common practice, at least in Westminster. In that way we could have some time to plan ahead and inject some order into the business of the House, thereby assisting the government to achieve a level of efficiency which, I am sure, they would be glad to achieve with our assistance.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, actually, I could refer my hon. colleague to the reply I gave last Thursday, but out of politeness I shall repeat what I told him last week, which is public knowledge. We are considering Bill C-48, and until we have some indication as to when debate at the report and third reading stages of this very important bill, which contains a number of amendments as my hon. colleague is aware, will be completed it is useless for me to speculate on what the business of the House will be during the next few days. However, if the member for Yukon should tell me that we are about to dispose of Bill C-48, 1 shall immediately call a meeting and examine the Order Paper with him in order to determine what measures can be considered within the very short term. The answer I gave last Thursday, which I have just repeated at this point, is that with the exception of today, which is an opposition day, Bill C-48 is on the agenda and we shall be dealing with this bill tomorrow and Thursday. However, as I told the hon. member last week, we shall probably be holding a meeting of the House leaders on Thursday, when we usually meet to plan the business for the following week. I suggest that the hon. member follow established practice and wait until Thursday when we can discuss the business of the following week. In addition-I am sorry I did not hear what the former Solicitor General for nine months was saying.


Mr. Lawrence:: Nobody pays any attention to convention.


Yvon Pinard: The hon. member says that no one pays any attention to convention. That is right. When I read the opposition motion today, it stated:
Business of the House
-notwithstanding any Standing Order, practice or precedent, the House does not regard the passage of this motion as a vote of non-confidence in the government.

To answer the question put by my colleague for Yukon, first of all I wish to thank him for his offer of co-operation, and I can assure him that I will take his offer very seriously. I was planning to hold a meeting Thursday, but if he should tell me that we will dispose of Bill C-48 tomorrow, I am quite willing to hold this meeting before Thursday. However, if he cannot give me that assurance, I see no urgent reason for having a meeting before Thursday. Right after Question Period on Thursday afternoon, I shall be happy to answer the usual question on House business or to rise on a point of order to provide further information on House business for the following week.


Erik Nielsen: I thank the government House leader for that confirmation as to the business for the remainder of this week. I might say, in response to his reply to the intervention by my friend, the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, that that last paragraph was placed in the motion precisely to assist the hon. member for Gloucester and the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, and other hon. members who might like to vote for the very reasonable opposition motion which has been put today, the subject matter for debate today.


Yvon Pinard: I would like to reassure the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and tell him that my colleagues on this side of the House understand the rules quite well, and that despite the indications of the opposition party, they are bound by our Standing Orders; and while some of them might favour more railway lines in Canada, they do not necessarily also favour elections at this time.
Those of my colleagues to whom the hon. member has just referred are quite aware that we are dealing with a harmless parliamentary tactical plan, but I believe that these are important matters which would have required a more serious approach. I remember that last June or July, when my hon. friend was not House leader for his party, the Progressive Conservative Party tried to make a mockery of the debate on capital punishment by binding the opinions of the hon. members to a non-confidence vote. The same little parliamentary tactical plan is now being used, and in my opinion, it is unfortunate to try to degrade a serious debate by forcing the hon. members to support a motion and take a stand on whether or not they want elections to be held at this time.
All this is therefore very clear. Government members are not fooled by such tactics. We understand the parliamentary procedure for the business of supply, and Standing Order 58(9), which deals very clearly with the motion of the Progressive Conservative Party, states that this rule applies and that

October 20,1981
Petitions
this is therefore a non-confidence vote. The members on this side have therefore no choice, and whatever our opinions are about the substance of the motion, they can definitely not support the motion according to our procedure. Moreover, Madam Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to page XXXI of today's Order Paper, where it is very clearly indicated in the title of the motion moved by the Progressive Conservative Party:
First non-confidence motion for the supply period ending December 10, 1981.
It could not be any clearer. If this motion is put to a vote this evening and if the majority of members support it, Standing Order 58(9) states very clearly that such a motion is a non-confidence motion in the government, whatever the wishes are of the Progressive Conservative Party to go against conventions and precedents.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I do not want to interfere with this little family quarrel, but I listened with interest to the government House leader's reply to the House leader for the official opposition, and as I recall he indicated that if the House leader for the official opposition desired, he would be prepared to meet with him. Far be it for me to interfere with this relationship that they have going, but if they decide to meet, I would like to be there.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we have always had a dean in our meetings, and I surely would not miss the opportunity to have my colleague attend this meeting.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as I have done each day this session, I would like to beg leave of the House of Commons to lay upon the Table petitions from Canadians and communities, large and small, across the nation which are seeking relief from the deliberately high interest rate policy of the Government of Canada which is forcing these Canadians out of their homes. Today I wish to lay upon the Table a petition signed by some 65 residents of the communities of Westhill, Ajax, and other communities in Ontario; a petition signed by 116 residents of the city of St. Catharines in the province of Ontario; and a petition signed by some 467 residents of the city of Picton in the province of Ontario.


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I would like to lay upon the Table a petition from the constituents of Simcoe South comprising some 51 signatures and another 1,500 in the hands of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and his office. It states that we require the retention and improvement of the VIA Rail service from Barrie to Toronto, that the existence of such a commuter rail service is an essential aspect in the economic wellbeing of the city of Barrie and-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is not allowed to read the petition. He may just say a few words about where the petition comes from and how many people have signed it, but that is all.


MR. WENMAN-REQUEST FOR CHANGE OF PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE REGARDING PETITIONS
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), who would like to voice his concern over the present parliamentary procedure regarding petitions. Therefore, on his behalf, I submit this petition requesting certain changes to said procedure.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,643, 2,678, 2,689, 2,785 and 2,792.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Was diplomatic immunity invoked by countries to avoid prosecution for alleged violations of Canadian law in 1980 and, if so, on how many occasions for each country?
2.	What was the nature of each offence and in which municipality did the alleged infraction occur?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Yes. Immunity of jurisdiction was invoked on ten occasions during 1980 by ten different diplomatic missions in respect to ten alleged violations of Canadian law. Diplomatic missions invoking immunity of jurisdiction in relation to alleged violations are not identified as naming them could reasonably be expected to injure Canada's relations with the countries concerned. The above figures do not take into account instances where immunity of jurisdiction was invoked in relation to alleged traffic violations as there is no systematic reporting of such incidents to the Department of External Affairs.
October 20, 1981

2.	The nature of the ten alleged offences and the municipalities where they are reported to have occured are as follows:
Alleged Offence
1.	Shoplifting
2.	Theft
3.	Rental dispute
4.	Impaired driving
5.	Debt claim
6.	Assault
7.	Rental damages claim
8.	Harassment
9.	Impaired driving 10. Shoplifting
Municipality Where Offence is Alleged to have occured
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Ottawa
Toronto
Ottawa
Nepean


Mr. Beatty: Since March, 1980, what amount was spent by the government to supply briefcases to employees?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
information on these items is available on a trimestrial basis only. For the period of April 1, 1980 to June 30, 1981, the stocked item supply system supplied government employees, throughout Canada, with briefcases valued at $674,972.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Communications contract with Wendesigns, Ottawa for $29,000 for the provision of telecommunications consulting services and, if so (a) what services were provided and over what period of time (b) what are the names of the principals of the company?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract, on behalf of the Department of Communications, to Wendesigns, Ottawa. The value of the contract was $29,000.
(a)	The contract was for the provision of design, writing and editing services in support of the Telidon Videotex system to provide government information to the Canadian public. The period of the contract was May 6, 1981 to March 31, 1982.
(b)	The principal officer of the firm is: Mrs. Wendy Kramer, president.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Communications contract with Officesmiths Inc., Ottawa for $10,000 for professional services and, if so (a) what services were provided and over what period of time (b) what are the names of the principals of the company?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services awarded a contract, on
Order Paper Questions
behalf of the Department of Communications, to Officesmiths Inc. The value of the contract was $10,000.
(a)	The contract was for the provision of a report of Software Strategies of the Microhardware Industry for office automation. The period of the contract was May 1, 1981 to May 31, 1981.
(b)	The principal officer of the firm is: Mr. Glenn Mclnnes, president.


Mr. Cossitt: Does the government intend to take over the printing of Hansard, the Order Paper and Notices, Votes and Proceedings and Committee Evidence and Proceedings, from the House of Commons and, if so, what are all the details in this regard?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Canadian Government Printing Office, a sector of the commercial supply service of the Department of Supply and Services has always had the responsibility for printing parliamentary papers, which includes Hansard, Order Paper and Notices, Votes and Proceedings and Committee Evidence and Proceedings.


Mr. Anguish: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 1,950 which mentioned a report submitted in March, 1975, what reasons were cited in the report for choosing the upgraded regional pay system over the central pay system?
2.	Does the new pay system generally not permit supplementary cheques to be issued until receipt of a computer message authorizing same and, if so, how did the report justify the system-generated delay, in view of the purported goal of a quicker, more efficient pay system?
3.	Was it ever the practice to pay some Privy Council staff their supplementary payments by typed cheques and were the cheques later registered in the regional pay system?
4.	How many pay accounts are currently paid by the (a) capital regional pay office (b) central pay division?
5.	How many pay clerks and auditors are employed in the (a) capital regional pay office (b) central pay division and what is the total number of staff in each case?
6.	To the knowledge of the government, what reaction did the regional pay system meet among serviced departments and are the departments' comments available?
7.	Has the Post Office Department refused to participate in the new pay system and, if so, for what reason?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
major reason for choosing the upgraded regional pay system over the central pay system was due to the better and more timely service that may be provided from regionalized pay offices located close to the place of work of the employee. A number of other factors considered also were development time and cost, capability for progressive modular enhancements, and the capacity to expand to meet the future needs of pay administration in the federal public service.
2. Supplementary cheque processing may be scheduled in the pay system at any time. A common cause of these payments results from retroactive entitlements granted to an

October 20, 1981
Order Paper Questions
employee. A computer message during a regular run alerts the pay office staff that such a condition exists.
3.	The only time supplementary cheques are typed is when we are not able to meet a scheduled commitment. This should normally occur infrequently and we are not aware of any previous practice of paying Privy Council staff by typed cheques. However, when typed cheques are produced the procedures require that they be registered in the regional pay system.
4.	As of June 30, 1981, there were 135,321 pay accounts administered by national capital region pay offices. These were distributed as follows:
(a)	CRPO 1, 49,567 pay accounts CRPO 2, 37,764 pay accounts
(b)	Central pay, 47,990 pay accounts
5.	The number of pay clerks, auditors and total staff employed by pay office in the National Capital Region was:
Pay Office	Pay Clerks	Auditors	Total Staff(a)	CRPO 1	96	8	180CRPO 2	77	7	137(b)	Central pay	60	4	1106.	Services Canada maintains ongoing liaison visits to departments at each level of management. In addition, visits were routinely made to each departmental office during the conversion period of the pay accounts from central pay to the regional pay system. From reports received from these visits the reaction was generally favourable to the improved services provided such as the expanded cheque stub data. However, a number of specific problems were reported and each one was analysed and resolved at the time.7.	The post office has not refused to participate in the pay system. The regional pay system does pay the post office term hourly paid employees now. However, the majority will remain with the central pay system at least during the transition period to the Crown corporation. We are presently discussing with management of the post office their requirements for an enhanced pay system.


David P. Smith: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Orders:
Consideration of an Opposition Motion-That this House expresses its deep concern over the abandonment of 19 per cent of the VIA Rail passenger network, which will take place when Order in Council P.C. 1981-2171 is implemented on November 15, 1981;
that the House recommends that the government delay the implementation date for Order in Council P.C. 1981-2171 to at least September 27, 1982, the date commuter rail service in Quebec and Ontario is presently scheduled to terminate under the same order;
that this House refers the subject-matter of Order in Council P.C. 1981-2171 to the Standing Committee on Transport to enable the committee to evaluate the economic, social, statistical and legal basis for the decision to diminish rail service, and instructs the committee to report its conclusions and recommendations to the House by June 30, 1982; and
that, to facilitate the support of this motion by all hon. members, and notwithstanding any Standing Order, practice or precedent, the House does not regard the passage of this motion as a vote of non-confidence in the government.-Mr. Mazankowski.
Madam Speaker:: Today the House is confronted with a motion under the terms of Standing Order 58(9), which calls for a vote this evening and which, according to the Standing Order, therefore amounts to a vote of non-confidence in the government. The last paragraph of that motion, however, suggests that the passage of this motion should not be considered as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
There is nothing in the Standing Orders to guide the Speaker in the interpretation of what constitutes a vote of non-confidence. In the past my predecessors have made certain comments on this problem, but have chosen not to interfere with the right of an hon. member of the opposition to move a motion under Standing Order 58(9).
The motion will be moved, debated and voted upon as provided for in the Standing Orders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Very briefly concerning the matter upon which Your Honour has just commented, in the context of the acceptability of the motion, I am sure that all of us in the House recognize that the House is itself in control of its own rules. If the House, by a vote in approval of the resolution which is standing in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), agrees that in these circumstances it will not be considered a vote of non-confidence in the government, then the House is simply exercising, once again, its undoubted jurisdiction and control over its own rules. It is very clearly indicating to every member of the House, including, with customary respect, yourself, Madam Speaker, that in these circumstances a motion would not be considered a vote of non-confidence.
October 20, 1981


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I would like to be able to rely on the opinion of my learned colleague, but I must unfortunately point out with all due respect that I cannot do so because he had the choice of moving his business of supply motion under two paragraphs of Standing Order 58, that is either paragraph (9) or paragraph (11). If he reads both paragraphs closely, he will realize that if he wants a vote by roll call, despite what he would like to do, he must proceed under paragraph (9) of Standing Order 58, which calls for a non-confidence vote.
In other words, what he is trying to do is to amend unilaterally the Standing Orders of the House because what he is asking us amounts to saying: Let us have a vote under paragraph (9) of Standing Order 58, but let us not disregard paragraph (9) under consideration because we do not want it to be a non-confidence vote. To do what he asks, we would need the unanimous consent of the House and we would have to follow the usual procedure to amend the implementation of our Standing Orders. However, this has not been done and I do not believe that he intends to do so. In this case, he has chosen paragraph (9) of Standing Order 58 which calls for a vote of non-confidence, and we are bound by the Standing Orders. We have no choice. He should have simply requested an allotted day under paragraph (11) of Standing Order 58. He would then have had no problem. He would have had his debate and the House would not have had to vote on a non-confidence motion against the government.
In conclusion, what I want to say is this: it is not up to the Leader of the Opposition to determine the value of paragraph (9) of Standing Order 58. The rules are there and we are bound by the Standing Orders, which tell us that when a motion calls for a vote under Standing Order 58(9), it is automatically a vote of non-confidence, and this is confirmed by the terms used in paragraph (11) of the same Standing Order 58. Obviously, in view also of the notice printed in the Order Paper, we have no choice but to vote against this motion if we want to avoid a vote of non-confidence against the government.


Madam Speaker:: I simply want to point out to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that this is precisely what I stated in the last paragraph, namely that this motion will be moved, debated and voted on as provided in our Standing Orders. That is all. This motion will be decided by the House. However, it was my duty to point out to members of this House that the motion before them had been moved under the provisions of Standing Order 58(9) and that one of the paragraphs of this motion seemed contradictory to the provisions of Standing Order 58(9). It was my duty to point this out to the House. However, as I have said, I shall not become involved in the debate on the interpretation of what constitutes a non-con-
VIA Rail
fidence motion against the government. I believe that the House can settle this issue in the usual way.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: That this House expresses its deep concern over the abandonment of 19 per cent of the VIA Rail passenger network, which will take place when Order in Council P.C. 1981-2171 is implemented on November 15, 1981;
that the House recommends that the government delay the implementation date for Order in Council P.C. 1981-2171 to at least September 27, 1982, the date commuter rail service in Quebec and Ontario is presently scheduled to terminate under the same order;
that this House refers the subject-matter of Order in Council P.C. 1981-2171 to the Standing Committee on Transport to enable the committee to evaluate the economic, social, statistical and legal basis for the decision to diminish rail service, and instructs the committee to report its conclusions and recommendations to the House by June 30, 1982; and
that, to facilitate the support of this motion by all honourable members, and notwithstanding any Standing Order, practice or precedent, the House does not regard the passage of this motion as a vote of non-confidence in the government.
He said: Madam Speaker, at the outset I must say it is quite obvious that hon. members on the other side are scrambling and a bit nervous over this motion. But contrary to what the government House leader has said, the motion is not put forth in the context of being a tactic. It is a very reasonable motion. It is a responsible and realistic motion. It is not meant or intended to offend or embarrass anyone. I want to say very clearly and unequivocally that the motion is put forward in a sincere and constructive manner.
I believe, notwithstanding what the government House leader has said, that it does deserve the consideration and support of all hon. members who support the principle of fairness. The motion also deserves the consideration and support of all of those who believe that we need an adequate rail passenger system in this country. It is also important for members on all sides of the House to recognize that rail passenger service, rather than being considered a mode of the past, is indeed a mode of the future. This motion gives all hon. members an opportunity to recognize that with higher energy prices now is not the time to be cutting back rail passenger services or public forms of transportation. We should be engaged in efforts to expand these kinds of services rather than reducing them.
Lastly, this motion gives all hon. members an opportunity to associate themselves with the very severe hardships that will be imposed upon hundreds of thousands of Canadians who will be deprived of service when that service is withdrawn, and who will have no other alternative. There will be hundreds, if not thousands of people who will be losing their jobs. This will have an impact upon their families. There will be uprooting of

