1972-06-06

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay upon the table an extract from the minutes of a meeting of the Commissioners of Internal Economy, held April 24, 1972, concerning salary revisions of the staff of the House of Commons.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 70 I present to the House the petition of one Herman Weisz, endorsed by myself. The petition humbly prays that the House should cause the person or persons responsible for the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's right under the Standing Order is simply to present the petition. No explanation is required. He simply indicates that he is tabling the petition, which will be studied between now and tomorrow. There is no provision in the standing order to permit an explanation of what the petition is about.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Very well, Mr. Speaker. I present the petition.



POLLUTION


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 to move a motion in a case of urgent and pressing necessity. The subject matter has to do with the oil spill which occurred last Sunday at the ARCO oil refinery at Cherry Point, Washington, which is now being carried by the tides and currents into Canadian waters and polluting Canadian shores south of Vancouver. I would hope the unanimous consent of the House would be given, in which case I would move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams):
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to examine and inquire into the oil spill at Cherry Point and the consequent infringement of Canadian sea and territorial sovereignty; and to relate its findings to studies on public hearings conducted on the west coast into the TAPS oil tanker route and oil transfer and refinery terminals; and to have power to travel from place to place both in Canada and elsewhere.
Since the Standing committee is now on the west coast, I would hope it might begin this inquiry immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's proposed motion has been placed before the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not. Therefore the motion cannot be put at this time.



FOULING OF CRESCENT BEACH BY CHERRY POINT OIL


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Having in mind the oil spill that occurred at Cherry Point, a few miles from the riding of Surrey-White Rock, which has resulted in oil slicks drifting ashore at or near Crescent Beach in that riding, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett):
(a) That this House approve immediate federal action to help clean up and protect the affected area; (b) to provide that no economic loss be suffered by the people of that area; and (c) that what has happened be drawn forcefully to the attention of the government of the United States as constituting a small sample of the inevitable ecological dangers and disasters that will follow the transportation of oil by tanker along our western coast.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion is also proposed to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

June 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry ORAL QUESTION PERIOD POLLUTION



CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-ARRANGEMENTS WITH UNITED STATES RESPECTING CLEAN-UP IN WATERS OFF PACIFIC COAST

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of the oil spill at Cherry Point which I understand took place in United States waters but part of which has moved into Canadian waters. I assume that the minister is doing everything possible to clean it up, but may I ask him whether there are any joint arrangements in existence between Canada and the United States to deal with oil spills in those waters?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In the sense of technical co-operation between officials or special agencies of the governments of both countries there is a co-operative arrangement, and this is in effect in the case of the present incident.



CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-POSSIBILITY OF PROTEST TO U.S. GOVERNMENT-PROGRESS ON ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT AUTHORITY OVER WATERS OFF PACIFIC COAST

Robert Lorne Stanfield: In
view of the fact that this oil spill appears to have drifted into Canadian waters, I should like to ask the minister whether any protest has been made to the United States authorities regarding their failure to prevent the drift of this spill into Canadian waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not as
of this moment, as far as I am aware. I think the question might more appropriately be addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I might add that the drift of the oil, as the Leader of the Opposition has stated, is precisely what we had forecast. In other words, the scientific and other people had indicated that a spill there would, under certain circumstances, tend to drift into Canadian waters, and this confirms our concern over the whole project.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister propose to recommend to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that a protest be made, since presumably he would to some extent act on the minister's advice in this matter? I should also like to ask the minister or the Prime Minister, if this question is outside the minister's jurisdiction, whether any progress has been made on the Canadian proposal that a joint U.S.-Canada authority be established in that general area over these waters, be it the International Joint Commission or some such body? I believe such a proposal has been made. Has any progress been made regarding its implementation?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in the first instance, I think it has been made abundantly clear by the government of Canada and, indeed, by this House that it is our judgment these large tankers ought not to follow the so-called Cherry Point route. This information has, of course, been conveyed to the United States government. About all I can add at the moment is that at informal discussions in Washington last Thursday I reaffirmed this view and

expressed the willingness of the government of Canada to co-operate in every way in the event the United States did not see fit to take note of our original representations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will, of course, recognize the hon. Leader of the Opposition on a supplementary question, but I think in all fairness I ought then to recognize the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he will answer the earlier part of that long question. Does he intend to recommend that a protest be made, based on the failure of the United States to clean up that spill before the oil came into Canadian waters?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the choice of words might be somewhat different in the sense that I will certainly, by means of the various marine channels through which I work, indicate to the parties responsible our disappointment that they have not done this as rapidly as perhaps might have been possible. On the other hand, I say that with the qualification that I believe the United States authorities were on the spot very quickly and, to the best of my knowledge and from a technical standpoint, they have been doing everything possible to prevent the oil spill from spreading.



CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST FOR AID TO B.C. MUNICIPALITIES AFFECTED TO CONTAIN OIL SLICK

Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. Having in mind information I have just received that in the area affected the oil slick is now approximately one mile in length from Crescent Beach to White Rock with a width of ten feet, and in view of the fact 100 to 150 people are mobilized there trying to keep the beaches clear of the oil slick as much as possible, will the minister undertake to give every immediate aid requested by the municipalities or the people of that area?


Hon. Donald C. lamieson (Minister of Transport):: The
answer to the question is an unqualified yes, Mr. Speaker. In fact, our people are already on the scene using all of the devices we had originally put in place in that area to take care of a contingency such as this.



RESPONSE OF U.S. GOVERNMENT TO RESOLUTION OF HOUSE RESPECTING PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE

Barry Mather: I have a final supplementary question for the right hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Will he indicate what response has been received from the United States government to the motion unanimously approved some weeks ago by hon. members of this House, calling attention to the dangers involved in the carriage of oil through those straits, which presumably was transmitted to the United States government?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in a sense the response to the concern expressed not only by the government and the House but by many people across the country is the fact that when President Nixon
June 6, 1972

and I met several weeks ago we discussed this very matter, at which time I indicated ways in which I thought the International Joint Commission could be brought into service to control spills on the east and west coasts. The President agreed that we should discuss this very matter. The Minister of Transport has just said that discussions along these lines at the official level did take place last week. We hope that this present event will indicate even more strongly to the United States that our fears were not without foundation.



OIL SPILLS-REQUEST THAT PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS AND BILLS PERTAINING TO PREVENTION BE REFERRED TO COMMITTEE

Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. Will he take this comparatively minor oil spill at Cherry Point as an indication of the seriousness of the problem which both Canada and the United States face and send all private members' notices of motions and private members' bills pertaining to the prevention of such accidents to the appropriate standing committees of the House for study and action? While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: You are not on your feet.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether we might proceed in an orderly fashion by allowing the minister to reply to the original question, and when the hon. member is on his feet again he may ask a supplementary.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am already giving consideration to that proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may now resume his feet.


David Walter Groos: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Now that I am on my feet again, may I draw your attention to the fact that today is the twenty-eighth anniversary of the allied landing in Normandy. In doing so, I hope I may remind hon. members that there is still plenty of peaceful action needed today on the pollution front.



UNITED STATES POSITION RESPECTING REFERENCE OF PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE TO INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Has the government yet received any assurance from the United States government that it would be willing to submit the whole question of the Cherry Point and Strait of Juan de Fuca route to the International Joint Commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge, although I would have to confirm this with the Secretary of State for External
Inquiries of the Ministry
Affairs. But as I said in my answer a moment ago, when I discussed the matter with the President he did indicate the willingness of his government to study this matter and see in what way we could best manage the problem of possible spills on the east and west coasts. I repeat that there have been meetings at the official level. There has been to my knowledge no official and final response from the United States government yet.



CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES RESPECTING POSSIBLE DAMAGE TO CANADIAN PROPERTY

Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. When I addressed a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs yesterday on the matter of the oil spill at Cherry Point he said he would look into the matter to see whether or not we have a case to take up with the United States. In light of the announcement of Canadian government policy that we will hold the United States responsible for any damage to Canadian property from such spills, can the Prime Minister indicate whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs has looked into this matter and is there any information he can give the House concerning action of that kind against the United States government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a report on this since the Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke yesterday, but he will be in the House again this week and I am sure he will be glad to answer the question then.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Egmont for a last supplementary on this subject and then go to the next matter.



CHERRY POINT OIL SPILL-REQUEST THAT COMMITTEE OF HOUSE NOW ON WEST COAST INVESTIGATE

David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Parliament of this country has already expressed itself on this question and the fact that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence is now on the west coast, would the Prime Minister consider contacting the chairman of the committee to see if it might take some time from its agenda to study the matter directly in order to be able to report to the House and the government on any additional information available or any action that might be taken?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am rather afraid the House would find it improper if I were to take it upon myself to give direction to a chairman of a parliamentary committee. If the House wants to give a direction it would be more proper for it to do so.

June 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY



STEPS TO OVERCOME ALLEGED CONFLICT BETWEEN PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS DESIGNED TO BENEFIT BUSINESS

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce arising out of a statement he is reported to have made that the government's programs and regulations designed for the benefit of business in Canada are not only numerous but also mutually conflicting and often work at cross-purposes. Can the minister tell the House briefly what steps he is taking to overcome this maze of conflicting and counter-productive regulations and plans the government is now working with?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister would have to do this very briefly because the hon. member is inviting the minister to make a statement of a very general nature which normally should be made on motions. If the minister can reply briefly, he might be allowed the floor for that purpose.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, simply by developing a better synchronization between departments of the federal government and between federal and provincial authorities; between governments and industry.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister how long he expects these consultations with business and labour and the various government departments and provincial governments to take and when he thinks he will be ready to announce a national policy with economic and social purposes for the programs he has in mind?


Jean-Luc Pepin: If my hon. friend is referring to the development of a new industrial strategy. The best answer I can give is later rather than sooner.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister this question. I note his statement that it would be later rather than sooner, which is, of course, very encouraging to Canadians and Canada's economy. I should like to ask the minister whether he would undertake to make a statement to the House at an appropriate time in the next little while outlining precisely the programs which are now in conflict, work at cross-purposes and do not do their job from his point of view, so that members of the House may consider the obviously chaotic conditions over which he presides?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if all these problems were already solved there would be no need for an effort toward an improved industrial strategy. Solving conflicts is what we are trying to do now. I made a statement yesterday in Edmonton, copies of which are obviously available and will be available, which is the first effort on my part to define the problems. The Prime Minister and others have worked also at developing a process by which, in consultation with industry, labour and the provinces, we will develop in the coming months a clearer, better, improved industrial strategy, and I swear to God I will be working all summer at it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Are additional security steps being taken in Canadian airports in connection with international flights throughout the world since the recent incident at Tel Aviv and others here and there in various countries?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House and the hon. member that security measures of quite an intensive nature are now in effect at most major airports in Canada, particularly at Montreal. We are taking extraordinary measures with regard to flights destined for what might be described as delicate areas of the world where in recent times there have been some unfortunate incidents.


David Réal Caouette: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
At the beginning of April, at Orly airport, all passengers were searched before boarding an Air Canada plane. No matter whether or not a member, the search was carried on. Were those doing the searching employees of the Canadian government or of the French government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am afraid I would have to take that portion of the question as notice. To my knowledge, at foreign airports these people would be under the jurisdiction of the airlines concerned, but on the specific case in point I would have to ask the necessary questions of the Air Canada officials.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. Can he advise the House now whether Kozo Okamoto, the lone survivor of the group of three Japanese involved in the Tel Aviv Airport incident, was in Canada on March 4, 1972, what the nature of his acitvities was and, in particular, was he involved in activities with the FLQ?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the question of finding out whether or not that individual was in Canada is now being investigated.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I did not rise immediately, Mr. Speaker, to ask my supplementary question because it took me a little while to get the answer of the minister through the
June 6, 1972

translation system. In view of the fact that the person in question may not have had a visa to enter Canada, after the investigation is completed would the minister be prepared to make a statement, particularly as a serious situation could develop at our airports such as has developed elsewhere?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Of course, Mr. Speaker, if it is in the public interest.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. lohn's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made in St. John's yesterday by the secretary of the Ministry of Science and Technology to the effect that there is no co-ordination of Canadian policies either in space or beneath the seas, and in view of the statement made in Stockholm yesterday by the Minister of the Environment that Canada was prepared to commit $100 million toward a world environmental program, what steps is the government taking to ensure that these programs are co-ordinated, either through the Minister of State for Science and Technology or through the Department of the Environment?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the second part of the question I might take this opportunity to indicate to the hon. member that a correction has been published in the press, correcting the first impression about the $100 million. I think the decision by the government, announced by the minister, is that if a fund in the area of $106 million were set up, under certain conditions with which the government could agree, then we would be prepared to contribute to it an amount of $5 million to $7 million. So much for the $100 million part of it, Mr. Speaker.
As to the co-ordination part of the question, yes, it is the very function of the new Ministry of Science and Technology to ensure that there be more and better co-ordination between all aspects of science and technology in Canada.



NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES ON POSSIBILITY OF CONTINENTAL POLICY-CONSULTATION ON POSITIONS TO BE TAKEN AT STOCKHOLM CONFERENCE

James Aloysius McGrath: What efforts have been made to achieve some kind of continental environmental policy with the United States? I ask this in view of what appears to be opposition by the Americans to the position we are taking at the Stockholm conference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member merely has to recall the very
Inquiries of the Ministry
successful meeting I had with President Nixon a few weeks ago on this very subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. members who are laughing are not from Ontario. I note that one is from Peace River where he has pollution of his own.


Mr. Baldwin:: I am looking at it right now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The agreement signed between the United States and Canada at that time had to do with the prevention and clean-up of pollution in the Great Lakes. If the hon. member from the Maritimes and the hon. member for Peace River would get on their toes, perhaps they might be able to do the same thing for their areas too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I happen to be a member from an Atlantic province which is a much bigger area than the Maritime provinces. Was there any consultation with the Americans prior to the Stockholm conference with a view to getting some sort of co-ordinated approach to world environmental problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that this is a conference set up under the aegis of the United Nations. It is in fact co-ordinated and managed by a Canadian, Mr. Maurice Strong. He has been in consultation with all participating governments, including ours, and at those meetings with him we indicated the desire of the Canadian government to co-operate in a very positive way at Stockholm. I hope the House and the country have taken notice of the fact that the Canadian government position at Stockholm has been a very forward one. I do not think that this is the proper place to criticize what the United States has done. I think we should at least wait until the conference is over and see then if there are proper ways of making it a success.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs I would like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the continuing representations by veterans organizations over basic rates of pensions, the commitment by the Minister of Veterans Affairs that this matter would be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and the number of questions that have been asked in the House during the past week, is the parliamentary secretary able to indicate to the House whether this matter will be referred to the standing committee?


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the matter

June 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
to the attention of the minister who will make a statement, as I indicated the other day, in due course.


Jack Marshall: As this is the same answer we have heard for a week, can the parliamentary secretary assure us that this matter will be referred to the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs before the end of this session?



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I would like to direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the statement by the president of the Canadian Grocery Distributors Institute that a recent survey shows that public confidence in the grocery business has dropped from 48 per cent in 1966 to 24 per cent in 1971, will the government consider implementing the 1967 recommendation of the Senate-Commons committee that the investigation into concentration in the food industry be continued?


Mr. D. R. Tolmie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to bring this question to the notice of the minister.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a related question. Because the food chains now hold over 50 per cent of the Canadian grocery market, having taken 2 per cent more from independent retailers during the past year, will the government look into the effect of this control on consumers and the smaller independent retailers?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the representations made today to the government by the Native Council of Canada, composed of representatives of the Metis and non-status Indians, can the Prime Minister tell the House which department of his government and which minister will be designated to take responsibility for the special problems that concern these some 700,000 Canadians?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might realize it is impossible to see that all aspects of the lives of some 700,000 Canadians can be taken care of by one department or one minister. It really depends on the subject which is foremost in their minds at any time. We would hope that all government departments would be open to them and, in dealing with their

many areas of concern, provincial government departments also.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In view of the fact that this particular group in our population, as the Prime Minister well knows, has rather special and unique problems which are not covered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, would the Prime Minister not give consideration to designating one minister and one department of government through which their representations and complaints at least can be funnelled to the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do think it is important that their representations be funnelled to the cabinet. I hesitate to follow the suggestion of the hon. member to set up one minister to be in charge of all aspects of the lives of any one group of citizens. The hon. member has pointed out that we have a department responsible for Indian matters, and I am sure many of the concerns of Indians would be channelled through it. But as regards the Metis we have very many aspects of government concerned with them. For example, we know that the Secretary of State has set up friendship centres which are very successful and which deal with some urban aspects of the problem. We know that the Department of Regional Economic Expansion deals with other aspects of their problems. We also know that the minister responsible for citizenship deals with-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the Prime Minister goes through all the departments, perhaps the Chair could intervene and invite the hon. member for Peace River to ask his question.



MANPOWER


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration but in his absence I will direct it to the acting minister, or possibly the parliamentary secretary might even be persuaded to answer. My question has to do with the extension of the local initiatives program which was recently announced and the statement of the minister on Friday that the extended projects will in general favour quality of life over job creativity. As some of the extended programs seem very lively, including a telephone answering service for the homosexual society-that is one of them-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: -would the hon. gentleman request the minister to make a statement indicating the specific criteria which in fact were used to persuade the government to pick out and select certain projects to receive these extensions?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to enunciate the five principal criteria employed in determining which projects should be extended, starting with
June 6, 1972

projects which have a potential for becoming self-supporting if they are provided with assistance for a further period, projects which provide employees-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Raymond J. Perrault: -with a learning experience giving them new skills-


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please?


Raymond J. Perrault: -services that could, given time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary can continue answering but this time I have the floor and what he is saying is not recorded. I suggest to the hon. member for Peace River that when he asks for a general statement he should not be scandalized and the Chair should not be scandalized if the parliamentary secretary replies giving a general statement. I would think the question should have been asked in the terms of whether a statement might be made on motions.


Gerald William Baldwin: My intention was to ask whether a statement would be made on motions, which of course would permit hon. members in other parties to reply.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the announcement today of an $8.8 million agreement between the province of Ontario and the federal government for new terminal facilities and a ferry service between the Bruce Peninsula and Manitoulin Island will the minister take action to ensure that construction of these facilities gets under way immediately so that a maximum number of jobs will be provided this coming summer?


An hon. Member:: Campaigning!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.



INDUSTRY


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
It seems that the Quebec premier wrote him a letter concerning the development of the oil industry and more
Inquiries of the Ministry
specifically the Sarnia Olefines and Aromatic Products project. I should like to know when he will reply to the letter of the Quebec premier, and whether or not he intends to publish the reply in the interest of hon. members.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I always marvel at how hon. members usually have a copy of the correspondence that is sent to me even before I receive it. I shall look at my mail and see whether it has arrived; if such a letter exists, I hope to read it soon. If I do not have it, then perhaps the hon. member can send me a copy of it.



ESTABLISHMENT OF PETROCHEMICAL CENTRE IN SARNIA-STATEMENT OF QUEBEC MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE-POSITION OF GOVERNMENT

Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister complains about a lack of communication with the Quebec government. Perhaps the relations between the Quebec government and the opposition are friendlier than with this government.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
The Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce has expressed serious apprehensions regarding the establishment, at Sarnia, of a world petrochemical centre. Could the Prime Minister say what is the attitude of his government concerning this artificial boundary, the Borden line, which limits Quebec to its own domestic market for the sale of its petrochemical products?


Mr. Speaker:: I feel that this question is of a general nature and that it calls for a statement on motions. The hon. member might perhaps agree with me on this point.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Does the Prime Minister intend to make in the near future in the House a statement on such an important matter, in order that we may know what is the government's position on that problem raised yesterday by the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will surely examine the letter, if there is one. However, in answer to the hon. member, I simply want to make him understand that the oil policy to which he referred has enabled Quebec to pay less for its fuel than the western provinces which have to buy their oil in western Canada. Well, if this is not a beneficial policy for Quebec-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that such a question and the Prime Minister's answer are rather argumentative and I also feel that we should try to proceed a little more quickly.

