1981-10-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada has been made well aware of the feelings of the people of Canada regarding VIA Rail cuts, and cutbacks in passenger service. A 19 per cent cutback of service in Canada means that 50 per cent of the service in western Canada is cut back, almost 50 per cent of the service in Atlantic Canada will disappear, and 1,600 VIA lay-offs will have an effect on 8,000 jobs in Canada. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport to rescind immediately the order in council cancelling one fifth of Canada's rail passenger service and call public hearings so that he may be informed of the current facts and the absolute need for this service in all regions of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REFERRAL OF QUESTION TO STANDING COMMITTEE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, after VIA Rail arbitrarily removed trains Nos. 45 and 46 from Ottawa to Belleville, it announced that the Turbo would begin service between Montreal, Belleville and Toronto at the end of the month. Now VIA has delayed this service, citing problems with the LRC trains. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Minister of Transport make a statement on motions giving the full details of the problems facing the LRCs, the reasons for delays in other services, and authorize the Standing Committee on Transport to deal with the whole VIA Rail system in detail.


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


SUGGESTED RESCINDING OF ORDER IN COUNCIL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the VIA cutbacks which have upset Canadians from coast to coast. In view of the September 28 decision of the Canadian Transport Commission which said that the accounting system used to estimate financial losses of passenger trains is inadequate and should be reviewed, and since this means that the decision of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to cut VIA services is based on completely outdated and inaccurate information, a fact which was confirmed by direct information given to me recently in Moncton and Saint John, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That this House urge the government to rescind the order in council abandoning passenger service, at least until the Canadian Transport Commission or the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transport holds a full public inquiry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONDEMNATION OF MINISTERIAL ACTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, 100 years ago the arrival of the railroads signalled the beginning of many cities and towns in Manitoba. It is ironic that the Liberal government has chosen to recognize this milestone by completely removing rail passenger service from many of these communities. I therefore move under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That this House condemn the Minister of Transport for his now infamous dictatorial edict of July 27 which removed all rail passenger service from many of these rural communities in Manitoba, leaving several of them totally isolated.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 26, 1981


SUGGESTED POSTPONEMENT OF CUTS IN PASSENGER SERVICE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the task force on passenger rail service heard more than 50 briefs opposing the termination of the Atlantic Limited and the Edmundston to Moncton run. More than 13,500 names have been collected in the maritimes and have been presented to the House of Commons opposing these cuts, and a delegation well representing Atlantic Canadians has travelled to Ottawa today in an effort to retain these routes. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That the House instruct the government to postpone any cuts to passenger rail service until the democratic process embodied in the Canadian Transport Commission has been satisfied and public hearings are held to determine the fate of these lines.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CUTS IN SERVICE BETWEEN ALBERTA AND BRITISH COLUMBIA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I too rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The cutbacks announced by the government in rail service between Edmonton and Vancouver and Edmonton and Prince Rupert will have very serious economic and social consequences for business and individual western Canadians, and since these indiscriminate cutbacks provide further evidence of the total disregard of the Liberal government for the growing feelings of alienation and isolation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the decision to eliminate VIA rail service from Jasper to Vancouver and to reduce by half the service between Edmonton and Prince Rupert be rescinded or at least postponed until public hearings have been held to determine the validity and consequences of such action.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CALL FOR IMPROVEMENT OF SERVICE TO NOVA SCOTIA- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to protest the latest illogical, discriminatory, counterproductive, arbitrary and destructive series of service curtailments by our supposedly national railway system, which eliminates 13 passenger routes, reduces another six, and affects the employment of 1,600 workers. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the eastern transcontinental route called "The Atlantic" from Halifax to Montreal, be retained, and that the government keep its promise of providing Nova Scotians with two light, rapid and comfortable trains by the autumn of next year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Al MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since September 1 of this year the Government of Canada has reached energy pricing and taxation agreements with the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Today marks the signing of an energy-pricing agreement between this government and the government of Saskatchewan. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly):
That this House recognize and applaud all the parties involved in these negotiations for their efforts in carrying forward the National Energy Program which will benefit all regions of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the widespread demonstrations last weekend protesting the build-up of nuclear arms by both the superpowers, and in view of the decision taken by the United States to construct neutron bombs which are conceived to destroy humanity while preserving property, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House go on record calling for nuclear disarmament in Europe and throughout the world, and that there be an immediate ban on neutron weapons and an early move to East-West talks on arms control. Further, that this House and every member present have a vital and responsible role to play in bringing the world back from the brink of nuclear holocaust where we stand today.
This is a motion in support of global nuclear disarmament. Surely that is what this House and nation stand for.
October 26, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
That since the Canadian Transport Commission has ruled that Canada's rail passenger service is at an "irreducible minimum", this House endorses a measure to suspend the execution of Order in Council P.C. 1981-2171, in order to maintain passenger service at present levels until such time as a public body has had time and opportunity to review the minister's unilateral announcement of arbitrary cuts and cutbacks.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED REVOCATION OF ORDER IN COUNCIL-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Transport Commission, after public hearings in 1977, recommended to the Government of Canada that two trans-Canadian passenger trains were necessary for reasonable rail passenger service, and pointed out that this was particularly true of the maritimes in general and New Brunswick in particular. In a front page headline the Saint John Telegraph-Journal on August 27 referred to the proposed "Atlantic" and other cancellations in New Brunswick as "Ottawa cutting the heart out of New Brunswick". Since the cancellation falls hardest on areas where no affordable or convenient alternative passenger service exists, and on those who cannot afford a more expensive means of travel, I therefore move under the terms of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the government do now immediately revoke the order in council cancelling certain VIA passenger service, renegotiate more for favourable VIA contracts with the railroads, and in general establish a VIA service which meets the needs as expressed by provincial governments, unions, chambers of commerce, mayors, university student bodies and a multitude of others.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


CALL FOR CONTINUANCE OF SERVICE BETWEEN TORONTO AND BARRIE, ONT - MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, the Georgian task force has predicted that the population of the city of Barrie will reach 125,000 by the year 2011. I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the Minister of Transport in concert with his provincial counterpart, the hon. James Snow, with whom I have been in contact, assure this House and the thousands of people to be affected that his department will provide for the orderly continuance and expansion of the economically viable VIA Rail service so necessary for the 500 to 600 daily passengers Toronto to Barrie.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I also wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43, regarding CMHC cutbacks which are aggravating Canada's housing crisis. The budget of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has been cut from $1.8 billion to $400 million over the past five years, a period during which housing problems have escalated very seriously. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller):
That the CMHC allocation in this year's budget be restored to at least the 1976 level of $1.8 billion in order to stimulate much needed non-profit and rental housing and also to restore lost jobs in Canada's construction industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My question, Madam Speaker, is directed to the Minister of Transport. In the House of Commons last Thursday the Minister of Transport informed members of the House that he had a first version of a VIA Rail Act. He also confirmed earlier in that day during Question Period that he was reviewing, and would amend, the

October 26, 1981
Oral Questions
infamous costing order R63-13. Since the lack of a proper legislative mandate, and an outdated and unfair costing order are central to the difficulties which plague VIA Rail, and since the decision to cut back VIA Rail services by 20 per cent emanates from this inadequate structure, may I ask the minister why he is so insistent on forging ahead with the cutbacks before these matters are put in order, particularly, Madam Speaker, since the propriety of the minister's actions is clearly brought into question both inside and outside this chamber?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: I believe, and the government believes, for budgetary reasons and reasons of transportation policy, that the reduction of routes is essential. The discussion of the quality of costing order R63-13, and a discussion on the possibility and desirability of a bill on VIA are two other objectives which are not really related to the operation which now needs to be done, and which will give VIA the possibility of doing a good job. This necessitates the elimination of some routes. The way some members were talking you would have thought it was the reverse situation, that 80 per cent of the routes had been eliminated, as opposed to 20 per cent being eliminated and 80 per cent maintained.
There are a number of exaggerations around us this afternoon. It is regrettable and unfortunate. On the radio the other morning I heard, "Choo Choo, Choo, there won't be a train from Vancouver any more." This is not true at all. As a matter of fact, one of the transcontinentals is maintained.


NON-REFERRAL TO CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Obviously the minister believes his actions are correct, but at the same time he chooses to ignore the CTC, and chooses to ignore the Parliament of Canada, and chooses to ignore the needs of Canadians. Why does the minister refuse to allow Parliament and the people of Canada to share in the formulation of a clear rail passenger policy before he arbitrarily orders the passenger service out of existence?
Is it true, Madam Speaker, that we may expect further cuts if this decision is allowed to go unchallenged? Is it true Canadians will experience further cutbacks next year? Is it true that the eastern and western arm of VIA Rail will probably be wiped out? Is it true that existing rolling stock is now being scrapped? Is it true that the LRC scheduled to go into service this week will not be going into service? Why does the minister refuse to debate this very important public policy item in Parliament so that parliamentarians and the people of Canada will have an opportunity of sharing in making the kind of policy that will meet the needs of the 1980s and on to the year 2000?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My hon. friend who, I always thought, would have been a progressive and a dynamic Minister of Transport-


Some hon. Members:: He was.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -has been repeatedly trying to delay, first by saying it should be sent to the CTC, and then by saying it should be sent to a parliamentary committee, which I accepted at one point. He said it should be delayed until we have a VIA bill; it should be delayed until we have the extraordinary costing formula that would solve all problems for all time. This is an accumulation of delays which would lead to a situation where at one point, in the end, there might not be something to help. This is what we are trying to do. We are trying to help VIA. The management of VIA are fully in agreement with what we are doing.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: No, they are not.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Of course they are. They wrote to my predecessor on the same subject. They gave my predecessor exactly the same recommendation as they gave me. That recommendation has been incorporated in the decision which we made on July 27. The hon. member knows that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I do not accept that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He could not make up his mind on the subject. That is something else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lawrence:: How do you know what the recommendations to him were?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Well I can read the files, can I not?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We will not get through several questions if we do not allow the minister to answer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: On the delay in the coming into activity of the LRCs-light, rapid and comfortable trains-my answer is very simple. The management have repeatedly expressed their satisfaction with these trains, but there have been the usual technical difficulties in matters of this kind. This is why they were located close to the manufacturer, so they could be sent back rather rapidly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: They have had problems. It will mean a delay of about four weeks altogether. It is expected that some of the ten trains will go back into activity before the end of the four weeks.


REASONS FOR NON-REFERRAL TO COMMISSION
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. I do not know whether the minister has been asked this question in the House, but in terms of delay when was the decision made which was announced on July 27? How many days or weeks before the House adjourned? What was the reason for the delay in the minister's announcement?
October 26, 1981

Returning partly to the question of the hon. member for Vegreville, if the minister is so sure of his facts, what is wrong with having this matter referred to the CTC, the body which was structured under the National Transportation Act to hear these matters, so that one of the budgetary reasons which is being used by the minister now will not be again used under the costing formulae that no one understands? VIA Rail does not know what it is paying for its rental of the rails.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have explained repeatedly why it was not being sent to the CTC. First of all one has to go to the law. Section 64(1) of the National Transportation Act indicates specifically that the government can act by order in council in these matters. That is legal. The reason for the law is simply that there will be occasions in the life of a railway system when what needs to be done is not a study of each route particularly, but a total rationalization exercise. This is why the law anticipated that particular necessity. This is why the law indicates that it can be done.
What would have happened is very simple. Mr. Lang tried it and failed because of circumstances which my hon. friend may have in mind. I would have had to go to the CTC and give a directive. I would have had to tell the CTC that there were limitations on the amounts of money that could be spent. Half a million bucks was about the level.


Mr. Ouellet:: Half a billion.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Half a billion, of course.


Mr. Epp:: Of course! What's half a billion!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would have had to suggest to the CTC that it might consider maintaining one of the two transcontinental services. I would have had to tell the CTC that it would have to take into consideration the situation of isolated towns, cities and communities. I would have had to tell the CTC something it indicated on its own, that commuter services were a provincial responsibility. I would have had to say all that.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Why didn't you?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The same people who accuse me of being arbitrary now, would have said that I was twisting the arm of the CTC. This is why we have done it the way we have. We have done it directly.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Tear the arm right off the CTC.


Jean-Luc Pepin: In so doing, we have saved three or four years of time. We have saved the necessary money to give to VIA to buy itself proper equipment at this time.


RAILWAYS' CONTRIBUTION TO GROWTH OF COUNTRY
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I understand the minister has some history with railways. His father worked in the railways. I must say that I do not
Oral Questions
think the minister is following in the same track as his father who had some identity with railways.
Does the minister not believe that at this particular time, when there is stress and strain in this country that the railways helped to bring together from coast to coast, when we are talking about the Charter of Rights and discussions and forums, it would have been a very positive thing if he could have laid down some abbreviated terms of reference for the CTC? If he had done that, this thing could have been discussed, argued and debated within an abbreviated time period, and the taxpayers, the mayors, and all those people who came here today, and officials from coast to coast, would know the one completely idiotic situation, that VIA Rail under the costing formula is the only railway that I know of in the world that cannot get an explanation of the bill that it is paying to CN and CP for the rental of its rails. That much at least could have been cleared up and, Madam Speaker, if it is not cleared up then the same type of costing formula will do just what the hon. member for Vegreville says it will do, and if that is so, then we might as well eliminate every passenger service.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is the problem I have had. My hon. friends on the other side, and some of them on all sides forget, when they think about it-


An hon. Member:: Some on your side, too.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, indeed. They forget that in your lifetime and in mine we have seen three revolutions; the revolution of the automobile, of the bus, and of the plane. We are now seeing the revolution of electronics. There is no way that railways could come through these four revolutions untouched.
What we are doing now is adjusting railway passengers transportation to contemporary times. That has to be done. It is being done in every part of the world now. I know it is painful, because we are all romantic about railways. I was born with railway smoke in my nose. We are all romantic about it, but when you tell people that half a billion dollars is going toward subsidizing rail passengers now, they do not know it. I thank the opposition very much for giving me the opportunity of reminding them of that. When they are told that, people say they agree with us that there must be limitations to the amount of money which can be dedicated to this particular mode of transportation.


REQUEST FOR DELAY IN IMPLEMENTING ORDER IN COUNCIL AUTHORIZING CUTBACKS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, there is no one on this side of the House and no Canadian outside the House who is being romantic about keeping passenger trains. All of us are sick and tired of the minister's philosophizing, when he does not know a damn thing about transportation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 26, 1981
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Four economists in the employ of the government, of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Transport, have said that this decision is, and I quote them, "-as uninformed and inconsistent an exercise in transportation planning as could be imagined." In light of the fact that the CTC and the government's own economists have said that VIA Rail is unjustifiably paying 60 per cent of its operating costs to Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, compared to the 25 per cent paid by Amtrak in United States, and since the order in council is based on out-of-date and misleading information, would the minister at least agree to delay the implementation of the order in council until either the CTC or the parliamentary committee on transportation have held a full public hearing on the matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have said before that we will not delay implementation so I am not going to repeat it. The only thing that could convince us to delay would be a court action, which I understand is being taken today, or was taken last Friday. Of course if that comes about and if there is an injunction to prevent implementation of the order in council, we will obey the law.
All through these days I have heard from the hon. member for Regina West and from Transport 2000 that they are not opposed to some reduction of services. The hon. member said the other day in debate in the House:
We are not trying to justify the retention of all 21 routes, but I submit that at least half of them are viable.
The member is quite in agreement with the principle that one has to rationalize railways, and the debate between himself and ourselves relates to how many routes should be terminated and how many routes should be reduced. That is a debate which is quite normal, but the principle is accepted by everyone. It is a matter of disagreement as to the number of cutbacks which should take place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I know the minister wants to be fair. If one looks at my opening paragraph or two, I said that we wanted the government to rescind the order, but we agreed with the motion of the official opposition that, to be reasonable, we should at least ask for a delay, and the minister knows that.


OPERATION OF BUS ROUTES PURSUANT TO CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION ORDER
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a second question for the minister. In the wild rush of the minister, of the President of the Treasury Board and the cabinet, thinking they were going to save $100 million by the order in council, is it correct that in the order in council ordering the cancellation of these routes, the government forgot about all the bus routes that the Canadian Transport Commission ordered VIA Rail to
run, such as the routes from Fredericton to Moncton and from Prince Albert to Saskatoon? The order in council takes effect November 15. Will these buses still keep running to connect with trains that the government has already cancelled? I would like to ask the minister if he would explain that to us, and would he go back to the drawing board and check his homework?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will obviously do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The order in council varies a number of decisions the CTC has previously taken. I do not know where buses come into that, but obviously that was not the main objective.


REVENUE FIGURES FOR TORONTO-PETERBOROUGH-HAVELOCK SERVICE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport as well. I think the minister is now aware that the revenue figures presented to him to justify the cancellation of the Toronto-Peterborough-Havelock passenger service in southern Ontario are in error by over 25 per cent.


Miss MacDonald:: Wow!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: There is at least a $100,000 understatement of revenues. Would the minister have made the decision to cancel that particular intercity service if he had had the correct figures at the time the decision was made?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker, because the problem is not what my hon. friend indicates. The problem is that in the Toronto area there are three intercity lines to Barrie, Stouffville and Havelock. These so-called intercity trains are really mainly used as commuter services. If one takes the Havelock route, one will find that most of the passengers get on the train at Agincourt, mispronounced "Agincour". They get on there, and from then on the line becomes essentially a commuter line.
Historically and legally the Canadian government does not have to pay subsidies on commuters. Because of that we have said to the provinces, "Look. These are essentially your responsibilities. You have to work out a metropolitan system: bus, underground, train, and so on. This is your responsibility." This was recommended to the government of Ontario by the Scrivener report. The deputy minister of transportation was sitting on that committee.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Not the Havelock line.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is accepted. This is common knowledge. This is conventional widsom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 26, 1981


Jean-Luc Pepin: The only difficulty is that Mr. Snow, if he is to operate these lines as commuter services, would like the Government of Canada to give them the same advantage that it has with respect to costing order 63-13. We are studying this now. I am most sympathetic to his views on that subject. It is a bit complicated, but I will be in touch with him. In the meantime I suggest that my hon. friend should not worry too much. If everthing goes according to plan, these lines will be operated as commuter lines in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Not the Havelock line.


CANCELLATION'S EFFECTS ON TOURIST RESORTS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I am sure that hon. members of this House are astonished to watch the minister attempt to evade his constitutional responsibility to operate passenger trains in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: The minister knows, for example, this his decision to cancel the western Super Continental is based on a totally false economy. It will cost tourist operators in western Canada upwards of $100 million in lost business because of his decision, and $40 million in lost business from Japan alone.
Will the minister tell this House what level of financial compensation he proposes to offer to communities like Jasper, Alberta, and to businesses? Thousands of hospitality businesses and individuals will be faced with bankruptcy, unemployment, and personal financial hardship because of his illogical decision.
While he is at it, will he tell us why his officials, at this very moment, are planning to cut The Canadian train next summer from 20 cars to 13, to restrict the availability of sleeping car accommodation on that train, and to carve up and dismantle very, very fine passenger rail cars in order to advance his policy of eliminating passenger trains and getting everyone into airplanes and buses?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend wants to go into further depth on this subject he will find that in western Canada and in Ontario, in particular, the Transcontinental is essentially used as an intercity service, in normal times. Occasionally a group of people-and there are some in the audience today-will decide to take the full transcontinental route, a once-in-a-lifetime trip; but basically it is operated as an intercity service.
So what did we do on July 27? For social, political, psychological and historical reasons, we maintained one of the transcontinental routes.
My hon. friend refers to the elimination of the Transcontinental. That is not true. We are maintaining one of the transcontinental routes in the west, the Canadian, while the
Oral Questions
northern transcontinental, in western Canada and Ontario, will be operated as an intercity system, in part; that is, Winnipeg to Regina to Saskatoon, Saskatoon to Edmonton, and Edmonton to Prince Rupert. The train remains there, in part, and it is operated as an intercity train. This is all in line with the basic philosophy we are upholding, which is that the future of railways is in intercity transportation of passengers over distances of 500 miles or less.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROSS-COUNTRY RAILWAY SERVICE CUTS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. The task force on rail passenger service of this party heard more than 320 groups and individuals in 13 cities across the country. Many of them characterized what the government is doing as being a serious abuse of power. I remind the minister that the section in the National Transportation Act to which he is referring has never before been used by a government in this way. He is now facing, I believe, two law suits on whether or not the government can abuse the National Transportation Act in this way.

More specifically, all members of the House are aware that a minister's decision to cut back-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The member must ask his question. I understand that he wishes to repeat it in French for French-speaking viewers but he can only ask one question which must be as brief as possible.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, could the minister tell the House whether his decision will become effective on November 15 of this year and, if so, why he has refused to hold public hearings on these cutbacks, although he knew very well that according to the results of the Gallup poll his unilateral, arbitrary and senseless decision would affect hundreds of thousands of Canadians, and that 51 per cent-and this includes the citizens of Edmundston, Fredericton, Moncton, Sherbrooke, Montreal and the Abitibi and Lake Saint John areas-of Canadians are against those cutbacks.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have already explained in English that the government's main reason for making the cutbacks without going through the Canadian Transport Commission, which would be the usual channel in such cases, is quite simply that the government is authorized to do so by law, and because this exercise was aimed at rationalizing the entire network and not one particular route, an area in which the Canadian Transport Commission is specialized. I also explained that if we had gone through the CTC, we would not have been able to save the several hundred million dollars we shall now be able to give to VIA Rail for the purchase of new equipment.

October 26, 1981
Oral Questions
Regarding Section 64(1) of the Transportation Act, my hon. friend may be interested to know that other ministers, including my predecessor and his predecessor before him, also used this legislation, in connection, for instance, with the charter system in Canada.


CUTS IN SERVICE IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Fred Alward McCain: Madam Speaker, it is very little consolation to the hundreds and thousands, in fact millions of Canadians, who have been inconvenienced by this government, to hear remarks about rationality and philosophy, when they are so seriously deprived. In light of the government's historical social responsibility and social conscience- one wonders what has become of it-will the minister explain with rationality and philosophy how he plans to put two train loads, which on many occasions are already overloaded, into one, as they pass through New Brunswick?
Second, what accommodation does the minister plan to extend to the travelling population of Canada for emergencies or holiday excursions if he now proceeds to destroy the equipment which at least gives some kind of service? Has the minister had any representation from government members in Atlantic Canada saying, for example, "Please don't cut the heart out of New Brunswick"?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is no doubt that some people will be deprived. I regret that. But a great number of people in Canada-


An hon. Member:: Where?


Fred Alward McCain: To him that hath shall be given.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -will also be pleased to know that the government is spending their money well. This will make many people happy.
With respect to emergencies, isolated towns and what-not, we have been very careful not to restrain or cut services to isolated areas. 1 could name all of them where service will continue. There will be others that might be affected at different points on routes that are to be reduced. There is no doubt about that, but adjustments will be found.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You hope.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Buses will go where train service was traditional. The problem is that if we stop everything there will be further delay, and people will not get these adjustments that no doubt will come about.


Fred Alward McCain: They weren't isolated until you came along.
DELAY IN INTRODUCTION OF LRCs


John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In the minister's answers to the hon. member for Vegreville, he dwelt for a moment on the problem of the LRCs. I suggest to the minister that we are not getting the whole story on the LRCs. In fact the LRCs are now months behind schedule, and the schedule is being further delayed. In turn, those delays are changing schedules of regular trains. Would the minister come clean on the issue? Will he tell us exactly when we will see the LRCs in service, particularly since the changes made in Belleville were made to accommodate the changes of rail crews and those changes have now been tossed aside because the turbo has had to be put back in service, and so on. I suggest to the minister that the problem is far more serious than he is letting us know about.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I don't know if there is anything else to say; I have said everything that I know.


An hon. Member:: You don't know anything.


Walter David Baker: That is your problem.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did my best to find out. The situation, as I indicated, is one of technical problems. The withdrawal is for a period of four weeks. I also mentioned previously that a number of the LRCs will be back in operation before that span of time has elapsed. That is all there is to say on the subject.


BANK ACT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, yesterday in London a group of some 1,000 angry home owners let the minister responsible for housing know how profoundly unhappy they were over the government's ruinous mortgage policy. In particular, they asked the minister whether the government would restore to the Bank Act the principle that the banks be obligated to make mortgage money available at rates which the average family can afford. The minister said yesterday that in effect he was not authorized to answer the question.
Since the Liberal government removed that principle from the Bank Act in 1969, will the Prime Minister now give a commitment to the people of Canada that the government will restore it, namely, that mortgage money must be made available by banks at levels the ordinary family can afford?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am afraid the Leader of the New Democratic Party misrepresented the response I made yesterday to that question.
October 26, 1981

I said that I would discuss the representation made by people and by the hon. member for Oshawa with the Minister of Finance. I have asked for an opportunity to do so.