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
families. People will have to move to other localities. There will be many others who will be affected indirectly as well as a result of these cuts. There may be others who will be facing very serious decisions and urgent consequences. In particular I am thinking of the small-business men who rely very heavily upon rail passenger service, especially in areas where tourism is an important fact of life. In short, we believe that the impact of these cuts will deliver irreparable social and economic damage to various regions throughout the country.
Furthermore, we have reason to believe that there are a number of members on the other side of the House who are not in support of this decision. This motion clearly gives them an opportunity to stand and vote and to make their position known.
We believe that the cutback decision should be deferred. It should be deferred on the basis that there are a number of factors that were not taken into consideration when this decision was made. As we recall, this decision to cut back services was taken by the minister and his cabinet colleagues in a unilateral, arbitrary manner. We believe that decision is shortsighted, illogical and very damaging. The decision was announced when the House was not in session. Instead the minister made this major policy announcement by way of a press conference and press release. The decision was conveniently deferred until the House of Commons had adjourned, and I might add the House was forced to adjourn as a result of closure.
There are a number of reasons why we take exception to both the decision and the process. First, we believe that the minister and his colleagues have not accurately assessed the very severe social and economic damages that this decision will inflict upon countless hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
We contend, and this has been proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the massive bulk of the train services that are being discontinued are used very heavily. They are needed. There is also no alternative means of transportation offered to those people who will be forced to survive without rail passenger service.
Let me look at the Toronto to Barrie run. I quoted these figures the other day and I think they are worthy of quoting again. For example, the Toronto to Barrie run has seven to eight coaches carrying 425 to 500 passengers in each direction daily. The Toronto to Stouffville run carries 300 to 350 passengers in each direction daily. The Toronto to Havelock run carries 200 to 275 passengers in each direction daily. The Winnipeg to Jasper and Vancouver Supercontinental carries an average of 350 passengers, and that figure obviously goes down in the winter and goes up in the summer. The Montreal to Mont-Laurier weekend service carries 1,200 to 1,600 people. That is the number of people who use this single service.
Let us go to the Atlantic service which has been described as the most successful train service of the whole VIA Rail system. That was stated by a senior official of VIA Rail. In the winter
months this train averages between 200 and 250 passengers, and in the summer months the Atlantic averages between 400 to 600 passengers. It is very clear that these services are used and are needed.
It is also important to recognize that during the 1977-78 period there were some very extensive hearings conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission during which they reviewed the needs of Canadians relative to rail passenger services. They brought forth a structure which they described as an irreducible minimum. What this decision is doing is essentially flying in the face of that decision which was arrived at through consultation and extensive public hearings.
I would also deal with the other impact, which is the direct loss of jobs. The minister has indicated that 1,600 jobs will be directly affected. However, there will be countless hundreds of other jobs that will be dislocated as a result of these cutbacks. We have already had an announcement by CN that 560 positions in CN's three main shops will be affected with one fifth of the positions being affected in Moncton, two fifths in Montreal and two fifths in Winnipeg.
We also have further evidence. The Winnipeg Labour Council estimates the job loss in the greater area of Winnipeg will be no less than 500. VIA Rail has also issued some 313 lay-off notices, 166 occurring in western Canada and 133 in the Atlantic region and the province of Quebec.
The impact on small business, particularly the tourist industry, is another aspect of concern. We have one community which will be hit extremely hard, the community of Jasper. It is basically a one-industry town, its major industry being tourism. There has been well documented evidence that between $6 million and $10 million worth of tourist revenue will be lost as a result of the withdrawal of this service. We all know as well, and I put this on the record yesterday, that some 25,000 Japanese tourists who come to this country use the train when visiting us and they are big spenders, spending an average of $2,000 per person in addition to their transportation and accommodation. That tourist potential is threatened by these cutbacks.
I could go on and on but my other colleagues will be elaborating further on the specific impacts that will result in the various regions of Canada.
The second reason we have serious doubts about this decision is based on the matter of the rationale used by the minister in bringing this decision forward. First of all I have to say it is really very difficult to understand how the minister can revitalize the system by abandoning it. I really do not understand that and I hope he will attempt to enlighten us. We know that this is largely a political decision.
On the question of data, the data have been challenged in every corner of the country. There is inaccurate information. Costs are inflated and revenues are understated. There are a lot of questions arising from the fact that many of these statistics are outdated. In many cases we have estimates of load factors and occupancy rates that are outdated. In a very global way there is a shortage of data and, furthermore, there
October 20, 1981

are serious questions and suspicions about the accuracy and relevancy of that data. As a result, this creates a large gap in terms of public confidence when the minister and his officials try to rationalize the reasons behind these cutbacks.
The minister says there is to be a saving of $100 million as a result of these cutbacks. Some $30 million of that will have to be paid toward labour people giving them assistance in job retraining and job relocation, so we really get down to $70 million. One really has to question whether, by reducing the services and taking away that revenue potential which is generated as a result without appreciably reducing those fixed costs, that savings of $100 million can really be realized.
The third reason we have serious reservations about this decision is that we do not believe VIA Rail has been given a fair chance. Quite frankly it is hardly a legitimate offspring. The problem of VIA Rail can probably be described best by one word, and that is "neglect". As a matter of fact, if we look at the 1980 report we will see that 1980 was the first year in which VIA Rail had control over all rail passenger services in this country. That really becomes a benchmark for its future. It is really strange that while it has had one full year of operation in control of all rail passenger services in 1981, it is going to be emasculated to the point that one fifth of the rail passenger service in this country will be lost. Notwithstanding the fact that it has had the cards stacked against it, it has increased its ridership by 41 per cent since 1976 or 1977. The occupancy rate is well over 50 per cent. It has not been given sufficient resources. The equipment being used is archaically out of date. As a matter of fact, when we look at the statistics of the equipment inventory we find that 67 per cent of the equipment used by VIA Rail is between 26 and 30 years of age; 23 per cent of its equipment is over 30 years of age. As a matter of fact, VIA is still using, I believe, 102 units which are air-conditioned through ice-activated mechanisms, so they are hopelessly out of date in terms of upgrading the equipment to realistic modern technology.
It is true that VIA has not been given sufficient rersources to re-equip. It is true that VIA has not had the necessary autonomy or a clearly defined mandate described by government and/or Parliament. It has not had a realistic costing order, which accounts for about 63 per cent of its total expenditures. It has not had proper contractual arrangements in its dealings with the railroads. It still has done reasonably well notwithstanding the fact that it has old equipment and paid some $70 million to both railways for equipment that would probably have been scrapped had VIA not been created.
There are some very major questions regarding those aspects, but the biggest question revolves around the costing order. The costing order really strikes at the heart and the core of the issues we are debating. The operating agreement signed between VIA and the railways locked VIA into a payment system which has contributed greatly to its present state of crisis. It is hard to believe, but charges have escalated beyond control. In his testimony before the Commons committee the president made this point very emphatically. He said that charges for transportation and maintenance represent well
VIA Rail
over 60 per cent of VIA's entire expense budget. The CTC costing order serves as a basis for these charges and it was agreed to by all parties including VIA, the railways and the government. I am told the corresponding level of costs for Amtrak, its neighbour to the south, is something in the order of 25 per cent.
This order was developed in 1969 as a means of prorating railway costs to passenger services performed and were then the basis of subsidy payments to the railways in compensation for these losses under the National Transportation Act of 1968. In those days the railways dealt only with the Canadian Transport Commission which audited and verified the costs claimed under the costing order and authorized corresponding subsidy payments.
The railways had originally helped to establish the basic rules of allocation under R-6313. They naturally had a vested interest in seeing that the allowances were generous, and also that the rules were changed and interpreted to make them even more generous. Costing order R-6313 has now apparently evolved into a system designed to allocate long-term variable rather than short-term avoidable costs to the passenger services and the difference is profound. The new levels may be as much as twice as high as the former levels. Moreover, the costing order works as a sort of honour system whereby the railways make the allocations and the government, or VIA, pays.
Post auditing by the CTC runs behind and is limited to a review of methodology and bases of charges and not to the actual levels of services. That is where you have this matter of the thirteenth billing that Mr. Roberts keeps complaining about. I might say that in 1980 I believe the payments to both railways amounted to somewhere in the order of $356 million. That is essentially the core of the problem.
It is interesting to note that what we are really dealing with here is that the railways are submitting bills to VIA Rail which VIA Rail has no way of challenging, bills which are basically openended, which are cost-plus. It is similar to what the railways in the United States wanted when Amtrak was set up. They chose a different route.
I am quoting now from a report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. comptroller general. He referred to VIA and said:
The railroads charged Amtrak $305 million in fiscal year 1980, accounting for
over one fourth of Amtrak's operating expenses-
It goes on to point out that in negotiating the original agreements, the railways wanted Amtrak reimbursed for all their direct costs, the passenger services and facilities, plus an array of other payments for indirect costs, management fees, return on investment and profit. Since Amtrak was taking over substantial passenger losses from the railroads, it believed Congress intended for it to pay no more than the direct operating costs of the trains the railroads would be running and not pay the railroads a profit. Accordingly, Amtrak negotiated contracts requiring payment only for railroad

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
expenses incurred solely for the benefit of passenger services, plus payments for certain costs common to freight and passenger service determined to be avoidable for the railroads if passenger services had not been provided. That is a very fundamental difference.


Mr. Pepin:: It is the same thing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister says it is the same thing. I hope he can prove that to us today in the course of the debate. It is a fundamental difference.
In the case of VIA, the charges are not fair. The minister must be in total and fundamental disagreement with the chairman and president of VIA Rail because that gentleman says the situation is unfair. VIA Rail wants to go to fixed base contracts. Why has the minister not done something about this? Why has the minister not rescinded R-6313 rather than-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Why didn't you?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We were considering it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Oh, yes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is for sure.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You were studying it. I am studying it too.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The charges are not fair. The minister knows that. It is really a bookkeeping item. Rather than a major dismantling as the minister is proposing, a new costing order should be arranged. The minister knows that. He could use Section 64 to rescind costing order R-6313. He could do that very easily. He is so anxious to use R-6313 to take away passenger services from Canadians. Why does he not do something to get his own house in order?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We seriously question the legal and moral right of the minister arbitrarily to slash rail services in this country by 20 per cent without following the traditional practice. We believe the minister's actions constitute a violation of the spirit of the National Transportation Act and, indeed, the intent of Section 64. Quite frankly, we believe that it denies Canadians the opportunity to apply the rules of natural justice. I could go on for some time on this theme.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is dangerous. It establishes a dangerous precedent. It undermines the integrity of the CTC. Will the CTC be abolished with the same stroke of the pen that the minister has used to abolish one fifth of VIA Rail services in this country? He may as well because it was so crassly circumvented, Mr. Speaker. As a minimum he should now take steps to ensure that the role of the CTC is clarified.
What does all this mean? If the minister is allowed to get away with this, does it mean he can now unilaterally and arbitrarily abandon any branch line in western Canada as he sees fit? The basic network is guaranteed to the year 2000.
The minister, if he is allowed to get away with this, with one stroke of the pen could dismantle the basic network.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hypothetically, yes.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister agrees with me. That is very dangerous.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Hypothetically.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about ferry services? The federal government provides some $200 million in support of ferry services. If he decides unilaterally and arbitrarily to discontinue that support, could he do it? I suspect he could. If he gets away with this, I suspect he could do that.
What about the statutory freight rates? They are enshrined in the same law as Sections 260, 261, 262 which guarantee some semblance of rail passenger services in this country. If the minister is allowed to get away with this with just a stroke of the pen, he could undo the statutory freight rates.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's right. And he would.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We know that CN and CP have never been relieved of their responsibility to provide rail passenger services. That was never done when VIA Rail was established. What does that mean? If VIA withdraws, are CN and CP responsible for providing those passenger services? These things must be clarified.
Consider air services. The minister could unilaterally dismantle air services to any community in Canada if he is allowed to get away with this. He says it is in the public interest. He says he knows what is best. He does away with 20 per cent of VIA services this year. He could repeat that again next year and he probably will. The minister should not get away with this, Mr. Speaker. The implications are too far-reaching. He thinks he is on the right course and he is proceeding with a great deal of assurance and confidence. Yet he chooses to ignore the traditional process which is part of the Canadian way, the right to hold public hearings, to be heard and have an opportunity to express concern about the criteria of public convenience and necessity. This has all really gone down the drain. If the minister is so sure he is right, why does he refuse to take his case to the people, to the court of the CTC, or the court of the transportation committee?
Another thing which is very disturbing, Mr. Speaker, is that there was not one word mentioned about the dismantling of rail passenger service by the Liberal party in the last election. Not one word. There was not a word mentioned about the changes to the constitution, for that matter. Nor did we hear anything about the doubling of energy prices. So I suppose in that regard they were at least consistent.


An hon. Member:: They talked about double track.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, we did hear a lot about double tracking. We can only conclude that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dropped his double track and all we have in its place, rather than "double-track Trudeau", is "no-train Pepin".
October 20, 1981


An hon. Member:: We got double-crossed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The fifth point, and perhaps the most important, is that there are alternatives to the cuts the Minister of Transport is proposing. I have mentioned that there are changes which can be made to the costing order. There should be improvements in the contractual arrangements between the railways and VIA Rail. We should give VIA Rail the necessary autonomy, power and clout to negotiate with the railways in a business like manner. The VIA Rail mandate should be clarified and enshrined in legislative form. Surely there are improvements which can be made in terms of productivity and the trimming of frills and supervisory and administrative fat. I think there is a clear indication that those who are using rail passenger services are prepared to pay a little more for them provided they are retained and improved. I think it is fair to say that schedules can be improved. Market improvements are certainly something which can be looked at. We have seen some very new approaches to tourist development.
The CTC has made a number of proposals, but there are four specific alternatives which have come up since the announcement of the minister to disband 20 per cent of the rail passenger service. One of them is contained in a leaked document which ended up in the hands of the Toronto Star, which points out that there is a proposal in which the Atlantic and the Supercontinental could be salvaged. The alternate proposal is estimated to be $2.4 million per year cheaper to operate than the government's proposal, based upon existing operations and costing methods. That clearly is one proposal which should be considered.
The second proposal is one which has been advanced by Transport 2000 which sets out to re-equip the Transcontinentals. Transport 2000 points out that an investment in new bilevel equipment would decrease operating costs by 31 per cent and that a combination of increased passenger revenues and the reduction of operating costs would reduce losses by some 52 per cent. Transport 2000 goes on further to point out that that capital which is invested in the re-equipment of the rolling stock could be paid for in seven and half years.
A third alternative was advanced by the government of Alberta. It is a very constructive, positive and responsible approach. It too involves the re-equipping of the western Transcontinental. It points out that costs could be reduced by somewhere between one half and two thirds of existing expenditures. The equipment and infrastructure would cost some $100 million. The total capital cost could be recovered through operating economies within a two year period. It also made another recommendation relative to payments to the railways based upon avoidable costs rather than the full associated costs with penalties and with bonuses included.
Then we have a fourth alternative proposal which comes from VIA Rail itself. It is very strange that after the study by Transport 2000 and the study by the government of Alberta were released we have a study appearing from VIA Rail itself wherein it too proposes the re-equipping of one train from
VIA Rail
Halifax to Vancouver for a cost of $200 million, and I understand it would cost $100 million to re-equip the other one. Was this information given to the minister before his decision was made? Does he know? Is he aware? Why was it not given to the Standing Committee on Transport? Why was it not given to members of the House of Commons so that this matter could be looked into and we would have all the facts? What is the minister hiding? What is he afraid of? Why is he hiding these things?
There are clear alternatives to the decision which has been made by the Minister of Transport. Is it asking too much to have the legislators of this country examine those alternatives or the people of this country look at those alternatives? Surely not.
This is a serious issue. It is a national issue. It is an issue which strikes at the very fundamental core of Canadian confederation, and I want to say in conclusion that I believe the government has grossly underestimated the deep feeling which exists in the hearts and minds of Canadians about the fact that rail passenger service is a link which binds this country together and keeps it united. To many it is more important than the Constitution. It is a fundamental part of confederation. We would not have been a country had it not been for the guarantees inherent in the provision of rail services.
For this reason and for the other reasons I have cited, I commend this motion to all hon. members. I hope it will be given their earnest attention and that they will see fit to support it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I had not at all underestimated the public reaction to my announcement of July 27. As a matter of fact, I did not expect any applause and telegrams of congratulations but the government and I thought at the time and continue to think that this is the best thing we could do under the circumstances.
But people do not like it when services to which they are accustomed are suddenly being reduced, even when, collectively, they are using them less and less, and when, individually, they are not using them at all. There are some 24 million people in Canada; well, last year, VIA Rail sold 7 million tickets to the travelling public. When we realize that these include the tickets bought by commuters who travelled by train much more than once that year, we can assume that there are probably 20, 21, or maybe 22 million Canadians who never saw the inside of a train compartment that year. And yet, when we raise the possibility of cutting down on the number of rail routes, everybody or nearly everybody feels compelled to object. There are even some people who wrote to me to inquire whether I was really aware that I was attacking an extremely important Canadian symbol, a symbol which I indeed respect and which has enormously contributed to the development of our country, adding that I was thus attacking

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
the monarchy, which I find somewhat strange personally. I suggest that it is the current nostalgia for the rail era which is going against the government's decision.

There is one word in the motion which obviously is of paramount importance, and that word is "delay". The purpose of the motion is to delay. That is quite normal. When confronted with change-change that they have called for repeatedly-most people hesitate and procrastinate. I also do it occasionally! I am sure others are in the same position.
However, I was surprised that the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski) should attach his name to this motion. I have great respect for him, as he knows. I think we can call ourselves friends. I listened to what he said, very carefully, not too long ago, on June 11, 1980. Speaking to the Transportation Research Forum in what was meant to be a program speech about what, unfortunately for him, he was not able to do because of his too short term in office as minister of transport, he said a number of things, and I will quote a couple of them. He said, for example, at page 9 of his speech:
Steps will have to be taken to reduce unnecessary operation costs.. . Current high levels of service will not be able to be maintained indefinitely-
On the passenger side of rail transportation, the ever increasing debt incurred by the federal government in subsidies is a major problem which will have to be dealt with.


John Horton McDermid: Not unilaterally, though.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know the minister to be a very fair man, and it would certainly help in putting this speech in context if he included in his quotation the fact that at page 9 I was talking about the air administration when I said, and I quote:
Steps will have to be taken to increase the efficiency and utilization of current facilities, reduce unnecessary operation costs and, generally, to make better use of what now exists.
What I was talking about was the waste of this government with respect to Mirabel, with respect to Pickering and with respect to all the Taj Mahals his predecessor put up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. That is a matter of debate.


Jean-Luc Pepin: There is nothing which indicates-


Charles Joseph Clark: Tell the truth.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You can read it. I am sure you haven't.


Charles Joseph Clark: I have read it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let's forget what I am quoting and deal with page 10.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Don't be a coward.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I don't think I have to take any advice from you on the subject.


Charles Joseph Clark: Nor respect Parliament.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Let us deal with what the hon. member said in June 1980 with regard to VIA. That is good enough.


Charles Joseph Clark: Read it all.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will read the whole thing:
On the passenger side of rail transportation, the ever increasing debt incurred by the federal government in subsidies is a major problem which will have to be dealt with. This fiscal year alone, $424 million-
He knows now it is $450 million.
-will go toward subsidizing rail passenger service. This is especially urgent when considering the impact on rail's competition, the bus mode. If the principle of equal treatment among modes is applied-
Presumably he meant not applied.
-such operating subsidies could perpetuate into exorbitant amounts and result in a general reduction in the level of efficiency of the system.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If the minister is going to be quoting speeches of other members of the House, would he mind quoting the speeches as they are written and not edit them so that they make a case exactly contrary to that actually being made?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Chair heard no mention of quoting. If the minister did say he was quoting, there may be a point, but I did not hear him say he was quoting.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, when there is an obvious typing error in a text one is entitled to say "sic" after the word. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, there was absolutely nothing revolutionary in the decision we took on July 27 since it was basically aimed at stabilizing VIA Rail's operational budget to the benefit of its capital budget. It had been recommended in a number of previous studies and reports. Mr. Lang had reached that decision in 1976, or nearly so, but he was not in a position to implement it for the reasons we all know.
I would even suggest that had the hon. member for Vegre-ville had more time he would have done so himself. Short of drastically increasing his budget, the president of VIA Rail fully agrees, and I quote the statement he made recently:
I think we now have a solid foundation from which we can go ahead-
Those are the words of the president, Mr. Roberts. And if the decision had not been taken it would have become inevitable to act, if you want, in a piecemeal fashion, haphazardly and especially without the dramatic and rapid increases in the VIA Rail capital budget which will enable the company to put more LRCs in service. I am referring to the light, rapid and comfortable units produced by Bombardier which will be rolling in western Canada and in the maritimes in the next two or three years.
I said recently-

October 20, 1981


An hon. Member:: When?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the next two or three years-


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: When?


Jean-Luc Pepin: In the next two or three years. I do not think you would have had them, had the July decision not been made. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I said recently that a number of people who are blasting me today and who are blasting the government for doing what we did will praise us in two or three years, while riding in their light, rapid and comfortable trains.

In this debate I have to prove, and I will do so repeatedly- and I might say I am willing to go to the transportation committee if that is the wish of hon. members-that the decision is a responsible one from a budgetary point of view and from a transportation point of view. It is also consistent with trends in Canada and elsewhere in the world. If my friends want to look they will see that what I have recommended here is being done in any country they can name. I will show them that the same general policy is being followed.
I am not being original. I am being banal. I am not being eccentric. The matter of non-recourse to the Canadian Transport Commission for public hearings is not only legal, but is wise and justified. It is the only way to go. I will try to demonstrate that more extensively in a moment.
Also, the decision is consistent with our energy-saving preoccupations and policies. There is nothing more spendthrift than a locomotive pulling 15 cars that are three quarters empty, as is so often the case.
The decision respects the interests of railway workers by allocating $30 million to assist them in adjusting to this decision. The amount of money is extraordinarily high. I want to say also that it is not unfriendly to VIA. I have already indicated that the VIA leadership is in agreement with it.
[ Translation]
I said that our decision was consistent, necessary and responsible as far as the budget is concerned. No doubt I will be accused of being obsessed by profits and losses, it is entirely untrue. I know quite well that VIA will never pay for its own way, there has never been such a railway in the world. My criterion is not at all profits, it is not even breaking even, but there are, Mr. Chairman, some limits to what the government can earmark for unpopular services, especially in the present period of budgetary restraint.
Mr. Chairman, you are well aware of the figures which I will quickly quote. The government contribution to VIA in
1980-	81 was $450 million and it will reach $490 million in
1981-	82. Well, from that amount, $332 million were set aside for the operational deficit which on an average regularly
VIA Rail
increases by 20 per cent per year while $117 million were allotted to investment deficit financing this year.
As you can see, Mr. Speaker, that is almost, in fact it is more than, twice the amount allotted VIA by the government in 1977-78, namely $209 million. Subsidies therefore went from $209 to $450 million; they now amount to $490 and will soon reach $565 million. So, we see the rate is on the increase. That is not without importance. It may be worth it to point out in passing that government assistance to VIA, and the people of Canada indirectly, represents one quarter of the total Department of Transport budget. So, one fourth of the $2 billion of the Ministry of Transport will in fact be used to move passengers by train.
I have already mentioned that last year VIA Rail had seven million passengers. So, if you divide the $490 million in subsidies paid VIA Rail in that year by seven million passengers, you see that every time a person buys a ticket, the Ministry of Transports pays out $70. In the case of the Transcontinental, the figure amounts to about $160. Taking specific figures, for instance the trip from Vancouver to Montreal, the ticket will cost $191 and the Government of Canada will add another $443. If you go from Montreal to Chicoutimi, it will cost you $21 and the government $180.
I could give you all the figures, which would not fail to impress certain persons. As for the capacity rate, the average is 46 per cent for the whole network, but many lines average 5, 10, 15 per cent and no more than that. The same applies to the cost-revenue ratio: the average amounts to 30 per cent, which means that VIA recovers, on an average, only 30 per cent of its costs. But in fact there are lines where the cost-revenue ratio is only 2, 3, 10 or 15 per cent. I say this-I beg your pardon?