There are just about ten minutes left before the end of the question period and we do not seem to be moving very quickly because we have so many supplementary questions and long questions and long answers. Perhaps we

June 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
should try to move along a little more quickly. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


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


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


Martial Asselin: The hon. Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated to me that he could have been asked the question and that he knew the answer. Can the minister answer the question I asked?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This was not a point of order. May I suggest to the hon. minister who knows the answer to give it to the hon. member after the oral question period.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-INQUIRY AS TO COMPENSATION FOR LOSSES

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment perhaps I might address this question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by at least two government backbench acolytes, last week visited areas of British Columbia which have been inundated by reason of unusually large spring run-offs, has the government received any recommendation from that minister regarding compensation for losses because of the flooding?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the House yesterday, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo have visited the areas concerned. I reported to the House that the policy of the federal government is to consider such claims for compensation after a request has been made by the province concerned. I reported yesterday that as of the moment no such request had been received.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I should like a little clarification becuse there was a lot of racket and I did not quite get the reply. Is the government of British Columbia, in concert with the federal government, considering methods of relieving the financial losses caused by such disasters not only in the area of Kamloops but should they occur elsewhere?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answered this very question yesterday when it was asked by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. Perhaps the hon. member for Fraser Valley West was caught in the flood. The answer, I repeat, is that the government is prepared, as it has been in the past, to consider any general plan which might be

put forward by the provinces, but there has been no such request by the province of British Columbia.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY MEASURES RESPECTING PAYMENT OF DEBT

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Transport.
Would he tell the House what arrangements the government has taken or is to take concerning the St. Lawrence Seaway? Will the government find a way to collect $300 million, or will there be an arrangement to make a clean sweep of this amount plus interest, since it has become impossible for the Authority to meet its commitments?


Mr. Speaker:: This question, also, is very general. It seems to me that such a question should normally be put on the order paper. If the hon. member deems the matter to be an urgent one, it can be discussed on the adjournment motion.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint lohn-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the government under consideration any direct assistance to the new world-scale petrochemical industry in Sarnia that is to be conducted by Esso, Polymer and DuPont?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I was going to answer a previous question on the same subject by saying that this project, SOAP, and a couple of others are presently being studied by the government but no decision has been taken. To answer the previous question at the same time, let me say the interests of Quebec will be taken into account in this study; there is no doubt about that. The provincial Minister of Industry and Commerce was anticipating the possibility of a decision and was entering a caveat.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister give the further assurance that all similar industries, particularly in New Brunswick, now under consideration will receive equal and fair treatment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Certainly. The problems of the petrochemicals industry vary very much from one region of Canada to another, as hon. members would expect.
June 6, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



PUBLIC SERVICE


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. On May 5 I raised with him the question of the eligibility list set up in a competition for possible positions that would be vacant in the Cape Breton area in the public service. The question was with regard to the changing of the competition which called for unilingual-ism. Twenty-three people qualified. It is our understanding that as of June 15 this list will no longer be in effect and replacements will be made from a bilingual list. On May 5 the minister said that he would inquire and provide an answer. On May 17 he assured me that there would be no discrimination and that he was waiting for a report on the subject. Is the minister yet in a position to give that report, and can he reassure us again that those who qualify will get the positions that become available and will not be cast out as derelicts because they are not bilingual?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, upon inquiry I discovered that the question related to two eligibility lists established as a consequence of competitions held by the Public Service Commission. The notes on the answer were to have been given to the House by the Secretary of State and unfortunately I have not got them with me. I am sure that the next time he is in the House he will give the answer.


Robert Muir: Will the minister make it his duty to ensure that the minister he referred to will be in the House before the end of the session, before June 15?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I shall be glad to give that assurance, Mr. Speaker.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but in his absence I shall direct it to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the recent exorbitant increase in the rents of certain high-rise apartment developments in the city of Toronto to apartment dwellers, has the minister made representations to the government of the province of Ontario in order to curtail these steady increases?


Donald Ross Tolmie: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to bring that most interesting and intelligent question to the attention of the minister.



MEAFORD TANK RANGE-REMOVAL,OF UNEXPLODED AMMUNITION TO ENABLE CONVERSION TO PARK

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence but in his absence would direct it-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain!


An hon. Member:: They don't know you, Ben.


An hon. Member:: He hasn't any policy but he is there.


Percy Verner Noble: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. The minister is here so seldom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Percy Verner Noble: In view of the fact the government is giving consideration to clearing unexploded ammunition from Camp Ipperwash so it may be returned to the local Indians, will the Meaford tank range be included in this cleanup program so that it may be converted to a park?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, no clean-up program in either area is anticipated at the present time. The cost appears to be prohibitive.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that we will be very soon running short of time. There are just two or three minutes left before the end of the question period. With the co-operation of hon. members, we will try to have a few questions without supplementaries.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that farm machinery costs and other costs of production to the farmer have nearly doubled since 1949 and the price he receives for many commodities has gone down, what action is the government planning to bring down the costs of production to the farmers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question should be placed on the order paper.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that the government has spent and is

June 6, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
spending so much money on computers and computer services, is it the intention of the minister's department to set up a special agency to co-ordinate the use of computers and computer programs in government service?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, such an agency or co-ordinating body is now in operation. All the computing facilities of the government are being looked at as a whole and work programmed within those facilities to make the best use of them.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Under whose jurisdiction does the agency responsible come?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Department of Supply and Services, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises from the fact that continuing requests are being made for lists of names of those who imported European cattle in the 197071 season. The minister's office indicated some weeks ago that these lists would be supplied. When will they be available?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into it immediately.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In the debate today on transportation policy, is the minister going to make the long awaited and often promised statement on Atlantic transportation policy?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Wait and see, Mr. Speaker.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question. I thought I would get a flippant answer to a serious question. I am going to sit in the House and see to it that the minister does make a statement. That answer did not surprise me at all, and it will not surprise the people of Atlantic Canada who are being sold short by the minister because he is not doing his duty.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley on a supplementary, but we should try as much as possible to reserve our fire for the debate which will start in a few moments.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My supplementary is very serious and sensible, but the answer the minister just gave indicates his

frame of mind. The people of Atlantic Canada are being raped by the indecision and inaction of this minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is using up the rest of the time we have for the question period. Perhaps he might ask his supplementary.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Will this statement, concerning which I have been told to wait and see, include a report on the further freight rate increase the Railway Association of Canada has announced will be filed with the Canadian Transport Commission on June 19? What is the minister going to do about that?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, out of all that verbiage the only thing I can make out to be a question is, what is the minister going to do about the announced freight rate increase. As the hon. member knows, the minister is not empowered to do anything about these freight rate increases.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There has been some discussion about the length of speeches in the debate today.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might wait for just a moment until there is order in the House. The hon. member for Peace River might then make his comments on his point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, there has been discussion among the House leaders with regard to the length of speeches on the supply motion today. It has been suggested that we follow the terms of the Standing Order for the first speaker of our party, in whose name the motion stands, and for the first speaker on the government side in response. The first speakers of the other two parties would each have 20 minutes, pursuant to the rule. All other speakers will be allowed 15 minutes. It should be clearly understood that there will be no exception for anyone.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the statement just made by the hon. member for Peace River represents the arrangements to which we have agreed, especially that there be no overtime.


Mr. Speaker:: If it is agreed, it will be ordered by the Chair that the debate be conducted on the basis mentioned by the hon. member for Peace River and agreed to by other hon. members. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.
June 6, 1972



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton) moved:: This House regrets that the government has failed to develop the National Transportation Policy, pursuant to section 3 of the National Transportation Act, and has failed to take measures to revitalize and rebuild Canadian transportation for present and future needs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, judging from the recent exchange between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), it should be a very interesting debate this afternoon.
One of the most important issues facing Canada today is the development of a sound, co-ordinated, interrelated and forward looking transportation system. The future of Canada, politically, economically and environmentally, depends on it. The next 20 years will play a major part in deciding that future.
On September 1, 1966 when the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill introduced his new policy for transportation in Canada, he spoke in glowing terms of what it would mean for the future. According to Mr. Pickersgill, and this is recorded at page 7990 of Hansard for September 1, 1966, it was not his intention to scrap the basic corporate structure of the railways or any other form of transportation, but it was his intention, and I quote:
-to create a framework within which they can operate in a way which, in our view, will not only better serve the public-which is the main consideration-
I underline that.
-but which will also better ensure the Canadian treasury and the Canadian taxpayers against unnecessary and undue charges, and in some cases duplicated charges for duplicated services.
Unfortunately, the government has totally failed to develop a national transportation policy pursuant to section 3 of the National Transportation Act and has failed to rebuild and revitalize Canadian transportation in accordance with present and future needs. Section 3 of that act outlines the purposes of the new policy, which were to make the best use of all available methods of transportation and to co-ordinate them under terms, conditions and tariffs which would make them competitive and compensatory. In addition, the act was purportedly designed to ensure that all forms of transportation would be coordinated under tolls and tariffs and conditions which would not constitute an undue obstacle to the interchange of commodities between various points in Canada and which would not discourage the development of industry in areas where poor transportation presented a serious problem.
Mr. Pickersgill's opening statement on that date, as recorded at page 7995 of Hansard, drew attention to the manner in which the legislation followed the principles laid down by the MacPherson commission inasmuch as an
National Transportation Policy
attempt was being made to develop a policy in accordance with which the railways-and the railway companies were specifically mentioned in this case-would be required to perform their duties in the national or social interest. If these services could not be provided economically, losses would be paid largely from the public treasury. In other words-and here I quote directly what Mr. Pickersgill said-"We should not put the whole burden on the railways for continuing these services." It is because the government has completely failed to develop such a policy that I felt compelled to propose my motion today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Humbert Thomas: Since Confederation, Canada's national transportation policy has concentrated on fostering political unity and on integrating regional and provincial economies. Originally our transportation system was developed with the object of covering vast distances, moving goods and people from one point to another, coast to coast, at a reasonable cost. Various federal governments since Confederation have concentrated on policies designed to equalize opportunities and benefits available in all Canada's provinces and regions. As this country continued to grow, its transportation problems increased. The simplistic notion upon which our transportation system was originally based is no longer valid. The federal government has failed to realize that in 1972, transportation in Canada takes on a different connotation. Hon. gentlemen opposite have not taken action with the future of Canada in mind when developing their transportation policy.
In order to play a major part in future development, transportation decisions must be based on public need rather than political expediency. Air pollution, highway and airport congestion, the swallowing up of valuable urban land by expressways and growing noise pollution, should all play major parts in any decisions relating to transport policy today. Unfortunately, the government has seemingly disregarded this concept, basing its policy decisions on an economic evaluation of financial profitability. This is a mistake, and current trends in transportation are a tragedy because the mistakes of the past are being perpetuated on an even larger scale.
The greatest problem arises through lack of direction on the part of the government, and it shows in the quality of passenger and freight transportation across this country. Transportation policy is unco-ordinated. Systems of air, rail and highway transport are not integrated and the government takes refuge in constitutional hassles to hide the fact that it has no answers. The most recent example, I suppose, was the conclusions arrived at by the Railway Transport Committee after its visit to southern Ontario. The longest hassle, I suppose, has occurred over the implementation of Part IV of the National Transportation Act.
A glaring example of lack of co-ordination in transportation policies can be found in the case of Air Canada. Here is a Crown corporation owned by, and supposedly designed to serve, the Canadian public. Yet it provides a haphazard service, often at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer in terms of time and money. I draw attention to the rapid deterioration in passenger reservation services
2890

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy throughout the system, the callous disregard for the welfare of in transit passengers and the reduction of services in areas where there is no competition, all of which provides ample evidence that Air Canada has placed profits above service to the public. For example, the Air Canada international service out of Newfoundland is costly, inconvenient and totally unfair. International flights leave Newfoundland from one point only, Gander, on Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday at the unreasonable time of 10.10 in the evening. If a person has to leave on a Saturday, for instance, he is forced to fly west to Halifax or Montreal to pick up an overseas flight. Thus, he is required to pay double the cost, because he flies over Newfoundland again.
A great many complaints have been made against Air Canada's inter-Canadian flights, especially the fact that in many instances it is possible to fly across the Atlantic for less than is charged to fly a similar distance in Canada. We have gone into this matter with Air Canada officials in committee, but as far as I am concerned we have never been given a satisfactory explanation of why it should cost a Canadian taxpayer more to fly in his own country than it does to fly overseas.
According to Mr. Yves Pratte, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, the main problem is that the management of Air Canada does not know what the corporation's mission is in terms of service. Mr. Pratte appeared before the Transport Committee last spring. He was asked then to define Air Canada's role in relation to service to the public. At that time he said:
The basic problem is for the government to define the role and mission of Air Canada. If that is defined I am satisfied we can do the job. But it is not up to us to decide what our role is. We may have ideas, we may have suggestions, but the role of Air Canada should be defined by the government within the parameters of their over-all policy.
Following that statement by Mr. Pratte, the minister was asked questions on the matter in the House. As reported in the Toronto Star of June 28, 1971, he said:
We should like to give Air Canada a clear-cut mandate . .. but it is hard to be precise. I have been working on this for two years.
If that is not an indictment of the government for its lack of an over-all policy, I should like to hear some further explanation from the minister later.
What is the government's policy, if any? According to Mr. Dan Burtnick, legal counsel for the Province of Ontario, the federal government does not seem to have one. At a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on May 29, Mr. Burtnick said:
The government of Ontario believes the passenger transport system in Ontario and in Canada cannot be developed on an ad hoc basis. It is our position that the future requirements for passenger transportation demand a co-ordinated approach to the supply of these facilities. We believe that until those requirements for a minimum passenger network have been determined, it is illogical to hear any applications for discontinuance. We further believe such an inquiry must be related to a co-ordinated study of the interrelationships of various other modes of available passenger transport.
I repeat that it is the responsibility of the federal government to supply the co-ordinated approach to transportation referred to by Mr. Burtnick. Unfortunately, there does not seem to be any definitive policy worth mention-

ing for Air Canada or for any other mode of transport either separately or in combination. Many times in this House as well as outside the House, we have asked for a clear cut delineation of the government's regional air carrier policy. To my knowledge that statement has not been forthcoming. We still find regions, such as the Atlantic area and parts of western Canada, where Air Canada has a virtual monopoly of services. Regional carriers are prepared to supplement these services, but under this government's policy-or lack of policy-they are not allowed to supply these supplementary services.
It seems as if the decision-making powers with regard to quality and quantity of Canadian transportation rest solely with the companies involved and provincial or municipal governments. Decision-making powers are diffused and transportation services, whether owned by the Canadian public as in the case of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways, or owned by private sources as in the case of CPR and various trucking companies, seem to be vying with one another to determine which will make the most profit at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. The result has been increased trucking rates, shipping rates, passenger rates, freight rates, again at the expense of the taxpayer.
I am not one to deny the railways and transportation companies the right to raise their rates to meet increased expenses brought on by new labour agreements and increased costs. But I do say that it is up to the government to develop a policy that will enable the railways to pay these increased costs and remain competitive, if necessary providing essential public services that are subsidized by the public treasury, as promised by Mr. Pick-ersgill and as outlined in the preamble to the National Transportation Act.
This principle may be difficult for this government to grasp, because its transportation policy seems to be geared largely to the profit motive. For example, when an application is made under the act, to discontinue passenger services, the frequency of passenger train services in any one day and the timing of that service is not subject to any control by the Canadian Transportation Commission unless it decides to take the initiative and order a certain frequency of service. In addition to that, as I have pointed out many times it is almost impossible to obtain a subsidy for a specific service unless you apply for total abandonment of the service. Again the emphasis is on profitability, as determined by profit and loss statements prepared by the railway's cost accountants-and there has been a great deal of criticism as to the validity of these statements-rather than on the social effects and hardships that will be caused by abandonment of passenger service. In short, not only has the federal government failed to develop a transportation policy of any consequence; it has also managed severely to compromise the little policy it has.
Transportation problems are becoming so critical that if they are not solved soon, and with a view to future requirements, they may become not only difficult to solve but impossible. Pollution and urban growth statistics bear this out. In Canada's major cities the car is responsible for about 60 per cent of the air pollution. The hon. member
June 6, 1972

for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) does not like that statement, but unfortunately it is true. There were over 100 million cars and trucks in North America in 1970. By 1980 the number will rise to 180 million, which is some consolation for the hon. member for Vegreville. During peak traffic hours on main thoroughfares in metropolitan Toronto, concentrations of carbon monoxide ranged from 25 to 50 parts per million and sometimes as high as 150 parts per million. A recent Stanford University study has shown that the capacity of volunteers to perform normal work was severely reduced when concentrates of carbon monoxide of 50 parts per million were inhaled for as little as 79 minutes.
In 1921 less than half the population of Canada was urban. By 1966 the proportion was 73 per cent. By 1981 it is expected to reach 85 per cent, and by the year 2000 it is projected to rise to 94 per cent. In other words, nine out of ten Canadians in this country by the year 2000 are expected to be living in towns or cities. In 1966 the nine largest cities in Canada accommodated 40 per cent of the population. So we can see the rapid rise that will take place during the next 25 years. In fact, within the next 30 years it is expected that more than 50 per cent of Canada's population, some 61 million people, will be resident in 21 centres stretching along the St. Lawrence lowlands from Windsor to Quebec City. What plans has the federal government made to deal with this situation? If automobile use continues, how will the federal government deal with the results? If our cities continue to grow at the rate and in the manner that these statistics predict, what are the federal government's plans for transportation? At this time the federal government does not appear to have considered these facts, all of which are very, very appropriate.
S.	A. Caria, former president of the American Transit Association, says that mass transportation is the only alternative to utter chaos in our metropolitan areas. To lift the siege by automobiles, he says, Public Transport must become so efficient, attractive and fast that motorists willingly abandon their cars in favour of it.
Dr. H. J. Holland, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, says that every mile a car travels costs society $1 in increased pollution, endangered health, traffic safety and changes in property values and land use. Yet many Canadian cities are adopting the same old programs and perpetuating the mistakes that have already been made by increasing the number of freeways to provide for more automobiles. But can we blame them? Or should we blame the federal government which has failed to set an example for them and which seems unconcerned about the problem?
Other countries are setting an example in the field of transportation systems. A Montreal Star press report dated January 4, 1972, indicated that the Japanese are constructing an all-new network of high speed railways and have authorized a parallel network of expressways to counteract Tokyo's air and automobile pollution. Thousands of miles of new rail tracks and roadways will be criss-crossing the countryside during the next few years and a new motor vehicle tax is expected to provide a considerable amount of finance with an expected annual yield of $425 million. The rest will come from bonds and
25316-59}
National Transportation Policy
loans. The government's policy, says the report, is to realize an opulent life for the people throughout the country, aided by a new national, integrated transportation system.
I realize that the problems in this country are not exactly the same as the problems in Japan. Certainly, Japan does not have the vast distances to overcome that we have. But I still think there is much more room for government planning in devising mass transportation systems in this country. I think passenger trains have long been recognized as the most efficient way of hauling large numbers of people over distances. Rather than having this spectacle to which I have referred, I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) will be able to tell us of his plans for a transportation policy which will put the trains back on the rails and get passengers moving in the most economic and pollution-free way.
We do not have to go to Japan to examine the transportation system as there are many plans in existence in England, France and some of the northern countries which should receive the immediate attention of the federal government if Canada's transportation policy is to be one for the future. I should not want to accuse the government of not studying these plans as I know they have. I have heard from the minister before about what surveys have been made, but I suggest it is time to move a little faster in developing a coherent and comprehensive policy which will solve the problems of mass transportation in this country.
The present policy is not good enough. It is uncoordinated, and to a great extent it is ad hoc, piecemeal and irrelevant to today's world and its problems. It seems that on many occasions a decision is made to build an airport, and I will not get into that controversy, not from the standpoint of public service or economic value, but using political expediency as the main criterion. The federal government should begin immediately in co-operation with the provinces, municipalities, business, labour and the Canadian public to develop a national transportation policy taking into account pollution, environmental control, population growth and expansion. Unless the federal government is prepared to give this problem its attention now, Canada's present and future will be severely compromised.
I should like to add my support to the questions raised earlier by my colleague, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan). We in the Atlantic provinces have been promised a national policy for many years, and I hope the minister will say something about this in his reply. I hope he will have something to say about what is being done throughout the country to develop co-ordinated services and to do something about the downgrading of Air Canada services to Canadians. Perhaps he will tell us what we may expect in the way of relief from ever increasing freight rates, and I hope his statement will give us some assurance that his department is prepared to take action to make those principles envisaged by Mr. Pickers-gill become at last reality.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) for setting out a number of questions which