INTRODUCTION OF AMENDING LEGISLATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister well knows that I did not distort what he said. 1 respected the point that he made, that it was a cabinet decision to be made in the future. I repeat and acknowledge that. What I am doing is asking a question of the person who is most responsible in the country for political decision-making, namely, the Prime Minister.
The banks can certainly earn profits from many investments at whatever the market will bear, but when it comes to mortgages on homes, they ought to be segregated from other financial investments. Will the Prime Minister assure us and tell the people of Canada now that we will get legislation to restore the principle to which I referred a moment ago, to the Bank Act?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I do not know of the details of the discussion held in London. If I had been there I would have answered exactly as the minister did, that he would take that as a representation and discuss it with the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Crosbie:: You are just as useless as he is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the proper answer and one, of course, which should be followed.
The hon. member refers to the 1969 legislation. Naturally I cannot remember all aspects of it or the details of its motivation. My recollection is that this amendment was made at the time because other institutions were being facilitated in the role of providing mortgages, and that the number of mortgage lenders increased as a result of that legislation. The responsibility for mortgages was shared among a greater number of institutions than had been the case hitherto. That, I repeat, goes back a dozen years. It may be that the Minister of Finance will want to reconsider the operation of that, I do not know, but I think the minister took the proper course in answering that he would discuss the matter with the Minister of Finance.


MORTGAGE SCHEME ADVERTISED BY BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I just want to remind the Prime Minister that in 1969, when the act was changed, not only was the ceiling removed from mortgage interest but the rollover principle for mortgages was introduced. The Liberal minister at that time when mortgage rates were 9 per cent said mortgages would go down. We have never seen 9 per cent mortgages since. As for the rollover principle, the only rolling over that has been done is that of the banks rolling over Canadian home owners. That has been the result of the 1969 change.


Mr. Evans:: You don't know what you are talking about, Ed.
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask the Prime Minister another question concerning the banks, since the Minister of Finance said the other day in the House in reference to the Royal Bank's new mortgage deferral scheme that it was "a step in the right direction." This is its mortgage deferral scheme, and the banks now have ads in the paper, using tax-free dollars. Since under this mortgage deferral scheme a family can pay up to $6,000 a year on its mortgage and end up owing the bank more at the end of the year than when it started, if this is what the government means by the banks bleeding a little? If not, will the government denounce the scheme right now?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not know the details of the scheme referred to by the hon. member. I am sure the Minister of Finance will examine it, and if he does not agree with it he will bring in some other scheme. If he does agree with it, he will seek to improve it. I cannot speak on a technical subject like that of which I know no knowledge.


NORTH-SOUTH RELATIONS FUTURE OF NEGOTIATIONS FOLLOWING CANCUN SUMMIT MEETING
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the North-South Summit held last week in Cancun, Mexico. Keeping in mind the results of the discussions at the 22-nation meeting, would the Prime Minister inform us where he believes these global negotiations must go from here?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there was no decision made by the participants at the Cancun summit to have any further summits with the same people.
I refer the hon. member particularly to the decision on global negotiations which would be pursued in the United Nations forum. It would be expected that the many participants at Cancun would go there with greater knowledge of the position of the respective participants, and hopefully with a greater ability to make forward movement.
In regard to the various other subjects such as food and agriculture, financial institutions, energy and trade, I believe they will be translated into greater understanding in the various forums, for instance, the IMF, for the monetary institutions. And in the case of energy, the debate will continue on the question of helping the less developed nations look for and develop renewable sources of energy as well as non-renewable sources. Each subject had a conclusion in itself. It is up to the members now to pursue those conclusions at the United Nations or in their bilateral policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

October 26, 1981
Oral Questions VIA RAIL


SERVICE PROVIDED TO BARRIE, ONT.
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the Georgian task force report which has predicted that the population of the city of Barrie will reach approximately 125,000 by the year 2011. Believe me, they are not all commuters. However, the VIA Rail train now carries some 500 to 600 passengers and is totally economically viable. This is even with antiquated, what may be called World War II rolling stock. Will the Minister of Transport meet further with the hon. James Snow, with whom I have been in contact, in the hope not of reducing that line but expanding that service? It is economically viable. Do not use the cop-out of commuters.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if the line is economically viable as was just said, I do not see why Mr. Snow should refuse to take it over.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is the obvious common sense answer to the question. The Government of Canada does not subsidize commuter services. This has been tradition and law. Inasmuch as Toronto and Montreal have grown, a number of routes which were intercity in the past have now become commuter lines. Logically, we are saying this is the responsibility of the provincial and metropolitan governments. This is exactly what the Scrivener report, the most recent report on transportation by rail in Canada, says.


FUTURE OF RAIL SERVICE TO WESTERN COMMUNITIES
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I draw his attention to the fact that this is the first time since 1979 that a minister has used the discretionary power to remove service and remove lines from the system. His predecessor used that discretion to instal lines and guarantee service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Would the minister tell us how the people from Rivers, Manitoba, all the way through to the Saskatchewan border, the people of Melville, Watrous, Yorkton, people in Saskatoon, the people of Biggar and Unity, all the way through to Edmonton and onwards, will get to Vancouver? The minister has left out two thirds of the western part of Canada in the service that he has brought forth, and I would like to know what the minister is going to do? If the minister gets away with this, will he use this section to abandon branch lines without hearings, abandon the statutory rate, the Crow rate in western Canada? If the minister does it now, why will he not do it the next time?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not
want to debate, but my hon. friend is confusing the National Transportation Act and the Railway Act. However, as I have said, there are a number of communities, particularly between Winnipeg and Saskatoon-


An hon. Member:: And Vancouver.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -which used to be served by the Transcontinental, which will be affected.


An hon. Member:: What about Vancouver and Edmonton?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have looked into each particular case and have found that in most instances, if not all, there were buses taking people from their area to the nearest station.


EFFECT OF CUTBACKS ON EMPLOYMENT IN MANITOBA
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister will know that in his province of Manitoba 50 per cent of the points served by VIA Rail are going to be eliminated as of November 15. I would ask the minister, first, if he is prepared to intercede with the Minister of Transport to delay this abandonment, because he knows there are approximately 1,600 jobs affected directly and the possibility of 8,000 jobs affected indirectly. Second, since he is a minister from Manitoba, will he intercede to ensure that half the communities now served in his province will continue to be served after November 15?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Speak up for the west.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: As the hon. member knows from listening to the comments of the Minister of Transport, there are a number of major programs in place that will help in the adjustment and transition of workers-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Those programs have been worked out with the co-operation of VIA Rail, the unions, and the railways. I think those programs will effectively take care of any displaced persons as a result of the change that is being made to improve the railway system across Canada.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In 1910 the Canadian Northern Railway and the government of British Columbia entered into an agreement whereby, if the railroad would provide daily first class passenger rail service between Jasper and Victoria, it would receive in return vast land
October 26, 1981

holdings and timber rights. The CNR subsequently took over that responsibility and those benefits and now, through the recent VIA Rail decision, has terminated the promise to the people of British Columbia to provide that daily passenger service. Will the minister therefore give consideration to returning these vast land holdings and extensive timber rights to the people of British Columbia?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, if the railways had made arrangements with the provinces at one time in the past-


An hon. Member:: By statute.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -I would suggest it would be the right of the provinces to invoke these agreements, not the federal government.
If there are situations of this kind, as there are, it would obviously be the provinces' responsibility to defend their position. That is why, in the announcement we made on July 27, we left it open for the provinces to pay the subsidy if they thought that the particular route affected was essential from the provincial point of view. That point of view could be a legal obligation which they had assumed in the past.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, the agreements and the statutes of British Columbia are very clear on this point. Perhaps this could be an issue raised in some of the subsequent court discussions.


VIA RAIL
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I was informed by the people of New Brunswick, after a recent visit there, that the Atlantic Limited last year had a ridership support of over 80 per cent, which represents more than a quarter of a million people using the Halifax to Montreal run.


An hon. Member:: Where is the member for Saint John?


Nelson Andrew Riis: The people whom I visited in New Brunswick asked me why the government was terminating that service. They asked their Member of Parliament, and he could not explain. Could the Minister of Transport explain?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The 80 per
cent figure is not realistic. It is more like 48 per cent. Again, that depends on the way it is calculated. If one counts the number of people at the point of arrival, of course one will get a different result.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What about going in?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Would the hon. member repeat his question?
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assinib-oine.


EFFECT OF CUTBACKS ON WESTERN ECONOMY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As chairman of the Western Development Committee, and as one who is supposed to be stimulating economic growth in the west, he will know that the unilateral cutbacks in the VIA Rail routes will have a devastating effect on the western economy in general and cause the Canadian tourist industry losses in the millions. Also, there will be layoffs in the rail and tourism industry.
I would like to ask the minister what he has done or will do about having the cabinet rescind or postpone the VIA Rail cuts in western Canada, or does he support the rail cutbacks?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, time does not permit me to answer the hon. member in terms of the number of initiatives taken by this government to stimulate economic development in western Canada. The hon. member might be aware that a major Air Canada facility has been moved to our province, which will be of substantial help to the hon. member's constituency. We are trying to promote industries in western Canada which are modern, up to date, and high technology industries, and not to support obsolescence.


EFFECT OF CUTBACKS ON NEW BRUNSWICK COMMUNITIES
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The minister made a statement in the House a short time ago that he will be careful not to cut service to isolated towns. I would like the minister to know that I am speaking on behalf of those people who live along the Edmundston to Moncton line and peole who live in the communities of Plaster Rock, Juniper, Napadogan, Chipman, Minto, and areas such as that. There are no buses to that region.
For the benefit of all those people the minister maintains should be thankful that he is cutting out these services, will he explain why it was that he allowed CN last year to charge VIA $400,000 for the use of that line when the cost to CN was $263,000? That is a profit of 52 per cent to the megacorporation. Will the minister explain, for the benefit of those "ungrateful" people up in Napadogan, why he allowed that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am not in a position to debate the figures used by my hon. friend, but on the Edmundston to Moncton route indeed there are a number of developments which, hopefully, will take place.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: "Hopefully".

October 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Wenman


Jean-Luc Pepin: I hope they will take place. 1 believe they will take place, and they will have to do with the strengthening of the bus service between the two cities and different points on the line. We hope also to improve air service to Edmundston.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the ninety-second report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The minister responsible for housing has indicated that he would respond to my constituents directly through telephone calls. I have constituents who have telephoned and their calls have been refused in the minister's office.
The minister also suggested in this House of Commons that if Members of Parliament were to contact him directly, again he would respond.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has a responsibility to make quite clear in his first sentences where the breach of his privilege lies, and he has not indicated to me that he has a question of privilege. The fact that someone is not answering the telephone or that a minister is not complying with a promise he has made to certain constituents certainly does not constitute a question of privilege.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I have ruled; there is no question of privilege.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: He is misleading the House; that is what he is doing.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[Translation\

Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, a copy of the Agreement on Social Security, specifically on old age pensions, between the Government of Canada and the government of Greece.


TABLING OF PRICING AND TAXATION AGREEMENT WITH SASKATCHEWAN
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the government of Saskatchewan relating to energy pricing and taxation, as well as the joint statement by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premier of Saskatchewan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PETITIONS
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I have a petition which includes over 2,000 names of some residents of southern New Brunswick who are disgusted with the cutbacks, as proposed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), of VIA Rail services from Saint John and from that region to Montreal. I would like to add these names to that list of 11,400 "ingrates" which I tabled last week who are disgusted with the same cutbacks in service.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to present a petition, on behalf of those residents of London, Ontario who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their homes, respectfully requesting that the Government of Canada assist them in the removal of that insulation product.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 26, 1981


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition containing 250 names from the Sudbury area. These people are also voicing their disapproval of cutbacks in rail transportation. This petition was co-ordinated by Helena Osborne of Sudbury.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, 1 too beg the permission of this House to place on the table a petition, containing the names of 1,071 home owners from the Niagara region, protesting the difficult and impossible task of maintaining a home in the light of present mortgage conditions. This petition points out that if people are to save their homes-and this continues as a nation of home owners-then some remedial action should be taken-and it should be indicated that it will be taken-in the budget which is to be presented soon respecting high mortgage rates.


Madam Speaker:: Motions. The hon. member for Welling-ton-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). The hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are you calling them seriatim?


Madam Speaker:: Yes. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke).


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Madam Speaker:: For the information of the hon. member for Yukon, 1 am not really calling them seriatim, but the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe has on two occasions given notices of motions, so I call his name twice because he is at the top of the list and also at the bottom of the list. The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has four motions, but I am only calling his name once.
1 call again now the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe.



REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe) moved:: That the revised seventh report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Wednesday, June 17, 1981, be concurred in.
He said: Madam Speaker, you will remember, because you were in chair on Thursday, that my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and I put questions relating
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
to House business to the government House leader. At that time we sought the assurance of the government House leader that if I were to follow the instructions of my committee, the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, and ask for concurrence of the House in our revised seventh report today, there would be a full and proper debate on that committee report, that we would have a chance to have a full discussion and that no action would be taken by the government to prevent that discussion from taking place.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that earlier this summer when I moved concurrence in July in the fourth report of the standing committee, the government took the extraordinary measure of intervening to cut that debate short and to prevent a vote from taking place on the concurrence motion.
This procedure of cutting short debate and preventing committees of this Parliament from reporting to the House of Commons and from having concurrence motions put and fully debated is an extraordinary measure and one which constitutes an attack upon the very basis of accountability in our system of government.
Any structure that any of us has seen which tries to lay out a blueprint for accountability in our government has as its core the Parliament of Canada, and any attempt made to disrupt the relationship between the committees of Parliament and the House of Commons itself is indeed an attack upon the proper functioning of this House of Commons.
I want to quote from a book which was published not that long ago by a former member of Parliament, John B. Stewart, who, after his defeat in the House of Commons, served as an adviser to the government on the question of parliamentary reform. He dealt with the procedure followed by the government in that instance, a procedure which is now being threatened by the government House leader. This is what he had to say about a procedure whereby at the end of the day, after a discussion had taken place, automatically a motion to concur would revert to government orders. I quote:
Since 1965 once a debate begun under Motions has been adjourned, the order for resumption of the debate is a government order. This means that the government House leader has the right to decide if and when the debate will be resumed. Clearly, this is an odious power. It gives the government the right to sidetrack a committee's report permanently.
Again, this was written by a former Liberal member of Parliament who served as an adviser to the present government. It was in his book entitled "The House of Commons: Procedure and Reform". If on a motion to concur it is odious that that motion should be transferred to government orders where the right and responsibility is then that of the government to decide whether it ever comes forward for debate again, how much more odious it is that the government would use its majority to intervene to prevent a debate taking place whereby, after the first speaker has spoken, moving that a report be concurred in, the government would intervene, use its majority and prevent other members of the committee from speaking, even its own members on the committee. This is what was done with the committee's fourth report in July. This

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments is what was threatened just last Thursday by the government House leader. It is a process which is indeed odious. It is an attack upon the very essence of ministerial accountability and responsible government of this country.
The government may say that Parliament has more impor-that business or that somehow it is not proper that Members of Parliament should ask that consideration be given to committee reports made to Parliament. This is the business of Parliament. There is nothing more fundamental. The business of Parliament is that individual members, particularly representatives of parliamentary committees, ensure that studies conducted on behalf of Parliament are brought to the attention of Parliament and that Parliament have the opportunity to debate them. Indeed, to deny this, to attempt to block that sort of progress from taking place, is to destroy the vital link that is so essential in our representative institutions in Canada today.
The government may say that the process has been abused in some way in the past. That is not so. It is interesting to note that in the past 12 years since 1969 when the government brought in its rules reforms which changed the whole functioning of Parliament, 160 concurrence motions have been moved of which 147 were carried. Of those, 133 were carried without debate and 115 of those were purely routine. Twelve were carried after debate. One of these was effectively a government motion. Six were debated part of the day and not carried. Five were debated a full day and not carried. An additional two were interrupted by government motion to end the debate. One of those two actions to interrupt the concurrence motion, and there were only two in the past 12 years, came in July when the government interceded to prevent discussion of that major report, the fourth report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
Of all those moved by backbenchers which took government House time, and there were 24, 15 were moved by opposition members. Since 1974, 14 motions required some debate and eight of those were from the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. In the session of 1980-81 a government backbencher moved a motion which carried after a short debate and a motion from the committee was interrupted by a government motion.
If you look at this history and the way this procedure is being used, it is clear that what the government threatened to do last Thursday and may do today is a break with the traditions of the House of Commons. It represents an important new attack upon the ability of committees to function. It is something which members of this Parliament should not be asked to agree with.
If it is essential that any committee be able to report to the House of Commons and be able to have discussion of its report, how much more essential is it when Parliament charges the standing joint committee to serve as a watchdog, to look at government regulations to determine whether they are legal in the first place, to determine whether due process or natural justice has been interfered with, to determine whether or not the issue being dealt with in a regulation should more properly be brought back before Parliament? When you have a watchdog committee such as this, how much more important is it in this case and in normal cases that the debate should take place and the committee should have the opportunity to have its report considered by the whole House of Commons?
What the government is doing when the government House leader comes before Parliament and says that the only basis on which he will not interrupt the debate and allow the committee to do its job is at the convenience of the government-when the government sees fit, if it sees fit, in its own time-is that it is taking that watchdog committee and trying to turn it into a lapdog committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: He is asking that a watchdog committee check its teeth and put them in a glass by the bed. That is not acceptable in this day and age if we believe in parliamentary democracy and if we believe that we have a responsibility in this Parliament to supervise and scrutinize the activities of the government on behalf of Parliament.
In other jurisdictions there are procedures which provide in many instances that the government issue a white paper in responding to committee reports. In Australia it is mandatory that a white paper be issued within six months to respond to a committee report. A similar procedure is followed in Great Britain at the present time.
In some other jurisdictions there are provisions whereby, if individual members of Parliament have a concern about a regulation that is passed under delegated legislation, they have the ability to put down a motion of disallowance. For example, in the case of Australia, unless a debate is held, unless the House decides not to disallow a regulation within a certain period of time, the regulation will automatically be disallowed.
If we had that sort of procedure in the Canadian Parliament, perhaps it would be less important that we have some assurances that committee reports will be discussed. However, we do not have that. We recommended that in the report which was discussed in July. That has never been acted on by the government.
Let me quote from a book by Professor J. R. Mallory, "The Structure of Canadian Government", which deals with the essential nature of responsibilities of parliamentary committees and parliamentarians in keeping an eye on how the government acts with delegated legislation. I quote from page 140:
Parliamentary criticism is of the greatest importance. The chief defect of delegated legislation is precisely that it is passed without public debate and without serious opportunity for subsequent parliamentary review. Furthermore, regulations, unlike acts of Parliament, are not always published or collected in acceptable form so that the citizen can know what the law is that governs him. There is an old maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse as a defence for breaking it. As long as the law is readily accessible to any competent lawyer who knows his way around the law reports and the statute books, this is a wise rule. But when the law consists of a multiplicity of detailed regulations which are not always easy to Find out about, the maxim becomes almost oppressive in its effect. Adequate parliamentary scrutiny and adequate publication of regulations have therefore become recognized as necessary accompaniments of the growth of delegated legislation in well-run communities.
October 26, 1981

That is a description by Professor Mallory, one of our most distinguished political scientists in this country, of the essential nature of activities that Parliament must undertake when scrutinizing actions by the government in delegated legislation. It is worth while looking back at the time in which the committee was created. At that time Tommy Douglas asked John Turner, the heir apparent, the "pretender to the throne" in Toronto, whether he felt it would be useful to have included in the statute a provision whereby reports of the committee could be acted upon and whether it would be compulsory. Mr. Turner responded by saying that he recognized it would be essential that the committee have the power to do its job, but the rules of the House of Commons already provided for that to be done and it was likely not necessary to have this written in the statute. Yet what we are finding today, Mr. Speaker, is that the promise made by Mr. Turner at the time the committee was established is being threatened with being broken because the government is threatening to intercede to prevent the committee from doing its job. That is why I call upon the government today, Mr. Speaker, to allow a full debate in this House on a matter that is of urgent concern to all Canadians.
I want to turn to the report itself, Mr. Speaker, which was tabled in the House of Commons on June 17, 1981. There were four points in the committee report which were considered essential and about which we felt it was important that we should make a report to the House of Commons and draw the attention of the House to the structure of VIA Rail and to some of the actions of the government.
First of all, in the setting up of VIA Rail we felt the government had acted in a way that did not provide for proper parliamentary discussion. We discovered VIA Rail was set up, using in part an Appropriation Act. Consequently, the House of Commons did not have a proper statute before it that would allow for a full and public debate on the part of Members of Parliament which would enable the government to put forward a comprehensive program for future railway passenger services in this country.
Obviously, that sort of provision would have been very valuable. Earlier this year when a question of privilege Was raised by one of my colleagues, Madam Speaker found that the procedure of acting through an Appropriation Act in a way that was attempting to get legislative action was wrong. She struck down a number of attempts by the government to do that. Indeed, had Madam Speaker been in the chair at the time this was done in 1977, the likelihood was that the government could not have brought VIA Rail Canada forward in this way. The likelihood would have been the government would have had responsibility, the necessity, of coming back before Parliament and the Canadian people and fully debating its plans for the future.
Let me briefly read to you, Mr. Speaker, the actual objection raised by the committee on this particular point. It said: VIA Rail Canada Inc. has been established and set up in business-and in consequence almost all of the railway passenger services of the country have been brought into government ownership, control and funding-pursuant to an
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
involved use of subordinate powers, a dollar vote in an Appropriation Act and the three slim regulations under report. At no time has Parliament had the opportunity to debate and to settle what are very significant matters.
I shall come back to this point shortly, Mr. Speaker, but let me now move on to the three substantive criticisms which the committee made in its report. The second criticism it made was this:
The operative dollar vote. Vote 52d, Department of Transport, Appropriation Act No. I, 1977, refers only to "selected rail passenger services", yet S.O.R./78-286, made under that vote, purports to apply not only to passenger services operated over railway lines but also to other passenger services, and not only those in substitution for rail services but also those ancillary to them.
What does this mean in plain English, Mr. Speaker? It means that when the government runs a bus service under VIA Rail or when it runs a limousine service, as it is doing in some parts of the country, and spends public funds to do so, it is acting in a way that has not been approved by Parliament. The expenditure of funds in that way may well be illegal.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, nothing could be more important to this House of Commons than the question whether Parliament is given authority to spend funds in a particular way, or whether it is spending the money that belongs to the people of Canada improperly. At the present time there are a number of bus routes in this country which are run by the government; for example, Lindsay-Peterborough-Cobourg; Jasper to Banff; Prince Albert to Saskatoon; Edmonton to Calgary. And there are numerous others. The committee does not quarrel with the authority of the government to have buses. What we do quarrel with, even under the Appropriation Act which was initially used as an excuse for setting up VIA Rail, is that we can find no justification for the expenditure of public funds on those lines. Surely the government must come back to Parliament and seek Parliament's approval.
The third complaint raised by the committee was this:
An item critical to the funding of the services provided by VIA Rail Canada Inc., the ''prescribed portion" of the employee costs of the railway companies (for severance benefits, early retirement benefits and the like) in implementing the changeover to VIA Rail control of passenger services, has never been prescribed by a regulation under Vote 52d, but is contained in an unpublished, and hence unscrutinized, statutory instrument.
The government admitted there was an order in council that provided this particular authority. Under the procedures adopted by this government, that is considered an unscrutiniz-able order in council by the government. It is not published in The Canada Gazette and it is not considered by the government to be properly brought forward before the standing joint committee. Consequently, this action has not been proper and on the strength of what the government says is not properly before the committee for scrutiny. Clearly this is a practice, Mr. Speaker, that the committee has complained about in the past and that must be revised.
The report, fourthly, says this:
The prerequisites to or limitations on payment of the ''prescribed portion" need not be set out in a regulation. Any terms or condition subject to which payment is to be made that are set by the governor in council by regulation must be obeyed, but if the minister sets any others, they may, without their being embodied in any regulation, be embodied in the arrangements entered into with the railway companies. Thus, the very terms of what was a vital part of the VIA