Charles Joseph Clark: Those are your figures!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Obviously we have not counted all the individuals who passed through the doors. That is a very hard thing to do, one would have to increase twofold the number of VIA employees to arrive at a precise figure. Nevertheless, and I am speaking here to the Leader of the Opposition, if we look at this data generally, what we are presenting here is an undeniable fact. In any event, it is not only in Canada, that the number of rail passengers has dropped, this has occurred all over the world, in Japan, in Great Britain, even in France. We are not making this up. The situation which exists in Canada today can also be found in the United States and in other large countries. Therefore, although the figures may not be accurate to the very last digit, there is obviously a definite trend here, even if it cannot be proven with figures that are accurate to the last decimal. It is interesting to see people's reaction when you give them these figures. I have done that several times recently. For example, Geoff Johnson of the Ottawa Citizen wrote a very interesting article in May 1980, and I quote:

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
For every passenger that travels by train the Canadian taxpayer loses 19.4 cents per mile. Theoretically, he says the government could send every rail passenger by air, pick up the entire tab and still save millions of dollars.


An hon. Member:: That is false.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, that is true. This is the same newspaperman who some weeks ago said that I was the worst thing to happen to the railways since Jesse James. Obviously, he is a bit ambivalent but never misses the chance of making a good joke and that was a good one.
Similarly, you can read some reactions of members of the press. A columnist for the Edmonton Journal-I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would appreciate my source-was on the same track when he said:
We cannot say on the one hand that the government spends too much and on the other call for retention of a service used by so few.
There are a great many people in Canada who believe there should be limitations. The government does not have the responsibility to maintain trains if a sufficient number of people do not wish to use them.
The Vancouver Province on August 5, 1981 said this:
In general, the reduction in service is to be applauded because it has checked mounting losses and given VIA some hope of being able to improve those services it retains. This is sensible.
I have quoted from the west particularly because I expected some of my hon. friends from the west to be present in the House today.

So what are we to do under the circumstances? In 1976, Mr. Lang proposed a substantial cutback in subsidies. The decision announced on July 27 does not even include that. In fact, we will be increasing the total subsidies, as I indicated, from $450 million to $490 million in 1981-82, to $506 million in 1982-83 and to $537 million in 1983-84, at least to account for inflation. So there is no cutback in government aid to VIA, far from it, we will be increasing it. What we are doing is setting a ceiling, a maximum on the operating deficit, we are saying that it will remain at $365 million for 1981-82, $367 million in
1982-83 and $355 million in 1983-84. So that is what we are doing, we are putting a freeze on VIA's level of operating costs. We are converting this money to capital expenditures for VIA Rail, and those capital expenditures will go from $90 million to $117 million, to $125 million in 1981-82, to $129 million in 1982-83, and to $182 million in 1983-84. You can readily see how very fast the capital budget of VIA Rail is growing. It amounts to $446 million in three years. Why exactly are we doing this? It is because the problem comes in fact from the vicious circle in which VIA Rail is now operating in having to attract customers and provide good service, which increases its operating costs, and of not having the capital required to make the needed basic investments.
That is the reasoning, and what we are doing now is extraordinarily simple. We are saying to VIA Rail: Listen, you have outmoded equipment which is 25 or 30 years old. Renew your stock right away and provide good service to the population, and if you do so, the number of users will increase. To do so, operating costs and deficits must be kept down to $350 or $365 million, and to do so, there ...ust be cutbacks. That is the only way to do it.
The other option, which the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) seemed to support, would have been to negotiate an additional amount of $100 million or $200 million to VIA Rail and to prolong the current agony of VIA Rail, because this money would have gone for operating costs rather than capital expenditures. This is a very simple reasoning which is certainly not original, as I have said repeatedly. [English]
The decision also is responsible from the point of view of transportation policy. It helps to define the role of railway passenger transportation in Canada. This is visible in the choice of criteria that we have used. There are essentially five. First, the primary role of VIA is to serve the major intercity markets where there is a relatively high population density, by daylight services; over distances of 800 kilometres, which is 500 miles, or less. This is not original at all. This is what is happening everywhere else in the world. If VIA increases its ridership in recent years, it is mostly in these corridors-again banal to the utmost.
Secondly, we discontinue service or reduce frequency of service on routes where the ridership, the load factor, and the revenue-cost ratio are extremely low and have no justification. In some cases, you would be embarrassed if I were to indicate what some of the realities are.
Thirdly, there is one route that few people use. It costs the Canadian government $8.75 per passenger mile. There must be some limitation to the eccentricity of government spending!


An hon. Member:: What route is that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Winnipeg-Armstrong.
Another point deals with the two Continentals. We have decided to maintain one, and not to eliminate the second one, contrary to what some press people have said, but to convert the second Continental in part into an intercity daylight system. We have decided to do this because of social, psychological, historical, economical and political factors. On balance, we think it is a good idea.
We eliminated one of the Continentals because it is the most costly part of VIA's operation. Half of the deficits of VIA are due to the transcontinental; about $160 million. I am not obsessed by money, because I am a Liberal!-I am not ashamed of that either.
The most important reason is that the northern transcontinental in Ontario and the west is used by people as an intercity system; it is not used as a transcontinental system. For the people who wish to use the transcontinental system, they will
October 20, 1981

have the southern one; and for the people who wish to travel city to city, which is the fact in most cases, we have decided to establish a number of intercity trains.


Mr. Friesen:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister inferring that the train between Vancouver and Edmonton is considered-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. If the member wishes to ask a question, there has to be unanimous consent of the House.


Jean-Luc Pepin: These are again not original thoughts, Mr. Speaker. You will find them in the CTC final plan for western transcontinental passenger train service of October, 1977, If hon. members would care to read the latest report on trains in Canada, the Scrivener report in Ontario, they would find exactly what I am saying now. It says that northern Ontario people use these trains as intercity and recommends that the Governement of Canada change them from a transcontinental mission to an intercity mission.


An hon. Member:: Who's that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is the Scrivener report, in Ontario. I am sure you have read it.
The fourth principle or criteria has to do with the servicing of remote communities which have no adequate alternative mode of transportation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Like Armstrong.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That covers Senneterre, Cochrane, Hearst, Thompson, Churchill and others. Armstrong is covered by Winnipeg-Capreol.
The fifth principle is simply that commuter-like lines can play an important role in transportation but they are the responsibility of the provincial and municipal governments.
My predecessor the hon. member for Vegreville agreed with that when he was minister of transport and said, "VIA is an intercity, not a commuter, railway". So I am in very good company with the former minister of transport, a Conservative, on this question.
The provinces have begun that process. Toronto and the Ontario government are in the GO system. Quebec is moving in a similar metropolitan system, taking into account commuter trains. I am quite sure that Mr. Snow and Mr. Clair in due course will take over responsibility for the trains that we have identified, that is Havelock, Stouffville, Barrie, Sherbrooke-Montreal. I am quite sure they will do it. It is much too early in the game to start complaining about the disappearance of these trains.
I wish I had more time to show that these changes had to come.


Some hon. Members:: No.
VIA Rail


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, indeed, everywhere in the world. The world has gone through three revolutions, if not four. There has been the revolution of the private automobile, the revolution of the bus and the revolution of the airplane. Come and join the twentieth century! These changes have been taking place everywhere in the world.


Mr. Malone:: Except France, Japan and Germany.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I could give you chapter and verse which indicate that the same adjustments are being made everywhere in the world.


An hon. Member:: There will be a revolution of the people.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not a revolution at all. There is a beautiful quote from the MacPherson report which reads as follows, although I think it is too rude:
The railways are accused of deserting communities by withdrawing passenger train service when a more objective view would be that the communities have deserted passenger train service.
It is not the passenger train service that has deserted people. People have deserted trains. Of people travelling in Canada intercity for more than 50 miles in 1977-78, only 1.2 or 1.3 took trains. I have all the figures here and they show that all the others used other modes of transportation.


Arnold John Malone: According to Professor Fred Flintstone!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Even in Japan, the famous Bullet train which peaked at 157 million passengers in 1975 had declined to 124 million by 1979.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: But ours is going up.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I should like to spend my last five minutes talking about why we did not go to the CTC. First of all, I do not have to take any advice about respect for the CTC; I am as respectful of the CTC as was my predecessor. Let me explain this to the House in four points. The first is this.
[ Translation]
It was within the law. The Leader of the Opposition realized that not long ago. At first he protested, saying that was not allowed under the act, pursuant to Section 64 of the National Transportation Act 1967. But why does the act permit the use of an order in council in that case? I shall tell you why. It is because there are circumstances where it is necessary to take a comprehensive approach instead of having recourse to the CTC, which relies on ad hoc procedure. There is no way we could establish a general plan by asking the CTC to make individual studies of each route. The only solution would be to issue the CTC, the Canadian Transport Commission, with guidelines that would include decisional criteria, which would amount to telling the CTC: Listen, first of all you will have a ceiling, like the Minister of Transport; your ceiling will be $500 million. Second, VIA Rail's essential role is interurban transportation; we think this is vital. Third, I think we need a transcontinental train. Fourth, make sure isolated communities
11984

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
are protected. Fifth, listen, commuter trains are a municipal and provincial rather than a federal concern. Well, this is exactly what it says in the decision of July 27. In other words, to make the changes I would have had to tell the CTC: here are the criteria, here is a directive from the federal government, there is no other way we can carry out the changes we want. And obviously, if I had done that, as my friend Mr. Lang found out in 1976, everyone would have said: He is twisting the CTC's arm-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister but his time is up. The hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has the floor.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate and to say at the outset that we are in agreement with and will support the motion proposed on behalf of the official opposition by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I shall move an amendment that I believe will also receive the support of hon. members on all sides of the House, or if not the support, at least the sympathy.
The motion proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville is very moderate. It only asks for a one-year delay, when I suspect that his view, the view of his colleagues and certainly my view and that of my colleagues, is that the order in council of the cabinet should be totally rescinded. To be reasonable, however, to be moderate, and in an effort to persuade the government to change its mind and at least restore some of the routes which are viable, we have opted for this mild, reasonable request.
John Kenneth Galbraith said that in the nineteenth century people distinguished between railway barons; there were those who robbed their customers and those who robbed both their customers and their shareholders. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) deserves the dubious distinction of robbing both VIA Rail customers and the taxpayers of Canada. The Jesse James and the "Lang gang" ride again!
Had this cabinet been in power in 1881, Mr. Speaker, it would have scrapped the idea of building a transcontinental railway. The simple minded idea of Reaganomics practised by this government is completely at odds with the geography, climate and the location of the people of Canada. In simple economic terms, if you follow the logic of the Minister of Transport to its conclusion, it would be much cheaper to close the St. Lawrence Seaway. There is a great deficit there. It would be much cheaper to shut down the railroads. There would be no need then for branch line subsidies, the At and East rates or bridge subsidies. If we follow the minister's logic, it would be cheaper to shut down the airlines. He moans and groans about the deficit incurred by VIA Rail. It has always been the case since this country was settled, and it has always been the case in every other country in the world, that not a single mode of transport ever paid its own way.
What does the minister want to do about the marine transport subsidies of $320 million last year? Under Section 64 of the National Transportation Act, he could shut down all shipping, if he goes to the exaggerated extreme that he has gone to in the order in council he passed regarding VIA Rail.
In 1979, air user charges were covered 38 per cent. What a cost to run our airports! There was a $476 million subsidy to airlines. The minister, if he wants to follow his transportation logic to its conclusion, should be shutting down airports and cancelling airline routes instead of acting like a fifteenth century Pope, dividing the world up between the Portuguese and the Spanish, by dividing up Canada among a bunch of airlines.
In addition to that $476 million deficit, the government wrote off $600 million worth of debt for Mirabel. One does not hear the minister moaning and groaning about that. On our roads and highways, our licence fees, fuel taxes, fines and revenues the municipalities, provinces and the federal government can recover only 55 per cent of the cost of operating, building and maintaining our highways. That amounts to a $3 billion a year subsidy for highway users.
Why is the minister picking on VIA Rail? I think it is because the Treasury Board and the cabinet told him to spend $100 million less and to pick out the easiest victim. He picked out VIA Rail and gave them two choices: it is either compulsory, or they have to! The president of VIA Rail was phoned up and given his orders to reduce services to save a supposed $100 million.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Talk about the number of people using these trains.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister wants me to talk about the number of users. The number of people riding has been increasing at a record rate, far beyond what even CP and CN were able to do in their last three years. But it cannot increase any more with current policy. I am surprised that it has increased as much as it has while the minister, through government policy, has a mandate for VIA Rail to operate railway passenger trains on the basis that if one runs it old enough, late enough, slow enough and dirty enough so that no one will get on it, then one can cancel it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That has been the practice. The minister and the government have victimized VIA Rail. They created the child and are now in the process of making an orphan out of it. VIA Rail got stuck for over $77 million worth of outmoded equipment which it should have gotten for $1.
The minister talks about $100 million in savings. There are built-in costs to that debt which VIA should never have had in the first place. The government started VIA Rail out in the same way it started the CNR in 1920 and 1921, with a debt which it can never live long enough to pay off. It is designed and set up to fail.
October 20, 1981

While every other industrialized nation in this world, even undeveloped countries, are making massive investments in new, modern, fast intercity and commuter passenger services, this country, which used to lead the world, is running 25 to 30 years behind. We should be making an investment, not in ten new LRC sets, but in thirty.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister says he agrees. Well, how come the orders have not been placed? One needs three years of lead time just to get deliveries.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will, in the fall.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The minister says he is going to save $100 million. He has already said that he is going to spend $30 million to help out those workers. He can make a decision which callously does away with 1,600 people, and he is going to spend $30 million to make it easy for them. That leaves $70 million in the first year.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Different accounts.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Forty-eight per cent of the costs of operation are direct costs: wages, fuel-


Jean-Luc Pepin: They are not.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Direct costs. There goes $48 million he will save. Where is the other $52 million? The other $52 million is going to get transferred to the remaining VIA Rail routes.
Past experience has shown that savings are not realized by abandonment. The minister has not taken account of the revenue lost from the routes to be abandoned.
By the way, I remind the minister, as he talks about the CTC and all the great respect he has for it, that the CTC held hearings on 15 of those 21 routes since 1976, and ordered that all 15 be retained. When the CTC spoke about the transcontinental routes, it said that they were at the irreducible minimum. So much for the minister's great respect for the Canadian Transport Commission.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have asked his department to give me a breakdown in savings, by each route. For some reason or another, I cannot get it. I wrote to the Minister of Transport on September 16. I first wrote to him on July 31, and he sent me a non-answer, signed by his parliamentary secretary. 1 wrote to him again on September 16. He still has not even acknowledged my letter-let alone answered it-concerning turning this subject over to the House of Commons committee on transport.
The $100 million that the minister throws around is apparently the $61 million in operating costs for the abandoned services, plus the estimated savings using LRC routes not being abandoned. That is stretching the point, to claim this to be a benefit of abandonment. Past experience shows that savings are not realized by abandonment. Forty-eight per cent
VIA Rail
is saved by direct charges: wages, fuel, maintenance. The balance of the overhead costs will be shifted to the remaining passenger services, so that more routes will show a loss, increasing their apparent losses, or costs will be transferred to freight services, which I do not see the CPR or the CNR readily doing.
The minister talks about Winnipeg-Armstrong. Is the minister unaware that the Winnipeg-Armstrong service is a mixed train? It pulls mostly freight cars and a couple of passenger cars, all of which is charged to passenger service. So much for his inexcusable excuse for a service from Winnipeg to Armstrong. He does not know anything about railroading. Anyone who would treat places such as Edmonton, Saskatoon, and our national capital, Ottawa, like backwoods villages is not deserving of the name "transportation minister".
Both the transcontinental routes, the Supercontinental and the Canadian, are used to capacity in the summer and in the peak periods of the wintertime, and the Atlantic Limited hauled 256,000 people last year; yet the minister wants to abandon them. That is not railroading; that is throwing up one's hands and giving up. One will not entice more people out of their automobiles and out of short-haul aircraft flights, which is the most inefficient way to move people, by having no trains. If one is not going to provide the equipment, the service and the schedules, why should people get on the trains which are left? I have a copy of the transcontinental passenger train schedule for 1892. Across Canada it made an average speed of 47 miles per hour. Does your Honour know what it is today? It is 39 miles per hour. So much for this modern revitalization by the minister of VIA Rail. On some of the routes which he now proposes he will have an average speed of 20, 22 or 29 miles per hour; and the minister wonders why no one will get on the train! What a back-asswards way to encourage people to take the train! What a way to set up a national rail passenger corporation! It is designed to lose.


Ian Deans: You should try riding the train.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are not talking out of some sentiment for the days of the steam engine and the wail of the locomotive whistle across the prairies. We are talking about the most sensible, economic transportation reasons for enlarging and revitalizing our national rail passenger transportation system. We should look at countries with geography and climate similar to ours, such as the Soviet Union and the Scandinavian countries, which have electrified over 100,000 kilometres of track. Trains are run at speeds of up to 100 miles per hour north of the Arctic circle. Australia has rebuilt its transcontinental railway system from Perth to Sydney. We should also look at what the Japanese, the French, the British and the West Germans are doing in rail transportation. They are making the investment, and the return on that investment is more than compensated for by the savings they make in other expenditures in other parts of their economies, whether in the construction of superhighways, fuel costs, environment or safety-you name it.

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
I do not understand the continual insistence on clinging to the 1890s concepts of rail transportation. The minister spoke about getting into the 1980s and 1990s, but he is still riding in the 1950s and 1960s when the CNR and CPR were trying to get out of the passenger business, and that is what he is trying to do as well.
There is no policy commitment by this government to make sure that VIA succeeds. This government wants to save $100 million by cutting back all these routes. But on the other hand, the government will turn around and spend, I predict, $100 million to establish a short takeoff and landing service for Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal, something we need like a hole in the head. Can you imagine anything so ridiculous, Mr. Speaker?
The Government of Canada has authorized VIA Rail to get ten LRC trains. They will cost over $100 million. They are to run along the Quebec-Windsor corridor. Now the government is going to establish a STOL service between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. But what is that for? The government will have two government agencies cutting each other's throats to get the same passengers.


Jean-Luc Pepin: But a different clientele.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the policy of the government is to get people out of automobiles and off short-haul scheduled airline routes by establishing LRC trains and competing STOL aircraft service in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, the minister has another think coming.
Instead, the minister is spending $100 million in each place for two government agencies to cut each other's throats. How ridiculous can you get? The minister does not know anything about transportation. He never has. He does not know one end
of a boxcar from another.