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy
I will do my utmost to answer as thoroughly as I can in the limited time I have available. I am sure he and hon. members will appreciate that this is one of the most complex subjects and, of necessity, a subject of this kind has to be dealt with to some extent at least in generalizations rather than in specifics.
I also have something of a problem as to the priority I give to the several approaches to this problem as they relate to what the hon. member has had to say, because I have heard the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) say that he would like me, quite understandably, to devote the majority of the time I have to the whole question of transportation policy as it relates to the Atlantic provinces. On the other hand I realize, as indeed the hon. member for Moncton has, that there are other issues and other questions which really ought to be dealt with in a debate of this sort.
Let me say at the outset that really what has been established by the hon, member for Moncton is the philosophical question which has been at the root of transportation problems in Canada for perhaps 100 years, or for as long, indeed, as there have been Crown corporations and other agencies of a similar nature which one Parliament after another has affirmed in a more or less independent role. It would be presumptuous of me to tell members with far greater experience than I in this House the history of these organizations, but the truth of the matter is that one government after another, and one political party after another of all political persuasions, have constantly reaffirmed that in so far as direct government intervention or even parliamentary intervention is concerned, that no doubt this was anathema in respect of what might be described, as it was today, an organization of corporations and agencies.
May I give three examples to illustrate what I mean. The hon. member referred, for example, to the Canadian Transport Commission. Some of us were members of the committee which heard the long evidence that led to the establishment of that commission. Some of us were members of this House when, in fact, the National Transportation Act was passed in 1967. Members will be aware of the very great fears which were expressed at that time that the Canadian Transport Commission would not remain what might be described as an at-arms-length organization and would not retain its quasi-judicial aspect, but might be subject to political or other undesirable pressures. Therefore, I have to call to the attention of the House the fact that there is a very clearcut distinction between those matters which can be dealt with by the Canadian Transport Commission under the authority granted to it by the act, and those matters in which I can become involved or the government can become involved, being matters of what might be described as national policy. As long as the National Transportation Act exists, it constitutes national policy in that particular field.
I do not presume today to comment in any detailed way on the propriety or otherwise of the judgments of the Canadian Transport Commission. I do want to point out a few interesting facts in respect of some of the commission's activities in the relatively few years in which it has been in operation. There appears to be an impression abroad, and here I am referring expressly to the work of

the CTC and not to the railways, which I hope to deal with in just a few minutes, that the Canadian Transport Commission has had something to do with cancellation of passenger services. In spite of this impression, which appears to be widespread, the fact of the matter is that since the National Transportation Act took effect in 1967 only about 6 per cent of passenger train mileage in Canada has been discontinued, and this had involved less than 6 per cent of total passenger traffic. A great many hearings have been held and a great many recommendations in one form or another have been made, but in terms of actual passenger train mileage or passenger traffic which has been eliminated or discontinued in Canada, this constitutes something less than 6 per cent over all.
In the case of southwestern Ontario, to which the hon. member referred, it is again interesting to note that the commission did conduct an investigation of the operations in that region. The facts are well known to hon. members and to the public. The decision there came as the result of the fact it was shown that less than 20 passengers were being carried per train on that particular route. Here, once again, I am not going to argue the merits of this decision, or suggest whether it was a wise decision. I am simply pointing out that it was a decision in fact made by the commission entirely within its own responsibility, in which it was impossible in any way, shape or form for the government to have any influence even had it chosen to exercise it. But the hon. member did not say, and I should like to emphasize this, that there are in fact provisions which Parliament very wisely put into this bill which do apply and which have a wide variety of appeal procedures included in them. Several appeals, in fact have been lodged both in this case and in others and in most respects have been disposed of in what I believe to be a satisfactory fashion.
Without spending too much time on this particular point, let me re-emphasize the fact that the Canadian Transport Commission is an independent body deliberately created by this Parliament to carry on a particular function. The suggestion that in some way or other the government or the Ministry of Transport is derelict in its duty because of some judgment of the CTC with which some members may disagree is in fact a misinterpretation of the facts of the matter.


An hon. Member:: Do they do a proper job?


An hon. Member:: They do not.
Mr. jamieson: The question arises whether they do a proper job and then another hon. member says "they do not". These are matters of opinion. I repeat that in cases where it is the judgment of any individual that an appropriate job has not been done, there are appeal procedures and these procedures can be instituted either through the Minister of Transport or the Governor in Council.


An hon. Member:: The chairman is your good friend.
Mr. jamieson: I can assure the hon. gentleman-in the event it was not heard he said the chairman is my good friend and what good would this do-that he should not
June 6, 1972

be surprised if I say I resent most deeply that suggestion if it infers any misconduct on my part or on the part of the chairman of the Commission. I can assure him there is no such thing. There are very rare occasions upon which legitimate appeals against the findings of the Canadian Transport Commission have not in some way been dealt with, either through the Governor in Council or myself as Minister of Transport.
But as I said at the outset, we might also consider the other two elements introduced by the hon. member for Moncton which have to do with the role of Air Canada and Canadian National Railways. Here, once again, one can come back to the creation of Canadian National and read literally reams of declarations, but I think some of the wisest men who ever sat on either side of this House or represented any party in this House have constantly maintained a basic theme which continues in my judgment to be the view of the vast majority of the people of Canada; that is, that there should be a minimum amount of parliamentary intervention in respect of either of these Crown corporations and that there should be virtually no government intervention in the day-to-day operations of these corporations, except through the means provided by the Parliament of Canada, which of course in the case of Canadian National is in respect of only its operating and capital budget and in the case of Air Canada consideration of its capital budget. These are quite clear strictures and quite wise strictures which were placed long ago upon governments and parliaments dealing with these organizations.
The hon. member for Moncton made the comment that the chairman of the board of Air Canada indicated there was a need for a clear definition of the role of Air Canada in terms of its function as a Crown corporation and expressed his regret that the government or I had not been sufficiently precise. He was mildly critical of the fact that I said it took the best part of two years to define what that role was. The difficulty occurs simply because one has to walk an extremely narrow line between what constitutes government policy with regard to a Crown corporation, what constitutes the appropriate form or direction that should be given to a Crown corporation, and what constitutes interference. Having talked about the need for some definition of the role of Air Canada, the hon. member went on to demonstrate, perhaps better than I could, the kind of difficulty this creates. He talked about the reservations system and whether or not this should be changed. Is this something which should be written into the policy in respect of a Crown corporation? He talked about the levels of service being maintained in certain parts of the country. Is this a matter of policy? Is it appropriate that the government should say that services should be, for instance, increased or, conversely, whether some services should be decreased on a particular line?
I suggest it is indeed appropriate, as this Parliament has reiterated time after time, that it is not the role of the government and is certainly not the role of the Minister of Transport to indicate to either of these Crown corporations either one of these courses. Let me try to re-affirm or state what I believe it is appropriate to say in terms of the role of Air Canada. The government believes in the pre-eminent position of Air Canada as the major national carrier owned by the people of Canada and intends to see
National Transportation Policy
that this pre-eminence is maintained. I think the government is legitimate in seeing that adequate levels of service are provided for the people of Canada and that these services are on a par with those available in any other comparable area of the world; in other words, that Canadians are entitled to a very high level of service. Let me say parenthetically-and I believe there is adequate evidence to back this up-I believe Air Canada is today among the finest air lines in the world and that the great majority of Canadians are being served by Air Canada in a way comparable or better than people are served by the service provided in any other country of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: When I travel abroad I find it is only in other countries that one hears the kind of comment I have made now. Perhaps we are too close to the forest, in a sense, to see the trees. The truth of the matter, however, is that Air Canada and the CNR are held up by people in other countries as good examples of a standard of service the public should have and, secondly-this applies to Air Canada-that there is no better organization of its kind in the world and that it is one of the safest. From this point of view I can say this is part of the policy we ought to give to Air Canada. On the basic question, I would simply repeat that what we say today has been said from the days when Air Canada had its beginning as Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is essentially a profit-oriented airline. This is the way it must continue because if it is not profit-oriented in the sense that its executives and its board of directors have some goal of that nature toward which they can work, then of course much of the initiative and drive would go out of the organization. Surely, it has been proven consistently throughout the history of this country that any carrier of a Crown corporation nature that is not designed to achieve a profit will not be a very successful organization.
So, I repeat that this is not simply something being created as of today and that in terms of government policy it has been part of the role of Air Canada from the days when it was created as Trans-Canada Air Lines. This does not mean that Air Canada should make a profit on every single one of its operations, or in fact should be free under its own auspices to withdraw from a particular service or reduce a particular service. It simply means in the totality of its operation that its main objective should be to operate like any other corporation in like circumstances.
Having said that I believe that Air Canada, as a corporation owned by the people of Canada, has a special responsibility to the people of Canada to ensure that services are provided in regions which are not at all times profitable on a particular leg, on a particular run, or whatever the case may be. They do have this additional responsibility. I think it is appropriate for a Minister of Transport to say this in terms of declaring what are the goals and objectives of Air Canada. Given these broad perspectives-I have not dealt with the international field because of the matter of time-it is my feeling that the chief executives and board of directors of these corporations should continue to be free to make this decision. I suggest that if hon. members opposite really think about this matter deeply they will realize that this is a thorough-

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy
]y responsible policy; otherwise, it would not have survived for as long as it has. The reason that it is sensible is surely that we do not want to have these two large corporations become what are in effect political footballs. The hon. member on one side of me talks about a lack of interference or a lack of direction for the CTC and for these other corporations, and yet the suggestion comes from another quarter that perhaps we are interfering too much. It is in trying to achieve this balance that the difficulty arises.
I want to be sure that I have enunciated the policy clearly. It is, (a) that Air Canada is the pre-eminent carrier in this country, owned by the people of this country, and with its main objective to operate for the benefit of the people of this country; (b) that Air Canada's basic motivation shall be to run at least on a break even basis and preferably to make a profit; (c) that it should not make a profit by giving Canadians something less than the best service that they could expect under comparable circumstances in any other country; and (d) that it does not have to make that profit on each one of its routes but simply in totality.


James Aloysius McGrath: (a) is in conflict with (d).


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am not certain that I would agree with the hon. gentleman. I said that (a) it is the pre-eminent carrier but that it is pre-eminent in its totality. I call his attention to the fact-and forgive me if I was not straight in my answer on it-that I am speaking now outside of the international sphere because in order to give a full dissertation on this subject I would have to say that the international routes are also quite important in the sense that they are what I believe makes (a) and (d) compatible. They are compatible because I hope we would have overseas routes that would help on some of these non-profitable domestic routes. In any event, I hope I have given enough here at least to indicate that these are the broad outlines of the policy, and that it is in trying to go beyond it that it is difficult to try to spell it out with any more clarity. I would be grateful to hon. members opposite if they were to indicate their views as to whether or not in fact it is appropriate for the government of this country or for a minister of the government of this country to go very much beyond what I have outlined in terms of giving direction to any one of these corporations.


Mr. Benjamin:: It is a straw man.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Perhaps the hon. member will explain why it is a straw man when he speaks next.
I will go on to say that a third and major element in terms of the transportation complex to which the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) referred is the question of Canadian Pacific, with both its rail and air operations. Here, except for the normal regulatory restrictions, these are private corporations which are entirely free to do what they choose. This, of course, makes again for a very difficult circumstance in terms of trying to outline just where one fits in relation to the other. Hence my emphasis at the beginning on the fact that Air Canada is
(Mr. Jamieson.]
the pre-eminent carrier, and it is our intention to continue to look at it in that way.
I am sorry that time is moving by so fast, but I did want to touch briefly, before getting into the matter of transportation in the Atlantic provinces, on the whole question of regionals, and my hon. friend's continuing difficulty, which quite honestly I am not sure I understand, with getting our so-called regional air policy clear. The regional air policy was declared by me in August of 1968. It is quite specific and I can give the hon. member its rough outlines quite easily. They are, that there are five recognized regional air carriers in Canada stretching from west to east. I do not think I will take the time to go through them; my hon. friend knows them. Each one of them is given a geographical sphere in which it is assigned to operate, and it does so with one other proviso, that is that each one of these regional carriers is provided with access to a large metropolitan market.
Here it will be necessary, to illustrate my point, to name some of the airlines. There is Pacific Western which has Vancouver, for example. It also has Edmonton and Calgary, so that it is in a reasonably good shape in terms of having large centres of population. Transair which operates out of Winnipeg has access to Toronto. Nordair has been given a circle of routes which include access to, for instance, Ottawa and also one or two trans-border routes in order to give it a reasonably viable basis, and Eastern Provincial Airways and Quebecair each have Montreal. So, what we have sought to do has been to define geographically the area in which an airline would operate in a region and also to give it access to some major centre. I think hon. members will know that, by and large, the regional carriers have had within the last two years a major breakthrough in terms of their economic strength and viability and that now almost without exception they are equipped with jet aircraft. I am sure that my hon. friend from Newfoundland would agree that Eastern Provincial Airways has been improving steadily and is now on a par with virtually anything you could find anywhere.


An hon. Member:: Give them more routes.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: If we gave them more routes we would be doing so at the expense of Air Canada, for instance, because remember that Air Canada, being a free agent, also has a right to ensure that its route structure is viable. Therefore, it is the role of the CTC, when competition arises, to indicate which one ought to be given a particular route. Once again, I would wish to have time to go into great detail on this, but I notice that my time is passing and I would now like to turn to the question of the Atlantic provinces transportation.
No subject has had more discussion and, I suppose it can be said as well, more defence and criticism than the whole matter of transportation in the Atlantic provinces. On Tuesday of last week, I met with the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission in St. John's, Newfoundland. I think that the first paragraph of the release which the commission put out following that meeting sums up in a few lines what really constitutes the consensus, and the growing view within the Atlantic provinces, as to what the transportation policy in the Atlantic prov-
June 6, 1972

inces should be. It calls upon the minister, in this case myself:
... to state publicly that the principle underlying any new, modern and flexible transportation policy for the Atlantic region should be to lower the costs of marketing products manufactured in the region by de-emphasizing distance.
I would like to re-emphasize myself that the underlying principle should be to lower the costs of marketing products manufactured in the region by de-emphasizing distance, in other words, the groups to whom I speak in the Atlantic provinces-and by the way, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission is, I am sure you will agree, a thoroughly reputable organization 50 per cent of whose members are appointed by the provinces and 50 per cent by industry, trade, commerce and the like in the area-have come to the conclusion that blanket subsidies, blanket support in whatever form, is not really the solution.
Here, as I undertook to do last week, I would ask your permission, Mr. Speaker, to table the second report of the Federal-Provincial Committee on Atlantic Region Transportation. This report, which I will table when I am through with my remarks upon it, with your permission, indicates two new recommendations. But it might be as well if, before turning it over to the table, I read the first portion:
The first report of the committee was submitted to the Minister of Transport in May, 1970.
As a basis for what has been described as this transportation policy, and the committee was set up to make recommendations to us in this regard, certain recommendations were made and certain things were done. These include the intra-regional subsidy available to both rail and highway transportation, which was put into effect so that trucking would be on the same level as rail transportation. We extended the same kind of help and assistance with regard to trucking on the ferry services to both Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island. In fact, all of the recommendations that were made in the first report of the federal-provincial committee have been acted upon in a positive way. As far as I can determine at the moment, there is none of them not now in effect. Hon. gentlemen opposite are looking at each other in some surprise, but I do not really see anything in that first report that has not been acted upon.
For instance, beginning on October 1, 1970, a 17.5 per cent subsidy on intra-regional truck traffic was implemented, and in early 1971 the intra-regional rail subsidy became 17.5 per cent. Reductions of 25 per cent were introduced for the truck traffic rates on the Newfoundland ferry services, and reductions of somewhat less than this figure have been introduced on the Prince Edward Island service. These were the recommendations. These were acted upon. There were other events of significance which the committee also commented upon, and which related to the over-all policy which the premiers recommended, that is, a highway policy for the Atlantic provinces.
In 1971, we provided $60 million for highway construction within the Atlantic provinces. This, by the way, was a
National Transportation Policy
continuation of and an extension to other measures provided under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. So, it can be seen that we have significantly helped the region with regard to road networks, not only in the last two or three years but over the last ten years. The Council of Maritime Premiers announced standards for truck weight regulations, adopted a standard method of truck licensing, and introduced a standard bill of lading for the three Maritime provinces.
I turn now to the recommendations of the committee in this second report which I propose to table, and I will indicate my intentions with regard to them. I quote:
With the two exceptions noted below, the committee is of the opinion that no serious problems have resulted from a reduction in the intra subsidy from 20 per cent to 17.5 per cent. The committee recommends that the next phase in the planned reduction to 15 per cent be allowed to proceed on April 1, 1972.
Some weeks ago, in fact in March, I announced in the House that I did not intend to accept that recommendation, and did not in fact reduce the subsidy by 2.5 per cent. I did this for two reasons. First, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to consult with the commission, and I did so last Thursday, with a view to seeing if two further objectives can be achieved in the Atlantic provinces, and I am now satisfied that they can be achieved.
For instance, it is our intention that this subsidy of 17.5 per cent or 15 per cent, whichever level it may be at any particular moment, will be paid to the shippers rather than to the carriers. In our conversations with the Commission last week I put it to them that we would like to get from them, and would be prepared to implement any proposal they would put forward, which provided us with an effective way of seeing that the shippers are paid this subsidy directly. This is a key point, Mr. Speaker. There are extreme difficulties connected with it. It is hard to figure out just exactly how the payments can be transferred to the shippers. Nevertheless we believe, and the Commission believes, it can be done. I have indicated my willingness to do just that, and we are prepared to do it on the basis of recommendations provided by the Commission.
A second and most important point, which is a reflection of what I believe to be a quite comprehensive policy, is the fact that we are moving toward something which is essential if we are to see sound industrial development in the Atlantic provinces. So far as I am aware the Commission has accepted an invitation which I extended to them, to come up with a plan with regard to selectivity in connection with certain forms of imports of items necessary to the manufacturing process in the Atlantic provinces.
For example, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of industries in the Atlantic provinces which have 75 per cent of the ingredients necessary for their manufacturing processes available in the area, and which have to import possibly 20 per cent or 25 per cent of their ingredients. I have said to the Commission that we would like to get from them, and will act on their recommendation, a scheme whereby a form of selective subsidy especially aimed at industrial development is provided for those raw materials which it is necessary to bring into the region. I have also stated that we are prepared to look at the extension of such a subsidy to water borne transportation,