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
Rail program were left to the minister to determine in conjuction with the railway companies.
What does that mean, Mr. Speaker? It means that not only did we find the order in council was deficient because it was not published in The Canada Gazette, but further the order in council did not provide in many instances for these other actions. It is not included in the order in council. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, we felt it was important to bring this matter to the attention of Parliament.
Let me return to the question whether or not a VIA Rail Act is necessary. What need be done? One of the areas where there has been confusion is in government policy. All of the committee's report in appended to and printed in the Votes and Proceedings of Wednesday, June 17, 1981. It would be impossible for me to review all of the report in the short time I have available to me, but I want to recommend to all members of the House that they study the report and give consideration to the points raised therein. In particular, I also want to draw to the attention of the House Appendix "A", which includes a series of correspondence between the Minister of Transport and the committee.
This has been an issue that the committee has been dealing with for over two years, Mr. Speaker. The government says, "Be patient, don't call your motion for concurrence today, sooner or later we will get around to it." The committee perhaps has been too patient already. Over the course of two years we have been dealing with this particular issue, yet we have found letters have gone unanswered or we have had responses from the Minister of Transport which are confused and contradictory.
The first letter included in the appendix is June 26, 1980, when we wrote to the Minister of Transport to ask for an indication from him as to how the policy review which he referred to before about VIA Rail was proceeding. In particular it said:
The committee is anxious to know whether and when a bill for an act to provide for VIA Rail Inc. will be introduced.
That was on June 26. Almost two months later, on August 19, the Minister of Transport wrote back to the committee and said:
With respect to the possible introduction of a bill to provide for a VIA Rail Canada act, the cabinet submission which will seek decisions in respect of rail passenger services and of VIA Rail Canada Inc. is, in particular, now in the advanced stages of interdepartmental consultation.
This is over a year ago. He said further:
I anticipate that a cabinet decision on the issues raised in that submission will be available to use by the end of September.
September came and went, Mr. Speaker. On November 6, 1980, the committee wrote back again to the Minister of Transport and said:
We were instructed to ask whether the cabinet decision to which you referred has been taken and when you will respond to the committee's position on the need for the introduction of a VIA Rail Canada bill.
That was on November 6, Mr. Speaker. It took the minister until January 12 to respond to the committee's letter. His response at that time was:
"The cabinet has not yet considered the submission to which I referred in previous correspondence. I expect the matter to be discussed early in the new year. Once a decision has been reached, I will advise the committee on the requirements for a VIA Rail Canada bill.
We were then put off to the beginning of this year. On March 19, well after the beginning of the year had come and gone, Mr. Speaker, we wrote again to the Minister of Transport. We said this:
The committee wishes to have some definite time frame within which it can work and we are instructed to ask once again for some definite if not precise date by which a decision whether or not to proceed with a VIA Rail Canada bill will be taken. Mindful of the fact its position in this matter has been in suspense as it were since just before the March 1979 dissolution the committee has adopted a time limit of May 6, 1981 on the decision to place a special report before both Houses.
We wrote to the minister on March 19. We said that we wanted a response so that we could make a report to both Houses by May 6, which was a month and a half later. The letter from the minister was dated May 7, 1981, the day after the date we indicated in the letter to the minister that we wanted to report to the House. What was the minister's reply? He said:
At present, there does not appear to be an immediate requirement for a VIA Rail Canada act. Once the existing legislative framework has been sufficiently tested, it should be possible to establish whether a constituent act is definitely needed.
There is no existing legislative framework because there never was a VIA Rail Canada act. The minister said flatly at that point that he had made a decision that there did not appear to be any need for a VIA Rail Canada act and that he wanted to leave it off.
The committee indicated to him before that it wanted to report to the House the day before the minister sent his reply. We were patient again and waited for the minister. On May 21, 1981, we wrote again to the minister and said:
The committee is of the view that there is an immediate requirement for a VIA Rail Canada act and that the existing legislative framework, consisting of votes in Appropriation Acts which may not even support all the regulations already made, is inadequate. Your letter appeared to the committee to avoid answering the issue it has raised. Consequently, the committee feels that a report to the Houses is needed and will be considering this matter again on May 28 and June 4. In the meantime, we shall appreciate receiving immediate clarification of your statement that "a decision on the matter is not possible". Does this mean that the committee has been told nothing is now being done to bring in a VIA Rail Canada bill?
As instructed by the committee, we are sending a copy of this letter to the government House leader so that he will be on notice of the committee s opinion that speedy action should be taken to introduce VIA Rail Canada legislation.
That date came and went without a response from the minister. Finally the committee reported, and again the minister's response came in after the committee had reported to the House of Commons, after the time had elapsed.
What we see in this history is either incredible ineptitude on the part of the minister, that he is incapable, over the course of several months in some instances, of getting his department to prepare letters for him, or we find that the minister is deliberately and consciously attempting to insult a committee of both


October 26, 1981

Houses, withhold information from it, and make it impossible to continue its proceedings.
Following the presentation of the report and following the minister's response, we wrote him again in mid-summer. We have yet to receive a response to that letter. In checking with the minister's officials today we find that a response was drafted for him some months later again, on October 14, but the minister refused to sign the response and it has been sent back for redrafting. How can Canadians expect that the minister will run the transportation system in the country if he cannot run his own office, if he cannot answer his mail? Surely Parliament deserves better from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) than it has received to date.
A further complication was added earlier this year when, in response to a question by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), a former minister of transport, the minister responded in part to the committee's report. He indicated that as far as he was concerned he had made a conversion, he was now in favour of a VIA Rail Canada act. The House will remember that in the letter he sent to the committee, the letter upon which we acted, he indicated that he did not see any particular need, that he was quite happy to have this drag on, that it did not appear to be necessary. However, when the hon. member for Vegreville raised this matter in the House of Commons, it was made clear by the minister at that time that he had had a change of heart, that in fact he had decided that it would be useful to have such legislation. As reported on page 11454 of Hansard for July 13, 1981, the minister said:
Madam Speaker, on the first subject, I am not in a position to comment because the decision of cabinet has not been made. On the other subject, that is the usefulness, necessity of having a VIA act, I am in full agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member and others.
The problem has always been with the agenda or the timetable of the House. In 1977 when VIA was created by an item in the estimates, presumably there were too many items on the agenda of the House. Last year I gave priority to the problem of the transportation of dangerous goods. This coming year, as the hon. member knows, we have the ports policy to bring up. We also have the independent air safety board to create. Thus, time is really the problem. Everyone agrees that VIA is entitled to legislation of its own as one of the major Crown corporations. I am committed to cabinet to bring forward a memorandum on the subject which might lead to that realization, whenever the time of the House permits.
Again a reversal on the part of the minister. Initially when we wrote to him it appeared that he was sympathetic. That was over a year ago. Initially he appeared sympathetic, then he reversed himself, and in his letter in May he indicated that he was no longer sympathetic, that there was no need. Yet in July there was another reversal; there was a need but nothing would be done because he was too busy and Parliament was too busy. Nothing would be done to consider the report of the standing committee, to consider whether or not VIA Rail had been properly constituted, to consider whether the Parliament of Canada should have the opportunity to debate the government's comprehensive railway passenger program for the 1980s. Surely the minister insults hon. members of the House of Commons by saying that that matter is too trivial to be brought forward at this time. Surely we are entitled to have that act.
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
What does VIA feel about its position in this picture? I refer hon. members of the House to the 1979 annual report of VIA Rail Canada. In a report to shareholders, Mr. J. Frank Roberts, Chairman and President, said on page 5:
1979 clearly showed that the legislative and institutional framework within which VIA operates is inhibiting the corporation's ability to realize its full potential.
VIA's mandate is to provide Canadians with attractive, convenient passenger train services while reducing the cost to government. This is being interpreted as "serve the public regardless of the cost" at one end of the spectrum, while at the other, it is taken to mean "reduce expenses regardless of the consequences".
We know on which end of the spectrum is the minister. He continued:
It becomes therefore imperative that VIA's mandate and objectives be expressed clearly.
That is where the Chairman and President of VIA Rail Canada, speaking on behalf of VIA Rail, stands on this issue. Yet nothing has been done.
What did the Chairman and President say in the 1980 annual report? On page 4 of the 1980 annual report he said:
VIA has further defined its mandate as a rail passenger corporation, but until a clear mandate is approved by government, progress will be difficult.
If the government had acted properly in the first place, if it had brought forward a VIA Rail Canada act, if it had allowed debate to take place in Parliament, if it had disclosed its plans to the people of Canada, if there had been proper discussion here and throughout the country, we would not be in the situation we are in today-with confusion reigning, with the minister acting under an extraordinary procedure to cancel VIA Rail lines, with VIA Rail itself complaining that it simply does not know its own mandate. If this had been done properly from the outset, we would be concentrating on providing a fast, efficient and economical rail passenger service to Canadians. But because it was not, we find a serious deterioration in service, we find cancellations taking place in this manner, we find serious disenchantment both within VIA and the country at large.
What justification can there be after all these years for doing the proper thing which the minister in his most recent flip-flop acknowledged is necessary and should be done? Was Parliament's concern in this issue something which was discovered only of late? The answer is no. This was debated in Parliament. There were points of order when the government attempted to act this way in 1977. The committee made two general reports on regulations; one in the second session of the Thirtieth Parliament, 1976-77 and one in this session. Both of those dealt with what we feel is a faulty procedure followed by the government in using Appropriation Acts to confer legislative authority upon itself.
Since we made our report on VIA Rail, Madam Speaker, in response to a point of order which was raised on this side of the House, ruled that in fact the committee's concerns were justified and that in fact the concerns expressed at the time VIA Rail was created were justified. So this is not something new, Mr. Speaker; it is not a trivial and inconsequential

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments problem but one that goes to the heart and functioning of the rail passenger system in this country.
What will happen if the government continues to act in this way, Mr. Speaker? What will happen if it does not put a comprehensive program before Parliament? The first thing we will find is that the government will resort to the extraordinary measures it used to cancel 19 per cent of its rail passenger service. That is of concern to this House and to all Canadians today. Witnesses will appear before the committee tomorrow evening to discuss the propriety and the legality of the government's action and the Minister of Transport will appear before the committee on Thursday afternoon. We will welcome him at that time and give him an opportunity to explain why he has acted as he has.
As chairman of the committee, I do not want to prejudge the discussions that will take place. Suffice it to say that there is consternation in the country about the actions by the government; suffice it to say that there is sufficient concern that members of the committee felt it necessary that this matter should be investigated. I am sorry that the Minister of Transport has left the House and I recognize that he has other important business to attend to, but I put him on notice at this time that counsel for the committee has found serious doubts about whether the order cancelling those railways passenger services is valid. It may very well be null and void and that even using this extraordinary method the government bungled its attempt to achieve its ends. I put the minister on notice of that today. I hope that other government representatives in the House will ensure that he looks into the committee's concerns in this respect.
The committee is on record as believing in freedom of information and I would indicate to the minister as well, therefore, that the legal opinions offered to the committee are available to him and to the people of Canada.
If the government does not bring forward comprehensive legislation, then it will continue to use these extraordinary methods to create a piecework rail transport system without any over-all direction or without there ever having been a proper debate on the subject.
The next thing that will happen will be a retrenchment of railway passenger services. Through attrition the service will shrink, serving fewer Canadians, but it will continue to be paid for by the people of Canada, it will continue to suffer from very serious morale problems and it will continue to be the cause of vexation to Parliament. But most important, unless the government makes a commitment to rail passenger service for the future and spells out its plans to Parliament, VIA Rail will continue to die the death of a thousand cuts as line after line after line is abandoned and service after service withdrawn. I know that no member of the House wants to see that happen. All members want a fast, efficient, economical railway passenger service in this country. If we are to have that, it is essential that the government act now and does not allow the drift to continue.
I call on the government to allow members on all sides of the House, and in particular members of the committee, to debate
this report. I call upon the government today to put on record its intention to act without further delay on the committee's concerns and to confirm that it will allow Parliament to debate a full and comprehensive VIA Rail Canada act.
I will sit down before my time has elapsed, Mr. Speaker, but I want to establish that the onus is now on the government. The power is in the government either to act in the extraordinary way in which it acted last July by cutting short debate and preventing a parliamentary committee from doing its job, or by respecting the rights of Members of Parliament and the responsibility of a parliamentary committee and allowing a full debate in this House before any further action is taken.
I call upon the government today to do the right thing. I call upon it to allow the debate to take place. I call upon it to act without further delay on the report of the committee and to bring forward a comprehensive VIA Rail Canada act which will enable the country to have a rail passenger service second to none.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby);: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support strongly the motion for concurrence moved by the co-chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I must say that it is with a certain amount of surprise that I rise at this time. I am pleased to see that the government has not adopted the rather shoddy tactics it adopted on July 14 last when a similar motion was presented by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). Following his excellent presentation on behalf of a unanimous committee, the then parliamentary secretary to the President of the Privy Council stifled debate by moving a motion that the House proceed to orders of the day.
One can only speculate on why a similar motion has not been moved at this point. I would not want to suggest, of couse, that the reason such a motion was not put forward at this time is that the government might lose the vote; perhaps there are not enough government members in the House to carry the motion. I know that this is not necessarily accurate, or at least it is possibly not accurate.
I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate on this motion for concurrence in the revised seventh report of the committee. Before getting into the substance of that report, I should like to say that this committee does not operate in the limelight; it is a hard-working committee which virtually always operates on the basis of consensus. The only power of the committee, if it believes that the government has taken action which violates the criteria established for the committee, is to report to this House. On a number of occasions the committee has reported on matters of substance and matters of procedure. The last time a motion for concurrence in the committee's report was put forward was on the fourth report. That was not just a two or three-page report on a particular regulation or statutory instrument but was a report on the means by which the committee had been functioning, the role of the committee in making very serious recommendations for changes in the way in which regulations are promulgated and
October 26, 1981

reviewed, and the opportunities that the public has for input into the process of making regulations.
That report was treated with contempt; it has disappeared from the Order Paper so that, effectively, the government has rejected the recommendations of the committee without any meaningful debate.
I emphasize that it was the unanimous recommendation of the committee-Liberal and Conservative members from both Houses agreed and, also a member of the New Democratic Party-that there should be sweeping changes in the process of reviewing all regulations in this country. The government's response was to kill the report.
Today there is before the House a motion for concurrence in the seventh report of that committee. I hope that the government will see fit to accept its recommendations in a spirit of good faith, following debate. The government may contemptuously reject all recommendations for change that the committee put forward but I hope it will recognize the work done by the committee and support the motion for concurrence in the revised seventh report.
My colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe, has gone through the substantive elements of the report and the fact that members are deeply concerned about the way in which VIA Rail Canada was established by means of a procedural device known as a $1 vote. The effect of that procedure was to deny Members of Parliament, either in this chamber or in committee, any opportunity to debate the wisdom of creating this important corporation. That sets a very dangerous precedent for the future.
We are also concerned about the precedent which has been created by the establishment of this multimillion dollar corporation for future operations of the government. How many other procedural wrangles and devious devices of this nature will the government use in an attempt to bypass Parliament? We have already seen the way in which the government has chosen to ignore the views of literally hundreds of thousands of Canadians by bypassing the Canadian Transport Commission in chopping very fundamental and badly needed rail service throughout this country. Therefore, to suggest that the government may be establishing a precedent here, I would submit, is not being alarmist, but, rather, is a recognition of the trend which seems to be very much in vogue with this particular government.
It was not so very long ago that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that Members of Parliament, when they left this chamber, were nobodies. There seems to be a new philosophy with this government. Members of Parliament, not only outside the chamber but also inside the chamber, as far as this government is concerned are nobodies. It is that concern which was addressed by our fourth report, the report which the government killed and which has disappeared from the Order Paper. It is that concern to which the committee addressed itself in our seventh report, which is now before the House. As 1 stated, the establishment of VIA Rail by a $1 vote subverted
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
any opportunity of Parliament to debate the wisdom of the creation of this important institution which is being destroyed or, at least, seriously harmed by the actions of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin).
What was the response of the government to the concern which was expressed by our committee? Our concern was that at the very least a bill should be brought before Parliament creating VIA Rail Canada, in order that Members of Parliament on all sides of the House might have an opportunity to consider the wisdom of that. The response has been "yes" and "no", and "yes" and "no". I understand that the latest answer from the minister was "yes", in response to a question by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). As recently as May of this year, quoting from Appendix "A" to our report, we were told by the minister:
At present there does not appear to be an immediate requirement for a VIA Rail Canada act. Once the existing legislative framework has been sufficiently tested, it should be possible to establish whether a constituent act is definitely needed.
Of course, what this is saying is that the government, having established our committee, having accepted that this is an important committee, can pick and choose; and when we submit a report with which the government agrees, then it can graciously concur. However, when we submit a report which is in any way critical of the government, which it does not like, it can do one of two things: it can use its procedural gimmickry to kill the report, as it did with our fourth report; or it can permit a debate for a period of time, and then use its numbers to vote against the motion of concurrence.
I cannot believe that the Liberal members on this occasion would actually take that opportunity to vote against a motion of concurrence which is so vitally important to the nation and which so fundamentally affects not only VIA Rail, but also the way in which this Parliament works. Because that is the essence of this report. Indeed, the substance is important, the question of whether or not the minister can bypass Parliament, bypass elected representatives, and create this corporation. However, far more important is the way in which similar recommendations are treated by this government.
We are talking, indeed, about the role of this committee. As one member of that committee, I question the usefulness and validity of spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money-our counsel recently estimated something in the order of $200,000-and valuable hours of parliamentarians' time from all sides of the House in carefully considering regulations and statutory instruments if, when we decide as a serious matter that we must report to the House that the government has apparently violated certain of our criteria, the government can just sweep that report under the carpet and ignore it. What is the point of the committee? That is our only power: the power to report to this House; the power to hope that in good faith our reports will be considered on their merits by all members of the House.
In closing, I urge that the House give very serious consideration to this important motion, not only in terms of the substance of the seventh report which is before us, which is the

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
manner in which VIA Rail was created, but, far more importantly, as an indication of genuine response to the important issues which have been raised by this committee. It would be an indication of its importance that when this committee reports we do take seriously our mandate, and that this House, or a majority on the other side, does not contemptuously choose to ignore any criticism but responds to it in a positive and constructive manner.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: We shall very shortly see whether this government is prepared to listen to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, to listen to a unanimous report, or whether once again it is prepared to use its procedural gimmickry to sweep this report under the carpet, to kill the report and to kill a very worthwhile recommendation for the creation of a very important corporation, VIA Rail Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson).


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. If government members speak now, they will have an opportunity of moving that we move to orders of the day. I therefore move that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) be now heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The only time to move a motion such as that which the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has just raised is when he has been recognized and given the floor. Had he been recognized and given the floor to participate in the debate, he could-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Mr. Blenkarn:: Not so!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Again, I must say that had he been recognized on a point of order, debating again whether there were two hon. members getting up to speak at the same time, and-


Donald Alex Blenkarn: There were several.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I stood up.


Charles James Mayer: I stood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Speaker, in the usual fashion, had been alternating. I saw the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) and I have recognized him. There could have been others seeking the floor whom I did not see; but at the time I alternated, as I do in all debates. The first hon. member to speak was from the official opposition, the second was a member from the NDP, and then we go to the other side. That has been done all the time. I did not choose between any hon. members. I recognized the hon. member for Willowdale, whom I saw rising. That now being
the question, I will hear the hon. member for Yukon on his point of order.


Erik Nielsen: May I refer the Chair and his advisers to Hansard of December 11, 1975, at page 9938, where this precise question came up. After Mr. Allard had finished speaking, the then House leader for the opposition spoke. I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact that it was on a motion to concur in the report of a standing committee. Immediately after the mover had finished speaking, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said this:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the Standing Orders of this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave): "That the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe be now heard."


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenviiie-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has risen on a point of order under Standing Order 29, at page 24 of our Standing Orders, which reads as follows:
"When two or more members rise to speak"-
That was the situation here when the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) rose at the same time. Standing Order 29 continues:
-"Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place"-
That is what you did, Mr. Speaker. Standing Order 29 concludes:
-"but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate".
Then the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais), along with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), intervened in the debate. Mr. Deputy Speaker, who was in the chair at that time, put the motion.
1 suggest to you, Sir, that that is the obligation of the Chair now unless-I want to be fair because we all want to be fair on this side of the House-we can have the assurance of government members that their participation in the debate will be had without moving any motion to proceed to orders of the day or any other motion that will impede, restrict or limit the debate today. I am sure that all hon. members on this side are prepared to accept the word of the government if the government is prepared to make that stipulation. Then there would be no question on this side. Otherwise, I suggest the Chair is obliged to put the motion I have moved, which has been seconded.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: After referring to the Standing Orders, I want to correct something I said earlier. The hon. member for Yukon had the right to rise. I recognized the hon. member whom I saw rising, namely the hon. member for Willowdale. It is very difficult for the Chair to argue. I am told other people were seeking the floor, and that could be debateable. When things such as this happen, the point made by the hon. member for Yukon is in order. The hon. member for Yukon has made a proposition. Nevertheless, I would have to put the motion before the House if anyone wants to be
October 26, 1981

heard. There is a motion before the House that the hon. member for Vegreville be now heard.


Mr. Smith:: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was seeking an assurance from this side of the House that a motion of that type would not be put. I am prepared to give that assurance to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I believe the matter has been settled. Will the hon. member withdraw his motion?


Erik Nielsen: Of course, Mr. Speaker. I seek unanimous consent to withdraw my motion on the understanding that this debate will in no way be limited until ten o'clock tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion had not been officially put. I was just given an indication of what the situation would be should the hon. member insist on being recognized. I see the parties have now come to an understanding. Therefore, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Vegreville.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am delighted with the agreement that has been arrived at, but would the Chair be kind enough at some subsequent time, perhaps tomorrow or on another day, to rule on the suggestion, if nothing else, that is contained in Beauchesne's fifth edition in Citation 234, which reads:
(2) A member cannot rise on a point of order to move a motion.


Erik Nielsen: Except this one.


Ian Deans: With the agreement that we already have, I am concerned, quite frankly, that at some future time a minister of the Crown, or any other member, may rise on a point of order for the very purpose of cutting off debate. Would the Chair be kind enough to review that particular citation and give a ruling to the House on its appropriateness?


Erik Nielsen: Not without argument.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think the hon. member's point is well taken as it pertains to the matter at hand, but a motion is not before the House. Therefore, I recognize the hon. member for Vegreville.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should express my appreciation to the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson). I think it is fair to assume that after the understanding was made there was a disposition on our side to yield the floor to him. But on the other hand, the hon. member appeared to want to hear my words of wisdom first and elected to follow me.
It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in my place this afternoon to support the motion presented by my colleague of concurrence in the seventh report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments. I want
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
to pay tribute as well to the co-chairman and the membership of this important committee, who I understand have worked in a very non-partisan way to attempt to uphold some of the traditions and principles of the institution of Parliament. I think their report is an excellent one.
However, I am saddened that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has been so derelict in responding to it. Nonetheless, he did indicate to the House last Thursday, when I had an opportunity to debate a question in the adjournment debate, that he did have the first draft of a VIA Rail act. That is certainly some progress, Mr. Speaker, but it is something which should have been placed before this House some time ago.
At the time VIA Rail was created by a $1 vote in the estimates, we took exception to the circumvention of parliamentary authority. VIA Rail has since grown into a full-fledged Crown corporation, and as late as July 27 and since then it has been the subject of a major national debate.
It seems to me the failure of the government to move toward the formal ratification of VIA Rail through the Parliament of Canada constitutes a very dismal failure on its part. The action to reduce, if not emasculate, Canada's rail passenger service which is operated by VIA Rail is indeed a shameful act which is causing deep anger, outrage and regional discord. It is creating very severe and grave implications for hundreds of thousands of Canadians who use and rely on rail passenger service. It will have some very serious consequences on the 1,600 people directly affected by these cutbacks, plus the hundreds of thousands of others who will be indirectly affected.
What is fundamental is that this government has failed to call upon Parliament to share in the formulation of rail passenger services in Canada as a major national policy. It seems to me that it is not asking too much to call upon the Parliament of Canada, its elected representatives and the people of Canada, those who are directly and indirectly affected by rail passenger services in this country, to come forth and contribute in the formulation of an over-all rail passenger policy.
The fact that VIA Rail was established by the stroke of a pen through a $1 item has disallowed that opportunity to Canadians. It has prevented the Parliament of Canada from establishing a mandate with goals and objectives which would govern the operation of VIA Rail. It does not have the necessary bargaining power at the present time because it lacks the kind of autonomy it should have as an ongoing business concern.
The reason for this is its outdated and archaic costing order. Under the basis of the present terms of reference and mandate, it is not able to deal with that in a realistic way. VIA Rail has failed to address the real needs of rail passenger services in this country because it has to go cap in hand to the government. It is the victim of the railways which constitute 63 per cent or more of VIA Rail's expenditures, an exorbitant cost, and that