James Ross Fulton: He does not know one end of a horse from another.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I want to move an amendment to the motion. If the minister will not leave this matter in the hands of the CTC, perhaps he will agree for the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport to hold hearings. The government may want to make it a joint committee, I do not care. But by holding hearings, the people of Canada, officials of his department, the minister himself, representatives of VIA Rail and the railroads can appear. In this way the matter can be fully aired. We can give the committee until the end of June next year to complete its hearings.
There is another committee in this House besides the transport committee of which the minister is fully aware. This committee is questioning and casting some doubts on his and his cabinet's decision concerning the cutbacks. No hearings have been held concerning this matter. There have been no opportunities to rebut the reasons of the minister or of the executive, which has proceeded by fiat. The order has not been used to overrule a recent decision of the CTC, but there has
been a series of decisions extending back over a considerable period of time, decisions which have been acted upon and upon which the public had placed reliance. The public placed reliance on the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission on 15 of those 21 routes. I submit this is a breach of tradition in the country, even if it is a skilful use of the wording of a statutory provision, which it is probably fair to say is not designed for such a purpose.
If the governor in council can change the decisions of a commission, how far back can they range? They have ranged all the way back to 1976 CTC decisions concerning transcontinental passenger trains. Hearings were held before which members of this House from all sides appeared, along with members of the Senate. These hearings were held across the nation. The minister and the cabinet go back five years to rescind a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission. Yet the minister tells me about all the respect he has for the CTC.
This kind of massive abuse and misuse of Section 64 of the National Transportation Act means that the minister and the cabinet by order in council can cancel the rest of the VIA Rail passenger rail service. The government can abandon all branch lines. It can cancel all airline routes. It can wipe out the St. Lawrence Seaway. It can wipe out shipping. It can wipe out any damn thing the government wants to wipe out without any recourse to Parliament or any agency of government.


Ian Deans: This is a shameful abuse of power.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When the minister professes to me his respect for the CTC, respect for public input and respect for people who know something about running railroads, as far as I am concerned, he is a loser. I do not mind his losing so much, but I do mind when he causes the whole nation to lose in light of our energy crisis. Every other industrialized nation of the world, even underdeveloped countries, are buying our trains, our equipment, our technology and our expertise. But are we using it here? No, we are not.
It passes all understanding how the minister can get up and try to justify this kind of thing. We are not trying to justify the retention of all 21 routes, but I submit that at least half of them are viable. You cannot ignore places such as the national capital, the capital of Alberta, the second largest city in Saskatchewan, Jasper, Melville, Watrous, Raymore and Biggar. You cannot ignore the Jasper to Vancouver route. It is outrageous to ignore these places.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the motion be amended by deleting the third paragraph and substituting the following therefor:
"That this House refers the subject matter of order in council PC 1981-2171 to the Standing Committee on Transport to enable the committee to evaluate the economic, social, statistical and legal basis for the decision to ^diminish rail service, with authorization to hold public hearings and to travel from place to place in Canada, and instructs the committee to report its conclusions and recommendations to the House by June 30, 1982;"


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that the amendment just
October 20, 1981

11987 moved by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is one that we find acceptable. We would recommend it to all members of the House of Commons who are interested in ensuring that the Parliament of Canada function effectively and that the rights of Canadians to a public hearing and to appear before a parliamentary committee on a matter that strikes at the heart not only of our local communities but also at the heart of the unity of this nation are respected.
We are dealing with a matter that goes to the root of what Parliament is all about. We have a situation here where the rights of individual Canadians have been ignored by a government which has run round a procedure established under the law to ensure that citizens would be heard. The government avoided that right. The Parliament of Canada now is seeking the opportunity to give citizens who are affected by an arbitrary government action the right at the very least to be heard.
I point out to the House that this is the first day in this session of Parliament in which the topic of debate can be established by this party. We have used this first day to have this item discussed, it is of such paramount importance to us, not only in its substance, but also as a symbol that the people and Parliament of Canada will not sit idly by when a government acts in a unilateral and arbitrary way to wipe out their rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to say one thing in quick passage, Mr. Speaker. Early on in the day the government House leader said that he would regard this motion as a vote of non-confidence. He knows that is false. He knows that the House of Commons has the right, and has had since this institution was established, to establish its own rules. What this motion provides is that the House of Commons would temporarily, in this instance only, amend the rules of the House, to make it clear that to vote for this motion would not be a vote of lack of confidence in the government. That is very important because it frees Liberal members of Parliament to vote in favour of their constituents, even though it means voting against their minister. That, I suggest, is a matter of fundamental importance to the functioning of this process.
Let me just say that we have often heard from the government, when we have raised questions, that if we really wanted to pursue those questions and really wanted to have them resolved, then we could have them raised on one of the allocated days, one of the days given to the opposition when we have the right to raise a question.
Now there is a new wrinkle being added by the government. It says we can raise those questions but we cannot have the government act upon them; we cannot have Parliament act upon them. It attempts to impose yet another muzzle on the rights of this Parliament to effect even our own agenda and our own freedom to act. It attempts in one more way to put one more shackle on the beleaguered backbench members of the Liberal party so they will not vote for their consciences and
VIA Rail
their constituents against the arbitrary decisions of the government.
I have had to use in recent days the phrase "legal trickery". I used that phrase in another context. If this government tries to evade the opportunity to vote for the right of Parliament to look into this question, tries to evade it on the argument put forward by the government House leader, that will be another instance of legal trickery, and it will be another indication that this government is more interested in finding ways around the rights of the public than it is in serving the rights of the public.
The minister made reference to what is the most important phrase in this motion, and that is that the matter be delayed to allow the people of Canada to have facts that are more current and more accurate than the facts the minister is using, to bring their evidence forward and not have their rail lines torn away without the opportunity to be heard. It provides also for a general review, given the amendment of the NDP, with public hearings and the right to travel, so that interested Canadians, including Canadians with more expertise than we believe exists in some parts of the Department of Transport, can come forward, put their expertise forward and defend and advance their interests in seeking to ensure a far more effective rail passenger service in the country.
I am not going to deal at much length with the minister's remarks, which I must say I thought damaged his reputation in this House-and I refer to his attempt to misquote the speech by my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). If he is going to quote people in the House of Commons, I suggest two rules to him: One, he should not repeat his attempt to change the text of the matters he is quoting; and, second, that he quote the whole speech and not select at random items of it that give a false impression of the point that was made in the over-all speech. He quoted one phrase. He said it is important that the problem be dealt with.


Miss Begin:: This is incredible!


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister says it was an incredible performance by her colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). I agree, it was incroyable for the Minister of Transport to act in that way. The language that was used was that it was important that the problem be dealt with. That certainly is the case, it is important. The Liberals would deal with the problem by eliminating passenger rail service. The Progressive Conservative government was dealing with the problem by giving VIA Rail a chance to prove itself, and that is what we believe this Parliament and this government should do.
There are two basic issues here. One is a question of substance, the attempt by the Government of Canada, acting unilaterally, without consultation and without public hearings, to end by the stroke of a pen 19 per cent of the rail passenger service in the country, and to do that on information that is out of date and that is false.
I was amazed to hear the minister quoting the MacPherson report. The MacPherson report was written in the 1940s.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In 1961.

October 20,1981
VIA Rail


Charles Joseph Clark: All right, it was written in the 1950s and published in 1961; it is only 20 years out of date. What I would suggest to the Minister of Transport is that if we are going to make decisions that affect the future of this country, we should be using current statistics and not statistics that are 20 years out of date.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I was trying to say that all the reports said the same thing.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Transport again trotted out figures which he knows are two to three years out of date- figures on passenger usage that he knows relate to the situation before the energy crisis forced more and more Canadians to use the trains. If he had held public hearings, as we did, if he had done what the CTC required him to do, he would have had the opportunity to hear first hand the evidence of people who have far more up to date statistics, statistics which take account of the impact upon the behaviour of the rail-using public of changes in the cost of energy, statistics which indicate that there is in fact more use being made of passenger rail service in this country than the government wants to admit.
The danger is not that the public is moving away from rail passenger service. The danger instead is that the government is taking away rail passenger service when there is no cause at all to do that on many of the lines that were doomed by his directive of July 27.
I should say that the other grave danger in substance is that we live in a time and in a country when there is an increasing fear that people, particularly in distant parts of the country, have interests and put forward positions that are ignored by the government at the centre. What better proof could they have if they live in western Canada and are served by the train through Jasper, or live in eastern Canada and are served by the Atlantic, or live in northern Quebec or northern Ontario, of the indifference of the central government to their interests than to have their rail service taken away absolutely arbitrarily, without any right to public hearing? This comes from a minister who served as a co-chairman on a commission on national unity. I cannot think of an act which could be better calculated to create disunity in this country than to take away the lifeblood of communities by an arbitrary act, without holding public hearings, thus breaking the CTC requirements and denying the public the right to be heard.
That is one of the issues here; that is the issue of substance. The other issue is the issue of process, the process of the denial of a public hearing. I heard the minister say that public hearings are difficult, and to have followed that route would have caused him all kinds of trouble. It would have required studies which would have taken some time.


An hon. Member:: Four years.


Charles Joseph Clark: Four years of studies to find the truth. I suggest it would have been better to have had four years of study that found the truth than to act in ignorance, in a way that disrupts the people and disrupts the services of this country, and does so for all time. In fact, he told us that Otto Lang had done it that
way. He said Otto Lang had followed the law. Otto Lang followed the CTC route and found he could not do what he wanted because too many people came up with other evidence. There is not much good that many of us on this side of the House would say about Otto Lang, but at least he had a better respect for democracy than the present Minister of Transport.
The other danger, of course, is that this proposal creates a precedent that is immensely dangerous for the country and for anyone anywhere in the country who relies upon transportation facilities under federal jurisdiction; that is to say, dangerous for anybody anywhere in Canada. The government has acted here in a way that wipes out public hearings. If it can do it with rail passenger service, it can certainly do it with any other kind of service.
The minister has used Section 64(1) of the National Transportation Act to take away 19 per cent of rail passenger service. What is going to be next? Will it be airports? He can with the stroke of a pen or the snap of his fingers do away with any airport under federal jurisdiction anywhere in this country. Will he do this next in respect of branch lines on the prairies? With the stroke of a pen he can wipe out branch lines on the prairies, no matter who has approved them or how valuable they are. Will it be done to the rest of the passenger service in the country, the other 81 per cent? It may be as doomed as the 19 per cent he has wiped out because he has the power. Will this involve ferry services on the coasts of Canada? The minister has the power to do this.
When the point was being made by my colleague, the hon. member for Vegreville, I heard the minister admit from his seat, and I think I quote him exactly, that hypothetically the law is there. Perhaps it is hypothetical today in the case of airports, but it was hypothetical in June in the case of 19 per cent of passenger rail service. Hypothesis becomes reality with this government, and once it gets away with using that kind of instrument to wipe out 19 per cent of passenger rail service, it will turn next to the target of airports it does not like, other passenger services it does not like, branch lines it does not like and ferries it does not like, all of this done without any public hearings, any respect for democracy or any concern for the current facts, rather than facts 20 years old, such as the MacPherson report.


Mr. Cousineau:: It is legal.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister is trying to make the point that it is legal.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, no. I am saying you are trying to prove that the law is illegal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have heard-

-I was glad to hear what the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) had to say, because his riding is affected by the cuts proposed by the minister, but on the other hand, he did
October 20, 1981

not stand up against his minister on that account and he did not defend his constituents. This is highly irresponsible. But, what I was saying-
What I was saying, Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Gatineau uttered his first words in the House of Commons, was to indicate to the minister-
[ Translation]
Mir. Cousineau: The right hon. member, the Leader of the Official Opposition, said some words to the effect that this was the first time I had spoken in the House, and I would not like to have to infer from that that he was deliberately lying.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The correction is well taken.


Charles Joseph Clark: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I did not fully appreciate the words of the hon. member the last time he addressed the House.

What I wanted to advise the minister was that he might think it is legal but there are many people in this country who believe it is not. A legal action is being undertaken in the courts to test the legality of what he is doing. We know it is wrong. It may also turn out to be illegal. We will then have him on both counts, not only on the Constitution but also on VIA Rail. On the question of the Constitution we now have them on the count of it being wrong and divisive to the country if they try to proceed by legal trickery.
I wish to read for a moment from a report secured by the Toronto Star quoting a senior official of the Department of Transport. That official wrote:
Instead of using the section as its drafters intended-to vary the odd CTC order it did not agree with-the government is using it to restructure the whole VIA system. This is being done without CTC public hearings and without parliamentary scrutiny. Announcement of the changes was deliberately held up until members of Parliament had left for the summer recess.
That is not a member of the opposition speaking. That was an official of the Department of Transport speaking, indicating just how profoundly unpopular and wrong the minister's position is felt to be in his own department.
The government has bypassed the CTC in its hasty decision to dismember a vital national service. The CTC's role as protector of the public interest in transportation matters in Canada has been tarnished and diminished, if not actually destroyed. The minister will know that even in the United States, where attempts have been made to reduce the scope of Amtrak operations, those attempts have been extremely limited by the moderating influence of Congress which as a legislative body must approve budget cuts proposed by the administration.
VIA Rail
Since there are no safeguards in Canada, the role of the CTC is all the more vital. It has been cast aside callously by this government because they are afraid of the results.
It is interesting to ask why the Minister of Transport is reluctant to place the future of VIA Rail's transcontinental services in the hands of the CTC. The answer is clear. The CTC would have held hearings. It would have gone out and talked to people, as our task force has done. It would have gone out and listened to current data on current passenger usage instead of relying on three and four-year-old figures based on a period prior to the impact of higher energy costs upon passenger service in this country.
It is almost certain, Mr. Speaker, that if the CTC had been allowed to carry out its mandate that this Parliament gave it, it would have demonstrated that many of the figures used as a basis for decision are false figures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Consequently, it would have changed the decision quite appreciably.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We had a task force conducted under the chairmanship of my colleague from Vegreville which gave us the opportunity to speak to a number of Canadians across the country. We are looking forward to publishing the report and recommendations based on those hearings. Every region of Canada has been affected but there is one region in particular about which I should like to speak.

The province of Quebec in particular will be severely affected by this unilateral and undemocratic decision. At least 225 railway employees stand to lose their jobs in the province of Quebec. Northern communities will become even more isolated. Communities located between St. Hyacinthe and Megantic will lose their rail passenger service. There will no longer be any service between Ste. Foy and Chambord. The train from Hull to Lachute will cease to exist. There will be no more "petit train du Nord". These cutbacks will have an impact on tourism, individual communities and the economy of the province.
However, Mr. Speaker, Quebec's loss may be greater than that of the other provinces. We have seen that the federal government, through this decision, has denied Canadians the right to a public hearing. This evening we shall see whether the voices of Quebecers are to be doubly stifled, not only through the absence of public hearings but especially if Liberal members from Quebec should refuse to defend the interests of Quebecers who are affected by this decision. We shall see whether the Liberal members from Quebec, in voting on this motion, will show that they are prepared to defend the interests of their constituents. If the motion is passed, the government will not fall, but the people of Quebec will see that the

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
federal Parliament of Canada is not powerless to defend their interests.
In communities which are to lose rail passenger services, many individuals will be severely affected. But that is not all. Behind this unilateral decision looms the ominous precedent the government has thus created. If the government succeeds in eliminating 18 per cent of rail passenger services by unilateral declaration, without consultation and without public hearings, it will have created a precedent that it will most certainly use again.
Today rail passenger services, tomorrow what next? Airports? These also come under federal jurisdiction. Freight services? Ferry services? The remaining rail passenger services in Quebec? The government is wielding formidable powers and creating a dangerous precedent. The Progressive Conservative Party has been holding public hearings because the government has refused to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the right hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The right hon. member may continue if he has unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I wasn't allowed to continue.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has pointed out to me that the opposition did not have the courtesy to allow him to continue his speech. And I believe I heard him deny the same courtesy to the opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I heard no point of order. Now there is a point of order raised and I think it is well taken. I asked if there was unanimous consent and I indicated there was not. I see no reason to pursue the matter any further.
The Hon. Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Minister of Transport will admit that he did not request that courtesy. I do request that courtesy and I would accept it naturally very gratefully.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Unanimous consent is sought by the Leader of the Opposition. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Half a minute!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: I shall be as brief as possible, because this is a very important matter. The Liberal members from Quebec have often mentioned the need for a strong federal presence in Quebec. They now have an opportunity to make their wish come true. The situation is clear. If the members from Quebec want the federal Parliament to be respected, today they will have an opportunity to earn that respect. They can show that the Parliament of Canada will defend the interests of Quebecers even if the government does not. Too often, when the legitimate interests of Quebecers are at stake, 74 Liberal members sit silently, afraid to speak out and afraid to act.
On the Constitution, the Quebec Liberal Party had the courage to defend the principle of federalism, but the federal Liberal members remained silent. When the Liberal government questioned the province's rights with respect to the sales tax, Liberal members failed to speak out. They remained silent about Mirabel, Nordair and the future of the footwear industry in Quebec. Will they also remain silent on VIA Rail, or will they support this motion and help the Government of Canada gain the respect of the people of Quebec?
That is a very important question, not just in Quebec but across the rest of the country, because this Parliament has the opportunity to speak up for and to defend Canadians whose interests have been severely injured. I ask any federalist in this House who wants to respect the rights of Canadians, who wants to be sure that decisions are based upon current information and who wants to ensure that we make decisions regarding rail passenger service now which serve the future instead of injuring the future, to vote in favour of this modest proposal to let the people be heard, to have a delay of a year of this unilateral abandonment of rail passenger service and to respect the right of Canadians to be consulted and to be heard on decisions which go to the heart of their personal and community existence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great reluctance that I also rise this afternoon to address a few words to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). However, in answer to what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has just said to the effect that the silence of Liberal members is such that nothing is being done in Quebec, I must tell him that he is very badly informed since I wrote the following letter to the minister on August 24, and I quote:
I find unacceptable the decision made, without consultation, by our department and VIA Rail to abandon rail service on the north shore of the Ottawa river on the Montreal-Lachute-Hull-Ottawa line. It seems to me that the Railway Act provides for public hearings when services are to be abandoned. Consequently, in a democratic system such as ours, I deplore the fact that this decision was made without consulting the population concerned.
October 20, 1981

On behalf of my fellow citizens, I therefore urge that this means of transport be maintained, or at least that public hearings be held so that we may know the pros and cons of this unfortunate decision.
And I, of course, signed this letter. I wanted to put it on record, Mr. Speaker, simply to show the Leader of the Opposition that he cannot take credit for all the work done in Quebec by Liberal members.


Roch La Salle: This should be said!