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy
because often it is a bulk material which is involved and water borne transportation is the logical way to carry it.
Let me say, in case hon. gentlemen opposite from the Atlantic provinces may feel that all is lost, in the sense that nobody is thinking about these problems, that the committee was quite frank in indicating the basic problem was not one of dollars and cents in terms of expenditures. They recognized there had been extremely significant expenditures both on roads and highways and on various forms of subsidies-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the minister but his time has expired, and I believe the order made by the House was that no additional time be granted.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, two or three times in each session of Parliament the subject of Canada's national transportation systems comes before the House. Historically, for many years-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is this a point of order?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Yes. I appreciate the order made by the House, but during his remarks the minister did say that he hoped to table that second report of the federal provincial agency, from which I thought he was taking some of his remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: That was my understanding also. The minister did ask that it be tabled at the end of his remarks. Has the minister leave to table these documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, for many years the problems of Canada's national transportation systems have remained pretty well the same. There has not really been any fundamental change in the problems, and I suggest there has not been any fundamental change in the cures or solutions put forward by either of the old line parties which have taken turns in governing the country for the past 100 years.
I want to say to the minister that there is no argument at all with him, or with anybody else, about Parliament, cabinet or himself interfering with the day-to-day operations of the railways and airlines in our national transportation systems. No one would suggest for one moment that this House, or he himself, should attempt to run the railways and airlines on a day-to-day basis. That has never been the question or the problem. That is why I say that that is a strawman. No one is suggesting that this minister or this government do that. What is at issue is that unless we have a fundamental change in the policies, in the framework within which our national transportation systems must function, then we will continue to have the problems we have now.
The minister speaks about the Canadian Transport Commission, and about how it has lived up to the requirements of the National Transportation Act. I do not doubt that for a moment. But, Mr. Speaker, that act was designed to militate against the best interests of Canadians in different regions. It was designed to militate in

favour of something that the minister himself said was a profit oriented transportation system.
When one speaks of the CTC, one is reminded of the story about the skunk and the chickens. When you appear before the CTC and want a hearing, file an appeal, make an application on behalf of a railway or an airline, of course the Commission goes through all the formalities required by law. But it is something like what happens when a skunk gets into the chicken coop. The skunk takes several chickens back home to his family. When they get there the chickens say, "We want to lodge an appeal." The skunk says, "Fine. We will give you a proper hearing." The chickens then get a proper hearing, according to all the rules and regulations laid down by skunks, and at the end the chickens still get eaten.
The same thing applies when the CTC hears applications for the abandonment of rail lines and for the closure of agencies. Last winter scores of agencies were closed in western Canada. Even the personal representations and briefs, presented by members of this House and members of the other place to that august body, the CTC, were given short shrift. Within a matter of days the railroads were given the go ahead to close scores of agencies. In effect, Mr. Speaker, we were eaten again. I submit that until there is a fundamental change in the policy and the framework within which our national transportation systems operate, we will continue to have this problem.
Our country is 4,500 miles wide, is nearly 4 million square miles in area, but has only 22 million people, and yet we continue to put up with a transportation system that might work in a country one-quarter that size with at least ten times that population. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the geographic reality is that not only are we that large in size and small in numbers, but we refuse as a nation to face up to the other reality. We are a northern nation and seem to be incapable of acting accordingly. We build roads, houses and automobiles meant for one or two thousand miles south of here. We operate transportation and communication systems that still cannot cope adequately with our geography and climate. One could cite all the defects of rail transportation through the Rocky Mountains this past winter. To hear the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang) talk, one would think that this was the first winter we ever had rock or snow slides. Our transportation system is incapable of coping with our geography.
In so far as transportation is concerned, we are a nation that has succumbed to economic rules and conventional practices that other nations gave up a long time ago. We continue to abide by these rules and practices whose example and history neither meet our needs nor suit the requirements of a northern country as vast and thinly settled as Canada. If we are to remain a united country because we can communicate easily and cheaply from one end of it to the other-without "Ma Bell"-United because we can transport our people in terms of numbers and costs that any Canadian can afford, united in that we can move goods from Halifax to Vancouver at freight charges that apply equitably to all Canadians, then one of the first priorities for a united and independent Canada has to be
June 6, 1972

a publicly owned, financed and operated transportation and communications system.
This means for example, Mr. Speaker, a stove manufactured in Nova Scotia, laid down in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Regina or Vancouver will contain in its selling price the same freight charges. It is lunacy to continue to advocate industries, particularly manufacturing, for the maritimes or the prairies or rural Quebec that cannot compete with industries, manufacturing or any other kind, that have the geographic and transportation advantages of being located on the outskirts of Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver. What I am suggesting here, Mr. Speaker, is a form of equalized freight rates or subsidized rates to a greater degree than we now have, or a combination of both.
Even more important is how we are able to transport people within our nation. Surely, it betrays some kind of national schizophrenic tendency or death wish when it is made cheaper for a Canadian to fly from Montreal or Toronto to Europe than from Halifax to Vancouver or Newfoundland to British Columbia. How ridiculous, and embarrassingly so, we have to appear in our own eyes when our national air system can offer us economical excursions to the southern U.S.A. or the West Indies or Mexico, in mid-winter and yet cannot offer the same kind of cheap fares into the northern parts of six of our provinces in summer or winter, or, if they did, could not accommodate us once we got there. If one were trying to get a job, going to see a loved one, or just getting to know our country and our fellow Canadians better, whatever it might be, our transportation system would almost be a handicap.
To accomplish or even approach these goals we must first, as a nation, radically revise the National Transportation Act which perpetuates criteria that are not only outdated but have never met the requirements of the people in a northern nation as large and thinly settled as ours. To be more precise, the Transportation Act is responsible for the uncertain future of passenger service in this country and, in my opinion, it seems to have been deliberately designed to encourage the railways to get rid of their passenger trains. The railways want to abandon passenger service-they have made no bones about it-and to do so they have only to prove to the satisfaction of the Canadian Transport Commission that the service is losing money to get a ruling either that abandonment can be proceeded with, or that it cannot, in which case the government will subsidize losses to the extent of 80 per cent.
The bias in the act is clearly in favour of discontinuance. It implicitly discourages the railway from looking beyond its profit and loss statement in determining passenger policy by making it impossible to obtain a subsidy on a service without applying to abandon it. The act puts the emphasis on the strictly "economic", meaning profitability, as opposed to the broad social effects of abandonment. The Transportation Act places emphasis on profitability in our transportation systems-with service to the public and fulfilment of Canada's transportation needs receiving only minor consideration, if any at all.
Policies of successive governments in this country have been outdated, fragmented and short sighted. The major flaw in present policy and law is the continuing applica-
National Transportation Policy
tion of the "free enterprise", competition and profitability criteria to the operation of our national transportation and communication systems. Mr. Speaker, I have said this before in this House and I make no apology for repeating it. Railroads, airlines, telecommunications are all essential public services and, consequently, are public utilities, yet we continue to operate a system where profitability is the over-riding consideration when arriving at the kind, quality, frequency and efficiency of our various transport systems. Railways and airlines are necessary services, which puts them in the same category as streets sidewalks, sewer and water systems, or our postal system. No one, not even a raving "free enterpriser" would suggest that sewer and water systems, or streets, sidewalks and highways should make a profit, or that there should be competition in these areas. They are essential public services, meeting basic public needs and the public is willing to pay for those services both directly and indirectly.
Attempts in recent years to get our postal system to the point where it "pays its own way", to quote a late and unlamented minister, ended in a debacle witnessed by every member of this House. But that was an excellent example of how the application of so-called "free enterprise" concepts to essential public services not only does not work, but does a disservice to our country and our people. We in the New Democratic Party believe we must have policies and laws that put service before profits in the area of transportation. We believe that since our national transportation systems are an essential public service, they should be publicly owned and operated.
It is as ridiculous to continue operating our national rail and air transportation systems with competing railways and airlines as it would be if we had two or three competing water systems under our streets, or two or three competing post office companies. With three or four exceptions, railways all over the world lose money on passenger business, or on all their operations, whether they are publicly or privately owned. But in a number of countries, notably France, where the railway is publicly owned, they have been concentrating on the upgrading of passenger services, and are being rewarded with increasing numbers of passengers. While France and many other countries subsidize their railways, their people enjoy fast, modernized, frequent passenger service at modest fares. In Canada we lose both ways, we subsidize our railroads and receive ever-decreasing service for our money.
I have received a publication, Mr. Speaker, as I trust all other hon. members have, called France Actuelle which is published by a private association of French businessmen. It does not come from some of the hard-nosed socialists or radicals who want to nationalize everything. In the issue of November 1, 1971, an article on the front page reads:
The French now take it for granted.
But American and other foreign visitors since the situation in their own countries seems so otherwise, almost always remark with astonishment and pleasure on France's modern railroad system and equipment, with their high speeds in safety, cleanliness, comfort, excellent moderate price meals en route and general superior service.
Further on the article reads:
The French, although born gripers, complain very much less about the service they get on their state-owned and operated . . .
2898

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy railroad system than the American public does about the quantity and quality of service it gets (or doesn't get) from some of the privately owned and operated . . . railroad lines in the United States.
And further on:
The French railroad service does not pay its way-no nation's railroad system does. In 1969, the French railroads "lost" $354.8 million-compared, for instance, to the Italian railroads' 1969 deficit of $504 million, and the Japanese railroads' $453 million.
However, Mr. Speaker, those losses were paid by those nations as a whole. As a result of the public paying, both through fares and subsidies, they receive superior, fast, efficient and comfortable passenger service. The record of these operations, compared to the dismal showing we make in our nation, should cause us to take a more serious look at the kind of national transportation policies we have.
A number of steps must be taken to start putting our transportation system in a situation where Canadians in all parts of the country will get fully modern, efficient, integrated transportation services at fares and rates that are more equitable, and that they can afford. I would like to suggest a few changes.
First, we should make basic changes in our transportation policy and legislation that would put service and meeting transportation needs ahead of profitability. As long as the government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) advocate that Canadian National Railways and Air Canada should operate on the basis of profitability first, we will continue to have the kind of service we have had and it will get worse. As long as we continue to treat both Canadian National Railways and Air Canada unfairly in terms of private competition, they will continue to have the difficulties they now have and they will get worse. While I am not one of those who advocate state ownership of everything, I submit and the New Democratic Party believes that in the areas of transportation, essential public services and utilities, private enterprise has no place. In fact, it is inefficient and cannot meet all the transportation needs of any nation. We not only have the evidence of that in our country, but in scores of others. There is no need or place for private enterprise in our railway system or in our airlines.
The National Transportation Act needs to be amended to ensure service and the meeting of transportation needs must take priority over profitability. Unless we make that reversal in our present policy, regardless of what the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) might say, I submit these problems cannot be solved by continuing on the same track we have been on since 1867.
My next point covers an amendment that I will be moving. My colleagues and I have considered this very carefully. We do not in any way want to detract from the motion of the official opposition, but I submit that this amendment will merely be an addition to their motion. We hope it will point out one area in which the government and Parliament of Canada should move, that is to bring under public ownership the Canadian Pacific Company. I deliberately refer to in it that way because I understand that is now the official name of its railway and subsidiary operations. Only in this way can a change in the priorities

of the CPR be brought about. This issue has been before Canadians for many years, and it has been a policy proposal of our party since the early thirties. That policy was accepted by our party in 1933. This reminds me of the time in the early thirties when there was talk about taking over the CPR. A farmer asked the CPR station agent for the time. The agent said "It is three o'clock CPR time." The farmer said "My God, do they own that, too!" That octopus needs to come under the ownership and control of the Canadian public.
We have a number of other proposals. If I had more time, I would elaborate on them. One in particular would be removing the financial handicap of the CNR by having the government take over the nearly $2 billion long term debt, making the government a full shareholder on behalf of all Canadians and relieving the CNR of this heavy interest load.
Another proposal would be to bring about by stages, to as great a degree as possible, equalization of rail and air passenger fares and freight charges. Other proposals are putting an end to any further eroding of Air Canada routes and fully integrating a publicly owned CP Air into the present Air Canada system. Why do we need five regional carriers?
In view of these remarks and the remarks which my colleagues will make, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a comma, and by adding immediately thereafter the following words:
"and further, as a step toward meeting this end, the House calls upon the Government to give consideration to the introduction of legislation providing for the public ownership of the Canadian Pacific company, including its railway and ancillary operations, with the objective of providing Canadians with efficient, integrated rail, air, water, communications and interprovincial trucking systems that give priority to service over profit."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. After looking at the amendment and Section 3 of the National Transportation Act, which is referred to in the amendment, I am prepared to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member. Unless hon. members wish to express a different opinion, I will allow the amendment to be put.


Mr. Steven Otto (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas), who moved this motion, had in mind the type of transportation policy recommended in the amendment moved by the hon. member by Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). I am sure the Conservative party did not intend this motion to include the nationalization of the CPR. Indeed, if it went no further, I imagine someone from the New Democratic Party would move that the whole kit and kaboodle come under the Saskatchewan government and that would be the death of the whole works, considering the experience with nationalization in that province.
The minister stated that the purpose of the act and the policy is to ensure that the railways operate with a profit motive. I am not so sure that they have operated with a profit motive. Indeed, if we examine the CNR over a period of years and the accumulated debt. I do not think we could say that there was much profit involved. It
June 6, 1972

shows a fault not only in the people of Canada, but the railways, which could be referred to as a sort of tunnel vision.
One hundred years ago it was said that we must have a railway connecting this great country from coast to coast. In exchange for this railway, the government of the day said, "we will give you all kinds of goodies, including land, oil rights and timber limits." This was an enticement. I wonder how many of us have considered the change in the structure and emphasis that is now necessary after 100 years to the Railway Act and the structure of the CNR and the CPR.
Originally it was the intention of the government to put in a line at any cost, and at that time it was a great undertaking. But today we need to re-examine the role of the railway companies, to re-define their obligations and their privileges. Consider what happened only 50 years ago. Canada stood, then, in a very favourable position. The new, developing nations had been able to accumulate little capital. Germany, Japan, great nations now, were either in a turmoil politically or lacked the capital resources necessary to enable them to compete with us, so close to the United States with our relatively advanced techniques. Rail transportation was therefore not so important as far as we were concerned. We could set profitable rates and still enjoy a competitive edge over our rivals.
That picture has changed. Under the Marshall Plan after the world war, and on a continuing basis through international development funds since then, we, together with other countries have provided capital and techniques to less developed countries with the result that nations which are small or which enjoy a favourable geographical transportation area can outbid us and outprice us. The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) spoke about Japan. That is, of course, a small country; a plant established anywhere in Japan might as well be on the sea-coast. Hon. members all know that if we set up a plant, say, in Winnipeg it is a long and costly affair to send the goods to the coast to compete with countries which enjoy easier access to the sea-and transportation by water is still the cheapest form of transportation and will probably continue to be so for a long time.
In Germany a plant can be established 180 miles up the Rhine from Wilhelmshaven. But what happens? The barges are owned by the government, the barge masters are paid by the government and the charge levied against firms for bringing their goods down to the seacoast amounts to pfennigs, a few cents per ton. In other words, because of the geographical course of the Rhine every industry in Germany might as well be right on the sea-coast. This is what is happening in the world today and we, as a member of the United Nations and as a contributor to the International Development Fund are supporting the new nations and equipping them to compete against us. However, under the GATT Agreement there is a sanctimonious idea that we dare not take any new tangent to solve our transportation difficulties and place us in at least a competitive position equal to that of other nations.
National Transportation Policy
As a result of this tunnel vision which the railways have exercised, along, to an extent, with a great number of other Canadians, there is a good deal of hesitancy about subsidization, or, more generally, about approving government interference with the conduct of the railways. All of us need to re-examine this question and ask ourselves whether the Transport Commission is fulfilling the role which Parliament assigned to it, whether the role of the commission should be re-defined, and whether the whole of the transportation Act might not be revised so as to re-define the purpose of the railways. We might ask ourselves whether automation ought not to be considered. Right now we are following a vicious circle. Despite all the yearning among hon. members opposite for a new policy on the part of the companies, the minute railway managements introduce a newer system we find the work force backing off and saying: we shall lose our jobs. So it is a vicious circle. The companies are saying: these lines ought to be abandoned, but if they are continued the government will subsidize them.
We might further ask ourselves whether there is room for the railway companies to provide transportation within metropolitan areas. If the hon. member for Moncton was correct in predicting that in a few years 94 per cent of the Canadian people will be living in the cities and that most of the goods will be produced and consumed in the cities, what will the railways do? Outside the urban areas they will have no purpose at all. So we should consider whether or not the railway companies-any overland transportation-can find a useful place within metropolitan city structures. My feeling is that following a redefinition of the whole purpose and obligation of railways and intercity, metropolitan involvement should be part of their role.
It is obvious that if the railways lose money-and they are losing money on their transportation services-they will become increasingly involved in the business of hotels, office buildings, oil wells, minerals, exploration companies and so on. But is this really fulfilling the function they were authorized to fulfil? The companies say if they are losing money on railways they have to find the money somewhere else. Unfortunately, it is not very practical to use profits earning in one direction to cover substantial losses in another. It does not make sense. This is why I say we should redefine the function which the railway companies should perform.
For example, I have no doubt that bearing in mind the subsidy we are providing to both railway companies, and the opportunity for availing ourselves of new techniques, including automation we could send every person in this country anywhere he wants to go in Canada, and ship every ounce of material or manufactured goods across this country free of charge. Taking into account the fantastic subsidies we are providing and the room which exists for the introduction of new techniques and methods, I believe we could probably, for a nominal amount, provide a free transportation system throughout Canada. It would then be possible, say, for Winnipeg, Edmonton or the northern areas of Ontario, to produce goods which could be sold competitively with goods produced in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. In these circumstances we might witness a reversal of the growth of the metropolitan areas to which the hon. member for Moncton
25316-60}

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy
referred. If people could do the same kind of work outside a metropolitan area, and if transportation difficulties were minimal, they would hesitate before moving into the big cities. It might be that a change in our thinking with regard to overland transportation would bring about a halt in this movement toward larger and larger cities with all the problems that arise from them.
The hon. gentleman spoke about France and its wonderful transportation system. There is no reason why our railways could not provide a good transportation service in metropolitan areas as a substitute for automotive traffic-the great headache. The hon. member of the NDP will realize that the reason people use a car is that they are willing to pay for the extra square footage they receive and for the comfort. If you provide a substitute system you must also provide the same comfort. It is not enough to say that during the rush hour people must hang on to a strap because trains are crowded. This is why people prefer to take their own car. However, if you tell people that they can have a compartment, then they will pay for it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You want to crowd the roads instead.


Steven Otto: The hon. member opposite who made that remark said that this would not be fair, that people want equality. In other words, they all want to be crowded. We must discover why it is that people travel by car. Then we should introduce a new railway system, be it a monorail system or some other type. We should give the railways increased rates or whatever it is, but they should then be obligated to provide a service that the people will use. This means research must be done. They cannot finance this research out of their present earnings because they do not have any. The railways did introduce a new turbotrain running between Montreal and Toronto; they lost a little money, it did not work perfectly and so they forgot about it. Within the structure of the transport department there are facilities and money for research. We should emphasize to the railways that we will give them the money that is required to introduce a more efficient system.
In conclusion, since my time is almost up, may I say that if the motion had been phrased in this way, that the Canadian people should consider a new role for the railways, then it would have been acceptable to me. But I do not think you can blame the government for having the same type of vision that all Canadians have, and I include the hon. member.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak to this motion, may I briefly refer to the first part of it, which reads:
This House regrets that the government has failed to develop the National Transportation Policy pursuant to section 3-
Section 3 of the act provides:
It is hereby declared than an economic, efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation-
-be established. That act was passed in 1967 but the government has done very little to provide the leadership

necessary for an adequate transportation system in all parts of Canada that makes the best use of all modes of transportation. This is what I will attempt to prove in the 15 minutes available to me, which is a very short space of time.


Steven Otto: The act also says an "economic" transportation system.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: An economic, efficient and adequate system to serve the people of Canada. We have a population of 22 million stretched across the country a distance of 4,500 miles. This is why we need an adequate system. An economic and efficient system might mean one rail line running between Montreal and Toronto. Such a line would be economic and it would be efficient, but would it be adequate for a country the breadth of ours? No, it would not, and this is the point I want to make.
What has been done to develop the port of Churchill? Certainly, not very much, yet much grain could be moved out of that port. A lot of grain out of what might be called the central prairies could be moved through the port of Churchill at about 11 cents a bushel saving to the prairie farmers. This year the price received by the farmer for his wheat has been the lowest in the last ten years. In 1969 wheat tonnage going through the port of Churchill amounted to 656,000. In 1970, it amounted to 738,000 tons and in 1971 it was down to 617,000 tons, in round figures. Has the government been encouraging importation of goods through that port? Not very much! Has the government established larger warehousing facilities at the port of Churchill to handle other produce coming into that port for what might be called the central prairies? No, it has not.