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
leaves it very little room for manoeuvring. This 63 per cent expenditure is made without any control.
The R-6313 costing order is part and parcel of the failure of VIA Rail to function effectively and adequately in the discharge of rail passenger services along with its lack of a clear-cut parliamentary mandate outlining its goals and objectives and over-all global rail passenger policy for Canada. Those are the failings of VIA Rail today.
We have a situation now where a minister of the Crown can unilaterally and arbitrarily choose to reduce capriciously rail passenger services in this country by 20 per cent, inflicting very severe damage upon countless hundreds of thousands of Canadians.
I am not objecting to the principle of VIA Rail. As a matter of fact, during the course of our public hearings throughout Canada there was widespread support for the concept of VIA Rail. But the people that support VIA Rail would like to see a clearly defined mandate outlining VIA's goals and objectives. These Canadians would like to see it function as a bona fide Crown corporation which would have the mandate to deal on the basis of sound business principles.
I support the concept of VIA Rail but object to the fact that it was created in a haphazard manner. Canadians across this country are now paying for that carelessness. VIA Rail is now subject to the whims of a minister and government which, with the stroke of a pen, can reduce the service by 20 per cent.
What might we expect next year? The government may decide in its wisdom that the hon. Minister of Transport will have to reduce his budget further. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) and the chairman of the economic development committee, who has over-all charge, may tell the Minister of Transport to shave another $100 million off his budget. Naturally, he will pick VIA Rail because its subsidies and expenditures are clearly defined. There is no difficulty in ascertaining what the government pays toward support of rail passenger services in this country.
It is not as easy to determine such a figure with respect to air transportation, surface transportation or even marine transportation.
If the Minister of Transport and this government is allowed to proceed with this drastic kind of emasculation of a service which is needed, it establishes a very dangerous precedent.
I point out again, next year it could cut back another 20 per cent or unilaterally abandon more branch lines. The basic branch line network in western Canada is not very safe if this is allowed to continue. The minister might even suggest as a cost cutting measure a cutback in ferry services support. These issues have to be dealt with.
When the archaic R-6313 costing order is coupled with the lack of an appropriately defined VIA Rail mandate, one arrives at the central core of what constitutes the failure of VIA Rail. Those two items must be dealt with.
We must have a clearly defined VIA Rail act. We must have an upgraded and realistic costing order, similar to what
Amtrak has in the United States whose cost of services provided by the railroad amount to 25 per cent of the budget. VIA Rail pays more than 63 per cent, close to two thirds of its total budget, on services that are provided by the railroads. One clearly gets the picture when one looks at the sleazy and slippery way in which these cutbacks were put into effect and the failure of the government to address costing order R-6313.
The government has shied away and continues to shy away from public debate. I cannot figure out why it refuses to hold public hearings. If the minister and his colleagues embarked on public hearings as our party chose to do during the summer, they would have been able to gauge the depth of the feeling there is for maintaining an effective and adequate rail passenger service in this country.
Maritimers especially are outraged by the fact they are going to lose their rail passenger service. They are not going to have alternative forms of service. I am sure the minister does not realize that maritimers rely more heavily on rail passenger service than does any other region of Canada. Time after time we heard witnesses testify that the railroad was part of the deal with confederation and they would not have been a member of confederation if they had not been promised adequate and effective rail passenger service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a matter of fact, they went so far as to say "Constitution be damned. Rail passenger service, yes. That is what we need." Maritimers are losing their rail passenger service and do not have an opportunity to express their views or challenge the minister.
Suspicions? There certainly are suspicions with respect to the accuracy of the figures and statistics that were given as background to the formulation of this decision. Time and again we heard the charge that revenues have been understated and expenditures overstated. We have heard people say time and again what would happen if their rail passenger service was taken away. One lady said it would be tantamount to cutting the heart out of New Brunswick.
It is the taxpayers of Canada who are paying to support VIA Rail service. Why can we not give the taxpayers of Canada the opportunity to share in the formulation of an effective rail passenger policy? We could do it under a VIA Rail act. We could have a beneficial debate in the House of Commons as well as across the country which would establish the needs in every region. We could educate Canadians to what it really costs to provide service, and then they could make up their minds whether they believe we should have a luxury type of service, a standard type of service, intercity services, regional or local services or transcontinental services.
The fact is that since the announcement of the minister this kind of assessment has been taking place. There are no less than four alternatives which are now on the table which could be used in exchange for the decision the minister has advanced. Transport 2000 has advanced an alternative pro-
October 26, 1981

posal. The government of Alberta has advanced an alternative proposal. VIA Rail itself has come out with an alternative proposal on re-equipping the transcontinentals, which would provide better service, reduce costs and put rail passenger service into the current technological era.
Indeed, there are rumblings from the minister's own department that there are better ways of achieving his objectives than the one he chose. There are rumblings from his department which take issue with the way in which the minister chose, unilaterally and arbitrarily, to reduce rail passenger services in this country.
The infamous leaked document which got into the hands of the Toronto Star said this, and I quote:
Only July 27 ... the government announced widespread changes in VIA Rail ... These changes have been approved by the governor in council, by means of an order in council varying Canadian Transport Commission orders and directives, and are to be implemented on November 15, 1981.
We have seriously questioned the propriety of a minister's invoking Section 64 of the National Transportation Act on a decision taken by the CTC more than two or three years ago. I find that really incredible because I do not believe Section 64 was ever intended to be used as a policy-making device. It seems to me that Section 64 was to give the governor in council an opportunity to deal with a timely and recent decision rendered by the CTC. If this government did not like the decision of the CTC back in 1977 or 1978, it should have invoked Section 64 at that time. It should have rescinded, amended or changed that decision in any way, shape or form it chose, but it refused to do that. It accepted that CTC decision and, two or three years later, it comes along and says, "Oh, but today we do not accept it, so we are going to amend it." That is wrong. That violates the spirit of the National Transportation Act, and it violates the intent for which Section 64 was to be used. Furthermore, it deprives the affected parties of the opportunity of natural justice.
As hon. members will recall, when considering whether to abandon or to expand rail passenger service or any mode of service in the country, the CTC used the criteria of public convenience and necessity to render its decision. It rendered a decision on the criteria of public convenience and necessity, and that is enshrined in the spirit of the National Transportation Act. Any movement away from that, in my view, is clearly challengeable. If the minister wants to change that fundamental part of the National Transportation Act, then he should bring in an amendment to the National Transportation Act, and we would debate it. However, the minister has not done that. He has chosen to hide behind the powers of Section 64, and I believe he is wrong. I believe he is violating the intent of Section 64 and the spirit of the National Transportation Act.
I am very happy that my good friend, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger), is in the House because I respect his views on transportation. I know he has worked with the CTC. I listened to him very carefully the other day when he said, with a great degree of clarity and assurance, that the minister was very much engaged in proper action consistent with the provisions of the National Transportation Act and Section 64 when
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments he arbitrarily chose to cut back rail passenger service by 20 per cent. Notwithstanding the alleged legality of it, it is morally wrong, and it breaks with the democratic and traditional way of doing things in this country. I hope the hon. member will welcome the challenge in the courts respecting Section 64 because I think-and the hon. member will agree with me- that if this action by the minister goes unchallenged, it will represent a very dangerous precedent which we in this chamber will live to regret.
The document leaked from within the Department of Transport goes on to say that to accomplish this decision-
-the government has used Section 64 of the National Transportation Act in an unprecedented manner.
That is what we are saying. I do not think it has ever been used in this fashion in the 50 years of the CTC and its predecessor, the Board of Transport Commissioners. That is why it is dangerous, and that is why it is wrong.
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.
The government is using Section 64 to restructure the whole VIA system. I get back to the thrust of the committee report, and that is the fact that VIA has been improperly constituted in a parliamentary sense. The matter should be brought before the House of Commons for full debate, and VIA should be fully mandated by the Parliament of Canada. So doing would give the members of this House and the people of Canada an opportunity to outline and formulate a clear-cut rail passenger policy for Canada. The government has failed to do that, and it continues to circumvent the issue and either break the law or come close to breaking the law. This government is very famous for that, and it is time it was challenged on every count.
The document goes on to state:
This is being done without CTC public hearings and without parliamentary scrutiny. Announcement of the changes was deliberately help up until Members of Parliament had left for the summer recess.
There you have it.
As best as can be determined, those responsible for the policy were so intent upon maintaining secrecy that only a limited number of government and VIA headquarters officials decided upon the detailed changes. The cabinet apparently then ordered further changes according to ministers' wishes, resulting in as uninformed and inconsistent an exercise in transportation planning as could be imagined. It appears that two particularly valuable sources of expertise, the CTC and VIA's own regional officers, were deliberately excluded.
It goes on to state:
It must be acknowledge that VIA's costs generally seem to be escalating rapidly and that several of the government's proposed cuts could be made without great hardship. The premise of the present alternative proposal is that roughly the same magnitude of saving could be realized by a proper and even-handed planning exercise, rather than the one conducted hurriedly behind closed doors by a small number of officials.
The document goes on further to outline an alternative proposal to the minister's decision which would result in an estimated $2.4 million per year saving in addition to the $100 million the minister alleges he will save. That is $2.4 million more than the government's proposal and, at the same time, "The Atlantic" would be salvaged and the western transconti-

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
nental would be salvaged. However, what we are looking at here is the kind of gimmickry and illegal tactics in which this government engages. It is absolutely shameful. It is the process as much as the decision that is causing anger and outrage throughout the country.
The government should allow a full-fledged public debate on VIA Rail. It should bring in legislation outlining its policy parameters, refer it to the standing committee and let the committee travel across the country to hear the views of the people. Is that asking too much? The transport committee has always been one of the most prestigious committees of the House of Commons. We have a railway committee room. This is because transportation is so important to this country.
If the government brought in a VIA Rail act, it would find there is widespread support for the concept of VIA, particularly at this time with high energy costs. VIA has not been given a fair chance to prove itself. More and more people are choosing to ride the trains, 41 per cent more today than when VIA took over. The government would find that rather than cutting back on rail passenger service, the people of Canada would recommend an expansion. There needs to be an upgrading of equipment.
Let us look at the Canadian Transport Commission decision of 1977-78. In addition to the establishment of the route structure some specific orders were made having to do with improvements in rolling stock, sleeping accommodation, meal service, scheduling and marketing. Those orders have not been fulfilled notwithstanding that ridership has increased by 41 per cent.
The government will not refer this decision to the Canadian Transport Commission or a standing committee because it is afraid of the truth, afraid to hear what the people have to say. The government did not talk about cutting back VIA rail service during the last election campaign. Now it is moving unilaterally and arbitrarily because it thinks the people will forget by the time the next election campaign rolls around. The people will not forget about this. I said the other day that instead of "twin-track Trudeau" we now have "No train Pepin". That is what it amounts to.
There is massive objection across Canada to the cutbacks in rail services proposed by the minister. There is massive outrage with regard to the arbitrary manner in which this decision was made. There is a very deep concern about the future of the Canadian Transport Commission. What is its role? It has suffered an end runaround in this case. It has been circumvented and emasculated. Who will be the protector of the public interest in terms of ensuring that we have adequate transportation service for all modes, air, surface and marine?
The people of Canada who appeared at the very extensive hearings in 1976 and 1977 believed that the decision was reached after all the evidence was presented to establish a rail passenger framework which was then described as being at an irreducible minimum. Any modification of that should automatically be referred back to the CTC. In its policy
directive to the CTC, the former minister of transport said among other things that the government wanted the CTC to establish a single spine transcontinental network. The CTC rejected that on the basis of public convenience and necessity. The commission found and ruled that under that criteria the service requirements could not be fulfilled with a single spine network. As I said earlier, if the government disapproved of that, it should have invoked Section 64 at that time. To do it now is wrong and in violation of the spirit of the act and the intent of Section 64.
If the government brought forth a VIA Rail act and deferred its decision to cut back, it would find through the voice of public opinion that the economic and social impact will be far more serious than it had considered. For that reason there has to be some check and balance. The government cannot unilaterally and arbitrarily, without any recourse to public input, do an end run on the people of Canada. It will find that the people of northern Ontario, particularly in those areas which will not have an alternate service, the lower income groups, the trappers, fishermen, outriggers and those in the Indian communities will be very seriously affected.
Many members on this side spoke about the impact on the tourist industry. If the government allowed the committee to go across the country, it would find that VIA Rail and rail passenger service is becoming a very major and integral part of tourist marketing in this country. The Japanese, Americans and Europeans who come here to visit the Rocky Mountains and the many attractive places in the Atlantic region use VIA Rail. There is a really blossoming tourist industry which centres around VIA Rail.
We heard during the hearings that people find it strange that on one hand the government pours hundreds of millions of dollars through DREE grants into the tourist industry in Atlantic Canada, and then another minister comes along and wipes out rail passenger service. How inconsistent and contradictory. The government would find as well that any reduction in rail service would have a very significant impact on our total tourist industry and therefore our balance of payments. It could see the discord and regional tension that would be created.
If the federal government brought forward a VIA Rail act and allowed the transport committee to go across the country to get the views of Canadians, it would find that the regions of the west and Atlantic Canada where the bulk of the cuts will take place would be most affected. Job loss will take place in those areas where there is the highest level of unemployment.
Any mention of the fact that moneys will be transferred from Atlantic Canada and western Canada to further support services in the Quebec-Windsor corridor will cause anger and tension. In that area there is now a multiple choice of transportation services.
It is interesting to note that in its submission to the transport standing committee, Voyageur Bus Lines very dramatically indicated that it was absolutely opposed to VIA Rail cutbacks, and the emphasis being diverted to the Quebec-Windsor corridor. Quite frankly, the traffic generated by
October 26, 1981

Voyageur along the Quebec-Windsor corridor is an important source of revenue for supporting other routes which are not so viable. Thus, that support is required to finance the not so heavily travelled runs.
What is going to happen by concentrating VIA Rail's efforts on the Quebec-Windsor corridor is that you may very well be putting a viable bus industry in jeopardy, certainly putting an industry in jeopardy to the extent that it is going to be forced to cut back on its less heavily travelled runs. This should be another matter considered in any over-all rail passenger policy.
There are many things that can be said about the present level of VIA Rail transportation. Suffice it to say it is not the time to be cutting back. It is not the time to be reducing rail passenger services, for a number of reasons. I have not mentioned the energy issue. Since we now have an oil agreement that is going to see fuel prices rise to $4 and $4.50 per gallon, surely it is incumbent upon us to take another look at all modes of public transportation, and surely it is incumbent upon the legislators of Canada to study the implications. This is new evidence which I believe has not been considered but should be considered. This also could be considered if we had a VIA Rail act brought before this House.
It has been said that VIA has suffered because it has been an illegitimate offspring and has suffered four and a half years of neglect. I believe this is an accurate reflection, because VIA was charged with the job of doing almost the impossible. The contractual arrangements and the costing arrangements that were put in place should be completely overhauled and reviewed. There should be no cutbacks based upon a costing order that is archaic and out of date. The CTC found it out of date. The CTC says that it has to be overhauled and has to be changed. The contractual arrangements have to be changed. VIA lacks the kind of autonomy it requires in order to do the job it is asked to do.
What about the historical and the statutory obligations of the railways? What responsibilities do they have in terms of maintaining rail passenger services? Under Sections 260, 261 and 262 of the Railway Act there are still some very clear statutory obligations for the purpose of maintaining adequate accommodation for passenger traffic and freight traffic. Those are items that should also be brought to the attention of the government and to any House committee that would be considering a new mandate for VIA Rail.
What about the question of energy efficiency? When we are looking at VIA Rail and the future of transportation in this country, surely it is time to come up with a clear analysis so that we may determine once and for all what is and is not the most energy-efficient mode of transportation. Surely it is time once and for all to establish what forms of public transportation are subsidized more than others, to what extent the highway mode is subsidized and to what extent the air mode, the marine mode and the rail mode are subsidized. We have various conflicting figures. Everyone uses their pet set of figures to argue their specific point.
Adjournment Motion
Clearly the time has come when all of these things must be put on the table and properly analysed and considered so that we can end up with the best kind of transportation system in this country. I am not simply pleading a case for rail passenger service. There is no question that we need all modes of transportation. But we must adopt intermodal concepts so that we can use the various modes in the most efficient and effective way possible. We will not do this unless we have an opportunity to debate a transportation policy and, particularly, a rail passenger policy. I believe this is the issue we are addressing ourselves to today in the substance of this particular motion.
I appreciate the opportunity to put some of my thoughts before the House, not only on the legality but some of the pitfalls, obstacles and difficulties that VIA Rail faces in terms of operating under its present structure. The fact of the matter is that VIA does not have an adequate structure to discharge the job it was asked to do.
If this motion is adopted and carried, it will compel the Minister of Transport to bring in a VIA Rail act which we can consider in depth, with the fullest of debate and in a manner where we would not be faced by a guillotine on November 15 which would emasculate and destroy the real heart and core of VIA Rail's route structure. Surely this is not asking for too much.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has talked at great length about the fact that we have waited some 50-odd years to get a Constitution. I am sure another year of deliberate consideration of this important subject that affects the hearts and minds and welfare of Canadians from coast to coast is in order. Why the haste? Why do we not just sit back and try to do something right? At a time when other countries are expanding rail passenger services, surely now is the time Canada should join that club. We can join that club by moving this motion forward. I hope members on the other side of the House will see fit to support it.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please! It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Industry-Location of aerospace training centre institute-Request for commitment to Winnipeg site; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-The economy-Measures to aid maritime region-Request for assistance to home owners renewing mortgages; the hon. member for
12176

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-The Constitution-Possible postponement of federal-provincial meeting-Government position.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty:
That the Revised Seventh Report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, presented to the House on Wednesday, June 17, 1981, be concurred in.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this debate on a question of procedure in the House. It is a question of how Members of Parliament are going to regulate their affairs and how the House is going to conduct its business in the most efficient way with a view to having the fullest hearing on the issues.
A report of the joint standing committee has been tabled in the House. Before we proceeded to orders of the day, a motion was made for concurrence of this report. The government, through the task forces it has launched, through the various committees and reports put before Parliament, has commenced a process of involving more parliamentarians to reach out further than the executive branch ever hoped it could to listen to Canadians, to talk to Canadians and to bring their views before this House. We must not cut this important, progressive move off at a very initial state, at a very tentative stage of its youth.
We are proposing a process whereby Members of Parliament, through joint committees that will involve hon. senators with their experience and wisdom, as well as members of all parties in the House, members who have expertise along with those who want to become experts in the subjects, go out and do their job.
I want to commend the standing joint committee, of which the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) is a member, for the work the committee did on its fourth report on the whole process of regulatory reform. I also commend the committee for the work it has done in its subsequent report. But I am not talking about the substance of the report that is before us today. I am talking about the process which could be used to stifle the authority of these task forces and committees in the future of our parliamentary system.
The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) said that the government was stifling debate in wanting to get to orders of the day when we dealt with this matter previously. He said that the report had disappeared from the Order Paper and that, in effect, the government had rejected it. He asked; "What is the point of the committee?" The point of the committee was very important. The committee made its report. It was made public. It formed part of the legislative record which would act as a touchstone for legislation in the future. We have had a debate on VIA Rail in the House.
Let me turn to the specific proposals contained in the seventh report. It deals with the question that there was a $1 vote in 1977 which was the essence of our proceeding to cut VIA Rail. Let us look at this process. Nowhere in the record could I find any criticism of that measure which was taken and the possibility which was opened up in 1977. I challenge hon. members of the opposition to show us anywhere where that issue was challenged. The seventh report of the standing joint committee indicates nowhere that the procedures being adopted are illegal. Also the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) stated on a number of occasions that he intended at some future time to bring in a VIA Rail act. He has assured us that the government will be presenting this House with VIA Rail legislation for the future. As the minister explained so lucidly to the House, at the present time he is dealing with a crisis in cost.
I should like to return to the seventh report in which reference was made to the fourth report and the work of the previous committee of which the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe was a member. I must confess that he provided a great deal of leadership in terms of the fourth report which dealt with the entire process of regulatory reform. I only wish that his hon. colleague, Senator Godfrey, could be with us in the chamber today to assist in the debate of this particular issue. His learned contribution to the entire process of regulatory reform created another touchstone for Members of Parliament as we look to the future of our various committees and the roles each individual can play.
The seventh report reads in part as follows:
Your committee's predecessor called for an end to this practice inimical to parliamentary sovereignty. It should stop and all existing subordinate laws made under votes should be the subject of review as to merits by the appropriate parliamentary standing committee.
This is a clarion call for a new system and a new approach. I recall the words of the hon. House leader when the standing joint committee presented its fourth report. The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe moved concurrence at that time, and the response of our House leader was that we had taken under consideration the very important proposals which have been put forward. He indicated that we agreed with many of them but that other reports had been put forward as well. There was the Lambert commission, the first report of the Economic Council and the report of the parliamentary task force on regulatory reform of which I was pleased to be chairman. This task force was very ably served by hon. mem-
October 26, 1981

bers from both sides of the House. Also there was the final report of the Economic Council of Canada which was published recently.
Within the last several years there have been a number of reports before the House dealing with the entire process of regulatory reform. The fact that the government created task forces and mandated various bodies to deal with the issue surely testifies to the good will on this side of the House to ensure the regulatory process goes ahead. I need only refer hon. members to the budget debate of last year in which the then minister of finance twice referred to the fact that regulatory reform was a priority of the government and that through proper regulatory reform we could indeed reduce the burden of regulation on the private sector in Canada and make regulators more accountable to Parliament and to the people of Canada.
This is why I am happy to rise on this particular issue. I felt somewhat taken aback when the hon. House leader of the official opposition quickly rose from his seat when he saw me rise to speak. I felt that he was suspicious. I do not know why he would want to be suspicious. Perhaps he felt that I was rising to try to stifle debate on this particular issue. I assure him that I was prepared at that time to defer to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) for whom I have a high regard. He has fought for particular issues with great eloquence in the House. We on this side of the House are pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this matter.
In connection with the entire process of regulatory reform about which we are talking, I should like to indicate that we are talking about the process by which regulations and rules are made and about the process of subordinate legislation. I bring to the attention of the House-and this is the first opportunity we have had to do it-a number of proposals put forward in our report which were concurred in by the fourth report of the standing joint committee. There has been widespread feeling that the exercise of ministerial discretion should be subjected to greater control. Perhaps this view is best expressed by Dicey. I should like to quote from the "Law of the Constitution" in which this learned jurist said:
The rule of law is contrasted with every system of government based on the exercise by persons in authority of wide, arbitrary or discretionary powers of constraint.. , Whenever there is discretion there is room for arbitrariness... Discretionary authority must mean insecurity for legal freedom on the part of its subjects.
This statement was made by the honourable jurist in 1885. Since that time I believe his words have held true, but the circumstances in our country and throughout the entire free world have changed dramatically. Government is much more a fact of life than it was then. Laws to protect consumers and individuals, to protect and help small businesses, to control abuses in many aspects of our lives, have become much more paramount. We in the task force found that many departments had amendments to regulations which they wanted to bring forward. They required amendments which had to be brought before the House. Some of them had been trying for four or five years to have their amendments put on the Order Paper. But we know that the House is blocked. There are so many
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments bills on the Order Paper which deserve the urgent attention of hon. members that we know we cannot operate strictly through the House. Therefore we have developed a system of delegating legislation to ministers to operate in certain areas. The standing joint committee has a watchdog role over the exercise of discretion. Let none of us confuse the fact that while we believe in the rule of law, the government could not effectively carry out its roles and responsibilities without having recourse to subordinate legislation.
Let us consider the admonition of Mr. Justice Brandeis who put the need for control this way: "Power must always feel the check of power". Also we should consider the words of Sir Richard Cartwright, the great grandfather of Chief Justice Cartwright, who said in 1912:
No man and no party can be safely entrusted with uncontrolled power.
The question before the House is not a question of the abuse of uncontrolled power. We have had members speak on this particular issue of VIA Rail and many members spoke in various ways. Some members on this side of the House have condemned certain of these closings, as have hon. members opposite.
Members have talked in the past about the need to control unnecessary expenditure. Members who have appeared before the transportation committee will realize that in many cases buses and alternate modes of transportation could serve us better than rail, so let us approach the question of transportation with an open mind.
The whole question of the process of regulatory reform is not the same here as in the United States. Hon. members opposite are getting quite excited about the process of regulatory reform. I would have thought they would be among the vanguard of those who seek to improve the accountability of the executive branch of the legislative arm. I welcome the attention of hon. members opposite given to what this House is trying to do.
I want to speak at some length about efforts that are being made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) to bring about regulatory control and reform. Before I go to that, however, I think it is important to mention that the process of regulatory reform in Canada is not one of so-called "deregulation"-getting the government off our backs, as we have seen take place in the United States. We have not looked upon this as a new political clout or a new way of dealing with things. What we are looking for is the creation of better regulation. We do not want to prejudge whether all regulation is good or bad; we want a better process forjudging regulation.
My thesis today is that we have many ways of controlling regulation, the exercise of ministerial discretion, but that none of these controls of themselves is entirely adequate or appropriate to the present day realities in this House. I should like to examine some of the controls that are exercised over the exercise of ministerial discretion, and draw to the attention of members of the House a statement made by Mr. Justice Rand who, I believe, was Canada's foremost civil libertarian and its

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
greatest constitutional expert. In the famous case Roncarelli v. Duplessis, the late Mr. Justice Rand said that "there is no such thing as absolute and untrammelled discretion".
Our courts have a history of attempting to wrestle with the question of when they have a right to intervene and upset the exercise of discretion by a minister acting in his executive capacity. In a number of cases it is held that orders in council are not in the category of legislative action; that they are not in the area of an exercise of rule-making that broaches on the border of being judicial. When that exercise of discretion does not have a judicial character to it, basically the courts have held that that exercise was an administrative action or a legislative action and could not be reviewed by the courts.
In this country we have a hodge-podge of cases on this subject. Suffice it to say that the jurisprudence which has arisen has admitted of no easy answers. It is very difficult to determine when a court can intervene to exercise control over the exercise of ministerial discretion.
There are four conclusions that follow from these cases. First of all, there is no law which says that minimal procedural standards, such as the right to notice of a hearing and a hearing itself, are conditions precedent to the exercise of ministerial discretion.
Second, the cases indicate that it is very difficult to decide when a judicial review is or is not open to an individual who feels aggrieved by the exercise of that discretion.
Third, I do not believe that to take every case before a court is a proper solution; rather, I believe that we have to find ways to amend our procedures for dealing with the exercise of discretion so that as legislators we can exercise the type of control that we have a responsibility to our constituents to exercise.
This type of review of our executive decision-making of regulations is going to become even more important with the introduction in the not too distant future, I hope, of a bill of rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That charter will make all subordinate legislation subject to its terms and conditions to ensure that there are no discriminatory laws or regulations which impinge unfairly on Canadians.
What are the types of controls that are exercised, apart from judicial review which, as I have indicated, is not in my opinion an adequate, although proper, type of exercise of control over the exercise of ministerial discretion? There are others.
There is the work of the standing joint committee which reviews the legality of regulations. The only problem is that the committee cannot review the merits of regulations. 1 believe it is proper that members of the House should have an opportunity to review the merits of regulations before they become law or after they have become law, with a view to being able to comment on whether they are good for Canadians or bad for Canadians-whether they are cost effective or are the most effective regulations we could have.
Another way that our regulators are influenced-and all Members of Parliament are subject to this-is by lobbying. Each of us is subject to lobbying. I use that word not in the
pejorative sense that it has acquired in many jurisdictions but in the most complete sense of lobbying, such as when a constituent comes to his or her member with a problem and says that the law should be changed. I think that is lobbying. We all know that lobbying is done on an extensive scale in Canada. People who represent institutions such as consumers' groups, farm groups, or business groups established in Ottawa, tell us that they want changes made to particular laws. I am concerned about some of the input that we receive. If we as regulators and lawmakers want to do our job effectively, then we need as much input as possible; but that input should come before we legislate and regulate.
There are some in our society who are not equipped to make their views know to us, in my opinion. It is very difficult for an individual to appear before a board that sets rates for telephones, for rail transportation or air passage. Very few consumers have the wherewithal to enable them to appear before government officials to try to convince them that prices should not increase in various areas. I therefore feel that we have to bring back together the collective public interest groups; those who do not have the funds to establish an office and a paid lobbyist in Ottawa to deal with us.
I believe we have on obligation to help bring together those collective grievances of small individuals who cannot otherwise deal with the issues. This would help us as legislators, on all sides of the House, more effectively to do our job as their wishes, views and alternatives would be known to us. This is why our task force on regulatory reform made a very strong and urgent plea that we introduce laws which will help, aid and abet public interest groups in their funding. The Consumers Association of Canada does an admirable job of appearing before many boards and committees; its biggest problem is not in deciding which hearings to attend, but in deciding how many hundreds every year it cannot attend because it does not have the funds at its disposal. There are similar examples of public interest groups.
Within the spirit of this motion before us dealing with the process by which regulations are enacted, I would therefore ask that hon. members from all sides of this House give greater consideration to the possibility of extended funding for public interest groups so that they can make their views known and legislators can have a balanced input to better do their job.
Another part of this process of having better, more effective regulations, of course, is access to information. We as individuals in this House know the importance of having access to information and full and complete information before we debate and decide upon an issue. This is why I urge the co-operation of hon. members opposite as the access to information bill proceeds through committee, so that we can get it before the House and get it passed. I believe it will have a significant impact in informing Canadians and helping us to inform ourselves.