Robert Gourd: This is what I have just done, for the information of the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, on September 25,1 sent a series of questions to the deputy minister, and my letter has not even been acknowledged. In this letter, I put the following questions to the deputy minister:
1.	Is there a cabinet decision concerning federal plans to revitalize and rearrange passenger rail services in Canada? Would it be possible to have a copy of this decision?
2.	If there is no cabinet decision, is there a document which confirms the will of the government and (or) the Department of Transport to outline this plan? Would it be possible to have a copy of it?
3.	As concerns the termination of passenger rail services on certain lines in the fall of 1981, do instructions outlining specific procedures for the abandonment of these lines exist within the government, the Department of Transport, the Transport Commission, VIA Rail Canada, Inc., the CN or the CP? If so, what are they and may I have copies?
4.	Do section 252 and subsequent ones in the Railway Act apply when the Minister of Transport decides to abandon certain lines used for passenger services? If not, why and under what authority are the minister and (or) the department exempted from these provisions?
5.	The line abandonment procedures will be initiated by whom, how, when and where?
6.	Can the Transport Commission hold public hearings for line abandonments and, if so, what procedure should be followed to get a public hearing?
7.	As concerns the Montreal-Lachute-Ottawa line, would you please tell me when the government intends to abandon this line? Which service and who is the official responsible for this matter in the Department of Transport?
8.	Under what authority can the government and (or) the Department of Transport proceed with line abandonments without consulting the population and without holding public hearings before the Transport Commission? Under what acts and sections of these acts do you have such authority?
9.	Are there mechanisms to appeal this type of decision and what are they?
10.	Are the plans outlined by the Minister of Transport in his press release subject to review? By whom and how?
In view of the urgency of the situation, I trust, sir, that you will be able to provide replies to these questions as soon as possible.
I am still waiting for a simple acknowledgement from a secretary in the deputy minister's office. And that is not all. Since we are talking about the VIA Rail file, I will not say anything to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) about Mirabel where I am also waiting for the transfer of flights from Dorval. I would refer the minister to a document published in a newspaper, not a large newspaper for sure, just a small weekly in my riding, La Petite Nation, but still the research work was done. According to a press release issued by the minister, two criteria must be met before abandoning a service. I will summarize what we were able to find about
VIA Rail
those two criteria. Judging from information release No. 13081 dated July 27, 1981 and issued by the minister's office, it would seem that the decision to do away with Montreal-Hull VIA Rail passenger services stems from two criteria: the cost-revenue ratio and the occupancy coefficient. The cost-revenue ratio on the Montreal-Hull line would be 0.15. By definition, that is the revenue quotient, or the ticket sales figures over the costs of annual services offered. Now then, with somewhat lower ratios for five trips, the minister does not urge complete abandonment but rather a reduction to three weekly trips. Here is the gist of his arguments: service is maintained because certain remote communities are involved. Therefore, the cost-revenue ratio is not a rigid index which automatically calls for abandonment. By virtue of the same principle, it then becomes possible to insist that the Montreal-Hull service not be suppressed. The localities of Petite-Nation and Lachute are far from the large urban centres of Montreal and Hull, which is the centre of attraction of our rural valley.
Let us refer now to the second coefficient, occupancy. On the Montreal-Hull line, that coefficient is estimated to be 20 per cent. We would have a 100 per cent coefficient if 1,000 passengers filled the 1,000 seats available. Here is how the minister justifies his recommendation that the service be dropped: abandonment due to poor performance, a good highway network, a daily bus service between Ottawa, Lachute and Montreal, and direct Montreal-Ottawa rail passenger service.
Well, Mr. Speaker, none of those reasons will stand close scrutiny. It is a matter of intervention. Consequently, there is no justification to discontinue the Montreal-Hull run in the eyes of the residents of Petite-Nation and Montebello where the economic summit was held and which was the focus of worldwide attention. Mr. Speaker, we have heard the promises of the PQ government; we were promised an expressway, but now it is still on the drawing board and may turn out to be nothing more than a skidoo trail. That is what they call good highway links. There is no public transit system in the Petite-Nation valley which is home to 17,000 permanent residents and swells to 30,000 people during summer. Unless you drive your own car, there is no way you can reach the tourist centres of Petite-Nation or Lac Simon, at Duhamel, whose economic fallout is essential for our region. We have a bus service for an aging population of which 9.4 per cent are over age 65, whereas elsewhere in Quebec the rate is hardly higher than 6 per cent, including 29 per cent higher than Quebec as a whole. Petite-Nation badly needs a link between the medical and hospital service centres of Hull and Montreal, since it has no other functional transport services.
The daily bus service is not functional. It is altogether impossible to have a morning appointment because the bus picks up passengers at Papineauville, Thurso or Montebello around 11.45 a.m. and arrives in Montreal at 2.30 p.m. after long detours. It takes another half hour to jump into a cab and

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
rush to a hospital or a government office. It is 3 p.m. before you can sit down in a waiting room, you have to pay for an overnight stay in Montreal and then grab the morning bus at 10 a.m. and get back to Papineauville around 1 p.m. That is a 26-hour trip for a 30-minute appointment. Only the train which returns at 5.50 p.m. cuts short that long journey.
Mr. Speaker, it is appalling to even consider eliminating rail passenger services on the north shore. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention the provocative action of VIA Rail against my constituents last summer during a demonstration in Montebello. VIA Rail sent a freshly painted and newly upholstered train when we usually have an old car without any commodities. I feel it is a provocative action against my constituents. I will not mention the work carried out all summer long while the tracks were being relaid.
Mr. Speaker, I am in a difficult position toward the Department of Transport. It is not the first time I have spoken out. The minister told me to be patient. But there is a limit to my patience. Reference has been made to Mirabel and we are still waiting. You told me: I am looking into the matter. I feel it is time to act instead of conducting studies. Mirabel is losing millions of dollars, while other airports are thriving. I put questions to you in the House and they were answered. I believed in the good faith of your department, but I have had enough.
Mr. Speaker, I had to say those few words. Unfortunately, I do not believe in the guile of the party opposite that would not consider this vote as a vote of non-confidence. I do not think that it is the best way to show the people that we are coping with our problems. I do not believe more particularly the Leader of the Opposition who says that Liberal members are silent or remain mum, because I am convinced that if the government side had more time available-and I see over there the member for Champlain (Mr. Veillette) who is also in the same situation-we would speak even more often.
Mr. Minister, I could mention other hon. members who are faced with the same problem and who are quite concerned about your department's decision. I urge you, therefore, to reconsider a little longer your department's decision to eliminate rail passenger services across Canada. If you could spend so much time reconsidering the transfer of flights from Dorval to Mirabel, I do not think that a further study would hurt the Canadian public. In conclusion, Mr. Minister, I urge you to reconsider this decision on behalf of some of my constituents whose signatures I have here and among which I happen to notice the names of Helene Pepin, from Montebello-I hope she is not a relative of yours-and Antoine Bedard, from Lac Simon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member should always address his remarks to the Chair and never to the minister or an hon. member in particular.


Robert Gourd: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. But as you can see, I am so deeply disturbed by this decision which could affect my constituency so much that sometimes I find it very difficult to address the minister directly. So, I will direct my remarks to the minister through you, Mr. Speaker, and with your consent,
I should like to table this complete file. You can read the names for yourself. They are not names I have made up; they represent people, nearly 500 of them, who are begging the minister to please reconsider his decision to discontinue a rail passenger service which is very useful to the public and which, for that matter, is the only means of transportation in Quebec on the north shore of the Ottawa river between Montreal and Hull.
Mr. Minister, it has been said that the provincial government is bent on dividing Canada. I am afraid such a decision would help our opponents in Quebec. The best way to divide it is to deprive it of a service which is essential indeed, Mr. Speaker, for it is the only means of transportation. When our bus drivers went on strike, it was indeed the only means of transportation available to my constituents to travel either to Hull, Ottawa or Montreal. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe in the figures which were provided to the House and I am convinced that VIA Rail could make a better marketing effort or consult the people to find out about more convenient schedules instead of simply setting up others which are indeed inconvenient I already know of 60 people from Lachute who work in Montreal and who, because of the high costs of energy, would be delighted to commute by a rapid transit system. But if the Department of Transport has really made up its mind to get rid of this train, I know I will have a hard time explaining to my constituents that it is hopeless, that the train is gone, in spite of the millions of dollars which the corporation spent all summer long to rebuild the tracks. And why rebuild the tracks? Simply for the use of freight trains. Then, let the department increase the freight rates, so that my Argenteuil-Papineau constituents may keep their train!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been consultations among all parties who have agreed that after the dinner break we will limit speeches to ten minutes each, in the following order. We will start on this side with the Conservative party, a Liberal will follow, then an NDP, then a Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Conservative, Liberal, Conservative and Liberal. I think this is agreed.


Yvon Pinard: That is agreed, Mr. Speaker. It is in accordance with what we have discussed. We hope the debate will resume very shortly after eight, in order to allow all hon. members mentioned by the hon. member for Yukon to participate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is so ordered.
October 20, 1981


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise with mixed emotions to speak on this important subject today. Frankly, there are few things that will be brought before this House of a financial nature in the current session more important than the subject we are debating today. I believe, in many ways, Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing a complete misunderstanding, an unfortunate mistake that need not occur if those responsible on the government side were to come to their senses and realize the total effect of what they are proposing. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, we should be unduly critical of the minister with respect to his decision. It is an easy mistake to make. When we were in government, we were faced with similar options which the minister undoubtedly faced when he took over.
On the question of rail transportation, I can recall that the bureaucracy of the day made a proposal for a cutback in VIA Rail of $100 million the first year. The bureaucracy went much further than that however. They said that the first year they would like to pare VIA Rail by $100 million; the second year they saw cuts in store amounting to $330 million; the year after that they proposed cutting VIA by $300 million; and the year after that by $270 million.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has never been presented to me.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister says, "It has never been presented to me". If that has not been presented to the minister by his bureaucracy, then it is time he asked to see the true facts on the subject that is now before the House.
What was proposed by the bureaucracy in the Department of Transport was not just a $100 million reduction in the initial year, but the complete elimination of the VIA Rail budget as far as federal spending is concerned. They estimated the elimination of 4,000 jobs. Most important, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest this is simply further evidence of the unfortunate orientation of the Department of Transport in favour of air transport at the expense of the rail passenger service in this country. It is not by accident that the minister's department is being referred to not as the ministry of transport but as the air ministry.
In answer to a question a few days ago in the House, the minister stated that, according to his calculations, about 7 million tickets were sold for VIA Rail and the subsidy to VIA was $490 million. He has never attempted to show where the $490 million came from. The figures in the estimates show less than $490 million.
The minister says, Mr. Speaker, that 7 million is the total number of tickets sold to VIA passengers and the subsidy amounts to $490 million and that, to use his arithmetic, there is a loss of $70 to the taxpayers on each passenger. I challenge that, Mr. Speaker. I say that in spending that kind of money, I think we are providing a useful service for thousands of Canadians.
On the question of subsidization, where does the minister draw the line? Why does he treat his aristocratic friends, those
VIA Rail
who fly private jets, so handsomely? Why does he treat them to landing rights, to storage rights, and to other accommodation at our airports? That is in truth the height of subsidization. When we listen to speeches in the House and listen to the minister attempting to justify the withdrawal of services used by the lower income people of this country, let us remember that that same minister is endorsing landing fees for Lear jets at Toronto International Airport of $10 a crack. This is what it costs a person to land a Lear jet at the Toronto airport, an aircraft which carries, on average, six to ten passengers.
Why do we in this House get riled up, Mr. Speaker? Why are there two standards? If you have the money to own one of those 75 to 80 jets that are stored and flown into and out of Toronto International Airport, then apparently subsidization is just fine. It is okay to pay $10 to land. Think of the money it costs to run airports in this country. When the interest on some of the writeoffs is included, we know our airports in Canada are running at a loss of $400 million a year.
If there is to be wholesale subsidization of a group that is well above the poverty level-and everyone will agree with this-subsidization of those who fly corporate jets and other types of private aircraft, surely we should hesitate to cut costs by zeroing in on those who use VIA Rail and the rail passenger service in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is a question of priorities. The Department of Transport has approximately $1.7 billion to spend in the present year. To my way of thinking, it is not a question of increasing the expenditure but rather a question of trying to make sure there is an equitable disposition of the funds for the greatest good and the largest number of Canadians.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Right on.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister X says, "Right on". At least we are in agreement on that point.
When we were the government, we reviewed exactly what we were debating in the House. We chose not to shortchange VIA Rail passengers at the expense of others, mainly the relatively poorer people who have to travel in this country. We chose to have a more equitable distribution of the transport funds so that VIA Rail could not only carry on their activities but so that their activities could, in fact, be expanded.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 would like to see that decision by the Ministry of Transport.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The minister is saying that he would like to see the decision. I would like the minister to stand up in the House and read into Hansard the spending estimates for VIA Rail for the fiscal year 1980 and what the spending estimates were for the fiscal year 1981.
You will find, Mr. Speaker, there was a significant increase in favour of VIA Rail from one year to the next. I would suggest that if the minister were to look into the records, he would find that the increases were made deliberately. I would

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
suggest to the minister he cannot back up with facts the so-called savings of some $100 million that he thinks he can make. It will not happen.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is not a saving. It is a move from operation to investment.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Here again the minister makes his case even worse. What he is saying is that it is not so much a question of restraint or of saving; that is not what he has in mind. What he wants to do is to gyp the people in Havelock of their service, gyp the people in Stouffville, gyp the people in Aurora, in Newmarket and in Barrie of their service, gyp the people in Edmonton and Saskatoon and in various areas of Quebec of their service so that he can concentrate on putting another service into another area of Canada. Better still, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister-I was not in the House but I watched television-that if he had been able to watch himself on television, he would have stopped sooner than he did!
The point I am making is that this is not a question of savings, although the minister disagrees with that. What he is trying to do is to realign or cut certain areas in Canada off from rail passenger service and reroute that money to some other place.
This party believes that rather than cutting back on VIA Rail in order to supply new services or for whatever reason the minister may feel desirable, the government should increase funding for VIA Rail to make it a better service on existing lines. It should not cut back service on any VIA Rail lines at the present time. I say that, bearing in mind that there are many areas in the minister's department where he could save sufficient money to help offset whatever he feels is an undue cost with respect to VIA Rail passenger service.
Let me give the minister a few examples. He told us that it cost $70 every time someone uses VIA Rail. I would ask if he has ever checked what it cost when a person gets on a plane or off a plane at Mirabel airport.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Ten dollars on average, Canada-wide, for a year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Did you notice, Mr. Speaker, that the minister put in the words, "on average, Canada-wide". He glossed over the fact that on the one master-minded airport, which is now known even by the department as "White Elephant Mirabel", it costs $47 million per year to keep the doors open and to operate that airport. The last figures available are for 1979 when 1,230,000 people used that airport. That means that for every passenger who got on or off a plane at Mirabel, it cost the federal treasury $44. That is only part of the story, however. The government forgave some $600 million of the actual construction of Mirabel that was written off the books, but that is not included in the $44 figure.


Jean-Luc Pepin: As for other airports in Canada.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If we simply calculate the interest that the government still has to pay on that account, notwithstanding the fact that it has written it off the internal books, we see that another $75 million per year could be added to the cost of Mirabel. That means that for every person using Mirabel, the subsidy is $100.
Surely we must ask ourselves why the minister has this obsession with cutting out VIA Rail passenger service to so many important areas of Canada while he is apparently willing to live with that kind of subsidization for Mirabel. The minister said that on a national average basis the subsidy for every passenger at an airport is $10. I could tell him what the subsidy is at every individual airport, Mr. Speaker. For instance, the subsidy at Gander is $42.
When we ask if the government is doing a good job in operating the 25 largest airports in Canada, perhaps we should contrast what the government, through the minister's department, is doing with what is the case in the United States.
We are told that new airports are needed and that extensions to old ones are needed. How many people realize that the 25 largest airports in Canada handle about 43.5 million passengers annually? By coincidence, that is about the same number of passengers as are handled at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago in a year. In short, our total passenger traffic, by air, is roughly-equal to that handled at O'Hare Airport in Chicago in the United States. Yet the total subsidy that our government pays for operating those 25 airports in Canada is over $400 million, while O'Hare Airport operates at a profit.
It might be argued that with 43 million people using one airport, anyone could make a profit. But the fact is that none of the large airports in the United States lose money. I submit that if airport services were properly charged for in Canada and if the Lear jets were charged more than $10 in landing fees, our airports could be operated at a profit or could at least break even, just like those in the United States.
I draw attention to this because if the minister feels justified in spending $400 million to subsidize 25 large airports in Canada which are used by less than 20 per cent of the Canadian public, then something is wrong when he says that VIA Rail is entitled to a much lesser subsidy and, if his bureaucracy should get its way, there would be no subsidy whatsoever in the future.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are making it up. That is all in your mind.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am not frightened about what is in my mind, Mr. Speaker; it is what is in the minister's mind that frightens me.
I should like to deal specifically with the situation in my own area, in Ontario generally, but most specifically with the three lines that service the Toronto area and are still being run by the federal government. I am referring, of course, to the Havelock-Toronto line, the Stouffville-Toronto line and the Barrie-Toronto line.
October 20, 1981

The minister indicated in the House that he believes Mr. Snow, the transportation minister in Ontario, is willing to accept those lines as far as the Ontario government is concerned. If the minister believes that, then I would like him, through his parliamentary secretary or any way that he sees fit, to produce evidence that Mr. Snow has committed himself to taking over even one of those lines, let alone all three.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is what I said-"I believe".


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I hope you heard that, Mr. Speaker. The minister said, "That is why I said 'I believe' ".


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is my opinion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am a believer too, Mr. Speaker, but having dealt with this government for almost nine years, I have found that there are many things you might want to believe but you would be a fool if you continued to believe that it would do what it says.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the minister believes that the Ontario government may take over one or more of those lines, let me put this to him-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to address the government's policies of upgrading passenger rail services in Canada in order to meet the requirements of the next decade.
First, I would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) for the courage he has shown in proposing a program to improve the efficiency of VIA Rail's services in Canada. Indeed, at the risk of being unpopular, the hon. minister is seeking a way to reduce substantially VIA Rail's deficit to help it upgrade its long-haul passenger services.
Over 30 years ago, the bishop of Gaspe, Mgr. Ross, said, and I quote:
-the lack of communications is the main reason why the Gaspe has lagged and is still lagging behind economically.
For the people of the Gaspe, the lack of communications and transportation remains a major concern.
Mr. Speaker, with the development of expressways in Canada in the last two decades, which was made possible through federal funding, and federal-provincial shared cost programs, Canada has become a country with one of the highest ratio of expressway kilometres per capita in the world.
VIA Rail
With the implementation of ARDA, the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development Program, FRED, the Fund for Rural Economic Development, DREE and its agreements with the provinces, the Canadian government has helped the development of secondary road systems and service roads to natural resources sites, such as forests or mines. It is not surprising that with the development of such a good road system, some short-haul train services should lose some of their historic importance to the benefit of bus transportation. It is therefore normal under the circumstances that the Canadian government, through VIA Rail, should decide to reappropriate funds toward long-haul rail services.
Mr. Speaker, in the last few years, I have taken a very active part in the public hearings into rail transportation in the Gaspe area. The general criteria for improving the efficiency of rail services seem to be the following: relative cost-efficiency, distances between communities and important urban centres, elimination of duplication of subsidized services and the logical requirement of integrating short-haul urban transportation into the road transportation system. VIA Rail serves over 100,000 people in the Gaspe area from Matapedia to Grande-Vallee. For many, the train is the only available means of transportation. An economic study conducted by VIA Rail showed that in this area the train is the second most popular means of transportation for people.
Mr. Speaker, the Gaspe is one of those regions in Canada where an adequate rail service is warranted because of distances to large cities. Also, service would become more popular if VIA Rail could improve its quality by investing in the appropriate rolling stock. I would like, by way of example, to relate an event I experienced early in January 1981.
It took, at that time, over 58 hours to travel from Gaspe to Montreal, at an average speed of about 10 miles per hour. The Canadian Transport Commission report of inquiry into the reasons for this delay confirmed that it was a result of the poor condition of the rolling stock. A study conducted by the CTC on transportation in eastern Quebec and New Brunswick, following the delays that occurred during the Christmas holidays of 1980-81, found that in 43.5 per cent of cases, delays were due to the deterioration of the rolling stock. In 1979, after some hearings in the Gaspe, the CTC decided to reintroduce autorails from Matapedia to Gaspe, and the commissioners cited the same reasons.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the long-term savings achieved by the Department of Transport will enable it to improve transport infrastructures in the underprivileged areas in that regard, such as the Gaspe peninsula.
Generally, it can be said that the presence of an airport makes a wider area accessible to industrial and commercial activity through direct contacts with eventual clients; it also increases the volume of business. In addition, air travel encourages greater personnel efficiency by adding to the effective time on the job of management and technical staff.

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
Among other things, air transportation enhances marketing possibilities for perishable products, in that they can be shipped more quickly to consumer markets. The products of the sea and others would all benefit from being shipped by air rather than by ground transportation.
The activities of the fishing and tourist industries in the Lower St. Lawrence and the Gaspe peninsula are gradually being oriented toward more intensive and especially more rational development. Of the various facilities planned for those industries, the construction of industrial airports at Pabos and Sainte-Anne-des-Monts should be considered in the very near future. That is to say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has become aware of the need for air transportation very recently as far as the Gaspe Peninsula is concerned.
The Ministry of Transport and that of Regional Economic Expansion must also plan on improving the infrastructure of port facilities in the Gaspe region and more particularly in Gaspe-Nord which, it will be remembered, lacks both railways and highways.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that the rationalization program of rail passenger services will allow VIA Rail to improve the quality of its services, thus enabling it to recapture its rightful share of the passenger transportation market in Canada.
The capital expenditure budget increase announced by the Minister of Transport on July 27, 1981 will further be used to modernize diesel cars and purchase new stock. The people in the Gaspe peninsula I represent in this House believe and hope that the cutback of less viable services across Canada will allow VIA Rail to improve services on other lines such as those in the peninsula and better compete with other modes. Moreover, the Ministry of Transport will now be in a position to invest more in marine infrastructures and the development of industrial and commercial airports in areas as remote as the peninsula. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I will vote against the motion put forward by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), since the policies announced by this government have and will promote the development of other services in the peninsula.


Mr. Siddon:: Mr. Speaker, I will have but a few moments before calling it six o'clock; but I would like to indicate that in the period immediately after the House resumes, I want to deal in particular with a number of the very important energy aspects of the cutbacks announced by the minister of July 27, and to point out, in fact, that perhaps innocently-may I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.59 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In accordance with the House order adopted before six o'clock as I understand it, speeches will be limited to ten minutes. The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon).