Steven Otto: What about Vancouver?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I will come to Vancouver in a moment. Has the government established a longer insurance period for grain moving out of and through the Hudson Strait? No, it has not. The government did encourage some international insurers to take a look at the port, but nothing came of it. The government has not provided any leadership to develop this port.
Much has been said about modes of transportation, yet section 3 of the act has not even been implemented. That section refers to the trucking industry, and whether that industry can compete favourably with the railways on the prairies. Under section 3 of the act, regulation of all modes of transportation will not be of such a nature as to restrict the ability of any mode of transport to compete freely with any other mode. We all know that under the Motor Vehicle Transport Act, which was passed in this House in 1954, there are all kinds of restrictions on trucking companies in the provinces that inhibit them from competing favourably with the railways. Some interesting figures have come to light recently regarding feed grain assistance given the trucking industry in the province of Quebec.
I have before me the Canadian Livestock Feed Board annual report, in which table 15 clearly outlines that from Thunder Bay to Chicoutimi the rate for rail transportation of feed grain was 92 cents per hundredweight in 1967. Since feed grain assistance was given to trucking firms,
June 6, 1972

the rate has progressively gone down, until in 1971 it was 55 cents a hundredweight. The rate from Thunder Bay to Ottawa in 1967 was 73 cents per hundredweight, but this rate has also progressively gone down until in 1971 it was 41 cents per hundredweight, and this purely because of competition.
We have not progressed one little bit in implementing section 3 to bring about greater competition on the prairie provinces. Let us look at the recently announced statement of the government regarding diversifying rail movements to the west coast. The government announced in the House, with all the fanfare that it could muster, that it was going to spend $5 million in developing the port of Prince Rupert. I should like to quote from the committee proceedings No. 9 for Thursday, May 25 last. As reported at page 9:63 I asked this question:
I would like to question you briefly on the concept of the $5 million for Prince Rupert. This is a very worthy project and so on and so forth. What disturbed me about the announcement is that tagged along with it came the statement that we would invite suggestions as to how to develop this port.
I suggest the government might just as well have said that it was going to spend $100 million-which might have got a few more votes on the Prairies-because the government does not even know how to spend $5 million. Eventually, the government well might. In reply, the minister said:
On the question of the $5 million, basically my conception of that is that it would probably be used in the first instance, if it was deemed to be clearly necessary-in other words, if conditions proved it-probably to increase the bulk loading, and especially the grain handling facilities in Prince Rupert.
So, the minister is saying that the $5 million would probably be used if it was deemed to be clearly necessary. He does not know whether it will be clearly necessary. At the time of the government's announcement, the port of Vancouver was in great difficulty as a result of snow problems in the Rockies. The minister thought that the best way to divert shipments would be to suggest development of the port of Prince Rupert. He threw out the political bait of $5 million for Prince Rupert, and then admitted he had no idea how to spend it. Then, he continued:
But in other words, if there is a demand for more grain storage at Prince Rupert, then the funds have been allocated so that that grain storage can be provided.
It is the old question of which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Do you provide facilities at Prince Rupert or do you wait until that port is cluttered up with grain, then acknowledge that grain is being shipped out there and that another port, a dock or storage facility should be built? This has been my complaint in respect of the government of the day in the field of transportation. It has failed to provide leadership. It is not good enough to say we will spend $5 million, the government must say it will spend $5 million for this thing, that thing and another thing. The government must say it wants the railroads to move grain to that port and commodities from that port.
When we are dealing with Pacific rim countries we must remember that Prince Rupert is closer to those countries than the Port of Vancouver and other ports on the west
National Transportation Policy
coast. What is the situation in Prince Rupert? In 1962 and 1963 the government built elevator storage there at a cost of $620,000. Government expenditures there have gone downward sharply in each year since then, to the point that last year only $57,000 was spent by the federal government. This does not really encourage much development at that port. There is one major storage facility for grain with a facility to load ships for grain and one for general material such as lumber and so on. The Prince Rupert port is relatively open to storms originating in the Pacific Ocean. Perhaps the government could spend part of its money building more facilities there for the handling of grain. It should also encourage railway companies to use that port.
What has the government done in respect of grain handling facilities at the Port of Vancouver? In 1967, the federal government spent $17 million or $18 million at that port, and its expenditure has gone down since then to $6 million last year. In comparison, federal government expenditures have been in the area of $19 million to $20 million for the last four or five years at the port of Montreal. The Department of Transport Has suggested it will develop a new concept called a userp concept. What has happened in respect of traffic in Vancouver as compared to traffic in Montreal? The traffic in Vancouver has sharply increased and it is now handling 27 per cent of all tonnage in and out of Canada.


Mr. Deachman:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I notice the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) applauding. Let me remind him that the government of which he is a party member has sharply curtailed its expenditures at that port. Let me remind hon. members of the competition that the Port of Vancouver has from that port to the south, namely Seattle. I am sure the hon. member is aware that Seattle has developed its port to the point it now has 10 or 11 containerization facilities, while Vancouver is in desperate need of a second containerization facility. Because Vancouver does not have the facility, it is continually losing trade to the Seattle port. It is cheaper for Japanese goods to come into Seattle by containerization, where they are handled quickly and efficiently and moved to western Canada or central Canada. If you talk to the people in the Vancouver Port Authority, you will find this out for yourself.
I was pleased to note the other day that the government intends to contract for the construction of 2,000 hopper cars. I referred to this need in a speech I made in respect of transportation of March 8, and I am pleased to see that some of my suggestions are being accepted. We have another problem in respect of our rail system throughout Canada. Much of our Prairie rail line is up for abandonment, and our second and third lines cannot handle a full hopper car because of the weight of our trackage. Most of these lines can handle only a 2,000 bushel car, but a hopper car can carry 3,000 bushels. There is not much point in building hopper cars if the trackage is not heavy enough to carry them fully loaded. Has the government clearly enunciated a policy of upgrading our secondary rail lines to handle maximum loads before allowing main line abandonments? I suggest it has not, but this should be done.

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy
There has been a great deal of talk about the concept of Crowsnest Pass rates and how terrible they really are, but even some members of the Liberal party from western Canada admit there is a problem. It has been suggested the railway companies are not making enough money and that is why they are not interested in handling grain. I have often said, as have other hon. members, that there is no Crowsnest Pass rate in respect of the movement of cattle. Last fall the companies did not look after that business very well. There were reports of cattle cars arriving in eastern Canada with as many as 10 or 20 head of cattle dead or dying because of the poor handling by both railways, the CPR and the CNR. There was no freeze on freight rates and there have been seven or eight freight rate increases since the 1967 National Transportation Act came into effect.
What is the situation in respect of Crowsnest Pass rates and are the railroads losing money? It is interesting to make a comparison of those years in which the railroads moved the most grain for export, particularly as to the profit and loss picture. In 1966, the railroads handled a record amount of grain for export, some 815 million bushels. The CPR's profits were never higher. They had a net profit of $50 million on freight that year. If the railway was losing money moving grain and handled twice as much as they normally handle, one would expect their profits to be down, yet in 1966 the profits were higher than in any of the 10 previous years. What is the case as far as the CNR is concerned in the movement of grain? Before the interest on debt is taken into consideration, in other words the net operating profit or loss picture of the CNR for 1966, the profit was $24 million. That profit has not been higher in any one of the previous 10 years.
In 1971 the estimated movement of grain, that is barley, wheat and other grains for export, was 800 million bushels, nearly equal to that for the year 1966, yet in that year the CPR showed a profit of $45 million while the profit for the CNR in the same year was $21 million. In 1970, the CPR's profits were $38 million and the CNR's profits were $14 million. One could go back over the years, but I am hitting the highlights to point out quite clearly that the argument that they are losing money in the movement of grain on Crowsnest Pass rates is wrong. If they were losing money, then the more grain they moved the lower their profits would be, and that is not the case.
I see my time has nearly expired and you are about to rise, Mr. Speaker, so I thank you for this opportunity of expressing my feelings.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to take part in this discussion of our national transportation policy. There is a pressing need in Canada for some major changes in our over-all approach to transportation problems. As an important trading nation in both industrial goods and raw materials it is absolutely essential that our national transportation system provide quick and cheap access of goods and people to every part of our nation.
Canada needs an integrated transportation policy which would take into consideration the four major means of transport; air, rail, road and water. The lack of an adequate policy and program by the present government is apparent in all fields of transportation. Our rail service

for passengers and all types of goods is anything but satisfactory. Discriminatory regional freight rates are allowed to exist in our country and nothing is done to remedy the situation.
Moves are being made by the B.C. government and certain economic interests to siphon off part of the coal haul in the east Kootenay area to a United States railway line. Again, there is silence and lack of federal policy and direction on what could become a major communication problem in every part of Canada. The building of the Kootenay and Elk railway should be blocked by the federal government, if necessary by an amendment to the Railway Act. In addition, this government should lay down a national transportation policy which would ensure that goods and materials for shipment or export would be carried wherever possible over our own Canadian communications system. I should like to give in more detail the serious economic effect which the building of the Kootenay and Elk railway would have not only on the economy of the Kootenay area but on the economy of Canada in general.
If this type of railway construction can be licensed provincially, then something is seriously wrong with our Railway Act. This contemplated railway cannot in any sense be classed as a provincial railway. It is merely an appendage to a United States railway called the Burlington Northern, and should be wholly under federal jurisdiction. The building of the Kootenay and Elk railway has been backed by the Social Credit government of British Columbia and by the previous Social Credit government of Alberta. Both governments sent legal counsel to the Canadian Transport Commission hearing in Ottawa in the fall of 1970 to back up the case presented by the Kootenay and Elk railway.
It is difficult to understand why any provincial government would take such a stand in view of the serious economic effect the loss of jobs and income would have on the general economy of the area. If an alternate route to the Pacific coast were required it could and should go over the existing Kettle Valley line which closely parallels the United States border. This line should be upgraded and used as an alternate route for the coal haul and as a possible return route for the empty coal trains. There is no need for further sellouts to foreign transportation systems, for the existing rail facilities in the area can handle the present coal haul and also any increase in future exports.
Right from the start the Kootenay and Elk railway was never intended to be a provincial railway in the true sense of the word. It was a scheme to establish a competitor to the CPR for the transportation of coal from the east Kootenay coal fields to the Pacific coast via an United States railway line. It was never intended to be a wholly intra-provincial railway because it was not to operate as a common carrier. It was not to have any rolling stock or equipment of its own. That would all belong to the Burlington Northern.
What a ridiculous situation it is for the government of British Columbia to claim that this could possibly be a provincial railway. It is nothing but an appendage to a
June 6, 1972

United States railway system and as such should be wholly under the control of the federal government. As Chief Justice Hall pointed out in the recent decision handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada, no one disputes the jurisdiction of the province of British Columbia in incorporating a railway to operate wholly within its boundaries, but it is equally clear that the province has no jurisdiction to incorporate a railway which is, in its inception and concept, international in character. He goes on to say when the application to incorporate the Kootenay and Elk Railway was made the incorporators knew that it was to be an appendage to be used entirely so far as international rail traffic was concerned.
I should like to deal with several of the economic aspects of this particular Kootenay and Elk railway and point out how it could severely affect the whole transportation policy of Canada. It seems to me, if the federal government intends to allow the building of a small spur line in one province, such as we see in respect of the Kootenay and Elk railway, and allow it to haul bulk cargo, in this particular case coal, down to the United States border and over a United States communications system to the Pacific coast, then there is nothing to stop similar lines being built in every province of Canada. What, for example, is there to stop another link being built in a prairie province or in all the prairie provinces to connect with a United States railway line to the south so that Canadian wheat could be hauled to eastern or western points. What would stop a similar link being built to carry bulk cargoes of potash over United States railway lines? All I need mention in so far as the interior of British Columbia is concerned, is that there is nothing to stop tens of thousands of cars of lumber going down these spur lines into the United States when in my frank opinion the cargo should be hauled over our existing communications system. This would not only affect the province of British Columbia. It would affect the entire transportation system of Canada.
We find that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and the federal government have kept mighty mum in respect of this particular rail link. The position our party has taken, which I strongly endorse, is that we should stop the building of the Kootenay and Elk railway, even if this means amending the Railway Act in order to make certain that construction does not go ahead. Very recently the Corporation of the City of Revelstoke, a number of other municipalities and organizations in our area, and in fact in the whole interior of British Columbia, have been sending briefs to the Transport Commission, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the Minister of Transport, and, of course, to their local M.P. in opposition to the building of the Kootenay and Elk railway. They know what will happen. Every unit train which is diverted south of the border will mean that 60 or 70 Canadian jobs will go down the drain. In a time of high unemployment we are fed up being faced with the possibility of a further erosion in the employment picture so far as the whole Kootenay area is concerned. This is what is disturbing these people. It is not a case of them being selfish or greedy. They realize jobs mean a large payroll in the communities in which they live.
We and the people in these communities are aware of the severe economic loss which will take place in respect
National Transportation Policy
of Canadians generally if this line is allowed to go ahead. There is another aspect of this which I believe I must draw to the attention of members of this House. I am not thinking merely in terms of jobs so far as Canadian railway workers are concerned. I am thinking of jobs related to this whole matter of diverting trade to a foreign railway line. If the Kootenay and Elk railway is built, the sponsors have already stated that they are going to use the equipment belonging to the Burlington Northern railway. What does this mean? It means loss of Canadian jobs. Let me put it in another way. The locomotives that haul the coal trains are built in the city of Montreal by Canadian workers using Canadian material. Every coal car in the unit trains, and they are 70 or 80 cars long, is built down in Nova Scotia in the Hawker-Siddeley plant in an area where there is extremely high unemployment, and again they are using Canadian material. The steel for the railway line which has to be replaced quite frequently comes from Ontario, from Sault Ste Marie, Hamilton and the other steel plants in the province. All kinds of communications equipment is manufactured right here in Canada, and even the ties that we put under the rails come from our British Columbia woods. This is why I contend it is not only a problem of employment in the Kootenay area. This is a national problem, and we have to look at it nationally. If the construction of this link goes ahead, and we do not take a firm and decisive stand on it, then similar links will be built in other parts of Canada for the hauling of bulk products, again with an erosion of the type of jobs which I have just mentioned.
It is for these and for other reasons that we are asking the federal government to set down a crystal clear communications policy for Canada. Wherever possible, bulk cargoes and goods should be carried over existing Canadian communication lines to the points of export. There is nothing wrong with that. We have been subsidizing the railway systems for years on their coal hauls in an effort to make them pay their way. Just when we reach a point at which they might make some profit through the lucrative coal hauls, there is talk of diverting a part of this trade to a foreign rail line. I want to say that this does not meet with any amount of approval so far as the residents in our area are concerned. We are strongly opposed to it and we are asking the federal government to do something about it.
So far as this rail link is concerned, I do not want to see it built to haul coal. In fact, I do not want to see it built at all, even as a common carrier because the very same principle would apply. If it is built as a common carrier we are going to see a big chunk of our lumber go down the Windermere valley over the American lines and on to the various parts of the United States where lumber is taken to market. This will reduce the railway crews working on the Prairies, because this lumber now goes as far east as Manitoba and down into the United States through Emerson.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be very brief because many of the things that I will be saying

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy in the next few minutes have already been said in the House over the past few years, and it is only because the motion of the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) was put forward this afternoon that I believe some facts should be emphasized once again.
May I start by saying that I agree substantially with the motion put forward by the speaker for the Progressive Conservative party, the hon. member for Moncton. I say this because in the past week, along with other members of the Standing Committee on Transport of the House I have been visiting western Ontario. We attended hearings in the city of London, in Chatham, Stratford and the town of Walkerton. With respect to the speech made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) earlier this afternoon, made in a very capable manner, in my opinion he defended a rather weak case. I must tell him that, without exception, not one of the briefs that were presented to us in each of the four places took the view that he took this afternoon.
He stated that the Canadian Transportation Commission, which is responsible to the government of Canada, has been doing a good job so far as passenger transport is concerned, particularly in western Ontario. I must remind you that the Parliament of Canada, through its national transportation policy, states:
-an economic, efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the users of transportation and to maintain the economic wellbeing and growth of Canada.
Having quoted this, may I ask the Minister of Transport the following question through you, Mr. Speaker: how can the transportation system be "economic, efficient and adequate" when in certain areas in the province of Ontario there is no transportation whatsoever, by rail, by bus or by air? The only form of transportation that is available to the people in those areas is the automobile. Of course, you and I know that not everyone in Canada drives an automobile. They may be senior citizens or they may have no wish to drive a car, or else they may not have the desire to drive into a large city like Toronto where it is very difficult for other than professional automobile drivers to get around these days. There are many municipalities in western Ontario which simply have no mode of transportation whatever.
I refer you to a front line story in the Globe and Mail of a week or so ago which referred to the situation in the town of Chesley, a beautiful town approximately 120 miles from the city of Toronto. It would be far faster for any resident of that area who does not have an automobile to travel on a horse than it would be to travel by bus or by train. There are simply no trains, and the bus service is so deficient in that area that one simply cannot get out of the town. I respectfully ask whether this is an adequate and efficient transportation system so far as the town of Chesley is concerned. The same is true of many towns and cities in that area. May I respectfully point out that in the great city of Galt, a city of 70,000 people, there is not one single passenger service going either in or out of the city, and this has been so for some months now.
This afternoon the Minister of Transport said the following in defence of the Transportation Commission: "Only about 6 per cent of passenger train mileage in