Erik Nielsen: You voted against it the other night.
October 26, 1981

Mir. Peterson: The hon. House leader has indicated that he has some hesitations, I understand, with proceeding apace with this type of legislation. The debate that we are having today relates to a report which was submitted last June and is before the House, and which we have had the benefit of reading. We have had a chance to formulate our opinions on whether we agree or disagree with it. What we are doing today is holding up the debate on another bill, Bill C-48. If every time one of these committees and task forces were to put a report before this House, we moved concurrence and then had to spend a number of days or hours of the time of this House debating it-


Mr. McDermid:: That's a red herring and you know it.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -we would not be able to present a full hearing on the issues before the House on a sequential matter.


John Horton McDermid: Nonsense.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You don't think that VIA Rail is an urgent matter.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The hon. member opposite has indicated that in my opinion VIA Rail is not an urgent matter.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You said it.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: When the hon. House leader was so suspicious that we would want to cut off debate, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader assured him without hesitation, without flinching, that we were prepared to have a debate until ten o'clock tonight on this important issue. We are happy to do that, but let us not use this process, this House rule which is being followed today, as a future excuse to sidetrack debate just because there happens to be a report which has been tabled. We can swallow and choke on a process which has been started, one which is good for all sides of this House, if this type of process is abused in the future.


John Horton McDermid: Are you saying we are abusing it?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: We will not abuse it. We would hope that hon. members from the opposition would not use this process as an abuse in the future.
The major point that was made by the task force on regulatory reform was reiterated by the Economic Council, and was again reiterated by the standing joint committee in its report on regulations. I think the major issue was that governments must consult. Legislators must consult with their constituents and with effective public groups before regulations are passed. We believe that the private sector has a great role in helping us, as legislators, pass more cost-effective, responsive regulations. That type of consultation must go on, we believe, before channel vision takes place among our public servants.
The private sector, with the exception of public interest groups, has the facilities, the funds, the resources and the knowledge to enter into a collaborative effort with government to assist government in proposing and enacting better regula-
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments tions. This is why we must ask ourselves, in conjunction with the private sector with which we must consult: What are the problems we are seeking to resolve? Is government intervention really necessary to resolve them? Are there alternative types of intervention which might offer better solutions? Will the costs of regulation and the costs of setting up a control mechanism outweigh the benefits that we hope to derive from it?
When we intervene with regulations, we must always ask ourselves: Who will be the winners and who will be the losers? We know that when we impose any type of burdensome regulation on one sector of society, be it business, consumers or whatever, another side will have to pay for it. To me, this is the clarion message which springs from the final report of the Economic Council. It looked at regulations in the transportation industry, and that is what we should be looking at. It looked at regulations in the agricultural industry and in a number of other industries, and it attempted to assess the costs. What were the costs of those regulations? Who was paying for them? In many cases, the council said that it was the consumer of Canada who was paying for regulation in those areas. I think that the report of the Economic Council of Canada will serve us well in the future, because we will hesitate to regulate until we have assessed the costs in advance.
When we attempt to impose controls on one group or another, we will ask: Who is the winner? Who is the loser? Are consumers really benefiting? Are individual Canadians really benefiting, or is it only one industry or one small segment? When we have answered those questions, we will then be able to regulate with much more clarity and precision.
I had the pleasure of yielding to the hon. member for Vegreville. I always benefit from listening to his views, although I do not always agree with his views. He mentioned a very important point. He said that it was never intended that Section 64 of the National Transportation Act should deal with the situation in which we find ourselves concerning VIA Rail.
As Your Honour is aware, Section 64 deals with the right of appeal from a decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to cabinet. The reason for the creation of the Transport Commission and the many boards and agencies that we have in so many areas was to take advantage of the collective expertise and wisdom which exists in a commision through which it can undertake a consultative process in measures and make those available to us. However, I profoundly believe that because a board has made a decision we, as the executive, legislative branch, are not relieved of political responsibility for that decision. That decision affects Canadians, and it is one to which I, as Member of Parliament for Willowdale, am held accountable to my electorate.
Therefore, I would not want to take away the power of cabinet, under Section 64 of the National Transportation Act to step in where it disagrees with a decision of a board or commission and to say, "You have considered this, but we have an alternative view." In the past we have done this. For example, I refer Your Honour to a case where a cabinet

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments overruled a decision of the CRTC on a Bell rate increase. We felt, in our political judgment, that the rate was excessive; therefore, we rolled it back.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A timely decision, though.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: It was a timely decision. The hon. member for Vegreville has called for timeliness in these decisions. I cannot gainsay what he said, and I hope that he and hon. members opposite will work with us to find more timely ways of having boards and commissions make their decisions. In many cases we will have to beef up their membership. We have to ensure they provide efficient service to the Canadians they are intended to serve.
I give another example of where an appeal to cabinet from a decision of a board was critical. Eastern Provincial Airways was seeking from CPA the right, as a regional carrier, to have the run from Elalifax to Toronto. Many members on the opposite side of the House pleaded with us to recognize the right of a small regional carrier. We as a cabinet-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You don't want to be in any more trouble than you are.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: 1 excuse myself from that remark, of course. I am merely a very proud member of the Liberal party and a member of this side of the House. What we did was step in and exercise our responsibility.
We do not want to strip the CTC of this right to have its decision appealed to cabinet. Our executive branch is prepared to assume that responsibility and be held accountable by the people of Canada. I do not hear any members on that side of the House condemning either of those two decisions about which we were speaking. We want to keep that power, and whether there are differences among members of this House, let us not in our haste, because of a particular issue, do away with a principle that has served us well in the past and has served Canadians well.
As part of this process of having a good interrelationship between the legislative branch and boards and tribunals, which we created to help us with their expertise in specialized areas, we also need a concomitant right of the cabinet to provide input and political direction on a timely basis, as the hon. member has said, so that cabinet directives can go out indicating government direction and government policy to these boards and agencies. That is not political interference. Boards and agencies will welcome that type of political direction. In the extensive hearings before our committee we were told they wanted that type of input.
One of the major issues that we addressed, apart from prior consultation about the necessity of funding public interest groups before we regulate, and one of the most important fields where we feel that regulations can be made more cost effective and beneficial to Canadians as a whole, is in the area
of creating parliamentary accountability. Our task force, as well as that as that of the joint standing committee and the economic council, indicated that parliamentarians had a paramount role to play in holding regulators accountable. This is why we called for the creation of a special task force which could deal with a review of regulations on their merit as well as the whole process of implementing regulatory reform. We want to see the day when committees from this House consisting of members from all sides can work in non-partisan fashion with expert staff and thus serve their constituents better by having the capability of dealing with regulations.
We do not want to create a roadblock in this House. We do not want committees to have the opportunity of holding up further the process of this House of Commons through technical rules, such as creating a debate on a report of every committee. We would be further hamstrung and, goodness knows, the Canadian public knows that we do not have the time in this House at present to deal at length with all the issues which we feel are of a pressing and urgent nature. We feel the House itself could be relieved of many of those responsibilities by adequately staffed, adequately equipped, small committees.
We are calling for committee reform of all the standing committees so that members can devote their expertise and time to probably one committee only. By doing this, members can get into the substance of matters. Political partisanship would never disappear but it would give way to enlightened consideration of the laws that we seek to implement for the good of all Canadians.
That is the type of process we have been talking about. Abusing the rules of this House will not permit us to get on with it. What I am happy so say, however, is that not only did our task force have the opinion, the opportunity and the consideration of hon. members who formed part of the standing joint committee, but we also had the benefit of their excellent work in the area of regulatory reform. Even though we tabled the report last December 19, we have not moved concurrence in it because we have had the assurance of our hon. House leader and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that the consideration of our report as well as other reports in this area were being taken into consideration and acted upon.
I am very proud to be a member of a government which, under the actions of our President of the Privy Council, has undertaken a 12-point program to implement the reforms of which we speak. We do not need to grandstand in this House to get our reforms implemented and considered, nor does the standing joint committee. Those reforms are being implemented and looked at.
I would like to refer the House to the 12 points of reform that have been implemented and are under review by the President of the Privy Council.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but I must advise him that his
October 26, 1981

allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) for whom I have high regard. I almost came to believe some of the crocodile tears he was shedding about how he wants to reform the House and give all this power to individual members. That kind of stance would almost be believable if it were not for the fact that we are facing a government decision that, by his own admission, he probably supports and which will prevent the people of Canada from having a chance to appear before a regulatory body already in existence. I have never heard such nonsense in my life. If the hon. member is serious and sincere about this, I would be most interested to see how he votes, what his position is on the VIA Rail cutbacks and what kind of representation he has made to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in this regard.


John Horton McDermid: He has a subway; he does not need VIA Rail.


Charles James Mayer: The hon. member made the point that the minister lucidly explained to the House today why these cutbacks will take place. I will leave it to members of the House and to members of the public who visited the galleries today to find out how lucid the minister was in his explanation for cutting off rail service which, in my part of the country, is being cut by half.
The hon. member went on to say that he was pleased to speak in this debate. I am pleased to speak in this debate too. That is all we are asking of the House, that members of the public who use VIA Rail and want to support it have an opportunity to speak. The appropriate place for them to speak is before the Canadian Transport Commission. If the hon. member is really sincere about everyone having an equal opportunity to speak in this country, he would be in favour of the CTC having a chance to look at this issue before the minister so violently guillotines the service. I am shocked that an hon. member would get up and sincerely make such fervent remarks about the process when what he is doing by supporting his government is doing the exact opposite.
The hon. member talked about discretionary powers, how they should be used and how the parliamentary process should not have to succumb to all the details of every decision made in Canada. That is precisely what the Canadian Transport Commission is for. Again, if the hon. member were serious he would realize that discretionary powers are there to be exercised by a regulatory body. In this case the regulatory body has sat twice on this issue and it has twice turned down the government. The government, probably because it suspected or knew that the same kind of decision would come again from
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
the CTC, has decided not to ask. It simply proceeded on its own.
I find it unfortunate that the hon. member, who appears to be very sincere in his remarks, would by his actions, support the exact opposite. I suppose that is what we have come to expect of the government.
I also found interesting, but appalling, the fact that he referred to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader as "not flinching" when our House leader got up and asked that we have some kind of assurance that this debate not be cut off. I would point out that last Thursday we had every reason to flinch on this side at what the government House leader, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), said. I will quote from page 12016 of Hansard, This is what the government House leader said:
So if the hon. member wants to discuss the report-
The report we are talking about is the one under discussion today.
So if the hon. member wants to discuss the report, even if it is at the request of his committee, we shall have no alternative, as I have already explained to him and to the predecessor of the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but to introduce a motion either to adjourn the debate or to proceed with the orders of the day, so that the government can deal with its legislative program and priorities, as provided under the rules of the House.
That was a precise statement. If we were to attempt to talk about the report today, we would be cut off. It is not a case of the parliamentary secretary flinching, it is a case of the opposition flinching in the face of not having a chance to discuss it. As if that were not enough, Mr. Speaker, on the subsequent page the parliamentary secretary reported to have made two other specific references to the fact that we would not have a chance to discuss this. I would like to point that out to the member for Willowdale. It is not a question of the parliamentary secretary flinching and getting up in all innocence and telling us to go ahead and take the day to debate the report, it is a case of looking at the record and seeing what his House leader said last Thursday. That is why we governed ourselves the way we did.
Another statement made by the member for Willowdale which has to be corrected is when he made reference to the fact that there has been no discussions on VIA Rail and how it was to be set up at the time the $1 vote was put forth. That was before my time in the House but I am informed that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), who subsequently served as a very distinguished minister of transport, moved an opposition motion questioning the kind of circumstances which led to the creation of VIA Rail.


An hon. Member:: Read the quote.


Charles James Mayer: I will be happy to read the quote. It is also a pleasure to quote great Canadians.
The words of the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, are on page 4211 of the March 22, 1977 Hansard. He said:

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
Turning to Crown corporations, we take very grave objection to the establishment of a Crown corporation under the use of the dollar item, as in the case of VIA Rail Canada. Our concern is not with the substance, but with the method. While we may have some reservations about the principle of the establishment of VIA Rail Canada, that is not what is in issue at this time. It is the method which the government has employed to bring about the establishment of VIA Rail Canada. It authorizes the expenditures of up to $240 million-
That $240 million has gone out the window. It now is a factor several times that.
It authorizes the expenditures of up to $240 million under the provisions of both 52d, which can be found at page 120 of supplementary estimates D. This, in our view, is a major transportation policy decision and should be considered in this House in the form of a bill, rather than by back-door coercion. This action constitutes a clear contempt of Parliament which has to be of the most blatant degree. One might even question the politics of the establishment of VIA Rail Canada at this time, since the CTC is still in the process of studying the rail passenger service in this country and has not yet brought down its recommendation.
At least at that time under that government, they had the decency to let the CTC hold some hearings. That has not been the case to date, Mr. Speaker.
I do have a high regard for the hon. member for Willowdale, but I cannot let him off the hook. He quoted numerous jurists and their impact on Canadian political life and the way Canadians are governed. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians are not interested in the rhetoric of jurists. They are interested in service, Canadians pay a lot of taxes and, I suggest, that they have a right to expect service back from those taxes. They also have a right to express their views about something as basic as transportation in this country. Transportation is a very important issue to maritimers and western Canadians. We have a sparce population spread out over a great distance in those regions. I suggest that the Canadian people are shortchanged when the minister arbitrarily cuts services-the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) called it cutting the heart out of New Brunswick- without having the decency to let the people have any input into the question.
The hon. member for Willowdale also talked about our holding up the process. He said that we do not have the time to deal with all the issues in the House. That is precisely the point. That is why the CTC is in existence, so we can refer some of the issues of the day to these regulatory bodies. The hon. member cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse the opposition of holding up the process, because we do not want to hold up the process. We want the matter referred to the proper regulatory body, which is the CTC.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Why did you
not do that in the first place?


Charles James Mayer: The distinguished chairman of our Standing Committee on Transport is making some noises over in the corner. He talks about returning the matter to the committee. That is an extremely good point. The minister said he would like to appear in front of the committee. I think the chairman of the committee would agree that there is no point in having the minister appear in front of the committee after November 15 when VIA is shut down.


An hon. Member:: He said it would not make any difference.


Charles James Mayer: Exactly. The minister said if he did appear in front of the committee, it would not make a lot of difference. If the minister appears in front of the committee after November 15, there is no point in his telling us why the service is terminated, because it will be gone already. It is like closing the barn door after the horse is gone. It is a waste of time and,
I submit, an affront to the committee and the hon. member who chairs it. I would like to ask the chairman of the committee to give us some assurance that he will use whatever office and influence he has to ask the minister to appear in front of the committee before November 15. The committee would then have some kind of commitment with regard to accountability. It would have the ability to make decisions. Those of us in the opposition, and I am sure the NDP would agree, would be in favour of that.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in response to the comments made by the member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer) with regard to the deadline for the VIA Rail cutbacks. There is not much point in the committee discussing it after November 15.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer).


Charles James Mayer: I am pleased to know that the chairman of the committee agrees with the statement.
I would like to discuss some of the concerns expressed to me by my constituents as a result of the announcement of July 27. There has always been friction between my part of the country and central Canada because our population is in the minority. Several constituents have approached me and suggested that the reason for the cutbacks was that obviously there was not enough money to go around, that if anyone was to be shortchanged it would not be the central part of the country but the west or the maritimes, and that the real reason for the cutbacks was not necessarily that the government wanted to save money but that it wanted to provide better service to central Canada, Ontario and Quebec, on the Quebec City to Windsor corridor.
Evidence of this was pointed out to me. It is, as we know by the minister's admission, that the new light, rapid and comfortable trains which are coming onstream-they will be delayed by a month which, in some cases, is understandable- will not be used in western Canada. This was pointed out as an example of how the cutbacks would hurt my part of the country and benefit the central part. I am sure maritime members would relate it to their part of the country. To some extent I am guilty of the same kind of prejudice, but what really is the case is that all parts of the country will be affected, not only the west and the maritimes but also the central part of the country. It seems to me that that is shortchanging Canadians and pitting Canadian against Canadian unnecessarily.

If the Canadian Transport Commission had been given a mandate to hold hearings and had travelled across the country and heard Canadians' complaints, as did the task force our party set up, this would have become very much more obvious, and I think the media, including the press, would have picked up the fact that cutbacks were occurring right across the country. Canadians would have had a better chance to understand why these cuts were taking place, and they would have had less reason to blame other parts of the country for their own deprivation as far as rail passenger service is concerned. I think that is a very important point as far as national unity is concerned at this time. I do not think we need to do anything that in any way suggests that one part of the country is benefiting at the expense of another. Yet by not holding hearings, that is precisely what this government is allowing to happen.
As I said, I think to some extent I am as guilty as others. I appeared before the task force when it held its hearings in Winnipeg and made statements to that effect. I was very quickly corrected. I realize that was a bad mistake on my part, but again I say that the process by which this decision was reached lends itself to that kind of misinformation. That does not do any of us in this country a service. I think that is a very important reason, if there is no other reason, that the government should have given the Canadian Transport Commission a mandate to hold hearings and to talk about why rail passenger service had to be cut as far as some parts of the country are concerned. I put that out because I have not heard anyone else make that point. I think it is a very valid point which needs to be made, emphasized and understood by the government.
Many points have been made by my constituents, one of them being that my constituents did not think VIA Rail had been in existence long enough to develop the kind of usage it needed in order to be viable. Many people told me that they would be willing to pay considerably more-some people said two times or even three times as much as the present fare structure-if they could have a chance to have the service maintained. I suppose it is easy for people to say that if they think the service will be discontinued. I suppose it is easy to say that they would be willing to pay more because they know, at least by all intents, that the service will not be there and that their bluff with respect to paying more will not be called. However, the point is that they were not given that kind of opportunity.
I and many of my constituents would like to have seen VIA Rail management come out and say the service was losing money and needed a year or two in which to try a new marketing policy and would increase fares in order to cut some of its losses. If, after a period of new management and new ideas with respect to increasing revenues, VIA was still in the hole and thought it could save the $100 million to which the minister refers, then the cuts could be made. In that case people would have felt better. They would have known that they had had a chance to support the service. If, after a year or two, or whatever the appropriate time would be, the service was still losing money, the people would have known that they
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
had had a chance and that there was not enough activity to support the level of passenger service which there had been in the past.
When we consider the routes which were abandoned, we really have to question why some of the decisions were made. The trip from Winnipeg to Vancouver takes one through Portage la Prairie, Brandon, Regina and Calgary. That is the main line of the CPR. It parallels the Trans-Canada highway to a large extent. On a good highway like the Trans-Canada there is obviously good bus service and good highway service. That implies that people who are close to that highway are able to travel.


An hon. Member:: They have options.


Charles James Mayer: Exactly, but that was not the route that was abandoned. The government abandoned the CN route which, beyond Portage la Prairie, goes through areas which are not at all close to a good highway, and those areas are left virtually without service. The valid question posed to me is that if the government is going to abandon one of the trans-continental routes, why not the CP route? After all, CP is the company which has done everything it could in the last 15 years to discourage passenger service. At least over the past 15 years CN has tried something. CN had its "red, white and blue days." It has tried to attract people to its trains, yet the CN route is the one which will be abandoned after November 15.


John Horton McDermid: They will be black and blue days.


Charles James Mayer: My friend, the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), points out that the days will not be red, white and blue any more; they will be black and blue as far as the citizens of the country are concerned. The citizens are being abused in relation to the transportation services they have been used to.
Once we get away from the proper process-I argue very strongly that doing so is detrimental in many ways-we really have to question why the decision was made the way it was. That leads me back to the process. If we had gone through the proper process which, I argue, is by way of the CTC, we would have had a chance to see some of the alternatives which perhaps might have worked. We probably would have had a chance to arrive at a better decision on providing transportation for Canadians.
The hon. member for Willowdale stood up and piously talked about all the good things he wants to see in terms of reform of the House of Commons, but at the same time he supported a blatant cut in service which he and his government have a chance to refer to the CTC. How somebody can be so sincere and yet so inconsistent just boggles the mind.
Another great concern to Canadians is that abandoning a service such as this cannot be done properly in four or five months. We had a chance to speak to the bus industry when the Transport Committee travelled to the province of Quebec in the month of September. Representatives of that industry pointed out to us that VIA Rail held absolutely no consulta-

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments tions with the bus industry. To a large extent, the bus industry of Canada pays its own way. Hon. members can argue about the subsidies which accrue to the bus industry through taxes to finance highways, but the industry does not receive any of the direct subsidies that VIA Rail receives.
VIA Rail has talked about the number of passengers it carries increasing but, when we consider the way people in Canada travel, it becomes obvious that the major portion of this increase in the number of passengers will be people who use buses. The bus industry has cross-subsidization. The industry makes money on some of its main routes, such as the Quebec City-Windsor route, and uses that money to operate routes to smaller towns. I understand that Ontario and Quebec are the best examples of provinces where that cross-subsidization occurs. The bus industry is saying that if we take away its main revenue generating routes by attracting passengers to the Quebec City-Windsor rail route, there will not be enough money to support some of the routes on which the bus industry is losing, those routes being to smaller centres in Ontario and Quebec.
That does not do anything in terms of providing increased transportation for Canadians. Even if the government has decided to abandon many rail passenger routes, it would make good sense to do it over a period of a year or two so that the bus industry will have a chance to gear up to take some of the additional passengers who previously travelled by rail.
The bus companies point out very correctly that they cannot go out and buy buses in the same way one goes to a corner store to buy a quart of milk. It is a major expenditure to buy a bus to provide additional service. Bus companies need time in which to do this. By acting arbitrarily and on such short notice, the government has shown that it has no sensitivity or any feeling at all with respect to the demands which will be made on the bus industry.


An hon. Member:: The government does not care.