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, in a sense I regret having a limit of ten minutes in which to make my remarks this evening in view of the fact that so many people across Canada will be adversely affected by the decisions taken by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) on July 27. These decisions will have a massive social impact on whole communities, businesses and individuals in Canada. In view of the fact that many members want to speak about these problems, I will restrict my comments to some of the quantitative implications of these decisions, and perhaps challenge the Minister of Transport on the question of energy, load factors, performance and cost.
I believe that the Minister of Transport has falsely, albeit innocently, informed Canadians on the question of energy and energy use as it pertains to our national rail transportation system. At the time of the press release at the end of July when the minister announced these cutbacks, he said, in part:
Railways are one of the least energy-efficient, energy economic methods, if not the least. Why? Simply because it is not energy economic to drag an empty car, and that is the situation now.
That statement is totally misleading. Before I came to this House of Commons I worked as a mechanical engineer and scientist. I can say with some authority that railway trains are the most energy efficient methods of all transportation modes. That fact can be substantiated quantitatively and firmly without any further controversy. In fact, a conventional diesel powered railway train operating with a high load factor will consume only about 700 energy units, referred to in the old jargon as British thermal units per seat mile, and an electric train will consume only about 150 energy units per seat mile, as compared with 2,000 to 7,500 energy units per seat mile for conventional automobiles, depending on the number of passengers, and 2,700 to 5,000 Btu's per seat mile for passenger aircraft. In other words, if we were to assume that all these various types of vehicles were filled virtually to capacity, the railway train would be at least four times as efficient and in many cases seven and ten times as energy efficient as our aircraft and passenger automobiles. In fact, the railway train is potentially more energy efficient than highway buses.
To illustrate: if one were to imagine a string of highway intercity buses with their rubber tires removed and attached together running on a railway track, those units would consume in total considerably less energy than if those buses were running individually on the highway, for two reasons. The first reason is that the drag that air produces would be much lower if you had a string of buses or a string of railway cars than if you had a number of individual units. The second is that the rolling friction on a relatively straight track is much lower for a rail borne transportation device than for a highway bus. In
October 20,1981

fact, the Minister of Transport is totally incorrect when he suggests that trains are one of the least energy efficient modes of transport. In terms of miles we can travel by train per gallon consumed, a modern efficient railway train will travel 400 to 500 passenger miles as compared to 20, 40 or 60 passenger miles for an automobile. An intercity bus, if it is operating at peak efficiency with full load, will obtain about 300 passenger miles per gallon. A Boeing 727 aircraft will obtain only about 35 pasenger miles per gallon. Therefore, one can go a great deal farther with a gallon of fuel by train than by any other mode of transport.
If we look at Transport Canada's own data as well as data from other sources, we will see that Canadian airlines are operating at an efficiency rate of something like 28 passenger miles per gallon. Compare that with the mileage you obtain with your automobile. Canadian automobiles obtain about 20 to 60 passenger-miles per gallon, but trains obtain 100 to 250 passenger miles per gallon. Even the old and antiquated trains operating today in Canada are able to achieve this.
Data from Transport Canada and from the bus industry indicates that buses operating on our highways are getting only 140 passenger miles per gallon. Therefore, we have the potential for saving vast amounts of energy if we encourage a gradual transition to increased rail use. This means that it is essential for people like the Minister of Transport to start talking trains and increased load factor, rather than dismantling the system, but he must encourage the ever-increasing efficiency of our rail transportation system in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: As Canadians shift from highway and air travel back to passenger trains, the energy savings to Canada will be massive. Passenger rail services spend less than 5 per cent of their operating budgets on fuel compared to much higher fuel budgets for the airlines and the highway bus industry.
We might also consider that while trains used only about ten million gallons of fuel last year, buses used 20 million, domestic airlines over 700 million, and take note of this, Mr. Speaker, the conventional automobile consumed over 8,000 million gallons of fuel last year, or 8 billion gallons.
The more people are encouraged to change their modes of transport to the use of trains, the more we will decrease our dependence on that very precious and costly commodity, namely oil, particularly imported oil. Indeed, government policies which will reduce the availability of rail passenger services to Canadians will only serve to increase our per capita consumption of precious petroleum fuels, with a commensurate increase in the subsidy costs to all Canadian taxpayers.
In the last remaining minute or so that I have I would like to comment on a recent report released by Amtrak. It is dated May 20, 1981. This report reveals everything about Amtrak's operations to the American people, which is in total contradiction to the position which this minister has taken. Amtrak has released performance figures. Amtrak has told the American people just how well it has performed over the last two or three years. Amtrak has also instituted something called a route
VIA Rail
profitability system in which the cost effectiveness of all of the various routes served by Amtrak are monitored and regularly reported.
A most important conclusion in this report is that by converting to head end power in the United States, they have realized tremendous increases in efficiency as measured by the number of passenger miles per train mile. A most essential point is that passenger miles per train mile in the United States have been increasing remarkably on long distance trips. On the other hand, the passenger miles performed per train mile on the northeast corridor service, which is the New York-Washington-Boston sector, has actually been decreasing, and it is operating at a much lower rate of efficiency than the long distance services.
The point the Minister of Transport should be listening to, and I wish he would, is that long distance train service, rather than jerky, start-stop intercity service is, in the final analysis, much more efficient, and also more efficient than the modern type corridor system operated between Washington and New York through to Boston. Therefore, his suggestion that he is taking away from the regions their very essential rail service in order to benefit the corridor service between Windsor and Quebec City is, indeed, based on totally false economy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to keep my remarks within the ten minute limit so as many people as possible on both sides of this House can participate in the debate.
First I want to express my regret that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), the former Minister of Transport, has seen fit to introduce this motion under Standing Order 58(9), which calls quite clearly for a vote of non-confidence in the government. The hon. member knows that, in spite of the rhetoric in the motion that says that, notwithstanding any Standing Order, practice or precedent, the House does not regard the passage of this motion as a vote of non-confidence, one cannot change the rules of the House by rhetoric. The rules are the rules. This is unfortunate because I suspect that had he chosen another route, he would have had some support from those of us on the government side because we are concerned about these cutbacks, as are members of the Conservative and New Democratic parties. The fact that these other routes, which are available according to the rules of the House, were not taken would indicate that the Tories, as usual, are playing politics with this issue, that they are not really interested, despite their words, in the effect cutbacks will have on jobs and on consumers.
Having said that, I should like to spend a few moments dealing with a particular cutback which affects the people of New Brunswick, and that is the cutback of the Moncton to Edmundston rail liner service. In a letter to the regional vice-president of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway,

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
Transport and General Workers, the Minister of Transport said this:
The Moncton-Edmundston service is to be discontinued because of poor performance. However, alternate modes of transportation such as bus service through Fredericton and highway access to intermediate points on the train route are presently available.
I believe the minister has been very badly briefed on that subject. The facts would indicate otherwise. This rail liner service is an essential service to the northwest and central sections of New Brunswick. Without rail service, these portions of New Brunswick will be virtually segregated from the rest of the province and, consequently, the rest of Canada. With the cancellation of this train, citizens on the route will find it virtually impossible to go to Moncton and return on the same day to take advantage of the specialized medical treatment available in the city. It will also be very difficult for university students to get to the University of Moncton and back to their homes in northwestern New Brunswick.
At present, a resident of the Edmundston area can leave Edmundston at 7.30 in the morning by rail liner, arrive at
12.15	p.m. in Moncton, and have until 5.55 p.m. to conduct whatever business is necessary. He can then board the rail liner and return home by 10.40 p.m. at a return cost of $26 for an adult.
To travel the 586 road miles return by car would take at least 6 hours each way and would cost approximately $42. If you use normal business mileage rates of 25 cents per mile, the cost would be $146.50.
The only other alternative is to take the bus, leaving Edmundston at seven in the morning, have a two and a half hour wait in Fredericton, transfer buses again at Sussex and arrive in Moncton at four o'clock in the afternoon, leaving little or no time to seek medical or dental assistance. One would have to arrange accommodation for the night because the only time you can return by bus is the next afternoon at
2.15	p.m., arriving back in Edmundston later that night at a return cost of $62.50 per adult.
From an economic standpoint, the return cost by rail liner is $26, by car, using a conservative figure for the cost of gas, it is $42, and by bus the cost is $62.50, plus at least one night's accommodation.
I hope I have made it clear that the alternatives are simply unwieldy, expensive and not viable. I would plead with the minister, whom I know to be a compassionate and caring man, to reconsider his July 27 announcement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Francis McCauley: Members of the NDP are clapping. Let us remember that members of the NDP suggested this afternoon that there were some routes which could be cut. It is true that there are, but there are some that should be maintained. On behalf of all New Brunswickers I plead with the minister to reconsider the cancellation of the Moncton to Edmundston rail liner service. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: I am also pleased, Mr. Speaker, to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party regarding the cutbacks in VIA Rail imposed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). I believe the minister has been ill advised. He has bypassed the Canadian Transport Commission, a commission which is vital to the good understanding of railway transportation in Canada. The railway workers and the people of Canada generally have sent their representatives to hearings of the commission to present their cases. I think it is doing an injustice to the people of Canada to break and violate this vital and important link in our stream of communications. I say shame to the Minister of Transport!
After saying that, I want to say that the people of VIA Rail, not satisfied with taking over and promising improved transportation, have cut back from the 23 CPR Transcontinental cars which operated in the summer months to an average of 12 to 13 cars a day. As if that were not bad enough, the minister has now come forward and suggested eliminating completely the run from Edmonton to Vancouver. I want to comment briefly on that suggestion.
I have a letter that was sent to the Minister of Transport from the Municipality of Revelstoke signed by the mayor. I will not read the whole letter, but it says, in part:
-the City Council applied for 8 bedrooms to travel from Revelstoke to Vancouver on September 22nd, 1981 and return from Vancouver on September 25th, 1981. Although we applied a month in advance for reservations, we were informed that there was only one bedroom available on September 22nd, 1981 and none available on September 25th, 1981.
In addition, the minister is suggesting that we eliminate the northern portion of this very important route. We of the New Democratic Party toured part of central British Columbia and visited some of these areas. We received petition after petition, some from people in Prince George and Prince Rupert, many from chambers of commerce and municipalities, all urging us to insist that people from these areas be given the opportunity at least to be heard and to present their views.
When VIA Rail took over, there was a commitment to live up to past agreements with the railway workers. Let me refer very briefly to pensioners, the many workers on our railways who have worked long and tedious hours building up pensions which are, incidentally, very mediocre, and also building up pass rights on the transcontinental trains. When they apply to travel on these trains, they are told there are no vacancies. Shame on the Minister of Transport. Shame on the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), who was also a railway worker, sitting on that side of the House supporting that kind of drastic action which has been taken by the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Right on!


Sidney James Parker: Passengers are being left standing on the platform in Banff, a major tourist area. When a train of 13 fully booked cars heads out into the western region during the summer, it is not hard to understand that people who live in
October 20,1981

these mountainous regions, especially the poor and the elderly, have no opportunity to travel on these trains. Not only would they like to travel in them, they have no other alternative because there are no airports in this mountainous region.
The stretch of highway from Field to Golden, the Trans-Canada highway, is a disgrace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sidney James Parker: Something should be done about it. I have asked the minister time after time, when will this section of highway be improved? In the Cranbrook region there is an area of some 230 miles with a population of about 30,000 people. Not even the Greyhound bus line connects that city and the small communities in between with the trans-continental train.


An hon. Member:: It is called free enterprise.


Sidney James Parker: I suppose these people are expected to drive that distance only to be told by a CP Rail official that he has to phone Winnipeg to find out what time the train will arrive. There is not even a postal box in the station. When people are travelling across Canada, they often wish to mail a postcard. They cannot even get off the train to send a postcard. These are the kinds of services that have been cut back and changed. After some consideration, they did allow the phone company to instal pay phones in stations to enable people who arrive in remote areas at least to phone a taxi to collect them.
The minister does not even have the decency to travel across Canada to meet the people and to discuss these issues.


An hon. Member:: Right on!


Sidney James Parker: CP Rail is not exactly innocent in this, either. It has sold 30-year-old equipment and, when it breaks down, not only do they charge for its repair but they charge for another diesel to help bring it up the hill. Then they have to take a yard engine, because it has a steam generator, and they bring it over and put it on a passenger train. They use any kind of patch-up work to get the train across Canada. When is the Ministry of Transport going to come forward with a transportation policy and a program to show the Canadian people we are entitled to an up-to-date railway system to give adequate service to the Canadian people?
We should not have to worry about whether the airlines will lose passengers. Many people cannot travel by air, they do not wish to travel by air.


An hon. Member:: The CPR and the Liberals are the same folk.


Sidney James Parker: These are some of the concerns people would like to present to the committee. I would urge that the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) be given serious consideration. I would urge the Government of Canada to implement this recommendation long before making decisions of the nature the minister is proposing.
VIA Rail


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, the government appears certain to carry out its directive to cancel 16 passenger rail lines nationally. These cancellations will severely hamper efficient passenger travel.
Two of the lines to be terminated operate in New Brunswick. One is the Atlantic Limited which carries somewhere in the vicinity of 240,000 passengers annually, despite the minister's protestations to the contrary. The second line is the Moncton to Edmunston line which was designed to operate as an intercity commuter service. It carries approximately 20,000 passengers annually. This line also serves such communities as Chipman and Minto. Both communities do not have any other mode of intercity linkage, contrary to the information the minister might try to pass on to this House in justification of his measures.
The Atlantic Limited is the most economical and direct link from Montreal to southern New Brunswick and the other maritime provinces. Saint John, New Brunswick is 473 miles from Montreal, and the trip takes 13 hours. If passengers are required to travel around the province and double back to southern New Brunswick on the Ocean Limited, as the minister proposes, the trip would be extended to 739 miles or 20 hours. The travel distance would be 76 per cent greater and the travel time 62 per cent longer.


An hon. Member:: What are the energy savings there?


Robert Alfred Corbett: This unnecessarily long delay will promote energy consumption rather than energy conservation in an energy-importing region. It will promote isolation in an area badly neglected by the federal government.
At this point I would like to draw attention, as an example of the isolation and neglect of the federal government of the Atlantic region, particularly New Brunswick, to the absence from this debate of the minister responsible for New Brunswick. Where is the person who should be standing up and speaking on behalf of New Brunswick as New Brunswick's representative in the Cabinet? He has been stonily silent, icily silent.


An hon. Member:: Who is that?


Robert Alfred Corbett: He is the gentleman-I happen -to know because I occasionally see his face in the local papers-he is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). You would hardly know he is an individual who speaks for the rights of New Brunswickers in this House. Where is the other member from New Brunswick who should be in this House, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin)? His region will be directly affected by the abolition of the line the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. McCauley) just talked about. That will directly affect the people in his constituency. He should be here as the voice of the people he represents just as we who are here are doing.
What hope do the people of New Brunswick or the people of Atlantic Canada have with this government? Obviously none.

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
This government refuses to listen. It refuses to care. During the last election campaign, why did the minister not come to Saint John, New Brunswick or Atlantic Canada and tell the people the government would take away their train if he was elected? Why did the government not tell the people of Atlantic Canada that if it came back to power it would force them out of their homes? Why did the Liberals not tell the people in Atlantic Canada that, if elected, they would reduce air services, increase the price of gasoline and home heating fuels? Why did they not do that?
The people are fed up. They are saying: What in God's name are we going to do? Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, their plight is desperate.
The minister rests his decision on the argument that new equipment is necessary and can only be provided if these costly passenger rail services are eliminated. A better method of raising the moneys for this equipment would be to arrange a fair billing procedure between VIA Rail, Canadian National and Canadian Pacific. At their own discretion, CN and CP bill VIA for the use of its rail lines at an exorbitant profit. Sixty-three per cent of all VIA Rail expenses are paid for rail line usage alone. The actual unit cost of using these lines is unknown to VIA. However, it is known to the minister, the CTC, CN and CP. VIA president, Frank Roberts, maintained before the Standing Committee on Transport that if VIA is to operate efficiently, it must have some sort of fixed contract with CN and CP rather than be subject to the greed of these two megacorporations. In effect, Canada's passenger rail service is subsidizing freight transportation. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is subsidizing freight transportation. Let the minister effectively deny that.
If CN and CP would deal fairly with VIA, the needed moneys could remain in VIA's coffers for the purchase of new equipment, without sacrificing 16 passenger rail lines. CN and CP are milking Canadians for a passenger rail service by the very mechanism they received in exchange for providing this service. CPR entered into an agreement with the federal government stating:
-in consideration of the completion and perpetual and efficient operation of the railway by the said Company, as stipulated in the said contract, the Government may grant to the Company a subsidy of $25 million in money and 25 million acres of land to be paid and conveyed to the Company... land for the right of way, stations and other purposes, and such other privileges as are provided for in the said contract.
These vast holdings have given the railways a moral and constitutional obligation to the citizens of this nation. The railroads should expect to bear a substantial proportion of the deficit. CN and CP should share the cost of this deficit.
When the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) was in Saint John earlier this month, he advised New Brunswickers that he was cancelling the Atlantic Limited for their own good. He told us we should be grateful that the federal government is taking the Atlantic Limited away from us. If he is sincere, if he believes we will be thankful that the transportation system hundreds of thousands of people in Atlantic Canada rely on
will be rendered useless and if he sincerely believes we will be happy, then he and his government are mad, or certainly deranged.
I recently presented a petition of some 11,400 signatures to the House of Commons. These signatures were collected in the Saint John area. The petition protests the cutbacks. Since that time, another 1,000 names have been added. I can tell the minister it is not a desired measure. Saint John is New Brunswick's largest city. Let the minister name one other province in mainland Canada which has its largest city not serviced by a major passenger rail service. There are none. Saint John has been cut off. Southern central New Brunswick has been cut off. Atlantic Canada has been cut off. The minister shows his indifference by getting up and walking out. From the point of view of this minister, the citizens of our region are nothing more than pimply pests on the posterior of time. The government will find out in due course just how pesky we can be.
I will leave a message for the minister, his government, the supporters of his government and those people who will stand this evening and vote against the motion put forward by the official opposition and the amendment put forward by the New Democratic Party. The message is from all people. Listen well, Mr. Minister, listen well to me; for if you don't, the last whistle that blows will surely blow for thee.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I support the minister's decision, and I am rising now to defend it. The minister has made a decision to invest in Canada's future. He has made a tough one because, as we have heard here tonight, there are many voices asking us to invest in small decisions which support inefficiencies and drain away the money and the capital we need for our rail system in the next ten to 15 years.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Tell that to the people who have to walk.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I hear hon. members opposite from western Canada talking, and I ask them especially to remember that their region in this country is going to need $12 billion to $16 billion in new investment in railroads over the next decade. We want that money to be there, and we cannot afford to waste that money on empty trains which use up needed investment.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Just leave us alone. Let us make our own decisions.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Last Friday the minister told us that every time a passenger gets on a train in this country, we pay $70 in subsidy. Three of us were in a taxicab after the minister made that comment. I asked the driver how far he would take the three of us for $210, and the driver told us he would give us a ride to Montreal, buy us tickets to the Expos game, wait around and bring us back to Ottawa afterwards. That is the kind of expense we are undertaking with these kinds of trains.
The minister has taken a fundamental decision which stresses three important points. He has said, first and foremost, that we must put a cap on the subsidies we give to the
October 20, 1981

passenger rail service in Canada. Five hundred million dollars is enough in subsidy. The minister has made the decision that there will be no blank cheque for the passenger rail service because we need the money for other rail services which are more productive. The minister has said that if VIA Rail needs more money, then VIA Rail will have to earn that money. Third, the minister has given VIA Rail the tools to go about earning that money. Despite the emotional claims we have heard tonight, he has not abandoned VIA Rail. He is supporting VIA Rail. He is giving that service the capital it needs to buy new rolling stock in order to attract new passengers and get more revenues so that the subsidies can go down.
We can hear the uproar, but we also know the facts. The uproar will die, and we hope the subsidy will die with it. The uproar we have heard here today is typical of the distortions which are happening in this debate. Let us make it clear that the very motion today, which our friends in the New Democratic Party call reasonable, says we are abandoning VIA Rail. We are not abandoning VIA Rail.
We have heard other distortions, such as that we are losing our passenger train service. We are not. We are reducing 19 per cent of the route miles that passenger service offers. That effects 1.2 million passenger trips every year, 600,000 of which are in my area, that is, Toronto. They are commuter trips. Those commuter services should be left alone by the federal government. We have no business offering them. There are three routes in the metro Toronto area on which currently we are doing a big favour to the Government of Ontario. We are paying $70 a head for 600,000 passengers in the metropolitan Toronto area every year. That is a cost which should quite rightly be transferred to the people of Ontario and not paid by the Government of Canada. We had acknowledgement of that fact from the government of Ontario. In its task force report, recommendation No. 4.7 on page six of the final report describes the geographic area covered by this commuter service. It is the exact same area that we are transferring to Mr. Snow and his colleagues in the government of Ontario.
I ask all members to pay close attention to that good Tory and good Liberal, a friend of mine, a man who knows his way around railroads, Paul Hellyer, who stated in a recent newspaper column:
At long last the government has decided to face the music. Inevitably, however, the reaction has been shrill and abusive-
It isn't surprising to hear the politicians yell blue murder because that's what the game of politics is like. But when the press climbs aboard, responsible politicians must wonder if there is any hope. Last week, for example, The Globe and Mail attacked government spending as the cause of inflation. Now it condemns the first serious effort the Liberals have made in a long time to cut expenditures. Cynicism is a two-way street.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) rises on a point of order.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member who just resumed his seat might entertain a question?
VIA Rail