Canada has been discontinued" in the past few years. What he failed to say was that the hierarchy of the CNR and the CPR have applied for the discontinuance of the passenger service. It is difficult for me to believe that only 6 per cent of the passengers have been affected by the discontinuance of the service. While this may be true, nevertheless I tell you that as soon as the CNR apply for the discontinuance of 100 per cent of the passenger services they will get permission from the CTC if we, as Parliament are not prepared to do something about it.
The hon. Minister stressed that the CTC must be independent in order to do its job, and that there must be a minimum of interference from the government and Parliament. But, Mr. Speaker, where the CTC does not do a proper job we, as members of this House, have an obligation to interfere. We are not here to stick up for the policies of either the CPR or CNR. We here to stick up for the people in our constituencies. The fact is that in constituencies like my own, transportation facilities are not adequate and something must be done about them.
On many occasions it has been said in this chamber that the railways have an obligation to the people of Canada because many years ago the railways were granted certain rights, given large sums of money are huge tracts of land. As a matter of fact, at the hearings we held in Walkerton a few days ago, we were told that many of the municipalities in that area had granted substantial sums of money to the CNR, in return for which the railway promised service in perpetuity. On numerous occasions it has been pointed out that the CPR got a cash grant of $25 million from the people of Canada and 25 million acres of land. In return, it agreed to provide service to the people of Canada in perpetuity. Mr. Speaker, what happens to a farmer in my riding if he gives a mortgage on his farm and cannot pay it? You and I know the brutal facts of life. He loses the farm.
I point out to you, Sir, to the CTC and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) that the railways signed a deal to accept so much money and so much land, in return for which they would provide certain services. Those services are not now being provided. As Parliament, we have an obligation to the people of Canada to see that the railways stand by the bargains they made, and honour the signatures that their officials affixed to certain documents many years ago. It is not just small municipalities which are suggesting that trains be placed back on the tracks in order to provide passenger service. The province of Ontario submitted a brief to the Standing Committee on Transport only a week or two ago, in which one of the strongest recommendations was that passenger trains be put back on the tracks again. I heartily agree with that recommendation.
The other day I read in the financial section of the Globe and Mail that the President of the CPR had stated he was pleased to see that the people of Canada seemed to have gotten out of their heads the thought that railways necessarily had to provide passenger service. Mr. Speaker, not only do the railways have a moral obligation to provide passenger service, they also have a legal obligation to provide it. I am sure that if the president of the CPR or the president of the CNR signed a deal with some
June 6, 1972

of their mining or gas companies in western Canada, they would expect the people on the other side who signed to stick to their bargain. We expect the railways to stock to their end of the bargain with us. This does not mean that we will not discuss a more economic way of providing passenger service. Of course, we will. As legislators we want to do things as economically as humanly possible. But we want to see the people provided with transportation, particularly in areas where there is no bus service or air service. Passenger trains can provide service, and we must interfere with the decision of the CTC on this matter.
I respect the judgment of these gentlemen. A hundred years from now it may be proven that they were right. But at this point in time the people of Canada, particularly those with whom we talked last week in western Ontario, disagree with these gentlemen of the CTC. It costs us a great deal of money to provide passenger service to the people of Canada through our railway systems. But we spend large sums of money on many other causes. The CBC is frequently criticized for its large annual deficits. But the CBC is used to provide television and radio service in both languages to remote parts of Canada. Under no circumstances could such service to the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and the northern parts of the provinces make money. We have accepted the fact that all our citizens deserve this service.
In the same way I have no doubt in the world that the western farmers deserve the 2,000 extra grain cars that are being provided for them through the Canadian Wheat Board at a cost of $42 million, even though I have not yet been told about the financial arrangements. This is a necessary service. I would be the last to criticize it, but I point out that we in western Ontario also deserve something. Factually, Mr. Speaker, 40 per cent of the taxes of all Canada come out of the province of Ontario. One of things we deserve in return is a passenger service, if not by rail at least by bus, or by some other method, provided as efficiently and economically as possible under the dictates of this Parliament and this government. This is something we have not got.
The last part of the sentence I quoted from our national transportation policy read, "it is essential to protect the interests of the users of transportation and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of Canada." It is absolutely impossible to promote the economic growth and well-being of Canadians in western Ontario if we do not have adequate transportation facilities. For this reason I think the hon. member who presented this motion this afternoon was on the right track.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that today is an opportune time to have this debate in the House of Commons following the hearings we held in western Ontario last week on the inadequacy of rail passenger service and bus service, as mentioned by the previous speaker. Yesterday in the House a motion was moved under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Welling-ton-Gray-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Howe) that alluded to the lack of passenger service, to the hearings that were held last week throughout western Ontario, and to the fact that adequate bus service has not replaced the rail
National Transportation Policy
passenger service that was discontinued in 1970. That motion, which I seconded, reads:
That the government immediately issue instructions to the Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway to re-establish the passenger rail services which were discontinued in November, 1970, in western Ontario.
Federal authorities in conjunction with the province of Ontario and the municipalities involved immediately undertake studies which would involve public hearings with a view to determining a minimum railway passenger train network as defined in relationship to the most economic, efficient and adequate transportation system required.
That motion was turned down by the government, Mr. Speaker, and I might suggest in all kindness to the hon. member who just finished speaking that it looks as if he has his work cut out for him in caucus tomorrow. I hope he takes advantage of the opportunity to work on his colleagues, because I know where his heart is and what his feelings are.
At the hearings in Owen Sound in March, 1970, about 95 per cent of the people making submissions said that they believed the railway passenger service should continue and that it should be upgraded. In spite of this, the Canadian Transport Commission seemed to pay more attention to the submissions of the bus companies and the railway companies because they made this ruling:
This committee finds that the highway system serving the points in this region of Ontario served by the passenger-train services is excellent and is probably as extensive as could be found in any comparable area of Canada. The committee further finds that the existing bus services in the area constitute a satisfactory alternative public transportation service and the committee accepts the evidence adduced at the hearings that these bus services will be adequate in capacity and will be increased in frequency as required by traffic demands resulting from discontinuance of passenger-train services.
The committee agrees with the submissions of both railways that discontinuance would have a minimal effect on other passenger-train services. The committee has considered the effect on other passenger carriers and, as explained above, has concluded that the bus services can adequately serve the additional traffic.
If some of the members of the railway transport committee had been with us last week when we attended hearings in western Ontario, they would have found out that their conclusions were incorrect. A brief presented by the Wingham Business and Professional Women's Club stated that it takes 4j hours to go to Toronto by bus and takes 6) hours to return, but by car it only takes 2 to 2) hours travelling within the speed limit. At weekends the bus takes a different route and less time. The brief pointed out that the main problems with the bus service are that it is slow, it is uncomfortable, there are no washrooms on the buses and there is no place to get even a cup of coffee. It is no wonder that the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) said it would be just as quick to use a horse-if you had a fast horse, it would be a lot faster. This sort of thing was brought to light in almost all the briefs that were concerned with the passenger service in that area since the railways abandoned their service; indeed, some were concerned with the type of service that had existed even when the railways were operating.
Another reason for the necessity of adequate transportation in that area was presented by the reeve of Bayfield,

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy
who is the chairman of the planning committee of Huron county:
The rail passenger service depreciated until finally in 1970 the service to Huron county was stopped. No matter what the economics of the service dictated it is apparent to the people of this area that while parts of this country have had its services increased ours has suffered in the transition. The roads were adequate at one time, therefore as the rail passenger service deteriorated the people turned more and more to the use of the roads by automobiles. Thus, as the highway traffic multiplied and rail passenger service was withdrawn, the "time of travel" increased for the people in Huron county.
It is quite obvious to anyone who uses the roads to any extent that they are becoming more and more crowded, particularly on weekends, and that the time of travel has almost doubled. The brief continues:
To this area "time of travel", whether by road or rail, has become very important. We must compete with other areas of the country for industries and tourists to enhance our economic base. The cost of transportation has increased, but also the requirements for transportation has increased in all areas and especially in Huron county. Our location requires a speedy means of entry and exit for our industries, our citizens and our visitors.
The brief goes on to say there is evidence that transportation facilities, particularly for people wishing to use train services such as students and senior citizens, are not adequate. At the hearings in Walkerton, the room was packed with senior citizens who depend on rail service to provide transportation to the larger centres.
It was apparent from many of the briefs that people feel the railways have deliberately tried to discourage them from travelling by train. To travel from Sarnia to Toronto, it is necessary to go to London and this service is still operating. People from Huron county must go to London or Stratford to get the train, and both are about 45 or 50 miles away. It was brought out that people often have to stand in baggage cars from London to Toronto. When a representative of the CNR appeared before the committee, he denied some of these allegations but the people who travel these routes seemed to know what it was like. Apparently, although it would be a simple matter to leave extra cars in London to be used when there is a big crowd going from London to Toronto, this is not done and only a few cars are brought in from Sarnia. If there is not enough room for all the passengers, those who do not get on the train must get to Toronto as best they can. It would seem to be a simple matter to leave extra cars in London and have personnel there to serve them. It appears that when one of the official cars transporting some of the top brass of the railroads arrives in London, there is lots of help to move the cars around but for the ordinary paying passenger there is not much assistance.
Some of the advertising done by the railroads is not very helpful, and possibly even harmful. They seem to do their advertising in spurts of about two weeks and then forget about it for the rest of the year. They should continue to upgrade their service and let the people know what kind of service is available.
If there are enough people using the rail service, the application is not for discontinuance. The railroads must apply for discontinuance of passenger service in order to be granted a subsidy under the act. That act was passed in

1966,	shortly after I came to this House. I remember well when the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill set himself up as chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission. The act states that the railroad must apply to discontinue the service. The commission can then rule that the service shall continue, and the railroad is granted a subsidy of up to 80 per cent of its losses.
I believe this is what the railways were looking for when they discontinued the service out of Huron county. They put their case so well before the Canadian Transport Commission that the commission allowed them to drop the service: everyone was fooled. I do not think there would be any danger of the service being dropped if the railways provided the type of service that people want. There would be more passengers. Instead, the railways are trying to get rid of passengers.
I have a lot of material here, Mr. Speaker, but my time is limited. I would also like to point out that there are no baggagemen to assist older people and women with children. City maps should be provided to passengers to assist them when they arrive at their destination. There is no decent food service. We have already heard about the stale sandwiches and lack of coffee. The railways have done away with dining cars. It used to be a pleasure to travel by train, but many of the things that made it a pleasure are no longer available.
I wish to refer to a brief submitted to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications by the province of Ontario. Some of their recommendations which I heartily endorse are as follows:
(1)	Passenger rail services which were discontinued on November 1, 1970, should be re-established immediately. Decisions involving equipment to be used and the scheduling of such reestablished services should be made in consultation with the residents of the communities involved. It became clear during the discontinuance hearings that inadequate equipment and inconvenient schedules played a part in the losses reported by the railways.
(2)	Federal authorities in conjunction with the province of Ontario should immediately undertake studies which would involve public hearings with a view to determining a minimum railway passenger train network as defined in relationship to the most economic, efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost.
(3)	A moratorium should be placed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. Under the order of the House there is no provision for an extension of time allocated to hon. members.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I am most happy to speak on the motion moved by the Progressive Conservative party and which reads as follows:
This House regrets that the government has failed to develop the National Transportation Policy, pursuant to section 3 of the National Transportation Act, and has failed to take measures to revitalize and rebuild Canadian transportation for present and future needs.
If I take the floor on this matter it is simply because I have noticed the deplorable state of the transport services in our region, especially those intended for passengers. I think that for a long time, and more so in recent years, the CN authorities have done their utmost to modernize freight services in our region. Surely it was quite profit-
June 6, 1972

able to set up the freight service since our region is a regular gold mine for the province of Quebec.
Every day, trains of up to 100, 125, 140 freight cars carrying all kinds of freight: copper, iron and aluminum ore, lumber, newsprint, are seen rolling out of the Sague-nay-Lake St. John region.
This means, Mr. Speaker, that our area is certainly not contributing to the deficit of the Canadian National Railways and I do not intend to place too much blame on those in charge of freight movements because they have set up servo-centres and developed an efficient system. What I do have against them is their having systematically snuffed out all interest on the part of the public in passenger transportation.
When you consider the progress which the area has achieved in all fields of endeavour, development of industry and the increase in population, you realize that as the population is increasing the railways are reducing their services. We have reason to wonder about so many things. After all, when the Canadian National ends up with a deficit, as it often occurs, the taxpayers are the ones who have to make it up, but without getting any service in return.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words particularly on the passenger service. I was just about to send a letter to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) but, since I have the opportunity of denouncing the action of the Canadian National Railways, I am going to do my duty as a member of Parliament and set forth a situation which is no longer tolerable in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area with regard to the passenger and sleeping-cars services. I want to talk about serious discriminatory steps taken in our area by the new CNR experts against the users of sleeping-car facilities. The responsible people in the CNR are very much aware that our area ranks first when it comes to freight transportation.
The reward offered us for this participation is the cancellation or the slow death of our passenger service.
We are told that the number of passengers is decreasing and I am convinced of it, Mr. Speaker. However, I add that if large centres were given the same kind of service, not only would the number of passengers decrease but there would be none left between Montreal and Ottawa or Montreal and Toronto.
The management is forgetting that the CN is above all a transportation service and not a service created to open new hotels throughout Canada. It is precisely this poor service given by the Canadian National that everybody is complaining about.
Passenger cars date back to the years 1925 or 1930. We shall soon be celebrating their 50th anniversary. Besides being decrepit, they are badly maintained and sometimes have a musty smell. Some of them, Mr. Speaker-I must tell the House about this-were full of cockroaches. Lastly, all the museum specimens were sent to the Sague-nay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. It happened only once in ten years that we got a fine 80-seat car, but authorities, realizing their error, hastened to send it out west.
National Transportation Policy
How many fights we had to put in order to keep our sleeping-cars or what is left of them! That on the Dolbeau service has simply been suppressed and that on the Chicoutimi service has been reduced to its simplest expression. And to further discourage passengers, a rate increase has just been imposed which took everyone by surprise. It took effect on June 1, which was last Thursday.
Mr. Speaker, I want to express objection to this increase in the sleeping-car rate. I wonder who approved this increase. Imagine that for a lower bunk, a person must pay $14, and two persons must pay $21 for the Montreal-to-Chambord trip, a distance of 250 miles.
When they say that meals are included, they are shamelessly lying, because when you leave Montreal at 8 or 9 o'clock, you already have had your dinner, and when you reach Chambord at 6 in the morning, you have your breakfast in the station restaurant. For that matter, there is no dining car on the train to Chambord, Chicoutimi, Dolbeau, just a small lounge and counter.
Coming back to Montreal, as the train reaches Central Station at seven o'clock in the morning, you must have your breakfast there, for it is too early for the lounge and counter to be open.
These so-called meals which are paid for but never served are an outright robbery. In addition, a single person must pay $26 for a roomette; a couple travelling together will pay $35; and if there is a child with them, the rate is up to $41. And all this, to travel over a distance of 267 miles in a small musty roomette.
Let us hope that the C.N.R. management is made up of honest people who are comparing prices in western Canada or for a trip to Toronto over the same distance. It is a scandal.
One must also add the price of meals when travelling West; passengers have a right to curse the CNR and all its little bright boys. Can anyone truly believe that our people are not as good as those of other provinces and do not deserve equal treatment? We are not asking for better treatment, but for equal treatment.
If an hon. member wants to go on a primitive trip, he should go to Lac Saint-Jean in the winter on a CNR train. He is sure to feel he has gone back 50 years; in fact, on boarding what is called a coach, a new 50-year-old coach, he will freeze to death or be too warm, and if he asks somebody to do something about it the answer will be: You must wait till we reach Montreal. Is it not incredible!
I have seen women with their winter coats on wrapped up in blankets. They were freezing because the heating system of the train was not working.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Are you sure that is the reason?


Mr. Gauthier:: And at other times-I will ask the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) to make a short trip in my area during the winter; he will see how interesting it is.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I would be willing to go.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: He will realize how interesting it is, especially when he has a look at the cars; he is used to travel

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy
west aboard some nice ones, because the railway company keeps all its best coaches for trips in western Canada.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: They are comfortable.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Yes, it is true. Indeed, I am quite happy for westerners, but I would hope to find similar conditions in our area. The same thing happens throughout Quebec. It seems as if the CNR is keeping for that province its dirtiest and oldest equipment to disgust its passengers and keep them away.
It is sometimes suggested that the tracks are responsible. Now, this cannot be true, because an engine which can draw freight trains of 150 cars at 40 or 45 miles an hour could easily draw a small passenger train with only 4 or even 5, 6 and 8 cars.
But such is not the case. We leave Montreal at 8 p.m. and after having travelled 250 miles, we reach Chambord between 6.30, 7 or 8 a.m. sometimes at nine o'clock. Why? We must wait and let a freight train pass while the passengers are waiting. That is the new system of the CN's technicians.
I have seen a train on a side-line having to wait almost three hours for a freight. That is very interesting. So interesting in fact that many passengers getting off the train were heard saying: They have had me once but I will never let it happen again. Mr. Speaker, that is not a way of attracting customers and organizing a profit-earning transport service. One feels that the managers would rather stay in their offices in Montreal and carry freight only.
What about maintenance? Formerly, there was one office employee for five railwaymen. Today it is the opposite: for one railwayman there are five office employees doing nothing, lying on their wall-to-wall office carpet. And nobody looks after the railroad. The rate of derailments was the highest ever this winter. Why? Because of the lack of maintenance. The maintenance staff was reduced by two-thirds in our area and the rest of them cannot cope with the work.
On the other hand, the ranks of bureaucrats are swelling.
I have seen three foremen spend two hours watching a workman at his work. Examples as ridiculous as that do exist.
I believe it is about time for the government and the Minister of Transport to assume their responsibilities and require more fair-mindedness from the CN management. Moreover, the next time they ask us to make up their deficit, let us think about it twice before doing something. If we cannot get reasonable service from that Crown corporation which cannot manage to get out of the red and keeps asking the people who receive no service to foot the bill, let us sell it to private enterprise. I believe it will be the best way of giving satisfaction to people in our area as well as the rest of the province of Quebec, because the same critics are being heard on the southern shore of the St. Lawrence. One can be forbearing for some time but there is a limit to everything.

I am surprised to find that other hon. members keep silent, put up with anything and seem to deem it satisfactory. The situation is worse than ever. If this keeps up within two years nobody will want to board CN trains for they will simply be disgusted. I hope that these remarks will reach the ears of the CN officials.
I would have much more to say, but since my time is limited to ten minutes, I shall conclude my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I wish to remind the hon. member that his time is not limited to ten minutes, but to twenty minutes. Therefore, he still has a few minutes to conclude his remarks.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A while ago I was told that I was not allowed 20 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. In order to clarify the situation, I might say that since the hon. member is speaking on behalf of his party, the rules allow him twenty minutes.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for bringing this to my attention. Once again, I simply wish to say that if we could blame the government for not voting the necessary credits for track maintenance, we might be inclined to believe that it is too poor to finance the Canadian National Railways. However, such is not the situation now.
During the last year, we have replaced almost all the tracks and so we now have a perfect line. There are still weaknesses in some sectors and I feel that the worst is too big a volume of freight for the present line. Of course, we do not have an intercontinental line, with rails designed to carry the weight of 125 cars loaded with iron ore, copper or wood. A single train of 150 cars is out of question. This explains the many derailments of freight trains this winter, and the situation will remain the same as long as the maintenance personnel is not increased.