Charles James Mayer: Furthermore, I suppose the lesson in this is that the government does not care.
In my province the railways were the real reason for the coming into existence of many small communities. That happened about 100 years ago. During the summers of 1982 and 1983 there will be celebrations in many large and small communities. Brandon, a city of 40,000, will have its one hundredth anniversary very soon. Those communities came into existence because of the railroads. Without them they would not be in existence. It has been pointed out to me many times that it is ironic that this government is taking part in those celebrations by removing the rail service. Many people resent that. They resent the fact that the rail service will be gone, but they resent just as much the fact that it will be gone without any reference to the proper regulatory body, that being the Canadian Transport Commission. I fail to understand why the government is so afraid of referring this whole matter to the Canadian Transport Commission. This brings me back to the motion before us this afternoon. I think
everyone agrees it would make a lot of sense to have a VIA Rail act.
We have a Crown corporation spending literally hundreds of millions of dollars. It is committed to spending those dollars each succeeding year over a number of years. I suppose it really amounts to billions of dollars over a period of a few years.
I cannot understand why we do not have a VIA Rail act which sets out the objectives of VIA Rail, what it hopes to accomplish, the mandate it should have, and how the government should assist it in performing that mandate or whether the government expects VIA Rail to finance itself totally from the marketplace.
We do not have that kind of act. The minister says he has a draft of the act. It is a major operation for any government department to draft an act. It is a complete waste of the time of the bureaucracy to have an act in some kind of preliminary draft and not be willing to bring the act before the House of Commons where we can properly debate and develop it.
The chairman of VIA Rail is in favour of a VIA Rail act. I would be surprised if either of the railroads was against it. We would know then where we stand in terms of passenger service for this country. VIA Rail would have a yardstick against which to measure its performance. It would know what kind of mandate it had from this government and this Parliament. However, the government is very reluctant to do that.
We talk about energy costs. We just reached an energy-pricing agreement in this country that will double gasoline and diesel fuel prices in the next three or four years. We do not know whether two or three years down the road energy prices will be so steep that people will leave their private automobiles, buses and airlines for the efficiency of a train.
The hon. member for Vegreville spoke of this earlier. I do not want to belabour it, but it is a point worth repeating. Until we have a definite idea of the efficiency of railroads in terms of energy use in moving a person one mile or 100 miles, we do not know whether or not we are getting rid of a very efficient method of moving people in this country.
In western Canada the distances are very great. Therefore, in many cases the people have become accustomed to using the railroad and have become dependent on it. I was in St. Lazare the day after the cut there was announced. It is a small community of 300 or 400 people. VIA Rail stopped there. I spoke to some of the merchants in St. Lazare. They told me that people came regularly from 100 miles away to get the train for Vancouver or eastern Canada. If the rail service there is removed, these people will have to drive another 100 miles to reach the railroad. That community will be hurt as far as attracting business is concerned.
Within the past two or three years, a station was built there which has the proprer facilities for handling passengers. If the passenger service is taken away, that facility will be of no use. It makes no sense to abandon on November 15 what the
October 26, 1981

minister is proposing without hearing the complaints and concerns of the people there.
Another valid suggestion made to me was that rather than remove the whole service from the northern route, the CN route, it should be alternated, one day on the CP line through Regina and Calgary and the other day through Saskatoon and Edmonton. It will still be necessary to maintain the stations in Edmonton and Saskatoon. We are told that there will still be service between Winnipeg and Saskatoon but it will be diverted through Regina. Therefore, we must still maintain the stations. Why not have alternate service? I wonder why the government has not considered some of these matters.
In closing, I very much hope that this motion will be adopted today. We will see how sincere the pious words of the hon. member for Willowdale are when he votes on the motion, or whether the government will decide it should be talked out. I wonder whether the reason we are having this debate is that the government does not have enough members here to win the vote and therefore it is afraid of a vote. Perhaps that is why we are being given this opportunity to debate VIA Rail. For whatever reason, and maybe it is the only reason, we are pleased to have this debate. I hope the government will concur in this motion and bring forth a VIA Rail act very soon so that VIA Rail will have a proper mandate and will not only provide but increase passenger service to Canadians.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In order to enable as many members as possible from all sides of the House to participate in the debate, I wonder if there might be a disposition, after the next hon. member has spoken, to limit the debate to 20 minutes per speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would put that suggestion to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I saw no one responding to that suggestion. That is why I recognized the hon. member. Is the suggestion by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) agreeable to all hon. members?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is agreed, and so ordered, that speeches will be limited to 20 minutes after the speech by the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau.


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in a week that I am speaking in the House on a subject which, as you know, is very dear to me. I see that I have only a few minutes left before six o'clock, and I would like to read into the record some resolutions I received from my constituency of Argenteuil-Papineau. I am going to quote part of the minutes of the Papineau county council meeting held on September 8, 1981, Resolution No. 6476:
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
It is moved, seconded and resolved unanimously that the Papineau county council fully support the position taken by the member for Argenteuil-Papineau regarding the abandonment by the Department of Transport of the passenger train between Ottawa to Montreal via Lachute.
This resolution was passed, certified true copy, on September 10.
Mr. Speaker, I should also like to add the municipal corporation of Lac Simon:
That the municipal council of Lac Simon request the Minister of Transport to ^maintain VIA Rail services between Hull, Lachute and Montreal to serve the needs of the population which suffers from a lack of transportation.
There is also a resolution from Amherst township, I am not going to read all these but I shall table them, Mr. Speaker: a resolution from the municipality of Cheneville; a resolution from the municipality of Duhamel; a resolution from Lochaber township; a resolution from the municipal corporation of Lochaber township, western section; a resolution from the municipality of Montpellier; a resolution-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order please! Since it is now 6 p.m., I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr.   Biaker@Acting Speaker: Order please. When the House rose at 6 p.m., the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau had the floor.


Robert Gourd: Mr. Speaker, when the Chair called it six o'clock, I was giving a list of municipalities in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau which sent me resolutions against the minister's decision to do away with services in my riding. I shall therefore continue reading this list of municipalities which on no account want the VIA Rail service on the north shore of the Ottawa River, that is, in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau, to be abolished, and I quote:
The parish of Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix, the municipality of Notre-Dame-de-la-Paix, the village of Papineauville, the municipality of the Ripon township, the corporation of Val-des-Bois, the municipality of the united townships of Suffolk and Addington, the municipality of Vinois, the corporation of Papineau county, the Outaouais Regional Development Council, the corporation of the village of Montebello, the parish of Montebello, the corporation of the village of Saint-Andre-Avellin and the parish of Saint-Andre-Avellin, the municipality of Plai-sance, the village of Saint-Andre-Est, the municipality of Argenteuil county, the municipal corporation of Argenteuil county, the municipality of Lac Simon, the residents of Calumet, the municipal corporation of Grenville township, the municipality of Grenville, the parish of Grenville.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a list of municipalities representing people of my riding, and this does not include all the letters I received from constituents who cannot believe the minister

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments would make such a decision at this time. Today, I was looking up in parliamentary records what a member of this House, the member for Chapleau, said in 1946 during the throne speech debate, on March 26, 1946. The member, Mr. Speaker, who happened to be my grandfather, said, and I quote:
In passing, I take the occasion of suggesting to the directors of the Canadian National Railways that it is high time to improve the railway line which runs through our district if they want to furnish travellers with suitable means of transportation as well as take care of the shipping demand arising from the various products I have just listed.
Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, 35 years later, I seem to be in the same situation as my grandfather who was then member for Chapleau, and I could quote a number of speeches where he fought against exactly the same problem I am faced with today, that is, changes in the system of transportation in my riding. Last week, my colleague, the member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) told the House that what they were doing was cutting off deadwood to make the tree more vigorous. Well, I would like to say to my hon. colleague that what they are doing is cutting the roots, and then there will be no tree, no essential transportation service-the keyword is essential-left for the people. We have heard opposition members mainly the transport critic, and where was this same transport critic when the opposition was in power?
I am convinced that the department is now continuing a policy which was probably initiated by our opponents. With his leader, the former Minister of Transport was probably much too busy moving embassies around to be concerned with flights from Dorval to Mirabel. He probably initiated the policy that the department is now implementing. I am against this policy, Mr. Speaker, and as the various statements and resolutions that I have mentioned show, the people are not only behind me, but also with me, and support my work in this House.
Yesterday, I held a meeting of the Association in my constituency. About 100 people came to tell me that to cut back a service which is essential to an aging population-I do not want to repeat the speech that I made last week, Mr. Speaker, but I believe that this service can simply not disappear. I therefore ask the minister, through you, to please review this policy and, if possible, not to abandon completely the service in the constituency of Argenteuil-Papineau, but perhaps simply reduce it. I believe that even this will satisfy the population.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that it would be to the advantage of VIA Rail to re-examine its evaluation policy. I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that it would be to its advantage at the very least to consult the people to know what are the best times to travel in the constituency. I have received the following telegram, which is self-explanatory:
Dear Sir,
In accordance with the proposal sent to you by the Laurentian region on October 16, 1981, concerning the maintenance and improvement of the passenger services on . . . the Montreal-Lachute-Ottawa line. The Association touris-tique des Laurentides and the Conseil regional de developpement des Laurentides ask all of you ... to support the motion . . . introduced-
-by my colleague from Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I replied of course, that if it had carried, this motion would have resulted in the fall of the government. This is why I had to support the government. Mr. Speaker, groups such as those and such as the Conseil regional de developpement de l'Ou-taouais, and telegrams such as this one from the Canadian Railway Labour Association:
The Canadian Railway Labour Association on behalf of all railway workers in Canada particularly the members of the CBRT and GW urges you to support the Conservative motion concerning the proposed VIA Rail cutbacks.

Well, I am saying to those groups that their lobby, much like today's, that is forcing Canadians to pay for travelling expenses-I suggest that the official opposition could have used another much more effective means.


David Kilgour: You are an idiot!


Robert Gourd: I realize that my colleague opposite is using a language which is not altogether parliamentary, but since he does not have full command of Moliere's language I will disregard that accusation.
As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, to my mind it is quite normal that, 35 years after another one, a member stands up in the House to fight against exactly the same thing as did my grandfather, then member for Chapleau, in the debate in reply to the Speech from the Throne on March 20, 1946. It will be impossible for me to repeat it often enough, Mr. Speaker, and I am now asking myself this question: Is it true that the more things change the more they remain the same? I see that the opposition is resorting to more or less effective means. Again I repeat that it is false to say that Liberal members on this side have been gagged. I have not been gagged and I was very severe and very hard with a minister of my government. But, Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that within the near future the minister will review his policy and then formally deny all the allegations made by the opposition. As I was saying, I fail to understand why the minister should have implemented that policy. Rather I believed that the transport critic, the former minister, was the instigator of that policy.
There is another phenomenon, Mr. Speaker, and I refer to the transfer of flights from Dorval to Mirabel. I said last week that we have waited much too long in that field. We are now letting the situation go to pot and if it is not quickly corrected everything will have been damaged beyond repair. Mr. Speaker, it is urgent that the Department of Transport make a decision about transferring flights from Dorval to Mirabel so as to prevent what is called Canada's largest airport from becoming a huge white elephant. True enough, it is now a huge white elephant, but I am convinced that with the good will of the government we will soon have the largest airport in
October 26, 1981

Canada, one which was built by a Liberal government and which will be developed by a Liberal government.
Where was the former Minister of Transport? They were too concerned, during their short stay in power, as I said earlier, with moving embassies around to make decisions about the Department of Transport.


An hon. Member:: And where were you?


Robert Gourd: I think the opposition is waking up. Mr. Speaker, I challenge the former minister of transport to run against me in my riding, then we shall see who will find himself without a seat. Mr. Speaker, the opposition members can demand their rights all they want, I think Liberal members and several of my colleagues would say the same thing were they to rise in this debate.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the minister will review his position and that the people of Argenteuil will have a new train service. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, in view of all the facts I put forward, of the support of municipalities-
I am certain the government will not let the people down, that it will have to do something for the only remaining railway line in the Ottawa Valley, for the only rail service on the Quebec North Shore, and therefore I ask, once again, through you, Mr. Speaker, that a review be undertaken, or that at least hearings be held so that the people can be heard.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I can assure you that I will give the people of my riding cause to be satisfied with the work done by their Member of Parliament.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is in his seat for the first time during this debate today. If he is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member so far is not making a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the Chair will be patient and listen beyond half a sentence, the point of order will become clear. If the Minister of Transport is prepared, on behalf of the government, to agree to concurrence in this motion, we on this side are prepared to terminate the debate in order that we can get on with government business.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Matters such as these are subject to discussion through ordinary channels with the House leaders. The hon. member does not have a point of order. The hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it has long been the practice in the House for positions to be submitted to the government in order to give it an opportunity to accept or reject them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has the floor.
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I see that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is now in the House and I know that he has had a busy day but I hope that he will take part in the debate between now and ten o'clock tonight.
I support the motion for concurrence in the seventh report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, which is an all-party report from both Houses. I want to deal with the major part of paragraph 4 of the report and some parts of paragraph 5. First of all, I should like to thank the regular members of the committee and the co-chairmen for the courtesy they showed in hearing me out and accepting my suggestion for an amendment to the report when it was being discussed.
In paragraph 4 of the report, the following statement appears:
In your committee's judgment, the settling of the legal regime to govern the now publicly owned, controlled and funded railway passenger service is too important a matter to be left to the corporate policy, and virtually unlimited corporate powers, of VIA Rail Canada Inc., a corporation wholly owned by the Crown, and to skeletal regulations made under a dollar vote which in the nature of procedure in the House of Commons cannot have been subjected to significant debate. Parliament should have been, and still should be, given the opportunity to debate the future and structure of railway passenger services in Canada and the manner of their management and control-
I want to thank the committee again for accepting my representation. The paragraph continues:
-and your committee is inclined to believe that this should include the maintenance of the jurisdiction of the Canadian Transport Commission over VIA Rail Canada.
The order in council that the minister used to wipe out these passenger routes, overrides and reverses 15 decisions of the Canadian Transport Commission, which ordered that those 15 routes be retained. In paragraph 5 of the report there appears the following:
It may be that your committee has been too patient in seeking assurances from the Minister of Transport that a bill to regularize VIA Rail Canada Inc.'s activities and powers would be introduced. Indications of the preparation of such a bill were received but lately it has become apparent that legislative action has become a retreating vision.
I invite you, Mr. Speaker, and all hon. members to read the exchange of letters between the minister and the co-chairmen of the committee. His first two responses were to the effect, "It is coming any day". The last response was that it did not seem to be needed nor was it necessary at the moment. This report was unanimously adopted by all parties in both Houses of Parliament, so it is not to be taken lightly.
Under the program proposed by the minister and his bureaucrats, the 99.8 per cent sold-out sleeping cars of the Canadian Pacific's "Canadian" run will offer the only full service train across Canada to the west coast, and the 99.5 per cent sold-out sleeping car accommodation on the CNR Supercontinental will be chopped. This is using data issued in July, 1981. In fact, what will remain will be a partial "day at a time" coach or dayliner, with no service offered, on the most heavily patronized part of the Supercontinental route, the Edmonton-Jasper-Vancouver portion. A dayliner will be run from Winnipeg to Regina and up to Saskatoon, and it is

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
suggested that one will be run from Saskatoon to Edmonton. That is supposed to be some kind of alternative.
Before the supper hour, the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) spoke about the abuse of the rules when the opposition moves concurrence of a report of a committee of the Elouse. I do not have the exact figures here but I have talked to some colleagues and to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and it appears that out of 103 or 105 or 107 reports submitted to this House, the opposition has moved concurrence in three. If that is an abuse, then surely it is drawing a long bow. In fact, it could reasonably be claimed by members of the government that the opposition has been derelict in its duty in not calling for concurrence of more reports. I think there have been a number of times when we should have and did not. There is no one in this government or in previous ones, no matter which party was in power, who can claim that the opposition overuses or abuses the procedure of calling for concurrence of a committee report or calling for a debate. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker.
I want to go on now to another area which concerns respect for, regard of, consideration of and consultation with the statutes of legislatures in Canada. Where does the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) stand on this whole issue? Where does the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne), the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. McCauley) or the hon. member who just spoke, stand on it? There are at least 21 members on the government side, and if all of them told the minister that he had to change his decision or they would not support him, then the minister would have to do that. Would they be willing to do this at their Wednesday caucus? The remedy does not lie in the hands of the opposition, Mr. Speaker.
Scores of people came here today from Atlantic Canada and western Canada to plead with the minister but he turned them down. In total, those people represent something like three million Canadians. The person who came from the city council of Edmonton had been instructed on behalf of that council, which represents over half a million people. The mayor of the town of Melville was also instructed; he represents 6,000 people. The three score or four score or five score people who came here today did not come as a mass delegation; they came as instructed delegates, representatives of over three million Canadians, to ask the Minister of Transport to reconsider, to delay, if not to rescind, this order. They ask that for a number of reasons and I want to cite some of these reasons, which I hope the minister and his legal counsel will consider. I want to ask the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) who just spoke whether he would care to check the statutes of the province of Quebec-of 1882, would you believe? That was an agreement between the government of Quebec of that day and what was then called the Quebec, Montreal, Ottawa and Occidental Railway Company. When Canadian Pacific took over that route in 1882, the Quebec statute stated:
The said Canadian Pacific Railway hereby bind themselves to maintain the said road in good repair, and to run the same regularly and efficiently with a
sufficient number of trains every day to carry the freight and passenger traffic with due regularity and despatch, running at least one passenger train every day each way.
I hope the hon. member for London East will have something to say about this statutory obligation in the Quebec statutes. It was assumed by Canadian Pacific and subsequently assumed by VIA Rail.
Let us turn to British Columbia. The British Columbia statutes of 1910 related to the Canadian Northern Railway. In return for certain acreages of land and timber rights, the Canadian Northern agreed to certain conditions required by statute in British Columbia. I quote from page 1910 of the Canadian Northern Agreement as follows:
The Northern Company agrees that the Pacific Company will, from and after the completion of the mainland line ... cause to be maintained, a regular daily first-class passenger and freight service between a harbour at or near the city of Victoria and the system of the Northern Company lying to the east of the province of British Columbia-
What is meant is that the line which runs from Vancouver to Jasper was agreed to in 1910 and was to be maintained as a daily, first-class passenger service. Canadian Northern went bankrupt in spite of all the acreage and timber rights it had. It was taken over by Canadian National in 1919 or 1920.
The Canadian National Railways Act in no way obviates the statutes of British Columbia in 1910. In fact, Canadian National assumed the statutory obligation of Canadian Northern to run a daily passenger train between Vancouver and Jasper. Surely it follows quite logically that VIA Rail, established to bail CP and CN out of their legal liabilities for hauling people, also assumed that statutory obligation.
If the provincial statutes are not sufficient to convince the Minister of Transport and his cabinet colleagues, let us look at federal statutes. Section 12 of the federal statute of 1890 relating to the Montreal and Western Railway Company stated:
The Pacific Company-
That means CPR.
-will, during the said term, provide and run over the said railway duly equipped trains for the carriage of passengers and freight as frequently as shall be necessary for the traffic of the country-
It goes on to state:
-the Pacific Company will run during summer months at least one train carrying passengers each way on every business day; and during the rest of the year at least one such train one way on every business day;-
That is the federal statute of 1890, chapter 67, relating to the line that the Minister of Transport has ordered abandoned, running from Montreal to Hull and Ottawa.
Of course, there is a clause in the National Transportation Act that says the minister can amend, vary or rescind an order of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: That's right, but not the statutes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is in there for an excellent reason. When the National Transportation Act was passed in 1966-67, the tradition in those days was that the CTC, the old board of railway commissioners, only held a hearing at the request of
October 26, 1981

the railroads or the government, and the public be damned. The public could not get a hearing. The Parliament of that day, and hon. members on all sides of the House said, "In a case where the CTC does not pay any attention to the public or does not even give them a chance, we want some way in which the government of the day could overrule it on behalf of the public interest." Section 64 was then put in the act. The desire of Parliament and the public was for the section to be used in that limited manner.
Subsequent to that passage of legislation, various ministers of transport have used that section to rescind, vary, modify or amend one decision of the CTC, which is only relatively recent, being six months old or a year old. However, this minister is not only taking the chicken out of the coop but has stolen the whole coop. He has rescinded 15 orders of the Canadian Transport Commission, the oldest of which goes back to 1975 or 1976.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Shame!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 defy the minister or anyone else to try to maintain in this Parliament that that was the intent of Parliament or that it was the spirit of the legislation. Therefore, the minister has flown in the face of statutory requirements of two provinces that we have been able to dig up so far-and we are going back into some more stuff-and one statute of the federal Parliament of Canada, and has violated the spirit and the intent of the National Transportation Act, namely, Section 64, upon which he relies. Not even his predecessor, who had a lot of gall, would have had the gall to do this.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Who was he?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In fact, he is making the former minister of transport, Otto Lang, look good.
The minister is lecturing us today about the romantics who want to talk about keeping railway passenger trains. I want to tell the minister that there happen to be a few people around this country who know a lot more about public transportation than he will ever know. I want to tell the minister that he had better start listening to those people. If he does not want to listen to them, perhaps he can listen to people from other countries in the world who know a lot more about it than he does.
It is the wrong decision. It is wrong in terms of transportation economics, it is wrong in terms of transportation efficiency, it is wrong in terms of safety, it is wrong in terms of the environment, and it is wrong in terms of the trend all over the industrialized world, and even in some underdeveloped countries. In fact, Your Honour may have noticed an article in the paper the other day which stated that the CPR received a $54 million contract to build a railroad in Malaysia. Why do we not give it one to rebuild the railroad in Canada?
This report must be concurred in. I congratulate the committee. I hope, and I have reason to believe, that in a subsequent report the committee will come up with even better arguments than it has in this one, and the ones it has in this
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
one are excellent. I hope the House will concur in this report. I hope the minister will have the courage to rise and agree that if it should not be rescinded, at least the decision he has made should be substantially delayed, and we will bless him for it.


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


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to listen to the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd). He talked about his grandfather who had made a representation in 1946 to the Government of Canada that it was backing away from civic responsibility in the provision of rail and passenger service. Today the grandson, the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau, is making representations on behalf of his own constituents along the same line. I sincerely hope he will have the success he deserves because he voted for the cancellation of the present services and against the delay of that order of cabinet passed so highhandedly and without consideration of the needs of people.
The hon. member accused us of being rather partisan in our presentation. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure you know, that the motion was not a motion of non-confidence when we introduced it for discussion last week. It was clearly stated by us and by the New Democratic Party that we would be happy to allow with unanimous consent, that it was not a motion of non-confidence. We have had enough drivel and lip service from Liberals. Let us level with our constituents for a change instead of trying to whip-saw both sides of the issues, one against the other.
1 was pretty impressed by the speech made by hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) this afternoon. He made a great speech on behalf of more definitive legislation and less regulation. He stated in his high-toned speech that yes, the minister was justified in exercising ministerial authority over and above traditional and historic practice and the intention of the National Transportation Act to cancel 20 per cent of VIA Rail. You cannot have it coming and going and at the same time be sincere. I ask to the hon. member, which way does he want it? Does he want regulation; does he want ministerial authority? I ask him again, which one does he want? Does he want government by legislation, regulation or ministerial authority? It cannot be both ways. I wonder how the hon. member for Willowdale will vote on Bill C-48. After the sanctimonious speech he made, he sort of backed himself into a corner by saying that he could not vote for Bill C-48 because, in effect, it is a bill of regulation and an extension of government athority to ministerial discretion. Which way is the hon. member going to go? If he called himself a liar, it would not be out of order, would it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: I shall retract that. In any event, if he contradicts himself in any vote on Bill C-48 which extends regulatory or ministerial discretion, then his speech of today,

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments which was intended to be high-toned in the main, will have become of no consequence. That is the kind of debate that is taking place.
I want to come back to the subject of New Brunswick for a minute. The other night as I sat here in the Elouse, I could not help thinking about the Mother Goose rhyme about the seven little blackbirds who sat in a tree, or seven little puppets who sat on a limb, and one fell off and then there were six. I noticed that as we voted, one had fallen off. That was the hon. member for Saint John (Mr. Landers).
Now I come to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin). He abstained totally from any responsibility to his constituents, a responsibility which they expected of him. According to rumour, he did it, first, on being approached and asked to the objections to support rail cancellations and to represent his constituency so as to prevent the cancellation of the line from his home town or city, whichever the case may be, the route from Edmundston to Moncton. His response was, "The government has done it. It has to be right, and I have to support it," and, "No, I cannot make those representations". That is the rumour. I did not see that in print. I did not hear him say those words, but there was a report along those lines. That part of New Brunswick got the usual service from the Liberal Party of Canada. When he was needed and when our interests needed protection, he voted with the government of which he was a member.
We can now turn to the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail). If hon. members look at Hansard and see the interjections there, they will find a cute little remark that, "Well, my constituency is looked after. I still have passenger service." An interruption in the House of that magnitude really must endear him to New Brunswick as a whole, and it must generate some form of disappointment, even in his own constituency of Restigouche.
Today I asked the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) how he was going to get two trainloads of people into one train travelling on a long route when both trains were already full. I want to tell the hon. member for Restigouche that when the minister finishes jamming people in like sardines so as to have one transcontinental train take the place of two, the hon. member for Restigouche will not be all that popular, especially when his constituents will not be able to get on the train in Campbellton.
I now come to the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau). Down in Gloucester the hon. member can do whatever he likes. He does not have to do anything if he does not want to, because he will be re-elected anyway. Therefore, it did not make any difference which way the hon. member for Gloucester voted, and yet he stood up and voted against the rest of New Brunswick. As far as the Liberal party is concerned, the rest of New Brunswick will remember that.
Now we are down to the third little blackbird. We come to the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). It may be necessary to treat him with a little more distinction since he happens to be the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. I wonder whether the hon.
member would acknowledge that on August 7 a letter was written to him stating on behalf of our caucus, that an extension of time should be given by the House to the transport committee. At that time the committee was travelling. Its job was to discuss and view the various aspects of transportation as they related to Ontario and Quebec. The request was that the committee hearings be extended a little and that the VIA Rail service be discussed. Remember, Mr. Speaker, this letter was addressed to the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. It was a long and imploring letter. It has been neither answered nor acknowledged.
Next came the reconvening of the House. Representations were made by two parties of this House, one of which was not the government party, for a steering committee meeting. Why not have a meeting in place? Why not schedule our committee meetings to include discussion of VIA Rail and the needs of Canada as a whole? A meeting was sort of scheduled for October 20, but it was cancelled without notice. No successful effort has been made to influence the chairman of the House of Commons transport committee to call a meeting of the steering committee to determine whether or not there can or cannot be discussions in that committee with respect to VIA Rail passenger service. I do not think I need to say very much more. The hon. member did not answer the letter. He did not call a meeting. He cancelled by telephone the only meeting that had been arranged. That is the performance on behalf of New Brunswick by another Liberal member from that province. He, too, will have his constituents sitting on the laps of those passengers who got on the train first if one train has to accommodate two train loads of passengers. People will like that. All of New Brunswick was looking forward to better leadership than that coming from the chairman of the transport committee of the House of Commons of Canada.
The hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc) is a minister. We are excommunicated by that minister. I wonder whether he met with representatives of VIA Rail today. 1 do not know. It was my understanding that he was sought out but not found. However, if I am wrong, he can correct me tomorrow. He is quite capable of that.