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) accept a question?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I only have ten minutes, which does not permit time to accept questions. Perhaps if there is any time left at the end of my speech, I can accept the question.
All of the critics who have risen to attack this action have forgotten one simple fact. We have to come back constantly to that fact. VIA Rail cannot have, does not have, and does not want a blank cheque from the Canadian people. VIA Rail this year is costing the Canadian people $450 million in subsidies. We want that subsidy to be spent in the most effective and desirable way. We are prepared to spend that money in a fashion that will keep full trains running. We will also get new equipment, which is an investment in that railway's future. That is a fact that has been acknowledged and applauded by the president of the railroad, Frank Roberts, who says:
-now we've got a good basic system we can build on-
Roberts insists it will mean millions of dollars for badly needed new equipment. To be precise, it means $450 million over the next three years for new equipment. That equipment will not only be used, as has been said here, in the Quebec City to Windsor corridor, but will be used in Atlantic Canada and western Canada.
It will not simply be a shuffling of dollars from one railroad to another because we have written a costing order. It will be a genuine saving and a genuine investment. It will free up money that otherwise would not be available for the major investment and resource projects, in double-tracking, in the new Rogers Pass project and for the other projects that bring so much hope and are so necessary for the development of resources in western Canada and all across Canada.
No longer do we need to maintain worn out old patterns just because they are comfortable patterns. This country needs to look at its rail transport system. We need to invest in the effective, productive places.
We need to look at each of these subsidies and ask about their value. We should ask whether they are draining off resources that would otherwise be used for a stronger economic future. The minister has done that with VIA Rail. We have a lot more similar tough decisions to make along that line in the next ten years.
When we hear about this kind of local petty boosterism of encouraging people to go down to the railroad station and clap when the train comes in and then get in their car and drive home, to clap simply because the train was there, we must ask ourselves whether that is a productive way to build our future. Is that a genuine option? I do not think so.
The real option is one where we build a rail system that will endure into the next century because it is built to fill an economic need and to perform economically.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher), we hope, has gone a long way this evening toward realizing his ambition

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
to be chairman of the transport committee. The minister may look kindly upon his efforts tonight, although one can only look with horror upon the prospect of such a chairmanship, having listened to the hon. member tonight.
Many of the arguments for keeping the lines which have been abandoned by the government in this latest dictatorial move were made well and often this afternoon in terms of energy, jobs, national unity and tourism. I do not intend to try to go over them in the short ten minutes allotted to me. I want to emphasize a few of the points and, perhaps, bring in a few new ones.
Something we have not talked about with regard to the reduction of service in northern Ontario is the fact that many people have cottages between Winnipeg and Farlane in Ontario. As a result of this most recent announcement by the government, people will have no opportunity to go to their cottages on weekends from September through to June. That is a small problem on a national scale, but those people have made a big investment. They are among the people served by that line on which service has been reduced. I wanted to bring that to the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) as well.
The hon. member for Kootenay-East Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) mentioned the problem of passholders in general. The minister does not realize what he is doing to Canadian National passholders. The arrangement that VIA has with Canadian National Railways is that CN passholders can only travel on what were formerly or are at present CN lines. This proposal effectively disenfranchises almost all CN passholders. CN passholders in Winnipeg can only travel to Capreol. They cannot get to Toronto, Montreal or west. They can go north.
The pass privileges these people have received over the years as part of what was negotiated at the bargaining table has been taken away by the minister in one fell swoop. This falls particularly hard on pensioners who rely on their pass and tend to use it more than young people, particularly those who do not drive. Unless there is a change in the relationship between VIA and CN as far as pass privileges are concerned, there are many people, who now are unaware of it, who will be badly affected by this decision of the transport minister.
Part of the problem with VIA Rail is that they treat passholders as though they had some kind of disease instead of as people who have earned the right over a number of years by working for the railroad. The minister is here tonight. He has not looked up since I have started to speak.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can do both.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: He does not know what he is dealing with here. I come from a railway family. My grandmother lives in Biggar, Saskatchewan. She has a CN pass. My grandfather worked for the railroad as a car knocker in Biggar from 1912 to 1958. My grandmother will not be able to visit her children and grandchildren in Winnipeg as a result of the decision made by the transport minister to reduce service between Saskatoon and Winnipeg.
Those in Melville, Watrous, Rivers, a line I used to work as a pantry man, have been completely erased from the railway transportation system. I can tell the minister they will not forget it.
The last thing I want to say is that this is a test for the Liberal backbenchers to show whether they have any integrity. We want to know. We will be watching tonight to see where are the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae), the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier), and the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mrs. Erola), members whose ridings are on the lines that are affected by these reductions. If they are here and have the nerve to vote against this particular motion, that is something that will be carried to each doorstep in their riding. I am sure each opposition party will promise them this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The pathetic state of what it means to be a Liberal backbencher in this government will be illustrated tonight in a way that could never be illustrated before. People will be standing up one by one like seals voting against the interests of their own constituents. I can hardly wait to see this. In my heart of hearts, it will make me sick to watch this. We will probably see it happen. I have said enough, on this, Mr. Speaker. It is absolutely beyond the pale of this government to reverse the decision which it has made in such a dictatorial fashion. Yet it does not have the nerve to look people in the eye and try to justify this regrettable and stupid decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. I found it strange that one of the speakers from our side found it necessary to mention that Otto Lang was more democratic than the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). The members of the Liberal party who know Otto Lang will find it difficult to believe he would be more democratic than the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Deniger:: I spent many years under that direction.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I hear the hon. member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) saying, "I spent many years under that direction." He would understand, therefore, the analogy that has been drawn.
This is a timely debate, Mr. Speaker, because the Parliament of Canada has been denied until today the ability to speak and discuss the abandonment of almost 20 per cent of the rail passenger service. Our party found it necessary to travel across the country this summer to let the public of Canada express its concerns and to state facts and information as to why the passenger service should be retained as it is at present. I believe there is reason for the people in the province
October 20, 1981

of Saskatchewan to present petitions and to make interventions and representations. For instance, the town of Unity, ably represented by Mrs. Leeson, said:
The federal government and VIA Rail's decision to discontinue through rail service is beginning to leave a bitter taste in our mouths. We feel annoyed, exasperated and, to say the least, very angry. Exasperated, because Mr. Pepin seems to be hiding from the general public in not allowing any public meetings to express our objections and concerns.
I should like to point out that the then Minister of Transport, during the time of the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, now Senator Marchand, said:
I am sure that it is also clear to the provinces that we will need to involve municipalities and that consultation at a local level is of essence.
This government denied the process: it did not allow the municipalities to make statements; it did not allow the public to become involved in its decision. The manner in which the present minister made the decision, without consultation, without public hearings, without parliamentary debate, has been criticized across the country.
I should like to refer to Mr. Homer Hallberg, local chairman of Lodge 1230 of the United Transportation Union at Biggar. He told the task force of the severe hardships and economic consequences if this cut of the northern transcontinental goes throught. He said:
It should be pointed out that the transcontinental service which VIA Rail is offering, will create hardship and inconvenience to anyone travelling from Saskatoon to Vancouver. Such people will have to change trains at Edmonton and go to Calgary to entrain for Vancouver, an extra 200 miles or more. And travelling east of Biggar, for example, passengers will have to stop overnight in Saskatoon or travel that far by some means other than train. There are many elderly people who, for medical reasons, cannot utilize other means of transportation, such as planes, and who do not have motor vehicles accessible to them. And what of young families who choose to travel "the way of the worry free"?
This was a representation made on behalf of the citizens of Biggar.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael), is not in the House. There are about 1,600 railway workers who will be laid off because of the arbitrary decision. Approximately 225 workers will be laid off in the city of Winnipeg. If the hon. member wishes to protect the Minister of Transport rather than his own constituents, that is his choice. I believe he will pay dearly for that in the next general election because 225 jobs in the city of Winnipeg is an important matter.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not right.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: The Minister of Transport is saying, "That is not right". So far he has not disputed the 1,600 jobs. He cannot dispute the 225 lay-offs. He will tell us, Mr. Speaker, $30 million is available for retraining. So far we do not know who will receive the money or how the money will be administered, and we do not know when these people will become eligible for it.
I should like to point out again what Mrs. Leeson said. She said:
What is the logic in running (the train) between Winnipeg and Calgary, when the ridership has been heavier over the CN route between Winnipeg and
VIA Rail
Edmonton and where it better serves Saskatchewan and Alberta, as CN runs through the more central part of the provinces?
I would like to give to the minister a little lesson on the geography of the province of Saskatchewan. The province runs about 750 miles in depth from north to south. The CP line he has protected runs within 100 miles of the United States border. I would like the minister to explain to the people who live 600 and 700 miles from that train service how they can take advantage of the transcontinental. I know he does not care. It would be nice for the people who live 600 and 700 miles away, to have some idea how they could avail themselves of this new equipment, this new capital that the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) spoke so eloquently about.
The minister today, by his own admission, stated that capital will be needed and that we, in western Canada, we, in Atlantic Canada, and we, in Quebec and northern Ontario will benefit from the investment in capital. He said, "Two to three years for LRCs". But we will not do it in that time. It takes three years to have LRCs put on track. We have not placed the order. This is something we have to look at. The people of Atlantic Canada, the people of western Canada, the people in northern Ontario, the people in Quebec are paying for the additional service that the member for Mississauga North was so proud of. I can see why he is happy. He receives our tax dollars to guarantee a train service in Mississauga, and he receives our tax dollars to support the huge subsidy at Malton airport, which is right beside his constituency. He is happy. However, the majority of the people of Canada are being denied by the government something that is rightfully theirs and something they will long remember was denied them by the Minister of Transport.
I would like to point out to the minister the difference between his administration and past transport administrations. This is the first time in modern history, to my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected-the minister is a little older, maybe he can tell me-that Section 64 of the Railway Act has been used to cancel a train service, to cancel a passenger line, or to cancel a service. I look back to the Progressive Conservative government. During that administration, the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), used the act to put service in place. It was used to guarantee service that was scheduled to be moved out.
At one time, Section 64 was used by the hon. member for Vegreville to implement and maintain service for the line in northern Ontario. The service was increased, under the previous government, from three times to six times a week. The Atlantic was confirmed for retention following the CTC's recommendation under Section 64. For the information of the minister, the hon. member for Vegreville used the section to add to the permanent network additional branch lines, which are badly needed for the movement of grain in western Canada.
I would like the people in my constituency and the people throughout the east and west to know that if the minister removes passenger service by a sweep of the pen, he can also

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
move their branch lines away from them and deny them access for their grain.
We have seen a commitment over the past number of years on behalf of several provincial governments and on behalf of municipalities to implement a transportation service. However, this minister is denying the majority of people in western Canada a transportation service. I find that totally incredible, Mr. Speaker. I do not understand a government that is raising the price of gasoline to well over $4 per gallon-which will cause great hardship and at the same time will remove the cheapest mode of transportation that is available to the people of Canada, namely, rail service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to discuss the impact of the decision made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), and to explain to my constituents why I am against this motion. First of all, Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of those who may be interested, in 1975 I was involved in submitting a petition to the Canadian Transport Commission, when the minister was proposing to abandon the line from Montreal to Mont-Laurier, more commonly called the "petit train du Nord". Because of the importance of this mode of transport for the people living in the lower and upper Laurentians, I felt that the Canadian Transport Commission should hear all arguments in favour of retaining and preserving the service. That is why my colleague from Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) and I organized a series of representations to the Canadian Transport Commission to defend and support user interests. Unfortunately, and this was a great disappointment, Mr. Speaker, I received no letters or telephone calls supporting the action I took in 1975 in order to save this means of transportation. Some municipalities in my riding told me they did not write to say they were supporting my action for the simple reason that they did not feel the travelling public wished to go on using this kind of transportation.
In my presentations, Mr. Speaker, I said that if the travelling public had abandoned this means of transportation, it was for the simple reason that no attempt had ever been made to update the system. Equipment was obsolete. Anyone travelling in this part of the province of Quebec will notice that the trains are at least 25 years old and that service is poor, to say the least, while people who use public transportation expect to be able to travel and get to their destination at a given time and not to spend three hours on a trip that should normally take about an hour or an hour and a half.
Well, for all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, in 1975 I had to represent the interests of the travelling public, people who go to the lower Laurentians in the winter for downhill or crosscountry skiing and in the summer to the lakes and other scenic areas in my riding. However, in view of the lack of interest among the population and the travelling public in 1975, and despite efforts by groups such as the chamber of commerce in my riding and that of my colleague from Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle, it is clear that people are not really interested in using this means of transportation for travelling, and this is partly due to obsolete equipment, the system's unreliability and also the lack of regular services. For all these reasons, the people in the area and the travelling public from Montreal did not, in 1975, and still do not show very much interest in this means of transportation.
On the other hand, I would not like to see this system or mode of transportation phased out permanently. I would like to urge the minister-I see that he has left the House, temporarily I hope-I would like to ask him if in view of the test runs to be carried out in the Windsor-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City corridor, it would not be worth while to equip the Montreal-Mont-Laurier line with modern equipment manufactured by the Bombardier company, for instance, which is making quite a name for itself internationally in this type of transportation equipment, which would provide the travelling public with a cheap, reliable and rapid transit system in any kind of weather. Perhaps the equipment could be tested in the same Windsor-Toronto-Montreal-Quebec City corridor, and then a case could be made for using the trains to facilitate access to the Laurentians and make it possible for people travelling to ski resorts and cottages in my riding to use this rapid transit system, which could easily compete with the conventional highway system.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I have decided to vote against the motion, because I believe that it does not represent the kind of action I would like to support since the inconvenience being caused to the public is being used to annoy and embarrass the government. I feel the present government is making a concerted effort to provide good administration by trying to cut unnecessary costs, and this includes the VIA Rail cutbacks, if we look at the number of people among the travelling public who use this type of transportation. So for all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote against the motion. However, I would ask the minister to ensure that results of the test runs to be made in the Windsor-Montreal-Quebec City corridor will be used to provide this area with a satisfactory, modern and rapid transit sytem in the years to come.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion. I know of no other issue that has so inflamed the hearts of Canadians, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, than the announcement in July by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that the government will cancel 13 railway passenger routes and reduce six others, thus cutting from four to two our transcontinental runs, effective next month.
October 20, 1981

This 19 per cent cut in rail passenger service across Canada has been hailed by the minister as a vital step in the restructuring and reshaping of VIA Rail. I can tell the minister, quite frankly, that it is looked upon as a major disaster and a slap in the face not only for Nova Scotians but for all citizens of Atlantic Canada. This decision is illogical, it is discriminatory and it is counterproductive. It is the first time in the history of this nation that a federal government has decided arbitrarily to eliminate railway passenger service on such a massive scale without the benefit of public hearings, the opportunity for parliamentary debate or examination by the Canadian Transport Commission, a body set up to protect Canadians from this type of dictatorial action.
The government's attitude toward the people it was elected to serve is quite obvious as set out in a letter signed by the Minister of Transport on August 31 and directed to the executive secretary of the Canadian Railway Labour Association. In view of the limited time available to me, I shall not quote all the letter but on page 2, in paragraph 2, the minister stated:
The recent cabinet decision was one of policy and within that policy little discretion would have been left for the CTC in its application-as funding limits and train role priorities were declared.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, this is not just a decision by the federal Minister of Transport; this is a decision that has the approval of the entire cabinet. The government is saying, in effect, "We will take no notice whatsoever of the regulatory body called the Canadian Transport Commission, except when it suits our purpose. Again, we will take no notice of Parliament and on this issue we will not even bother to consult with members of Parliament, the people's elected representatives, because such consultation at this time would not suit our purpose. We will, rather, bulldoze this through cabinet against all opposition and in defiance of our constitutional rights and obligations which include a commitment to provide this nation with adequate transportation facilities." That is what the government is saying. By a simple cabinet directive, the government is implementing a cutback which would affect 1,200,000 passengers and some 1,600 railway employees.
A century ago our government leaders, some of whom were Liberals, developed and encouraged our present railway system in order to enable Canada to become the country that it is today. At that time, there was no alternative but to knit together such a far-flung region into one country, and it is no less true for us today. Fifteen railway lines are to be discontinued, leaving many communities without rail or air transportation. This cannot help but encourage a feeling of isolation and the growth of regionalism which many Canadians are now supporting. If Canadians have ever before doubted that this Liberal government was out of touch with the country it governs and its people and unconcerned about their problems, they now have ample evidence of it with this cutback in rail service.
I cannot help but wonder as a Nova Scotian how much more Canadians will have to endure before they stand up and
VIA Rail
demand accountability from those they put in office to look after their affairs. Certainly, they cannot accept the present state of affairs which has brought about low productivity, unimaginable delays, and wrangling over vitally important energy development projects, uncontrolled inflation, crippling interest rates, a monstrous public debt, a substantially discounted dollar, and constant confrontation between business and government.
Is it any wonder that foreigners who see this country as being rich beyond description in resources question our inability to achieve economic wellbeing because we accept and condone stupid, non-starter policies such as this cutback in rail service? That is the kindest description I can give it. This change must be made, says the hon. minister, in order to save the taxpayers money. However, in what has been termed by some Canadians as the next golden age of trains, this may well be a move which is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
In the maritimes, and in my area in particular, the announcement of the cancellation of the passenger train service between Moncton and Edmundston, New Brunswick, and the major train, "the Atlantic", which links Halifax, Moncton, Saint John and Montreal, has raised fear that the railways may also abandon more freight lines. More important, they may seek to abandon, by a stroke of the pen, some of our ferry services which are so vital to us in Nova Scotia and in Atlantic Canada. This would deprive Canada, and Atlantic Canadians in particular, of an essential tool in getting our goods to markets in central Canada and the United States.
I say to Your Honour that the question must be asked: are the savings of VIA not offset by increased costs to other branches of government required to deal with increased unemployment? The answer, of course, is yes. There was no indication in the government's announcement that this side of the problem was even considered in any manner whatsoever.
In my constituency, the government's attitude toward the provision of adequate passenger and freight service through the railroad has been of some major concern for some time. It started with a press notice on November 5, 1980, which closed out 11 express agencies, seven of which were on the south shore. There were strong objections raised to this move at that time, all to no avail. Later, there were strong objections raised to the government's plans to abandon freight service between Liverpool in Queen's County and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia. The minister also paid no attention to any of these pleas, all of which I, as the member of Parliament for the area, supported in committee and with speeches in the House.
I ask Your Honour, how much has the minister saved by that action? According to the records, in the last five years, the line between Liverpool and Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, lost only $3.5 million; and although this government could not find the money to provide a service for five years on the south shore of Nova Scotia, it could, at the same time, write off $600 million of a debt owed by Mirabel, the biggest white elephant in this country's history.


An hon. Member:: Tinkerbell.