Mr. Blouin:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: With the unanimous consent of the House, we can call it six o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Since it is six o'clock, I now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to say a few words tonight on the opposition motion submitted by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas).
June 6, 1972

I have listened carefully to the hon. members who spoke this afternoon and perhaps they have a right to criticize some aspects of our current transportation system. Obviously mistakes are committed and things are not always perfect.
However, it seems that what has been done over the last five years in the area of sea, land or air transportation is not appreciated.
Obviously, some problems are still to be solved and some will always exist in such a big country as ours with a relatively small population. But to say, as the opposition did, that this government has developed no long-term transportation policy is, in my opinion, complete nonsense.
On May 25 last, the able Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) informed the Committee on Transport and Communications of his department's objectives as to the reorganization of our national ports through a new policy and as to assistance to small airports in isolated regions.
On December 10, 1971 the minister announced that the funds available to small airports would be trebled through a new assistance program.
Pilotage has been reorganized into four separate authorities thus giving greater autonomy to Canada's regions.
The Arctic Transport Agency which cooperates with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the construction of a second international airport for the Toronto area, the construction of the new Sainte-Scholastique airport which is due to open in 1975; these are some of the achievements of the present government.
Mr. Speaker, I have only mentioned a few objectives from amongst many. It is known that the Department of Transport's budget for the current fiscal year amounts to $467 million, including $82 millions in loans. It is an impressive budget with impressive aims.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to revert to the point I made a few moments ago, that is the assistance to smaller airports, for example. In my riding, which is quite large, there are some isolated and far-away communities which cannot be reached either by road or by rail. Air transport is the only available means in winter and sea transport in summer.
In co-operation with the Minister of Transport we have studied a project for the construction of major regional airports. In co-operation with senior officials of the Department, this project has been examined, and tenders having been invited, the work has begun on some of these regional airports which, I am sure, will provide at least during the winter months, adequate service to the people I am privileged to represent.
I would like also to point out, Mr. Speaker, that much has been achieved in the maritime field. Obviously, this is not fully appreciated, but in this field, harbour facilities have been improved; they have been updated through adequate loading and unloading facilities, particularly with regard to containers.
National Transportation Policy
This afternoon, I heard the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) say that the Department of Transport would have to expand considerably harbour facilities at Churchill. Of course, I have nothing against Churchill, but as I understand the remarks of the hon. member for Crowfoot, the federal government would have to expand the Churchill harbour facilities, at a cost of several million dollars.
We know-and the hon. member for Crowfoot should know it as well-that the port of Churchill can be used for only three months a year or so. Therefore, I do not see how the federal government could make that port better suited to navigation than it is at present, even by expanding existing facilities.
The hon. member for Crowfoot also mentioned the importance of seaports. I listened to him with great attention as he said that Vancouver harbour was the largest seaport in Canada. I would like to tell him that we also have some very important seaports in Eastern Canada. I would like to mention here the port of Sept-Iles in my constituency, which in 1970 was the most active in Canada as far as the tonnage of goods handled was concerned.
The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) is cheering with good reason. Indeed, we had the opportunity to go on a trip to Sept-Iles together with the committee on transport and communications a few years ago, and the member thus had a chance to visit that important seaport. Following that trip, recommendations were made by the committee on transport and communications, and I am happy to say to this House that most of the recommendations of the committee, which was composed of members from all political parties, have been, if not implemented, at least accepted for implementation a few years from now.
In 1970, the port of Sept-Iles shipped 28,600,000 tons of iron ore, making it the busiest and most important port in Canada.
Obviously, much remains to be done, but I know the Minister of Transport will read the recommendations which have been made to him, especially those of the committee on transport and communications. He can study them and see to it that they lead to the construction of ports as important as those of the Pacific coast and eastern Canada, ports that are equipped with far more modern facilities.
Transport by railroad was also discussed. In the huge riding I have the honour of representing, neither the Canadian National, the Canadian Pacific nor any other railroad belonging directly or indirectly to the state, serves the people.
Still, we do have a railroad system which is unique in its way in that it is almost circular and runs over a distance of more than 600 miles from the St. Lawrence inland. I am thinking of a private railroad, which is kept by the mining companies that use it to transport iron ore. I say this because that railroad is isolated and it is not subsidized in any way by the government. However, there is heavy traffic and I know that the government gives assistance to those companies in connection with public security and

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy cost control. But an enormous amount of iron ore still continues to flow every day from that vast area.
The iron ore of the area is delivered at Sept-Iles at the rate of about 164 cars every two hours, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which represents as I said a short while ago approximately 28,600,000 tons a year and makes my small region the biggest exporter of iron ore in the world.
One is surprised at times when I quote those figures. I did it in committee and I was asked whether I had verified my figures, since 28,600,000 tons did not make us the biggest exporter of iron ore in the world.
However, if you add the 12 million tons of iron ore that are delivered each year 40 miles west, you get a total of about 40 million tons, and this is how you get figures that make us the world's largest exporters of iron ore.
Mr. Speaker, I say this so that my colleagues may understand that these gigantic developments, in so far as iron ore and mines in particular are concerned, are huge investments made at an unbelievable rate.
Of course, we are still in need of other suitable transportation means, in particular in the eastern part of the St. Lawrence north shore. But I trust, thanks to the cooperation I have received for a few years from the Minister of Transport as well as a few senior officers of his department, that we shall succeed in achieving our objectives and provide to the people a fairly suitable service.
In the lower north shore, the Department of Transport has to subsidize maritime transportation, so that the people get a better service. About $1 million are required each year in subsidies, which can be renewed every five years or so.
This enabled a shipping company, during the summertime, to serve all those small communities along the shore, from Sept-Iles to Blanc-Sablon, that is over a distance of 500 miles.


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


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes at my disposal I would like to comment on the freight rate situation. In some cases I believe the freight rate policy has worked to the detriment of western Canada. Western railway freight rates have been a topic of controversy ever since the Crowsnest Pass agreement of 1897. The railways were entirely responsible for the settlement and development of the Prairies and of the interior of British Columbia in the last part of the last century and the first part of this century. Yet once their initial role as a land colonizer was finished, the railways continued to dominate the west. It is my submission that this domination by the railways today is all-pervading in western Canada.
Many people say that we are overstating the role of the railways in western Canada. I do not agree. If anything, the effects of the railways on every facet of western life have been downplayed. I consider the railways and their policies to be responsible to a large extent for the lack of
[Mr. Blouin.J
western development, and because of this the conduct of the railways will always be a number one political issue in western Canadian politics.
I might add that this issue was one of the main causes for what I consider to be growing alienation among westerners. I would caution the powers-that-be not to ignore this growing feeling of western alienation which is sometimes expressed in bitterness. It is a condition which arises out of neglect, out of eastern domination and opt of a feeling, which is justified, that we are not developing to our fullest potential because of lack of consideration for all parts of the country.
One of the main factors involved in manufacturing in secondary industry is the cost of delivering the product to the market. Because of the present freight rate structure a competitive disadvantage is put on western secondary industry. This manipulation of freight rates is in effect a subsidization of eastern industry in that its products can be shipped to western Canadian markets at rates which often undercut our local manufacturers and in some cases go as far as to drive them out of business. A good example of this is the processing of rapeseed into meal and oil.
As we all know, rapeseed is a newly developed crop in Canada. Processors of rapeseed on the Prairies have discovered that they have lost their competitiveness in this business because the freight rates allow bulk rapeseed to be shipped to eastern Canada, processed there, shipped back to western Canada and still undercut the local manufacturer's price. At the present time, western processors are testing the validity of these freight rates in court action in the city of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. I consider this to be pure discrimination in favour of eastern interests. It is just one of hundreds of examples. What I find most disconcerting is that basically the same principles for western freight rates apply today as were agreed to in the Crowsnest pass agreement of 1897. In the intervening period of 75 years, conditions have greatly changed in the west but we are still subjected to the same basic rules.
The purpose of the 1897 agreement was to provide a method to ship grain out of the west at reasonable rates and to supply the colonists who were opening up the country with the consumer goods they needed. This was all part of our national policy. This agreement has always been a good precedent for government control of freight rates for grain and its provisions have kept down the cost of shipping grain so that these products could be most competitive.
It must be noted that the railways are still making profits, at the present rates, for shipping grain despite the fact that they have made repeated attempts to have the grain freight rates raised. It cannot be said that grain freight rates are being subsidized as are the rates for eastern manufactured goods. The railways are not required to warehouse grain as they are with respect to manufactured goods. They do not load or unload the cars. And grain constitutes the largest volume of any commodity hauled: it moves in bulk, by full carload of maximum weight, over long distances and by large trains. Although the railways did face increases in certain costs of their
June 6, 1972

operations, many of these costs were offset by better technology and mechanization.
Improved methods of transporting grain have resulted in substantial savings. The tonnage per mile is now much greater. Fewer trains, smaller crews and lower operating costs will now move the same volume as was transported 20 years ago. This is not to say that grain transportation is operating at all times on a satisfactory basis. Rail tie-ups and lack of organization often result in lost sales and tie-ups at our export terminals, resulting in demurrage charges that are paid by the farmers and not by the railways. I think that we in western Canada should look forward to the appointment of an independent railway controller to co-ordinate the various facets of grain movement and of agricultural produce generally from western Canada.
It must also be noted that railways have increased their profits by increasing the rates on grain for domestic use, which is not subject to the rates set out in the Crowsnest Pass agreement. An example is the rate structure for grain moving from Carman, Manitoba, the town from which I come, to Vancouver, British Columbia. In 1960 the rate per hundredweight of grain for export was 34 cents. Today it is the same price. However, the rate on grain for domestic use has gone up from 91 cents per hundredweight to $1.28.
It should also be noted, Mr. Speaker, that on many occasions in the 1950s and 1960s considerable pressure was put on the government and the then board of railway commissioners to have an upward revision of the freight rates for export grains. However, the railways could not prove that they were not already making large profits under the existing rate structure. Further, freight rates for grain are within the sole jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. Because of their success and the profits on export grain transportation, it is my contention that these rates should remain the same.
I wish I could say the same for other freight rates. As I have already said, conditions have greatly changed since 1897. The west, although greatly reliant on agriculture as a prime industry, is in a state of transition. Our cities have grown; we are close to vast and rich natural resources; we have a skilled labour force. We are struggling to take advantage of these assets. Diversification is the only answer to relieve the west from the ups and downs in world grain markets and poor years in agriculture. Yet we are being held back by external factors. One of these, in my opinion, is the discriminatory freight rates in favour of eastern interests. This is a subtle protectionism and is contrary to the spirit of the free trade provisions of the BNA Act.
In the west the railways have us over a barrel, Mr. Speaker. There is no effective water competition to serve the prairie provinces. Truck competition tends to be more competitive over short hauls for manufactured goods produced primarily in Ontario and Quebec than on the longer hauls of raw materials in western Canada. I might say that we could have effective water competition if the government would develop the port of Churchill to its full potential. We in the west are victims of what the railways call captive status. There are thousands of examples both of spectacular disparities and modest disadvantages
National Transportation Policy
affecting the general structure of freight rates. What recourse do we in the west have in these cases of discrimination? There is very little recourse, and what there is, is under the auspices of the National Transportation Act of
1967.
That act supposedly provides a criterion for appeal and an investigation method for any accusations of discrimination. But in order to seek compensation or revision of the freight rates one must show that there is a deliberate act or omission by a carrier in the establishment of rates that will endanger the public interest. Further, for relief under the act a shipper must show he is captive to railway shipping only for goods shipped in quantities of less than one carload, or 5,000 pounds. A shipper must apply to the commission to fix rates at a more equitable limit based on a complicated formula.
However, this whole process results in hearings which are expensive and lengthy, and they cannot be termed an adequate method of determining freight rates. The inadequacy of the 1967 act has been responsible for the comparatively modest number of rate hearing applications to the CTC in the last five years. I can give several examples of how these discriminatory freight rates have affected Manitoba industry. The freight rates for iron and steel products, canned foods, livestock and a variety of other products which are shipped to northern Manitoba are good examples of the wide differences in freight rates.
The distance from Sault Ste Marie to Ottawa by rail is only six miles less than the distance from Selkirk to Gillam. The rates on the eastern run are one-third less than the rates on the run from Selkirk to Gillam. Rates on iron and steel products from Selkirk to Vancouver are identical to those from Montreal to Vancouver, although the latter run is twice as far. I could list dozens of more spectacular examples. The general trend, however, is more subtle but is to my mind just as devious. On the whole, rates to and from Manitoba and within Manitoba are approximately 15 per cent above rates in other parts of Canada. I have and always will consider this situation deplorable. The rail transportation system in western Canada should make an attempt by basing its freight rates on all other rational factors besides captive status, which is the state in which all the western region outside Vancouver finds itself.
Considering the tremendous effect that the railways have on our lives in western Canada, Mr. Speaker, I have come to the conclusion that we must investigate new transportation policies. Perhaps an independent body composed of all interested parties to look into discriminatory freight rates and tariffs would be a realistic approach. I think this must come if we are to have equity in all parts of the country.
In conclusion, I believe that the freight rate structure is maintained primarily to benefit central Canadian industry and transportation companies. Tariffs and railway rates are not conducive to diversification of industry and western development. I should like to ask how long the federal government and eastern commercial interests expect western Canada to suffer silently this gross inequity.

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, some members in this House may realize that I have recently inherited an airport in my riding to be called the Pickering international airport, I presume. As this is directly related to transportation policy, I should like to say a few words which I hope the minister will take into consideration.
First of all, the airport proposal obviously has opponents and supporters and I am sure each one feels that he has pretty good reasons.
Those who oppose it do so because they feel that the need has not been established. Many feel that other transportation facilities could relieve the congestion that exists at Malton airport, that transportation problems can be solved through rapid transit systems and STOL aircraft to handle short flights, of less than 500 miles. They presently comprise approximately 50 per cent of the air traffic at Malton.
Many people feel that if this kind of thing were done and STOL aircraft were developed quickly, the need for the new airport would not exist. Other people oppose it on the basis of its close proximity to metropolitan Toronto and the fact that the proposed location would have an enormous impact upon the further urbanization of the Toronto region. We could end up with a de facto extension of Toronto to the Oshawa area.
All these people have a right to question the decisions being made by advisers to the Department of Transport and the bureaucrats. I am not saying that the department is wrong; I do not know. I do not have access to enough information to enable me to make a definitive statement in this regard. However, these people have a right to their reservations and a right to be heard. If this government is to live up to the expectations of participation that it has created, then I think we must take appropriate steps to see that these voices are heard.
When the new Expropriation Act was passed by this Parliament it was felt that a great step forward had been taken which would allow people about to be expropriated under federal jurisdiction to have a voice in the deliberations. Under the Expropriation Act, hearing officers are appointed. They are intended, in effect, to be the eyes and ears of the minister and to hear the complaints of those who would oppose a particular project. It is rather strange, however, that the hearing officer himself has no right to make any recommendation; all he can do is hear the complaints and report back to the minister. To many it would seem to be reasonable to expect that the Expropriation Act would give the hearing officer the right to make recommendations.
I suggest that the appropriate minister or indeed the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) in this particular case, ought to make it clear that he would have no objection to a hearing officer recommending what should take place. If he is not willing to do that, then I think this House should give consideration to amending section 8(4)(d) of the Expropriation Act. This section reads:
-within 30 days after his appointment, prepare and submit to the minister a report in writing on the nature and grounds of the objections made.
I think it would be reasonable-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In light of the motion put forward by the official opposition on the National Transportation Act, would you please ask the hon. member why he is talking about the Expropriation Act?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I would be delighted to answer that question. It is because the Expropriation Act in this case happens to be the vehicle that the Minister of Transport is using and I presume will use in future in order to acquire property for transportation purposes. It seems to me to be relevant.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, we are not discussing amendments to the Expropriation Act and the hon. member is completely out of order. If he wants to carry the ball for some land speculators, he can do it some other time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik).


Norman Augustine Cafik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it would be reasonable to amend the act to add to that particular section-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, will you rule whether it is in order for the hon. member to talk about amendments to the Expropriation Act when we are debating the National Transportation Act?


Mr. Basford:: You are out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Ontario.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope that these interruptions will be deducted from the time allotted to me. I believe that kind of amendment would give an opportunity for more meaningful participation by people affected in the expropriation of properties for transportation purposes. I further believe that the same objective would be accomplished if we were to permit the hearing officer to allow cross-examination of witnesses in respect of the need, whether it be for airport sites or otherwise. People should have the right to cross-examine government witnesses and experts on whether a particular expropriation is required. This is not provided under the act at present and I think that the minister ought to make it perfectly clear that it is the intention to allow such cross-examination.
There are other things of genuine concern to people whose property is being expropriated for this or any other purpose, and I think they have a right to be heard and a right to participate. At the moment there is nothing in the act which indicates how many hearing officers would be appointed to deal with this type of problem. In a case of this magnitude I suspect that more than one would be required. I believe that the minister ought to appoint a senior hearing officer, who would be a judge, to deal with the over-all question. In addition, I think this is how our expropriation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I did not want to disturb the hon. member who has the
June 6, 1972

floor, but two points of order have been raised by another hon. member. This is a motion concerning transportation, and airport facilities and air service are transportation matters; but perhaps the hon. member is dwelling too much on the specific question that concerns his riding. In order to help the Chair and the House, the hon. member should debate the motion before the House.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall certainly do that and I hope the House understands why I was trying to deal with these important matters. I am sorry that it is not possible to do it, because they are of great concern to the people whose properties may be taken for the building of a second international airport. Certainly in my view, this comes under the heading of transportation policy. However, in view of the objection of the NDP, I will confine my remarks to other areas. They are also related specifically to the airport problem as well as to the general complex problem of transportation in Canada.
If we had a proper transportation policy which was clearly enunciated, some of the views and concerns of people in my area would be somewhat alleviated. People have the impression that this government, particularly in relation to the project I have spoken about, has a minister of aviation and not a Minister of Transport. It is important that the government make it perfectly clear that they are concerned about all avenues of transportation and have taken into consideration rapid transit systems right across Canada in order to minimize the volume of air traffic at the present time or that which is projected for the future.
The projection for the Toronto region is that by the year 2000 there will be approximately 60 million air passengers per year. To many people this appears to be an absurd projection. If there were proper means of transporting people in the short haul, this figure could possibly be reduced and perhaps some of the air transportation facilities which are presently being projected would not in fact be needed.
It seems to be relevant to this question that the government make perfectly clear their over-all plans in terms of building a rapid transit corridor across Ontario and into Quebec, at least from Montreal to Toronto, which would alleviate much of the need for air transportation. As a matter of fact, in the long run I think it is essential to have a transportation corridor from Quebec City through to Windsor. This would have a very beneficial effect in another area, by allowing the spread of urbanization over a much larger area of land across Ontario and Quebec rather than concentrating it in areas like Montreal and Toronto. There are many who feel that the prospect of a Toronto with eight million people is not socially acceptable. I feel we ought to express our reservations in this regard.
I would like to talk for a moment about a couple of other points. The first is urban transportation in the Toronto region. Some time ago, on June 3, 1970,1 suggested in writing to the Minister of Transport that we required certain amendments to the railway acts of this country in order to give more emphasis to commuter transportation. In that letter I suggested that four amendments would be
National Transportation Policy
advisable in terms of transportation policy for urban areas of Canada. The first was to spell out in legislation that the CNR and the CPR make railbeds available for the purpose of commuter transportation in a better way than they had in the past. My second suggestion was as follows:
To force the railways to give preferential time schedules for such purposes, even though it may require adjustments to freight schedules.
This is important because at the moment urban transportation running on rail lines is often confined to hours which are not socially acceptable to the working population of these areas. My third suggestion was:
To force the railroad to charge reasonable mileage rates for commuters. Some believe that the present wheel mileage rates are excessive-
Others feel that there should be a preferential rate even if it requires some subsidization. Then fourth:
To force railroads to allow other individuals or agencies to use these rail beds for urban transport purposes. It is suggested that private enterprise itself may be interested in bidding on urban transport routes in the metropolitan area, and the act would have to be changed to allow such individuals to use these railbeds.


An hon. Member:: Where do you stand?