An hon. Member:: He is fishy.


Fred Alward McCain: The fishermen have not seen him either. He has set up a buffer zone. He stays on the inside of it and the fishermen stay on the outside of it. The fishermen could have told his people requiring passenger service what to expect, and it is my understanding they got it. They had no consultation.
We come now to the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. McCauley). He is as loyal as the other six. The hon. member for Moncton is number one. We have all those little blackbirds sitting on a limb. They have all fallen down as far as New Brunswick is concerned. The limb is now naked of interest in New Brunswick as far as Liberal members in this House sent here by the voters are concerned. I submit to you that New Brunswick deserves better than that from the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and the other six Liberal
October 26, 1981

members sent up here by the voters of New Brunswick. It is disgraceful, Mr. Speaker.
How does this system work? You have been here quite a while, Mr. Speaker, and you know. Perhaps you could talk to those seven clowns over there and tell them that they should unite in a common bond for a common purpose so that the people they represent will get what is owed to them by the federal government. Those seven little blackbirds fell from their perch in their neglect of the province of New Brunswick. There was no need for it. Had they presented a solid front on behalf of New Brunwick in support of the member for Argen-teuil-Papineau (Mr. Gourd) and others to whom an equal disservice is being done by this cancellation, there never would have been a cancellation.
The minister may have announced the cancellation when the House was not in session but he could have been compelled by the government to reverse that decision after the caucus met.
We are all familiar with this House and its procedure. If you want to lie down in front of a steamroller, it will squash you and your interests, as New Brunswick was squashed.
When I posed my motion this afternoon, I indicated that the Telegraph Journal said to those seven members, as it did to everybody else, that Ottawa is cutting the heart out of New Brunswick, but they do not care.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: I cannot understand how the member for Moncton could reside in a university town and ignore the representations made by the student body of that university about transportation requirements. He is an educated man. He must understand that in this day and age a student has to save every nickel when he is living on loans and has no bursaries to speak of. Students coming from Restigouche-Madawaska to Moncton university need a train. It is the cheapest transportation. Over 850 students enrolled at the university of New Brunswick to take courses, such as forestry which are not available in other parts of Canada, live west of the province, some in the far west. They need that train. Has the hon. member for Moncton ever taken a ride on that train to see how many students use it when college opens or during the breaks? These people can only travel on that train because they cannot afford the new air fares. The problem is equally acute for people of limited financial resources. Did those seven little blackbirds give any thought to them while they watched the disappearance of rail passenger service on the western side of New Brunswick? Did they consider those people who can no longer afford to drive their cars? These people travel from Edmunston to Moncton by train. This train allows them to go to Moncton in the morning to go shopping or to attend business and return home in the evening. They cannot do that any more. How would the hon. gentleman from Edmunston like to jump on the bus, change buses, get to Fredericton, and then wait for the pleasure of the bus to leave from Fredericton,
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
then go to Sussex and wait for another bus to go to Moncton? How would he like to do that?
I understand one of the constituents of the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria is the president of the student union of the University of Moncton. Does he realize he has denied her the opportunity to travel by train? She does not own a car and can ill afford any other mode of transportation.
New Brunswick politics are hopeless. The Liberal members are little blackbirds, and they fall off the tree every time the whip waves his wand, or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) suggests it is the right thing to do. New Brunswick can wait until some other interested individual comes along. I can assure those members that individuals who are more interested will in fact come along in the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: Some of those Liberals may be left, but not all of them.
The train is the only affordable passenger transportation many New Brunswickers have. For more than half of them this form of transportation will be completely out of reach, or they will have to travel 420 miles more than if they could travel on the Atlantic Ltd. to Montreal. That is ridiculous.
I noticed not much consideration was given to the exclusion of capitals by VIA Rail. The fact was not mentioned that the Transcontinental no longer passes through the city of Ottawa. I could not help but wonder what the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) thought about that in view of the attack not long ago launched against that cutback by the mayor of Ottawa. We did not hear any objection from the member for Ottawa Centre on behalf of the capital city which he represents. I cannot express too strongly my objection to what has happened. Perhaps I have been a little sarcastic on occasion and a little cutting-


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


An hon. Member:: Never.


Fred Alward McCain: I want to appeal to this House on behalf of New Brunswick, on behalf of all the maritime provinces which suffer economically, on behalf of those communities which will become isolated, on behalf of those from the Annapolis Valley and Newfoundland which rely on tourism, all the way west to Vancouver Island. I want to appeal on behalf of those who rely on tourism because without rail passenger service they will not have any clientele. I want the minister to reconsider his decision. I speak on behalf of those for whom there is no convenient substitution to rail passenger service and those Canadians who have considered as their heritage the enacted law that there would be rail passenger service provided to Canadians on a transcontinental basis in perpetuity. I sincerely appeal to the government from the bottom of my heart that it reconsider its decision and I plead with members from New Brunswick that they exert their pressure on the government. We have tried the best we can.

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, you have just had a good indication of the kind of argument presented when the hon. member said that Canada should have transcontinental railway services. Canada will have railway services-


An hon. Member:: Had.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Will have.


An hon. Member:: Fifty per cent.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, 20 per cent fewer routes now than it had previously. But that has happened-


An hon. Member:: It has never happened.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has happened before.


An hon. Member:: When?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It has happened between 1970 and 1978 when 28 per cent of the routes were eliminated. So this is not news.


An hon. Member:: Not the Transcontinental.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is the normal process of adjusting the contemporary transportation system of the past to the four revolutions I talked about this afternoon.
I know this is not easy. The process of adjustment is always painful. My grandfather, who was a blackmith and a carriage maker, had one of the first automobiles in the eastern townships. He wanted to adjust. The first night he used the automobile, he entered the garage and went through the wall shouting, "Whoa". He accepted change, but it was not easy for him to adjust to change.


Thomas Edward Siddon: So trains are finished, are they?


Jean-Luc Pepin: My hon. friends opposite remind me of my grandfather.

Mr. Speaker, in its report which is the matter under consideration today, the Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments raises four objections. Firstly, it objects to a Crown Corporation, that is VIA Rail, set up in 1977 through a SI credit, not being subjected to proper legislation. I think it would be easy to get the unanimous consent about that because we all feel the same way. As I was not a member of the House then, I was not involved, but I imagine that the government and the House of Commons at that time has some good reasons to accept that procedure. I will return to that in a few moments.
The committee also objects to the regulations on contracts for rail services going beyond the $1 vote and being used more especially to set up bus services. It seems to me that this is one of the objections of the committee. The answer is that the
argument is not very sound, because the terms of reference for the creation of major services includes the provision of complementary services. Obviously a regulation or a piece of legislation cannot anticipate everything, but legislation or a regulation provides for capital services, it naturally also provides for ancillary services, at least common sense tells me so and apparently this is what the law specifically states.
The third point on which-sorry?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Common sense but not legal.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought the law made sense.

The third point, Mr. Speaker, is that the committee objects to the funding, and I quote:
-the prescribed portion-
-of the severance benefits approved at the time to help those railway workers affected by the establishment of VIA Rail being defined in a text without any formal regulatory status.
Finally, the committee is opposed to the fact that the government having set by a $1 vote the conditions of the agreements reached between the government and VIA Rail, the minister should have allowed himself to go even further in the details of those agreements. Once again I am told that the matter is debatable inasmuch as the governor in council, once again, only determines the most important conditions, the parameters, if you wish, to which the minister can add if he so wishes. In other words, if the minister were unabe to add to existing rules and regulations, to complement them, he would find himself in an impossible situation.
In turn, I have four points to bring up at this time, especially with regard to the first objection of the committee. I shall have others to make Thursday when I shall have the pleasure of appearing as a witness before the Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
The first point I want to make is this: nowhere in the report is it said the general procedure followed was illegal. So, on the contrary, though it does not say so, the committee considers it legal though it may object to its flavour, the scent emanating from that $1 vote; still, it does not say that it is illegal. Therefore, nothing illegal has been committed. That is something. In short, a pretty good start.
The second point is that in 1977 the $1 vote was not questioned, although others were at that time; and although $1 votes related to a matter of similar nature to this one were not. As witness to that fact, I can quote a very interesting author who in fact is co-chairman of the committee in question, Senator Godfrey, who in the Senate Debates-

-debates of October 20, 1981 stated:
-and evidently a point of order was not used by anyone in that house-
October 26, 1981

Ele was talking about the House of Commons.
-when the VIA Rail item appeared in an Appropriation Act.
Not bad either, is it? First, it is not illegal and, second, the co-chairman of the committee said that at the time no one brought it up. It may be that moral standards were not up to par at that time. It may be that progress has been made since but, nevertheless, placing ourselves in the spirit of the time, it was not protested at that moment. I apologize; I cannot be a personal witness to that event because I was outside the House at that particular moment.
[ Translation]
One can therefore conclude-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was raised on March 22, a full-scale debate.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I just quoted the senator, the co-chairman.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It is wrong.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I will tell him but, nevertheless-and I repeat my argument-other items at the time even on the same subject or nearly the same subject were challenged, found deficient and thrown out, so there must have been some justification for the members'accepting that $1 vote at that time.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Clear recognition of impropriety.
[ Translation]


Jean-Luc Pepin: In my opinion, the main reason must have been that once again I was not there, the fact that once again the legislative agenda must have been overloaded as it is now and as it will be for centuries to come. Amen! One can therefore conclude that hon. members had their reason to accept that vote or not to argue as strongly as they used to do in other circumstances.
My third point is this: even if it is true it is good that VIA Rail has been legally established and, as I have said many times, I admit the desirability of a formal piece of legislation.
This afternoon the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) stated that I was contradicting myself in that respect. He quoted a letter dated May 7 where I wrote:
At present, there does not appear to be an immediate requirement for a VIA Rail Canada Act.
Well, I could play on words and point out the importance of "at present" and "urgent" and so forth, but I am prepared to say that the letter was not clear enough, I am prepared to agree to that. My basic position is that I strongly wish that legislation on VIA Rail be passed as rapidly as possible and I will come back to that topic in a few moments. The cabinet has discussed the matter since then, and examining the July 27 statement on the cutbacks they agreed with my request and asked me to report on that subject. I am now making every
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments effort to define what might be a piece of legislation on VIA Rail. Once again, I will come back to that.
Finally, my fourth point is to say that I am quite willing to appear before the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments and before the Standing Committee on Transport as well if they so desire.
I was taken to task for not being in the House this afternoon. I think it was not very nice on the part of the hon. member who made that remark, because I was in the House in the early part of the afternoon, and then I had to greet the people from Transport 2000 who wanted to give me their views. I would suggest it was indecent to protest against my absence under such circumstances.
Just the same we ought to proceed now. The first part of the debate had to do with the report of the committee in question, with the statutory instruments, but 1 was told that the debate had gone far beyond the traditional limits on that subject. Well, Mr. Speaker, I too will take the liberty of straying a little bit from the main purpose of this debate since others have done that so openly.
1 would like to reflect for a while on Section 64 of the National Transportation Act. Everyone refers to it but I wonder if someone has bothered to read it into the record. I will do so to show you once again that the government is right in using it to proceed with this rationalization measure. Subsection (1) of Section 64 says, and I quote:
The Governor in Council may at any time, in his descretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion-
-of his own motion-
-and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the Commission, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application; and any order that the Governernor in Council may make with respect thereto is binding upon the Commission and upon all parties.
There is a lot of fancy footwork being done to try to prove that there is a difference between a cabinet decision, an order in council that amends a single decision of the CTC and one that varies several decisions. The act makes no such distinction. Section 64 of the National Transportation Act applies to both the plural and the singular. So we should read this before accusing the government of legal indecency in its use of Section 64. What we have to ask ourselves is why Section 64 was included in the National Transportation Act. It is simple. In some cases, we can refer to the CTC to find out if a line is economical, if it is viable in the public interest, whether or not it should be maintained. But in some cases, it is the entire system which is in question. In some instances, the government wonders not if such and such line should be reviewed, but whether the entire system should not be reconsidered. And the act of 1967, in particular Section 64(1), gives the government the power to change the whole system and that is precisely what we are doing now.

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How far back?


Jean-Luc Pepin: We cannot go back further than five years because the CTC has to review all its decisions every five years, and does. Therefore, the decisions are not older than five years.

There is one other important point, Mr. Speaker. Some responsibilities cannot simply be entrusted to the Canadian Transport Commission and one of those responsibilities is to govern, that is to decide whatever credits the government may allocate to this or that means of transportation. And that is a responsibility which the government cannot merely pass on to the Canadian Transport Commission. I will now read from a Supreme Court ruling-a popular practice these days-on that question and I quote:

-Attorney General of Canada v. Inuil Tapirisat, 115 DLR Third, page 1.


David Kilgour: I know the case.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Good. Think about it further.


David Kilgour: Why don't you read it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Obviously I cannot read the whole decision. You would not allow me the time. "In Section 64(1), Parliament has not burdened the executive branch with any standard for guidelines in the exercise of its rate review function. Neither were procedural standards imposed or even implied .. . This conclusion is made all the more obvious by the added right in Section 64(1) that the governor in council may, on his own motion, vary or rescind any rule or order of the commission."
[ Translation]
Now that is clear, and once more, the government cannot simply transfer this responsibility to others. I have said so many times and I say it again, my predecessor, Mr. Lang, tried to transfer a large part of this responsibility, in 1977, if I recall correctly, to the Canadian Transport Commission. He gave the commission a very extensive though not imperative mandate, so that the Canadian Transport Commission treated this directive from the then minister more like good advice, like a friendly recommendation. By all this I mean that if I, as the Minister of Transport, had decided to proceed by recourse to the Canadian Transport Commission, my directive would have had to be far more specific. I would have had to tell the Canadian Transport Commission: Listen, the cabinet, the entire government says that from now on, we can only spend a half billion dollars on passenger railway services in Canada. That would have been the first part of the directive.
Then I probably would have had to tell the Canadian Transport Commission: Listen, you say, and everybody says, that railways are most effective in transporting passengers on
intercity routes of 500 miles or less. I would have had to add right away that Canada should have at least one transcontinental railway each way. And I would have had to point out that Canada has isolated communities where railway services must be continued. Finally, 1 would have had to tell the Canadian Transport Commission that, as it has said so itself in the past, commuter transportation is basically a provincial and urban responsibility. Why? Because the kind of work to be done, that is, combining subway lines, buses and railways, must be done by local authorities. Well, that is exactly what we are doing now. I would have had to tell the Canadian Transport Commission: Do what the government is doing now. And my friends in the official opposition would have said once again that not only was I an imperialist, but I was a hypocrite as well. So now, at least, I am not called a hypocrite. Thank God for small blessings.
Since the beginning of this debate, the official opposition has been saying: Listen, why don't you postpone this. It is still doing so today, since we have just taken a whole day, and the intentions of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe today were quite clear: simply to postpone the matter. Very well, postpone it, transfer the whole thing to the Canadian Transport Commission which would take at least five years, because remember, the commission's decisions may be appealed. So, this means at least five years if we take that course. The next day the opposition says: put this problem before the Transport committee, until June. And yesterday, for instance, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) said, well, before deciding what to do, we should pass legislation on VIA, and we should also have an order on the prices to be paid by VIA to CN and CP.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, I am in an awkward predicament, because everybody wants to postpone the inevitable. But then, one of these days, the circumstances will no longer allow decisions to be postponed, because VIA Rail would otherwise be doomed. If the government is acting now, it is because we are faced with an emergency situation.
On several occasions since we started debating the issue we are dealing with today-I think I still have a few seconds left, Mr. Speaker-I have indicated that 1 was ready to discuss VIA Rail legislation. I have been authorized by the cabinet- as I said a while ago-to prepare a document to that effect. I would be willing also to appear before our Standing Committee on Transport.
This being said, it is quite clear that this subject is not an easy one. There are two possible formats for such legislation: one which would be somewhat limited and where the terms of reference of VIA Rail, its committee, its main structure and budget, its means of acquiring funds and so on would be defined. That would be fairly simple.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister, but the time allocated to him has expired.
October 26, 1981


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker-
[ Translation]


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to continue with my remarks for approximately another thirty seconds at the most.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Thomas Edward Siddon: I think it is evident to all members assembled here this evening that the seventh report brought forward by the joint committee, and its larger implications for the future of VIA Rail, is something that most members of this House would like to have time to comment on this evening. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has certainly used his 20 minutes well. I hope others might also have an opportunity to speak this evening, so I will try to make my remarks as brief as possible.
I am rather intrigued by the minister's style, Mr. Speaker. He was not disposed to speak in favour of the recommendations that have been brought forward in the name of the hon. member for Welllington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). The committee in essence recommends that we get on with the business of enacting a VIA Rail act and give VIA Rail a proper mandate as debated and adopted by an action of this House. Instead, the minister keeps referring back to the history of how the $1 vote was passed and suggests that back in 1977 members of this House did not object.
I should like to remind the hon. Minister of Transport that the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) moved a motion-I believe it was on March 22, 1977-on an opposition day in this House, Mr. Speaker, in which he condemned the government for its improper use of $1 votes, particularly the improper use of the $1 vote, which was used prior to that to establish VIA Rail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: So much for the value of allotted days, Mr. Speaker. The minister likes to draw these parallels, using terminology that is quite common these days. He says that what they are doing is not illegal. He says, "Perhaps it is somewhat controversial, or even unconventional, but it is not illegal and, therefore, we are quite justified in using a cabinet order, a cabinet decree, to make national transportation policy". But this is done without reference to the views of the people of Canada or this Parliament, which is the voice of the people of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we know VIA Rail needs to be properly mandated under an act of this Parliament. One of the reasons is to ensure in future that the cabinet is not able to dicker and
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
interfere in the evolution of transportation policy by changing the terms of reference and by creating a climate of uncertainty and a lack of predictability so that it would be virtually impossible to manage a corporation such as VIA Rail. Indeed that is the present situation, Mr. Speaker, as illustrated most clearly by the minister's action of July 27, 1981.
We need a VIA Rail act to establish clearly the basis on which the railways will charge VIA Rail for running rights and the use of equipment. In other words, we need a reconstitution of costing order R63-13. We also need to know where rail transportation will fit in our scale of national transportation priorities. It is not enough for the minister to stand in this House, Mr. Speaker, and wax eloquent about the days of the blacksmith and the four revolutions in the history of transportation and about the fact that his father worked on the railroad. All of that, Mr. Speaker, suggests that the Minister of Transport has a preconceived disposition to end passenger rail service in Canada. I think this is quite clear if you read between the lines of everything he says. He is saying that in the future in this country we are going to travel in airplanes or stuffed into buses over distances of four or six hundred miles, and that includes the elderly, the handicapped people and others who do not find it convenient or comfortable nor, in fact, conducive to their state of health to travel by other means than rail.
We need to know the extent to which the government and Parliament will consider the importance of our national rail passenger system to our economy, Mr. Speaker. That brings in specifically the question of tourism and the importance of tourism and of attracting people from all parts of the world, from the Pacific rim, Europe and the United States of America and elsewhere, to come and enjoy our country and partake of our beautiful scenery, and thus bring important economic benefits to thousands of businesses across Canada, whether they be hotel businesses, restaurants, car rental operations, ski package promoters or any of the large businesses and host of individuals who operate those businesses to earn a livelihood.
The VIA Rail Act must be undertaken with due regard for the importance of rail transportation to our economy. Of course, we have to embark on this initiative, given a full and thorough debate of the question of energy and the relative costs of various types of transportation. It is far too easy, Mr. Speaker, to adopt things by the back door and pretend they have the facts to back up the decisions they take when, in fact, those facts are distorted, misleading and selectively chosen to substantiate a biased case, Mr. Speaker.
I thought the minister was going to challenge that comment. But in fact he knows, Mr. Speaker, he is on very shaky grounds. In fact, in this House he has admitted he is really not much of an expert with numbers. This is a numbers game, Mr. Speaker, where the minister cannot merely resort to the inferences and selectively chosen statistics that some of his senior officials are apparently putting in front of him. We must know the means by which the VIA Rail corporation will be required to report to Parliament and to the standing committee, and what their relationship will be with the Canadian Transport Commission in terms of policies and regulations affecting the

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
provisions of services which were originally undertaken as a commitment by those national rail systems that have provided passenger service for the most part of a century.
Those obligations have never been rescinded. It is important to know the extent to which VIA Rail will be required to continue those obligations and provide perpetual rail services, or some altered form of it, in accordance with the needs of public good, and public necessity and public convenience, which is what the Canadian Transport Commission is mandated to determine.
Before we pass this VIA Rail act, Mr. Speaker, we must know what the obligation of VIA Rail is going to be to its employees, members of the various railway brotherhoods and operating unions, some of whom became members of a new union with the expectation of a whole career with VIA Rail ahead of them. They relinquished their seniority in the unions they had belonged to earlier. They fully trusted and expected the government to guarantee them a rewarding and remunerative career with VIA Rail.
The back door, moonlighting actions the minister has taken this past summer essentially break a trust with these employees who felt they would have a career with the national railway company. But instead, the minister says, "That is all right, we will take care of them. We are going to pay them off. We are going to put them into early retirement or send them somewhere down to central Canada so they can be retrained to pass sandwiches on an LRC train running between Quebec City and Windsor". That is not good enough for people who have given their whole career to the railway and who have learned a trade in the service of the passenger rail system of our country.
We need to incorporate within the VIA Rail act a clear obligation and undertaking to those who would be employed by that corporation in the service of our people. We have to set out clearly a provision for reporting on the finances of this corporation. A clear distinction has to be drawn between the capital budgeting for new equipment so that we can actually put aside, on a year by year basis, a steady flow of capital funding instead of having these fits and bursts of capital as was the case 25 years ago when we bought a lot of new rail equipment. Then we did not buy anything again for 25 years.
A railway cannot plan and build a modern system using modern equipment if it cannot have a properly laid out system of capital budgeting and planning for the expansion of that service. It cannot watch its budget being subjected to the meat axe at every whim of the politicians to save a few dollars.
We must know what the nature of the operating budget of this corporation is going to be. We have to know to what extent the railways will be able to overcharge for fixed costs, whether or not the passenger trains are running. We have to know to what extent the railways want to charge for rail grinding and resurfacing-which is necessary-largely due to the heavy unit trains that are using our rails and to what extent VIA Rail is being expected to pay excessive charges that are incurred because of other traffic on those rails.
We want to know how much fuel VIA Rail is using. I have tried to do some energy calculations in order to determine that. It is very convenient for the minister that this information is not available. Presumably the railways charge VIA in bulk for all the fuel it uses. It is very difficult to determine how many energy units of fuel are actually being burned in moving passengers, as compared with the movement of the freight and bulk materials. We require a proper accounting and reporting procedure so that the officials of VIA Rail know that they will not be hosed, to put it frankly, by the national rail systems which provide the rights-of-way on which it operates.
We require a procedure of reporting on performance. For example, we must know what means we will use to decide when a particular line or a particular service is so marginal that it should be discontinued. The rules must be put up front. We should know whether we are prepared to subsidize, for example, 50 per cent of the operating costs of a line, and not one cent more, as is the case with the Amtrak system. If we believe the rail system should be serving the social needs of people in the remote and less populated areas of Canada, then we must accept the concept of subsidy, which is just another way of having taxpayers pay for the service in any event. It is not the government which is paying for these things. It is taxpayers, and the priority should be determined by taxpayers. It should be very clear in the VIA Rail act the extent to which passenger rail services will serve the national interest, not merely the dollar and cents interests of the government which wants to buy some new LRC trains so that it can conveniently cut the services which the people in the more remote and rural areas of the country clearly need. We require all of this information before Parliament can debate it in the context of evolving a VIA Rail act.
It took the minister only 30 minutes to make the decisions which he enacted on July 27. To come into the House and tell us that it will somehow take five years, is really an insult to the House. If we merely resolve to adopt as an element of our national transportation policy the philosophy that passenger rail trains will continue in Canada, given the experience in other countries and the fact that we know passenger trains are cheaper in terms of energy consumption than any other form of transportation, we should get on with creating a system which grows, works and serves the needs of all Canadians.
I should like to talk for a moment about the credibility of information. The minister justified his actions by saying that trains are inefficient, the least energy efficient of all transportation methods. Of course this is pure rubbish. It is just not true. The minister is trying to suggest that there are not enough people using these trains as a reason for not continuing them. In fact, the statistics show otherwise. It is a matter of whom he is directing his questions to. To make superficial, simple-minded statements to the effect that railways are one of the least energy efficient of all transportation modes is just absolute "sluttergush". The minister is misleading the House, perhaps unintentionally, by suggesting that he is qualified to decide on the relative merits of rail service compared with air
October 26, 1981