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Only this week I received a further letter from the mayor and town council of Liverpool concerning the proposal to abandon CNR services west of Liverpool. They have specifically asked that no action be taken to remove the rail lines within the town as they will be of benefit to the future development of the town. At present they service Steel and Engine Products Limited, which is a large industry within the town.
I say to this House that Canadians, who are already faced with a dramatic increase in bankruptcies this year, should not be forced into this type of confrontation with the government over railway policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: According to the government's own figures, 625 businesses a month went bankrupt in the first eight months of this year, at a cost of $633.5 million. In the same period last year, 540 firms a month went bottoms-up, at a loss of $475.6 million. How many businesses must go to the wall, along with the shattered dreams of their owners and lost productivity to this nation, before this government which sits on Your Honour's right wakes up and realizes that its policies are not working and that its programs are leading this nation in the wrong direction, as is the present railroad policy?
I say that if this government wants to save money, I will not only be critical but I will give a concrete suggestion which will save many millions of dollars. This can be done by simply discontinuing the government's policy of providing free icebreaking services to users of the St. Lawrence River. In my view, these services should not be free to commercial shippers using Montreal, any more than railway services or ocean terminal services are free to international shipping lines which are using Halifax, Nova Scotia. I also think the time has come for this federal government to examine the state of Canada's containership industry, especially with regard to its operations on the east coast. I urge this federal government to abide by the terms of the National Transportation Act and to equalize the situation between eastern Canadian ports to that we can compete on a fair and equal basis.
We do not seek charity in Atlantic Canada; but I tell the government, through Your Honour, that we do seek justice.
Finally, I must put the following questions to this government: do we want trains made in Canada, using made in Canada electricity, running on made in Canada rails, providing Canadians with comfortable, low-cost, convenient service; or do we want jets made in the United States, using extravagant quantities of imported oil and heavily subsidized airport facilities? Trains are the most energy efficient means of land transport known to man. We as Canadians are sadly in need of new routes and upgraded tracks in order to become competitive and more productive. I suggest that we get the unemployed off the unemployment roles and put them to work building railroads, for so doing, we will really be rebuilding Canada and providing a much needed service to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the impact of the initiative taken by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) as I rise tonight in the House to analyse with all the people of Canada the real purpose of the decisions of the Minister of Transport. Those who know me well are aware that my interest in means of transportation goes back to the days when, as a young lawyer, I was practising transport law here in Ottawa with the Canadian Transport Commission, more particularly with the railway committee.


An hon. Member:: You are still a young lawyer!


Pierre Deniger: In those days I had the opportunity to travel everywhere in Canada and to realize just how important the Canadian railways are to the people. I saw with my own eyes the importance of Canadian railways in the villages of Saskatchewan, I saw it with my own eyes as well in the maritime provinces because indeed, Mr. Speaker, the railways played a big part in the building of this country. As a politician it is not easy nowadays to hold the transport portfolio, and I must admit that I have every respect for any transport minister when he has to act as such during a period of budgetary restraints because, as it happens, it is precisely during periods of budgetary restraints that the most difficult decisions must be taken, that a choice must be made. And that choice, Mr. Speaker, was simple. It was obvious and it required a decision which could not be put off. The choice was as follows: are we going to maintain the existing VIA Rail routes, with equipment which all members agree is outmoded, through a company whose deficits are altogether unreasonable, or are we going to strengthen the tree by pruning a few branches so as to make sure it will regain its energy and vigour?
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that, faced with a decision which, politically and in the short term, will have serious consequences, but which will have beneficial economic consequences in the long term, as a government member, I must support wholeheartedly the views of the Minister of Transport because, in the short term, Mr. Speaker, no one wants to lose his train service and, of course, the members of the opposition are doing what I would perhaps do myself if a train service were to disappear in my constituency, as there is indeed a commuter service which will be abandoned. If a passenger service in my constituency were to be abandoned for good, I would do what they are doing and I would criticize the decision of the Minister of Transport because this is what they must do in the opposition in the short term.
However, this is not what you should do, Mr. Speaker, when you form the government and have long-term economic responsibilities in a period of budget restraints as is the case now. New equipment is the new blood which is going to rejuvenate the Canadian railway network for a better service. What will a better service give us? More users and more
October 20, 1981

revenue! Therefore, we have no choice but to accept in the short term that some routes be abandoned. But what does this mean exactly? People are under the impression that those will be gone forever. But if we believe in the railway passenger service and in people in authority like Frank Roberts, whose ability and integrity cannot be questioned by anyone in this House, we must realize that this decision, which is necessary, is in the best interests of all those who want a railway passenger service in this country. This seems obvious to me. And what shall we do with the money that this will save, Mr. Speaker? It will be redistributed in all the areas of the country affected by these abandonments. It will be used to reduce the deficit, to acquire better equipment and to provide a better railway service. Still, this decision is criticized. I can understand this. I accept the reasons for this in the short term.
I was listening to the former Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), when he said at the very beginning of his speech this afternoon that he wanted an adequate railway service for Canada. I underline the word "adequate", Mr. Speaker, because what I want myself is not an adequate railway service, but an excellent railway passenger service. If we want an adequate service, we only have to keep what we have now, that is old equipment, more or less reliable routes and a mediocre schedule, but if we want an excellent service, if we really want to provide the service that the population should expect, we need new equipment, and this takes money. This money must come from savings and these savings will come from cutting back on the lines which are operated at a deficit.
Let no one suggest that this decision is illegal because I know quite well that all the ministers of Transport in the past, including the hon. member for Vegreville, have used Section 64(1) to make sure that their actions were legal. There is therefore nothing illegal in this decision, Mr. Speaker; it is perfectly legal. I am certain that if the Progressive Conservatives make good on their threat, that is, to ask for an injunction against the Canadian government, their request would be denied. The decision is legal, it is economically sound, it is the right decision in a period of budget restraints. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I must say to this House and to the Canadian people that although this decision will have serious political consequences in the short term, in the long run it is the right political and economic decision to make for a responsible government.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this great binge of economy that we have heard discussed today might be put in its proper light if we said the debt that was forgiven at Mirabel is now being financed by the issuance of Canada Savings Bonds at 19.5 per cent. The government could have saved $97.5 million this year, if it were an estimated $47 million operating deficit. Therefore, had the government had a
VIA Rail
little of the saving discretionary powers, more would have been saved if Mirabel had never been built and operated than will be saved by implementing the plans before us at present. There is one spot alone that benefits, and that is in the golden triangle. What we have heard today, ranging through the golden circle from Mississauga North through La Prairie, through the constituency with Mirabel in it, is a defence of this program which deprives the rest of Canada in one degree or another.
I want to say to the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) that if he had travelled through the country as I did with the committee and if he had listened to the social needs expressed by Canadians from coast to coast, he would not have had the audacity to stand up representing the central part of Toronto, the hinge of the golden triangle, and say "Yes, cut those services, saving only the golden triangle".


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Fred Alward McCain: Rarely have I had the displeasure of witnessing a move which was considered as divisive from the east to the west coast of Canada, saving only the golden triangle.
We have heard from the hon. member from Moncton (Mr. McCauley). Those who were with us on the visits to Moncton have heard representatives of the chamber of commerce and of the unions who were united in their presentations. Hon. members have heard professors from the university. Just this week we had the president of the student council from the University of Moncton telling us that he did not know how to get from Grand Falls to Moncton because the train service is being discontinued, and he could not afford to go by other means.
Is it not rather significant that the people who are being deprived of lines on the government side of the House have had nothing to say? What about the hon. member for Vic-toria-Madawaska (Mr. Corbin)? I remember, when serving on the transport committee, warning the hon. member for Resti-gouche (Mr. Harquail) and the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria that there was no way they would both get passenger service if the Liberal government stayed in power. And they are not getting it. The riding of Madawaska-Victoria is now deprived. Again, there is the student population, those who were going for special medical services and those who were going to visit and shop in the city of Moncton. They are all affected because of the area's socioeconomic links with the city of Edmundston. Therefore, they are deprived. Their service has gone. That service should be kept. But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that if you want to maintain the social and ethnic elements in that part of Canada, not only should that train go from Moncton to Edmundston but it should be continued to the city of Quebec.
I did not hear anyone speak from New Brunswick except for the hon. member for Moncton. In all the presentation, there was no one who supported the government's position. However, I want to mention one more thing in connection with the hon. member for Moncton. Inherent in this motion is the willingness and the offer of the Conservative party to extend to this House of Commons unanimous consent with the clear

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
understanding that this is not intended in any way, shape or form as a motion of non-confidence.


An hon. Member:: It is a free vote.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: If you want to know something about the rules, Mr. Speaker, why do you not advise the hon. gentleman that when the House is determined to give unanimous consent on any subject matter, the rule may be overridden and ignored. Unanimous consent is yours, if you have a conscience and want to vote for Canadians.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Trudeau says no, so the Liberals say no.


Fred Alward McCain: Overlooking the convention of unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Do not show your ignorance to your constituents who may be watching you on television.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gordon Edward Taylor: They have to do what Mr. Trudeau tells them.


Fred Alward McCain: This is supposed to be a saving.


Mr. Harquail:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Fred Alward McCain: On somebody else's time, please, Mr. Speaker.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, the usual mood prevails after dinner. But I want to say that the hon. member has mentioned Restigouche. I would like to remind him that the Ocean Limited and VIA will continue through my part of New Brunswick, northern New Brunswick, with no cutback in the service.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Alfred Corbett: Patronage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member does not have a point of order.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to report to New Brunswick how little one New Brunswick member cares for the rest of New Brunswick.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Or the rest of Canada.


Fred Alward McCain: The saving is purely artificial because what the railroads do not get out of VIA, they will collect in freight rates. Do not forget that.
The other thing that you should remember is that VIA was saddled by this government when it was initially established
with a cost structure differing from that of the railroads, which made it impossible for VIA to become viable. VIA was never intended to be viable. It was never intended to operate as do the systems in Japan, as does Amtrack or as do the systems in Britain or France. It was intended to fail and it was doomed to obvious failure when it was saddled with paying 64 per cent of all its expenditures to CN and CP. Every nickel that is taken out of their coffers is taken out of taxpayers' pockets through increments in freight rates. That is a false saving.
This says nothing about the fact that perhaps $40 million will be lost in Japanese tourism on the west coast, nothing about strangulation of tour plans by VIA and those in the Annapolis Valley, and nothing of tourists who came in from the Atlantic and go to Prince Edward Island and on to Newfoundland. The government is saving money on the backs of every Canadian who is in the tourist business, every one of them. The government is saving money at the expense of senior citizens who prefer to ride on the trains. The government is saving money at the expense of students who travel-and we talked with them from coast to coast in Canada-by the cheapest means of transportation they can find in Canada; the government is saving money on their backs including the backs of people in Moncton. The government is saving money at the cost of inconvenience of the disabled, who made several presentations to point out that for the sake of economy, convenience and comfort, not otherwise available, they travel VIA Rail in practically every instance. The government is saving money at the expense of those who for health reasons cannot fly, and it is saving money at the expense of those who cannot drive. The government is saving money at the expense of the servicemen of this country who are posted far from home with inadequate incomes to travel by any except the cheapest means at their disposal, and saving money at the expense of the small businessman who cannot afford to travel by air, and there is a multitude of them definitely using VIA Rail. Those are the people on whose backs the government is saving money. It will have to transfer this to freight rates when the railroads have to collect the difference. The government is saving money at the expense of several thousand people. Some 1,600 will be dismissed, and what is the multiplier factor? If it is 7, we are looking at something like 10,000 jobs which will disappear directly or indirectly as a result of cutbacks in rail transportation. That is how the minister is saving money. I suggest he vote for this on behalf of New Brunswick because the government will suffer the political consequence otherwise.


Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to speak about the future of rail transportation in Canada, and especially the service to northern Ontario. Throughout our history there has been an assumption that transportation, especially cheap transportation, was too important to allow economic considerations to interfere with service. National unity, economic development and frontier settlement were far too critical to apply a real dollar value to them. But today, anyone who speaks about passenger train transportation in Canada has to refer to the
October 20, 1981

economic realities of cost ratios per passenger; that is, the cost to the taxpayer for every passenger who boards a train.
The fact is that every time a passenger steps on a train in Canada, the taxpayers pick up two thirds of the fare. Even with the $500 million in subsidies VIA Rail receives, the chances of a full recovery of our passenger systems are very slim. The Canadian people pay $410 million to VIA just to cover their operating losses, even if they do not travel by train. Passenger service on the scale we now have is simply too expensive.
We had hoped, with the introduction of the VIA system in 1977, that profits could begin to lower the deficit of our passenger system. This was the motive of the transportation acts introduced in 1977. At that time the Crown corporations involved in passenger transport were directed to strive toward making a profit.


An hon. Member:: Slow down.


Bruce Lonsdale: I have only got 10 minutes. Canadians have always had an emotional attachment to trains. But, the simple fact of the matter is that today people are not using trains to travel. The trains can only be profitable if enough people use them.


An hon. Member:: Slow down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Lonsdale) has the floor.


Bruce Lonsdale: Mr. Speaker, I will set my pace to a speed at which hon. members can understand me.
Opponents of rationalization say that trains have to be considered a public service and they have to operate in the public interest. But the public interest also includes fiscal responsibility, reducing the federal deficit and, hopefully, inflation.
A good example of the cost ratio for a route in northern Ontario is the route from Senneterre, Quebec, to Cochrane. For every passenger on this route, the taxpayer has to pay 77 cents for every dollar of cost. With only a 25 per cent occupancy rate, this train is not efficient enough to continue service once a day. This service has thus been cut to three times a week. This major link between Cochrane and Montreal is not fully utilized, and economic considerations have to outweigh the desirability of continuing this route on a once a day basis.
The line from Capreol to Homepayne is very similar, with a .05 per cent cost ratio and an 11 per cent load factor. There are other services that are even less efficient. I refer to the route between Sudbury and White River.
However, pure economic rationalizations do not take into consideration the very special needs of northern Ontario. There are many communities in the north which are rail dependent. Some of these have other links to the rest of the
VIA Rail
province only on a seasonal basis. If pure economic considerations are applied to these rail links, the fragile social and economic environment of these isolated communities could be disrupted forever. As a member of Parliament from northern Ontario, I am attempting to convince the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) that these rail lines have to be protected.
I am not, however, advocating that the minister return these lines to the service levels they had before the announced cuts. What I am saying is that the Canadian Transport Commission and the provincial and federal governments have to explore the possibly alternatives to the types of service provided before.
You may note that the Minister of Transport this afternoon talked about the Scrivener report under the Ontario government. I have here a motion from the Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association, an area in which the Conservatives failed to hold a hearing. This is the only place in which they turned down the opportunity to hold a hearing. In any event, the association moved a motion which I should like to quote. It states:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: That the Government of Canada be requested to initiate a study jointly with the Government of Ontario, using the Scrivener Task Force brief as a guide, and with input from the public, on the present and future needs of rail passenger service in Northern Ontario.
What we do not need is more costly public hearings. Hearings on northern transportation systems have resulted in the same conclusions since the first royal commission on transportation in the 1920s. There have been, as you will recall, hearings within the last four years as well, and the answers and conclusions of those commissions were obvious to all of us. The conclusions were that these services are considered to be vital communications links which have to be maintained in the public interest.
We all know that the service is not economically efficient yet. We also know that it is vital to many of our neighbouring communities. No one could possibly disagree that we have to fight to maintain local service.
No one could possibly disagree that we need daily passenger service. But, with a more rational look-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bruce Lonsdale: This is where you guys stop and all the criticism begins. We must take a more rational look at the special needs of northern Ontario and other more remote areas of this country. Only then can the solutions offered us by modern transportation technology be applied, both efficiently and economically. The facts prove that fewer people are using these lines every year. One of the reasons for this is the tremendous amount of money we spend on roads in northern Ontario.
I have the northern Ontario road construction program for 1981-82. It shows that some $60 million are to be spent on road construction in northern Ontario, while at the same time the minister of northern affairs is criticizing the federal government for not sustaining a $16 million subsidy to the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission.

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail
I want to look at road construction in one riding in northern Ontario and how this relates to the entire operating subsidy and cost of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. The operating costs of that commission are $19 million, and revenues are $3 million, leaving a subsidy of $16 million.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bruce Lonsdale: Do you want to know what the capital road construction program is in the riding of Kenora, which is also the riding of the minister of northern affairs for Ontario? In 1981 the projection is for $5.5 million for 17 kilometres. There are to be further improvements on Highway 17 and a Kenora bypass. They are going to bypass Kenora. Imagine what would happen if it had been decided that the train service should bypass Kenora. They are going to extend that bypass with a multimillion dollar project, and no quotation is provided. The Ontario minister is going to build a road into Minaki Lodge at a cost of $4.5 million, and there is another 22 kilometres project without any mention of the expenditure. In all of northern Ontario some $60 million is to be spent for road construction, but the same Ontario minister has the nerve to criticize the federal government for not spending enough on rail transportation in northern Ontario.
All the surveys done on rail transportation in northern Ontario show that two thirds of all trips are short hauls to and from neighbouring communities. People have to get to major centres to obtain medical services or commodities which are unavailable in the north. We need, in Northern Ontario, convenient, affordable, reliable and familiar links between our communities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Lonsdale: These services cannot be provided as an afterthought by a supercontinental. Local links with smaller, more efficient trains and other carriers have to be considered on another basis. That is the recommendation of the Scrivener task force report on rail transportation in Ontario.
Never before has the potential for advancement in passenger rail transportation been more promising. The technological improvements in self-propelled passenger cars is the hope for the future. It is, Mr. Speaker, the final hope for rail passenger service in Northern Ontario and in Canada.
The rail diesel car, better known as the Budd RDC, and other self-propelled trains, could provide the kinds of service that northern Ontario needs today. The Budd RDCs do not require the expensive types of infrastructures that older diesel engines need, such as roundabouts and major track improvements. This makes them more economical for passenger transportation today.


An hon. Member:: You need a self-propelled minister!


Bruce Lonsdale: With present-day technology, with the inclusion of kitchens and other convenient items, these trains would attract the number of people necessary to return these lines to
a profit-making position. I quote, for example, the use of the Budd RDC in the rail line between Capreol and Nakima which could have a projected profit of $1 million a year. These improvements in technology could save the routes which until now have cost the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars a year. These moneys could be used to save the whole national rail system by providing the funds necessary for upgrading. With some rationalization of types of systems, the entire railway network in Canada could be saved.
You might argue that this is a long-range perspective. But 1 truly believe that if we all take a rational look at rail transportation in Canada today, we will agree that this is the only possible answer to save the whole system.
We have to fight to protect our industries and our jobs. We have to fight rationally and, more important, we have to offer practical alternatives. If we demand the continuation of uneconomical transportation lines, we will lose-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I have only two minutes, so I will speak very quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: The omen and irony is when the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Lonsdale), speaking for the Liberals, castigates the Tories for failing to hold a hearing in one part of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am pleased to spend at least a few minutes on this side of the House talking about this particular issue. I want to remind those opposite clearly that here is a cabinet and a minister who ignores the Canadian Transport Commission totally, ignores the transport committee of the House of Commons, ignores the Parliament of Canada, therefore the people of Canada, on an issue which has extreme ramifications in all regions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: When we hear there are 1,200,000 passengers who will be affected, surely we cannot ignore that figure. When we hear there are 1,600 railroad employees who will be adversely affected by this decision, as indicated earlier by a Conservative speaker, we are not talking about 1,600 people, we are talking about thousands of people who will be affected as a result of the spin-off effect of this decision.
In my riding of Kamloops-Shuswap I received 3,000 virtually unsolicited petitions from people indicating their outrage at this insensitive, callous decision.
What is it going to do to the thousands of small businesses across this country which are already under incredible pressure from the high interest policy of this government? What will it mean to the tourist industry of western, eastern and central Canada? What does it mean when the Liberal government says ten sets of LRC's will be spent on the corridor between Windsor and Quebec City, totally ignoring their earlier prom-
October 20, 1981

VIA Rail
Messrs.
ise to spend a portion of those in the rest of Canada. Let us hope this-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and to put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the supply proceedings now before the House under the provisions of Standing Order 58(9).

Is the House ready for the question?
Ogle	Roche	TaylorOrlikow	Rose	ThackerPaproski	Sargeant	ThomsonParker	Schellenberger	TowersPatterson	Scott	VankoughnetReid	(Hamilton-Wentworth)	Wilson(St. Catharines)	Shields	WiseRiis	Siddon	WrightRobinson	Stevens	Young(Burnaby)	Stewart	Yurko-105.
++NAYS
Messrs.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
Amendment (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 20, 1981
VIA Rail


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: The motion is defeated.
The House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Wednesday, October 21, 1981