transportation and other modes, which we know are heavily subsidized by the taxpayers by one means or another.
The statistics on national trends and cost recovery prepared by the minister's department show that in 1977 there was only a 32 per cent cost recovery for the provision of air transportation services in Canada, a 22 per cent cost recovery on marine services, and a 49 per cent cost recovery on the highway system which serves passenger cars, buses and highway transport trucks. In comparison, the railways are operating with an 82 per cent cost recovery. Granted, much of that high rate of return on the rails is because of the carriage of freight, but surely it is not too much to ask that some of the excess earnings, far in excess of the earnings in the other three modes, be redirected to guarantee convenient, comfortable rail transportation services for all Canadians.
A few weeks ago a Gallup pole was taken of some 1,052 Canadians. It showed that the majority of Canadian people strongly disapprove of the minister's arbitrary cuts to VIA Rail services down about 20 per cent, announced on July 27. Approximately 51 per cent of the people polled disapprove of these cuts, with only 27 per cent approving. The majority of those who responded said that they would even accept an increase in taxes to maintain the national rail transportation service.
These are important questions. The minister has not stopped to measure the sociological impact of these decisions. Certainly he has not been able to convince the House that he has calculated the impact on businesses and on income earning potential and employment created both directly and in spinoffs from the national rail transportation system. He has not considered situations such as this.
I hope the minister is listening somewhere. When those of us on the task force travelled across Canada, we stopped to listen to the people of Kamloops, British Columbia. A widow travelled 200 miles from Blue River in order to speak with us. She wanted to tell us how much difficulty she had been having maintaining her income since the passing of her husband and because of some ill health. This widow was not eligible for old age pension. She operates a little store along the right-of-way where the supercontinental passes twice a day. Many of the passengers detrain to buy little curios and articles in her store. This makes up some 30 per cent or more of her income. Mrs. Jane Lamont, a 63-year old widow travelled 200 miles to speak with us because the minister did not want to hear her. We learned that she derives her living from that little store along the CN tracks in Blue River, British Columbia. She will be forced out of business within three weeks after November 15, 1981, when the minister implements his decision. I would have liked to see the minister in the House to see the reaction on his face when he heard the words of Mrs. Lamont who said:
I feel very humble in asking the Minister of Transport to give me back something I need.
There are many hon. members who have travelled the country and listened to the people in ways that the minister has not. They deserve the right to stand in the House of Commons and debate this very important question before
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments November 15. Today is the day, perhaps the only day, when these members will have a chance to bring their feelings and experiences to bear on behalf of Canadians. Therefore, in the interests of granting additional members an opportunity to be heard, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That pursuant to Standing Order 6 the hour of adjournment this day be extended until such time as no member continues to rise to participate in the debate on the business of the House now under consideration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those members who object will please rise.
And more than ten members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think you declared the motion lost under Standing Order 6(5)(b), the relevant part of which states, "-the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn-", not lost, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is perfectly right, but the motion did not carry.
Motion withdrawn.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) leaves his seat, I want to say that I think it is somewhat ironic that he began and ended his comments by saying that he wished that more members of the House could participate in the debate. He said he would keep his comments short, and then proceeded to talk for 20 minutes, the full time allotted, and so no other member will now be able to speak in this debate. That is an indication of the kind of paradoxical if not hypocritical attitude that members of the so-called opposition display.


Mr. Kempling:: Let's hear your solution.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that 1 take part in this debate on the motion for concurrence in the seventh report of the Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I fully agree with the principle contained in this report that it would have been better to establish VIA Rail and to authorize the public operation and financing of rail passenger service in Canada by an act of Parliament. As indicated by the committee, VIA Rail was created by a series of votes and orders in council which are described in detail on pages 35:4 and 35:5 of the committee report dated last June 18. The report outlines the four or five stages which led to the creation of VIA Rail on January 12, 1977, and I quote:

October 26, 1981
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments
On January 12 1977, the Canadian National Railways incorporated a subsidiary, VIA Rail Canada Inc.-
By vote 52d, Department of Transport. Appropriation Act No. I, 1977-VIA Rail Canada Inc., was deemed to be a railway company for the purposes of Section 11 of the Railway Act-
By Vote L56a, Department of Transport, Appropriation Act No. 3, 1977-78, the Minister of Transport was authorized to purchase "on behalf of and to hold in trust for Her Majesty in Right of Canada all of the issued common shares of VIA Rail Canada Inc. and to pay $100,000 in consideration thereof'. By Order in Council, SOR/78-287, VIA Rail Canada Inc. was made a Crown corporation-The whole authority for public funding of the VIA Rail operation and its takeover of railway passenger services provided by railway companies rests in the dollar vote, Vote 52d, Department of Transport-
That vote authorized the minister to enter into a contract with VIA Rail Canada Inc. with respect to:
(a)	the provision, management, or the operation of selected rail passenger services in such a manner as to improve efficiency, effectiveness and economy in rail passenger services in Canada;
(b)	the reimbursement of the net cost to the corporation of operating a rail passenger service in accordance with the provisions of the contract;
(c)	incentive payments for the efficient operation of the rail passenger services in accordance with the provisions of the contract;
This was the procedure used to establish VIA Rail, and I quite agree with the committee, as I said earlier, that it would have been better and more desirable to create VIA Rail by an act of Parliament. However, I do not agree with some statements in the committee report which imply that Parliament was kept completely out of the debate. I do not agree with the implications of statements such as this one, on page 35:6 of the committee report, where the committee says, and I quote:
Parliament should have been, and still should be, given the opportunity to debate the future and structure of railway passenger services in Canada and the manner of their management and control-
Meaning that Parliament did not discuss these matters. Then, further on, we find the following:
-many important matters have been effectively foreclosed from Parliament's debate and disposition by the extensive and pre-emptive executive action that has already been taken.
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, there have been many oppor-tunties to discuss the matter of passenger rail service in Canada, and I would like to give a few examples of this. First, it is a fact that we have an oral question period every day, and I would like to quote part of a question asked by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) last July 13 and the reply to that question. As I said, this occurred during the oral question period. In a question to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), the hon. member asked the following:
-is it the minister's intention to bring to the Parliament of Canada a new VIA Rail act this autumn?
What did the minister reply? Here is his answer:
On the other subject, that is the usefulness, necessity of having a VIA act, I am in full agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member and others.
He then explained why the government was prevented in the past from introducing such a bill. He then said:
The problem has always been with the agenda or the timetable of the House. In 1977 when Via was created by an item in the estimates-
-as I have just explained-
-presumably there were too many items on the agenda of the House. Last year-
It is important to note the following facts because some hon. members would have the public believe that transportation matters are never debated in this House. The hon. minister said the following:
Last year I gave priority to the problem of the transportation of dangerous goods.
It seems to me that all members remember those problems related to the transportation of dangerous goods following the derailment in Mississauga, with the resulting emergency, the debate which followed and the act passed by the House.
This coming year, as the hon. member knows, we have the ports policy to bring up. We also have the independent air safety board to create. Thus, time is really the problem. Everyone agrees that VIA is entitled to legislation of its own as one of the major Crown corporations. I am committed to cabinet to bring forward a memorandum on the subject which might lead to that realization, whenever the time of the House permits.
I repeat

-whenever the time of the House permits.
Mr. Speaker, the minister noted that the problem has always been and still is with the agenda or timetable of the House. However, it seems to me, based on my short experience in this House, that it would not be too far-fetched to suggest that the conduct of the members of both the government and the opposition has led to a situation in which Parliament cannot function properly. The responsibility sometimes lies with our own members, but it very often lies with the opposition. An example which comes readily to mind is the pleading of Madam Speaker in Question Period every day for hon. members to refrain from posing questions that are too long, that have preambles which carry on endlessly-


An hon. Member:: What about answers?


David Berger: -or her suggestions that less heckling might permit a minister to answer questions more quickly.
As have all hon. members, I have spent a lot of time in committees in this House. A recent example that comes to my mind is that of a minister working on tight deadlines, perhaps imposed by the slowness of House operations caused by some of the factors which I have just mentioned, who tried to get a bill through committee without the necessity of holding public hearings. The minister, obviously unfamiliar with proceedings of committees, did not know that the opposition could tie him up for days in the committee, if it wished. Eventually he was obliged to consent to two or three hearings. Two or three valuable days were wasted in procedural wrangling.
I think that there is also a refusal by the opposition to recognize the prerogatives of the executive branch of govern-

October 26, 1981

ment. A perfect example is this decision on VIA Rail. In its wisdom, the government has decided that it has to cut back services.


William James Kempling: In its stupidity.


David Berger: It has to cut back money-losing services in order to devote the necessary funds for new equipment. The minister has given his justification-


David Kilgour: That's just ducky!


David Berger: -for his decision, both inside and outside the House.


David Kilgour: Very persuasive!


David Berger: He has given reasons not only for the substance of his decision but also for the procedure that was used.


David Kilgour: That was just terrific!


David Berger: Yes, the process. One hears a familiar cry of "totalitarian" coming across from the great defenders of democracy across the aisle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: Make him a minister to Skalbania.


David Berger: As my colleague just pointed out, this great champion of democracy has just refused to allow half a minute more to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to let him conclude.


André Ouellet: How rude!


David Berger: The minister has explained that the government and the country cannot afford to undertake a series of lengthy hearings which would have just postponed the inevitable. The opposition, however, states that it is upset that there will be no hearings of the CTC. I would like to remind Your Honour that this is the same opposition which incessantly cries out about accountability to the elected representatives of the people. It is true that we have given certain responsibilities to the CTC. However, all hon. members have questioned on many occasions the value of these administrative, quasi judicial, bodies. They have stated on a number of occasions that it is important for government to take responsibility for its own actions and that it is important for parliamentary committees to see that the government is accountable to the elected representatives of the people.
Here we have an example of the minister offering to appear before a parliamentary committee to answer these great defenders of our democratic system.


William James Kempling: How condescending.
Regulations and other Statutory Instruments


David Berger: How ironic it is that they have refused to take him up on his offer! They say, "No, we are the elected representatives of the people. We do not want to hear the minister. Send him before the CTC!"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Louder!


An hon. Member:: Intelligence prevails.


David Berger: It is quite something, that these people who always claim to speak in the name of democracy have the opportunity to deal with this matter themselves, but they frown upon it. They turn it down. We on this side of the House are also concerned about transportation in this country.


An hon. Member:: Funny way of showing it.


David Berger: The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) mentioned the concerns of the Voyageur company as expressed before the recent hearings which were held across the country, or in eastern Canada, in any event, by the Standing Committee on Transport. I took three or four hours one morning this past summer to go to Voyageur to familiarize myself with its concerns. I am also very concerned about the matter of the cross subsidization of its routes in rural Ontario and rural Quebec. This is certainly a matter which should occupy the attention of the Standing Committee on Transport. However, if hon. members of the opposition are as concerned as they say they are about transportation, I would suggest that they abandon their posturing, that they accept the fact that the executive has the right to govern this country, a fact which they refuse to accept, day in and day out, in this House.


Thomas Edward Siddon: What about Parliament? What does it do? Dictatorship.


An hon. Member:: The window of the CTC.


David Berger: They should go before a parliamentary committee-


Thomas Edward Siddon: There is no democracy left.


David Berger: Rather than harping on a decision that has already been made, they should talk about the future. That is what they should do, rather than continuously burying their heads in the past, as the members of the official opposition have the habit of doing!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Edward Siddon: Sounds like another Trudeau.


Some hon. Members:: Louder!


David Berger: I would suggest that they bring witnesses in and that they subject government officials to questioning about their future plans; in other words, that they be a constructive opposition-

October 26, 1981
Adjournment Debate


Thomas Edward Siddon: He is understudying the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


David Berger: -rather than an opposition which continually obstructs the affairs of the people of Canada.


William James Kempling: Oh, go home. You are out of your mind.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Why don't you drive a few buses, David, go into business? Why don't you run the bus service down in New Brunswick?


David Berger: We all want parliamentary reform in this House, but we will never get it unless we can adopt a more responsible attitude to the people who have elected us.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Yeah, let's debate these matters, have a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
['It being 10.23 p.m., this House stands adjourned unti tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 10.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.', 'Tuesday, October 27, 1981']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie).


An hon. Member:: He is not here.



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on October 20, 1981, in this House, 1 asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether he still intended to renew his invitation to the provinces after their repeated refusals to hold a federal-provincial meeting on the constitutional resolution.
It will be remembered that such an invitation had repeatedly been extended by the Prime Minister but had always been turned down by the premiers under various pretences. Finally, the provinces, after a meeting held on October 19, 1981, in Montreal, agreed to such a meeting to be held in the first week of November. Whether this was a tactical move is open to question, since the presentation of the federal budget had already been announced for November 3, 1981. Were the provinces really serious, or were they merely trying to raise a conflict of schedules that would have further postponed the meeting? Whatever that may be, the federal government was serious and despite that situation, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) scheduled a meeting for November 2 next.
In his answer to my question, the Prime Minister indicated his intention to go through with the resolution, and he referred to my personal position on the question. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a final clarification on my position which, as will be known, is different from that held by the Liberal caucus and the government. My disagreement has to do basically with Section 133. First of all the Charter of Rights is aimed at guaranteeing minorities of both official languages the essential instruments of their survival.
Theoretially, the Charter should give them protection beyond the provincial legislatures. Such is the spirit of the Charter, which has a universal thrust.
Unfortunately the Charter is affected in actual practice by other constitutional provisions, such as Section 133 of the British North America Act and Section 23 of the Manitoba Act. Under these provisions, the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba alone have been required to grant their minorities free access to the legislative and legal institutions in their own language. All the other provinces, except New Brunswick which has granted voluntarily that protection to its minority in the resolution, were exempted.
The result is that although the Charter of Rights provides legal guarantees and enshrines freedom of movement across Canada, a French-speaking citizen will never be entitled to process of law in his own language in seven provinces out of ten. He will not be able to do business, transact or contract in his own language, and so forth. This situation stems from the non-application of Section 133 all across Canada.
I would invite you, Mr. Speaker, to go through a somewhat hallucinating experience. Read the Charter again, as if you were residing in Alberta, in Ontario, or in any of the seven provinces to which Section 133 does not apply. Let us take a few examples:
10.	Everyone has the right on arrest or detention (a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
In what language, Mr. Speaker?
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that
right;
In what language, Mr. Speaker?
And I go to Section 11:
11.	Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a)	to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
In what language, Mr. Speaker?
(b)	to be tried within a reasonable time;
In what language, Mr. Speaker? And I could go on and on because that is the thrust of my objection. The rights granted in theory by the charter will never exist in fact, and to my mind, the resolution is incomplete in that regard.
The pan-Canadian rights of the French-speaking majority in Quebec are based on the premise that the rights of Frenchspeaking minorities outside Quebec, to which l belong, as a
mmiii
October 26, 1981

Franco-Ontarian in Ontario, be recognized. If those minorities have no real rights, that means that Quebec francophones will then have rights only in their home province. In principle their language will confine them to their province or to no more than two other Canadian provinces which, once again theoretically, should grant rights of access to judicial and legislative institutions.
I therefore wonder, Mr. Speaker, who in Canada speaks for Francophones. Is it the Quebec government or the federal government? If it is really the Quebec government, then the road to independence is already paved and through this official recognition of the French fact in America, French becomes the exclusive domain of the province of Quebec in this country. If, on the contrary, and as I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of the federal government, then all the provinces, without exception, should adhere to national objectives, which are to build a free and officially bilingual democratic country, which recognizes equal rights to all its citizens everywhere.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude on a more optimistic note. In spite of certain reserves, I am equally in favour of patriating our Constitution. I am equally in favour of the inclusion of a full charter of rights and freedoms. And I am equally in favour of adopting an amending formula. Unfortunately, I am unable to support the constitutional package as it stands now, because I feel the Charter is incomplete.
In view of the fact that the issues thus raised are, quite logically, significant for the future of Canada, some would like us to believe that the discussion on the whole question of the imposition of Clause 133 would be given top priority at the first federal-provincial conference following patriation. In spite of the stubborn opposition of Premier Bill Davis of Ontario, we will forge ahead.
Mr. Speaker, a Constitution essentially designed and written for a short period of time would not command the support of all Canadians. As a matter of fact, all legitimate authority derives from the Constitution. The people and other minority groups would not feel bound by such short-term arrangements.
If the constitutional rules, Mr. Speaker, must be constantly redrafted, how can we expect to develop a completely stable community? If the constitutional rules must be altered because we are convinced that their intent is deficient, the present scheme being a glaring example for the reasons I have just stated, why then postpone what can be quite properly done today?
Mr. Speaker, considering the importance of this matter and the short time at my disposal, I should like to say in conclusion that I hope to state in greater detail in the House my objection to that incomplete Charter and the reasons for my disagreement during that special two-day debate following which, 1 hope, that resolution will be forwarded abroad.
Adjournment Debate


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for having raised this very important question. [English]
I know the hon. member is aware of the Prime Minister's response to the question from the provinces as to when we are going to have a meeting. As the hon. member knows, since the Supreme Court decision came down the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) offered to the premiers of the provinces six alternative dates in which to discuss the Constitution.
The Prime Minister indicated in his telex to Premier Bennett that he was:
Prepared to meet with all the premiers one last time in an effort to reach an agreement on constitutional reform.
According to the ten premiers and the Prime Minister, pursuant to this final offer, they will be sitting down next Monday for a final round of negotiations and, as the Prime Minister said, "We will negotiate even if we have to go day and night". This House is surely aware of the proposed resolution.
In the words of the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party, we have contained in our resolution what is undoubtedly and I quote, "the best bill of rights of any country in the whole world."
Last week a public opinion poll revealed that more than 80 per cent of Canadians want a charter of rights enshrined in our Constitution.

Mr. Speaker, we are obviously on the verge of giving to the Canadian people a charter of rights which will not only protect the linguistic rights of English-speaking Quebecers, but which will also, for the first time, guarantee in the Constitution that the French-speaking minority in the nine other Canadian provinces can be educated in their own language.

Mr. Speaker, we heard the Supreme Court rule on the legality of the constitutional package. We have now obtained agreement on a final date for negotiations, as the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) requested last week. Let us now, in a spirit of conciliation, co-operation and good will, meet with the premiers. We want an agreement. We want that accord. We will not sacrifice fundamental principle, but we look forward to that meeting.


THE ECONOMY-MEASURES TO AID MARITIME REGION B) REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS RENEWING MORTGAGES
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak tonight about the continuing high interest rates which plague the Atlantic provinces, as they do the rest of our country, and about the particularly severe effect they are having on the economy of the Atlantic provinces. I want to

October 26, 1981
Adjournment Debate
share with the Elouse my knowledge of the situation, which I find very distressing, and I want to propose some solutions to the problem for the consideration of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) as he prepares his budget for presentation in a few weeks' time.
The latest Statistics Canada figures which have been released indicate that unemployment in our nation has increased from 7 per cent to 8.2 per cent. In every one of the Atlantic provinces this increase of 1.2 per cent has been exceeded, and in one of the Atlantic provinces the increase has been tripled.
Perhaps the most significant feature of these figures is that we have a very serious drop in employment. This means that the increase in unemployment is not because of an increase in the work force or the number of Canadians who live in the Atlantic provinces who are seeking employment. It is because we have had a cancelling out, or a drop, in the number of jobs. The Atlantic provinces are the first hit, the hardest hit and the last to recover from high interest policies and restrictive monetary policies because of the nature of their economies. Three of the Atlantic provinces have resource-based economies, and the fourth has a service-based economy.
The peculiar capital structure that is necessary for resource-based economies and service-based economies is that intense amounts of capital are required but, because of inventory and the primary nature of the products involved, very expensive working capital is required, and in the Atlantic provinces this is generally borrowed. This is where the impact of high interest policies afflicts us quite severely. The first symptoms of this affliction are the closing of our fishing plants-and they are closed-and of our lumber mills-and they are closed. The final phase is when the spin-off of these closures hits our retail merchandising establishments. Just last week two clothing stores which have been in existence for generations joined with others which have closed. This is the complexion of the problem which faces us in Atlantic Canada. I want Parliament to be aware of it, and I want the Minister of Finance to address it, particularly as he prepares his budget.
The one aspect of this problem which is perhaps most severe is the strange dichotomy of our lending institutions with record high profits and of borrowers who are losing their homes and their jobs. This is very severe, particularly for home owners, but it is also severe for tenants because some of them have seen their rents doubled and tripled as the impact has worked through our system.
The big concern I have is for Canadians in lower and middle-income groups, and I want to remind the House that in the Atlantic provinces the average income is two thirds of that in other parts of our nation. It is two thirds of the national average. People in low income groups first have to address the question of very high mortgage payments as they renew their mortgages and, next, record high heating costs, and the Atlantic provinces have the longest and most severe winters of any part of Canada. If one looks at the map, it will be seen that we
are north of Montreal. First comes the payment for the mortgage, then for home heating. If anything is left over, it goes for food. In too many families in the Atlantic provinces there is nothing left over for clothing, insurance, recreation or any of the amenities of life. Too many families are losing their homes. Too many kids are suffering from malnutrition. It is that severe. That is why I want this House to address this question.
My constituents have suggested that we consider the use of tax-free bonds for lending institutions, as do the savings companies and municipalities in the United States and the same as the electric power companies to build their works in the United States.
A lawyer in my constituency wrote suggesting that we consider rolling over the Registered Retirement Savings Plan. That has been suggested in other places. I sent this suggestion to the Minister of Finance.
Another constituent suggested that where we have record-high profits in lending institutions and record foreclosures for borrowers we consider an excess profits tax on the lending institutions, that the yield from the tax regenerate through the tax system to lower interest rates on the home owners who are renewing their mortgages.
My party proposed-and the Liberal and New Democratic parties voted against it for reasons they thought valid-a mortgage interest deductibility program. This year it would have made a maximum of $1,125 available to home owners to pay the interest on their mortgages. Next year it would have gone to $1,500.
The government has a duty to place before Parliament a proposal better than that one. If it does, I will support it. I want the government to put forward its proposal to deal constructively with the problem, and we will implement it. This should be done immediately because every day we wait, some child in the Atlantic provinces will suffer and some family will be shattered.
Finally, the government should review the high interest rate policy which, with inflation running at 12.5 per cent, is not doing the job. That is part of the problem.
We should look at the capital gains tax abolition. That abolition could act as a magnet to keep Canadian dollars at home and bring foreign dollars here through the Foreign Investment Review Act. This would strengthen the Canadian dollar and do the job that high interest rates are not doing. When you consider the cost of recovery of that tax, it is a valid point I would like the minister to address. I see, Mr. Speaker, you are about to spring from your Chair.


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


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, of all the
members on the other side who raise questions with the
October 26, 1981

Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), I think the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) does so in the most creative fashion. I can assure him that the suggestions he has brought forward, tonight and earlier in other questions and sessions such as this, will receive very close consideration from me and from the minister as he reaches the final phase of his budget preparation.
The hon. member implied tonight that the drop in employment in the Atlantic provinces has, in some way, been greater or that the Atlantic provinces are more adversely affected by the current economic malaise that we face than perhaps other parts of the country. I suggest that equally adverse impacts are being felt across this country. The minister is considering those very seriously in his final preparations for his budget. Of course, it would be premature at this time to indicate any of the measures the minister is considering, or which the minister has already indicated he intends to adopt. However, I can assure the hon. member that a reduction in inflation and interest rates will benefit all regions and sectors of the economy. In the short run, Mr. Speaker, the high interest rates in the United States and the need in Canada to combat these inflationary expectations and keep prudent limits on the money supply growth mean, of course, that interest rates must remain relatively high across all the country. Moreover, there is no conclusive evidence that the less prosperous regions of the country are relatively harder hit by high interest rates than are the other regions.
Adjournment Debate
There are, however, continuing measures in place to assist the less advantaged regions of the country, such as, for example, expenditures by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, equalization payments, and the regionally-differentiated investment tax credits, as well the small business development bonds and other measures which, in some cases, help all of Canada, but which in many cases are strictly and closely directed towards the less advantaged regions of the country.
The hon. member has suggested there has been a dramatic increase in unemployment and a drop in employment in the maritimes at this point in time specifically. I would point out to him that from 1978 to 1980 the employment growth in the maritimes was higher than in the rest of Canada. For example, it was 4.1 per cent during that period, which exceeded the average for Canada as a whole, which was only 3.4 per cent. The latter part of the 1970s was a period of high employment growth in the maritimes and high economic investment. We hope that situation will return after we have passed this brief period of difficulty that we are facing at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 10.23 p.m., this House stands adjourned unti tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.23 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, October 27, 1981