Norman Augustine Cafik: I subscribe to those suggestions in view of the fact that I made them. A member of the New Democratic Party asked, as he often does, where I stand. I clearly stand for the suggestions I have made. There are a number of areas that we need to explore in terms of transportation policy so that the policy will have some worth-while effect on the ecology and the problems of urban sprawl. Such a policy will have a very important and meaningful part to play in the way in which this country is developed for the good of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, I looked forward with a great deal of anticipation to this debate. I know that I speak for most people in Atlantic Canada when I say that I hoped the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) would make a far reaching and useful statement regarding a transportation policy for that part of Canada.
After listening to the minister I can only say that in the time I have been in this House I have never been more disappointed by what was said in so far as Atlantic transportation is concerned. I think it is fair to say that in nine months, the normal pregnancy period, the minister brought forth an abortion as far as Atlantic transportation policy is concerned. It is worse than useless. It is a grave and deep disappointment for every resident of Atlantic Canada. The Minister of Transport spent most of his time talking about an air policy. As far as transportation in the Atlantic provinces is concerned, everything is certainly up in the air now.
Immediate action must be taken to overcome the many additional problems that have been created for industries in the Atlantic provinces since the spring of 1969 when the four Atlantic provinces' premiers presented to the Minister of Transport their long-range proposals for a realistic Atlantic area transportation policy. On September 2, 1969, the federal government produced its alternative policy to

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy
that submitted by the Atlantic premiers. The federal government established an advisory board which was composed of four provincial and two federal representatives. The board has been advisory in every sense of the word. Its latest report is another piece of advice, and nothing more. It does not contain anything really useful and helpful to the Atlantic area. It is a far cry from the agency proposed by the four premiers. It has been anaemic and non-effective in its efforts to assist the area in its fight to overcome its transportation disabilities. The premiers' report stated as follows:
The provinces will accept modification in the blanket subsidization of intraregional traffic subject to the strict qualification-
I underline the words "strict qualification".
-that a federal-provincial agency be empowered to administer transportation assistance from federal funds to selected industries within the Atlantic provinces.
That is found at page 11 of the Atlantic premiers' report, which is entitled "The basic elements of an Atlantic provinces transportation policy," submitted to the federal government in March, 1969. On page 12 of the report they suggest that members of this agency be residents of the Atlantic provinces and that the administrative offices be located in the Atlantic provinces.
The federal government did not carry out the desires of the premiers with regard to either the type of board or make-up of those appointed to the agency it did establish. The committee has no power and no money. However, the federal government did latch on to the proposal and suggested that the intraregional subsidy be reduced. They reduced it from 20 per cent to 17 J per cent. They had intended to reduce it a further 21 per cent to 15 per cent on April 1 of this year, but because businessmen and others in the Atlantic area raised particular hell prior to April 1, the proposed 2} per cent reduction was not put into effect.
The premiers' report also recommended, as is found at page 23 of the report-
That the federal government take the necessary steps, either by legislation or by agreement, to maintain the freeze on Atlantic provinces rail rates until such time as the regional transportation policy is effective.
The government implemented its diluted and unrecognizable version of the premiers' report in September of 1969 and immediately thereafter freight rates began to rise. Rates which were 50 cents on September 23, 1959, were 81 cents on February 14, 1972-a 62 per cent increase. Freight rates which were $1 on September 23, 1969, were $1.46 on February 14, 1972-a 46 per cent increase. Rates which were $2.50 on September 23, 1969, were $3.32 on February 14, 1972-an increase of 33 per cent.
In all, there have been seven freight rate increases since September 23, 1969, the date on which the railways were allowed to impose increases. I am not objecting to the railways increasing their rates if the money is required in order to carry on the service; I am objecting to the federal government allowing them to increase rates without making certain that the increases are necessary and, second, that they are within the means of the industries of

Atlantic Canada. In the latter case some form of subsidy should be provided so as to offset the effects of the increase. This has never been done.
Under present government policy, freight rates will continue to increase forever or until there is not a single viable business operation left in the area. The minister's statement today did not give much hope to industry as far as freight increases are concerned. We are told that yet another increase is coming. It is obvious that this situation cannot be ended on the basis of what the minister told us today.
We have faced many disabilities in Atlantic Canada since 1867 and some of them can be traced back to the beginning of this nation. The federal government by its policies has manufactured many of the problems that plague us to this very day. Certainly, the national industrialization policy dating back to 1867, coupled with federal tariff policy, has made it very difficult for industry to develop in both the east and the west. It is a disadvantage from which both versions suffer to this day.
Atlantic Canada and western Canada continue to subsidize the industrial complex of central Canada. Atlantic Canada was cursed by a second decision, this time in the military field, which made the journey from that region to the markets of central Canada both longer and more expensive than it might have been. We have never experienced a transportation policy which would allow our goods to compete in the marketplaces of central Canada on an equal footing, and the government has never been willing to alter the tariff system in order that our goods could flow from north to south, the logical path.
The time has arrived when a number of actions must be taken by the federal government if we are to enjoy the benefits of a true transportation policy. First, tariff barriers must be lowered in order that goods from our area may reach their natural market in the northeastern United States in a competitive position. Second, an effective course of appeal must be made available against the avalanche of freight rate increases which have faced the region since September 23, 1969. Third, an agency along the lines proposed by the Atlantic premiers should be established and funded so that the original objectives of the premiers' proposals can be achieved. Fourth, the activities of the Canadian car demurrage bureau must be blunted so that it cannot arbitrarily change the basis of charging demurrage without shippers at least having the opportunity to argue their case before the Canadian Transport Commission on appeal when they consider the charges exorbitant. Fifth, the agricultural industry of Atlantic Canada must be placed in a position where it is no worse off than any other area of the nation. In order to accomplish this, protein concentrates and mineral supplements originating in the central United States and Canada for use in livestock and poultry feeds should be included under the provisions of the federal feed freight assistance policy so that Atlantic producers may achieve a competitive position vis-a-vis those in central Canada.
Only when the federal government undertakes in earnest an over-all transportation policy of this type can we hope to develop a viable industrial and agricultural base. It is true the government has moved in the field of truck transportation and ferry transportation and has also pro-
June 6, 1972

vided immeasurable assistance in highway construction. By these means it has sought to make the trucking industry a strong competitor to the railways. Up to this date, however, the volume of freight handled by trucks and other modes of transportation has not been sufficient to force the CNR, the main rail facility in the Atlantic provinces, to maintain a competitive low-rate structure, particularly as applied to most bulky inward-bound production imports and bulky outward-bound manufactured or agricultural products.
Although the government has tried, it has not achieved the intent of the National Transportation Act and must therefore undertake new initiatives if this goal is to be reached. The initiatives announced today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) certainly fall a long way short of those which are required. He gave the shippers of Atlantic Canada to understand that he was completely tied up with air policy and not in the least concerned about freight rates in my part of Canada. It is a sad state of affairs that a minister who comes from Atlantic Canada and who should know, if anyone does, just how serious is the transportation situation in all sectors of the economy, should leave such an impression. We are, as of today, without a transportation policy in Atlantic Canada as a result of what the minister has said. That is the measure of the weakness of the statement the minister made.
Since the minister is so involved with air policy I should like to make a few comments on that aspect. They relate to a matter which irritates me no end. I have noted with concern that a Canadian has no difficulty at all in getting a flight out of Canada to almost any destination, at a very cheap rate. As I was flying recently, I took copies of the international Air Canada schedule and the national Air Canada schedule and compared some of the rates which are being charged for air travel. You can fly from Halifax to London for $106 less than you can fly from St. John's to Vancouver. A 45-day excursion between Vancouver and London costs $334, whereas one from Vancouver to Halifax costs $358. In other words, you can fly from Vancouver to London for $24 less than you can fly from Vancouver to Halifax.


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


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing this evening a motion presented by the official opposition criticizing the government for its failure to develop a national transportation policy. I am in support of the motion because the government has no transportation policy. As I listened to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik), who spoke a short while ago and went into some detail about the ideas that he submitted to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) some two years ago regarding the need to encourage urban commuter transportation, I wondered how he could support a government that had completely failed even to commence to develop a national transportation policy.
The government's policy has been one of default, one of drift. Let us just examine what is happening. The Minister
National Transportation Policy
of the Environment (Mr. Davis) is in Sweden making great speeches about the need to do something to stop pollution. We in Canada are encouraging competition between trucks and railroads, though there is no question that trucks are unable to move large amounts of freight without polluting the atmosphere. We encourage this pollution by subsidizing the building of superhighways while requiring the railways to build and maintain their own rights of way. We discourage use of the railways by raising the price of passenger tickets while encouraging people to travel by car on superhighways on which they have not paid anything to ride.
One of the best means of transportation is provided by the railroads, yet we are destroying it. The Ottawa to Montreal run is a distance of 120 miles which the railways covered in two hours. When I came to Parliament ten years ago there were between five and eight trains a day. We have now raised the rates so much, discontinued dining car service-in fact, we provide no meals service- and cut down on the number of trains a day to the point that people no longer use the trains on this route. Instead there is a bus service every hour. There are already many cars using this road and the province of Quebec has had to build a superhighway on its side of the border. The province of Ontario is now building its superhighway to link with the Quebec highway.
The Minister of Transport is not satisfied with having virtually wiped out railway passenger routes; he is now spending $200 million to encourage travel by STOL aircraft. What madness is this? One can go from the centre of Ottawa to the centre of Montreal by train in two hours. As I say, we are now going to spend $200 million so we can fly from somewhere in Ottawa to somewhere in Montreal in 48 minutes. That, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of transportation policy that the government has.
Sufficient hon. members from the Atlantic provinces and the Prairies have already spoken about the inequities of freight rates that I do not need to put on the record what the situation is. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) gave some illustrations of the difference in cost of moving freight and how it is cheaper to move freight from Montreal to Vancouver than it is from Winnipeg to Vancouver. This is because there is an alternative route: one can ship freight by boat from Montreal to Vancouver via the Panama Canal. This means the railways have to lower rates to compete between Montreal and Vancouver, while this is not the case from Winnipeg.
I should like to discuss for a moment a subject with which the minister dealt this afternoon and about which I interrupted him, somewhat facetiously though not entirely. I do not have the text of what he said, but I am sure I am not misrepresenting him when I say he said that the government's transportation policy was based on the National Transportation Act and that the workings of that policy and the decisions arising out of the act stemmed from the Canadian Transport Commission. He went on to say that those who did not agree with the decisions made by the Canadian Transport Commission had the right of appeal.
I then interrupted him, as I say somewhat facetiously, to say that I thought this was pretty useless since the chairman of the commission was the friend of the minister. The

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy
minister, I think quite properly, made it clear that there was no sort of relationship, though they were friends, between the chairman of the transport commission and himself. I am prepared to accept the assurance of the minister that his position is clear and that he does not interfere in decisions, but like many other people both inside and outside Parliament I cannot say that I have the same confidence in the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission as I have in the minister.
Before we set up the Canadian Transport Commission we had the board of transport commissioners. As I read their decisions I began to think they were wasting money on rent to stay in Ottawa, that they ought to have their offices on the premises of the Canadian Pacific Railway, because I never knew them to make a decision that was against the interests of the CPR. But I do want to say that the board of transport commissioners was a great organization compared to the Canadian Transport Commission under its chairman, Mr. Pickersgill.
I should like to give some illustrations of the kind of decisions that are made by the commission under its chairman. Since the Canadian Transport Commission took over its responsibilities under this minister, it has been the policy to downgrade Air Canada and to build up the regional air carriers. I have been interested to watch the regional air carriers who have been able to get their share of the gravy. I come from Winnipeg, and although I am speaking somewhat parochially I cannot say that I am unhappy at the growth of Transair. But I would be less than honest if I were to say that I believe it is a coincidence that Transair's operations have grown so rapidly since the advent of the Canadian Transport Commission, under the chairmanship of Mr. Pickersgill, knowing that the president of Transair, Mr. Rod Mclsaac, was formerly-and may still be-the chief fund-raiser of the Liberal party in Manitoba and that the vice-president of Transair, Mr. Morrison, was formerly the executive assistant of Mr. Pickersgill when he was minister of transport.
I do not believe that was sheer coincidence; nor do I believe it was sheer coincidence which permitted Transair to order large, expensive Boeing-737 airliners when its operation at that time did not warrant the purchase of these aircraft. Of course, Transair had an application in for longer runs from Winnipeg to Regina to Saskatoon, and from Winnipeg to the Lakehead to Dryden to Sault Ste. Marie and Toronto, and a jet run from Winnipeg to the Lakehead to Toronto. It required a great deal of confidence to buy those aircraft before the CTC had heard the applications and made a decision. I do not believe this was a coincidence; they must have had some foresight.
Let us look at what happens in the case of that great Canadian company which has only one purpose, serving the needs of the Canadian people-the Bell Telephone Company. I cannot remember a time when the Bell Telephone Company made an application for an increase in rates and the Canadian Transport Commission said no. It is true that Bell Telephone does not get everything it asks for, but I have had a good deal more experience with unions than with corporations and it seems that Bell Telephone, when it asks for rate increases, operates in much

the same way as most of the unions. It asks for two or two-and-a-half times as much as it expects to get, and hopes to settle for a pretty good increase. That is precisely what Bell Telephone has done every year even though its profit has been substantial and has increased every year. Each year Bell Telephone asks at least once for an increase, and at least once a year it has received, an increase as a result of the kindness and impartiality of the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission.


Grant Deachman: So why don't you buy a block of stock and get rich?


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) suggests I should buy a block of stock and get rich. If I had his money I probably would do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: Let us look at what has happened to passenger services since the Canadian Transport Commission has taken over the supposed supervision of railway services. Passenger services have been cut in virtually every part of the country. It is true that the commission has not yet agreed to all the requests of the CPR, but if it did there would be no passenger service provided by the CPR. I suppose we should thank God for small mercies.
I have already referred to the most glaring example of the cut in services that has taken place, namely the service between Ottawa and Montreal. The same thing is happening on a lesser scale in every part of the country. The members of the transport committee have just come back from hearings in southern Ontario about reduction in service in that part of the country. We have a reduction in the number of trains and dining and sleeping cars have been taken off, all of which was permitted by the CTC. Of course, the railway companies will come to the CTC and say they want to discontinue these passenger services because they have no passengers. Of course they have'no passengers: they have done everything they can to drive them away.
The situation in respect of rail passenger service is duplicated in respect of rail freight service. Members from Atlantic Canada, the most disadvantaged area of this country, have spoken again and again over the years, as they did again today, about the inexorable increases in rates for freight moving across the Atlantic provinces. This results in a reduction in the standard of living in these areas because of a reduction in services, in employment and in the ability of the Atlantic provinces to compete for jobs and the production of goods, because the movement of raw materials required for manufacturing and the moving of the finished product costs more. Therefore they become less competitive than they have been up to now.
That is the record of the Canadian Transport Commission, that body established by a Liberal government to help us develop a national transportation policy. One thing we ought to have learned-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.
June 6, 1972


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I read with some interest, but frankly with very little surprise, the motion presented by the official opposition on this opposition day. One can almost see the Conservative caucus, presided over by the genial member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees), missing the magniloquent gentleman from Prince Albert. One can almost sympathize with the dilemma even of this body, because it seems there are so few subjects upon which its members can agree or even reach consensus.
That dilemma takes on insurmountable dimensions when they endeavour to come up with a subject they can speak about in a positive way, having found unanimity in their party. Here we have a motion which I think some Conservative genius has dreamed up for a party that cannot reach consensus in any positive policy direction, a party which finds itself ever more unable to reach consensus even when attacking the government.
This is quite a motion for debate. It allows each member of the opposition who takes the opportunity to speak, to highlight transportation problems as they affect his area. He can then go back to his riding and say in a political way, "I really told the government off." It would be my hope that the candidates who oppose those people in the next election will ask the obvious question, "After you told the government off, did you then proceed to tell the government how to remedy the situation?" Of course, the opposition party, being what it is, will duck that question as it so often does here, by saying that is not exactly its responsibility.
That is exactly the role the official opposition in the House of Commons is called upon to play and that is why I feel it is almost a waste of an opposition day, when the opposition had the opportunity to do something in a positive way, for the opposition to tell us what they think about a positive transportation policy. We have not heard much about that today.


An hon. Member:: You won't listen.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I did listen to the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas), who is not in his seat but is in the House. I give him credit for being one of the few members of the opposition who, when he moves a motion on an opposition day, sits in the House during the rest of the debate to listen to what other hon. members have to say. Normally the mover makes the motion, says what he has to say before the television cameras and we do not see him during the rest of the debate. The hon. member for Moncton has been courteous enough after moving the motion to listen to what the rest of us have to say. The important role which the opposition should play has been ignored.
When I prepared my notes for this speech I did not know whether I would speak midway in the debate or some time toward the end. I am satisfied that if anybody takes the time and effort to do a bit of research on the speeches made today by members of the opposition, he will find running throughout these speeches more parochial complaints than national ones, and I believe he will be hard pressed to find any positive direction in the debate even after sifting through the myriad criticisms.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You weren't listening.
National Transportation Policy


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was not only listening, I was listening quietly, which is something the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) has a hard time doing when any debate is taking place in this House.
A national transportation policy is naturally a very difficult thing. By the same token, no one can deny the multiplicity of difficulties growing out of any attempt to resolve this dilemma. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) in speaking to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications on May 25, 1972, set out what he .sees as our national transportation policy. In the time available to me I cannot repeat what he said at that time, but he made 17 or 18 suggestions about that which he is trying to do.
I commend the minister's speech of that date to anyone who wants to find out what we in this party are trying to do about a national transportation policy. The minister said that the structure of the ministry has been refined, that the new ports policy has been implemented, that the organization of the National Harbours Board has been updated, that the national policy council will play a key part in assisting policy formation, that most Canadian ports had their most successful year in history and that all ports responded well to the pressures caused by the United States longshoremen's strike. On and on it goes, all on the plus side of the picture. The minister did not duck anything. He came out with what he says is our national transportation policy. No one today volunteered to refer to the fact that the minister brought this forward. Naturally, in the half hour allotted to him he could not go through all three categories, land, sea and air, to the satisfaction of all the parties.


An hon. Member:: He left the chamber.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Yes, he left because like the wonderful minister he is, he has other duties and responsibilities to perform which he does beautifully. One of the problems we have in establishing a national transportation policy is the jealously guarded municipal and provincial jurisdiction, which means that a federal government in establishing a national policy must be prepared of necessity to deal with the provinces and with probably all the metropolitan areas which do not necessarily see eye to eye with their own provincial governments concerning the area in which priorities should be established. This is not to rule out the smaller rural and urban communities. But surely the provinces have the responsibility to deal with these communities and then to bring these ideas to a transportation policy conference.
A conference of this nature would have a tendency to get bogged down in political bickering, each one looking after his own community or particular responsibility. We would expect politicians to assume this role, and naturally they do. I am not too much in favour of in-camera meetings, but this is an area in which the country stands to gain tremendously if positive and compromising suggestions could be made by all levels of government and if all kinds of ideas could be brought about without the confrontation aspect that is bound to ensue under the glare of the mass media.

June 6, 1972
National Transportation Policy
At the conclusion of the conference or conferences, because I can see many of these being necessary, communiques could be issued and then the final analysis conference should be held in the hope of hearing ideas about the direction our transportation policy should follow. I do not look for an overnight sensational announcement arising out of these conferences, nor do I see a headline to headline type of communique such as the press and other media would like to see because it provides good stories: I see this as a long, hard grind before decisions are reached. In the final analysis it might very well be the responsibility of the federal government to take the leadership role and make the decisions which must be made on a national transportation policy.


Mr. Paproski:: We will look after it following the next election.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I do not know how you will look after it, because you will be back in Edmonton. It is just possible that the tri-level, municipal-provincial-federal conference would be the best forum at which to discuss this particular problem. Certainly at such a conference finances and taxation would dominate. That is to be expected, because I am satisfied that municipalities need a larger share of the tax dollar and a better method of taxation or system of sharing in revenues than their present, almost total reliance on real estate taxes supplemented of course by provincial grants gained in large measure from the federal purse. But in addition to taxes and finances, transportation surely must rate high on the list of priorities of such a conference.
My second recommendation would be that the Department of Transport is too large a federal department, dealing as it does with land, sea and air, and therefore I would suggest that the department be headed by a minister of transport who has assigned to him two ministers of state, one responsible for air and the other responsible for land and sea.


Gerald William Baldwin: Are you available?


An hon. Member:: Are you looking for a job?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I know I could do the job, but I am not preaching for a call. I am trying to make some positive suggestions.


An hon. Member:: You are fixing yourself up for the next election.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It is nice of the hon. member to say I am fixing myself for the next election, because he is conceding we will win. It might even be suggested that three ministers of state be appointed with one responsible for land, one responsible for sea and one responsible for air transportation. We in Canada are fortunate that we have such a splendid Minister of Transport at the helm at the present time. I think Mr. Tissington says it very well in his column which appears in the Thompson newspapers across Canada but which I read in the Sarnia Observer. Mr. Tissington, a reporter, had this to say on June 3 of this year:
The more X see transport minister Don Jamieson in action, the more I am impressed. The most recent wave of admiration
occurred following meetings of the Commons Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. Each session, Mr. Jamieson makes an appearance before that committee to be examined on his ministry's spending estimates for the current fiscal year.
This annual appearance took place here the other day with the committee meeting in the morning, in the afternoon and again in the evening. Mr. Jamieson appeared at all three meetings, accompanied each time by a retinue of officials from his department. Some idea of the size and scope of the ministry of transport can be grasped from the fact that no fewer than 20 of these officials were on hand at the meetings, from the deputy minister to assistant deputy ministers, head of various branches-
This is why I say the department is too large and too great a responsibility for one man, although fortunately we have the right man at the helm. The article continues:
Once in a while Mr. Jamieson refers a question to one of the experts but I get the impression he only does this to give them something to do or because he needs to pause for a minute or two to regain his breath after answering the ten preceding questions single-handedly.
In conclusion, Mr. Tissington says that if the minister cannot answer some questions, perhaps a parochial question of minor import, it is only a matter of a day or two before the member is sent the answer. Mr. Tissington also states that it is little wonder the transport minister is so popular and respected by his Commons colleagues. I could not have said this better myself.
I should like to make one other recommendation for the consideration of the Minister of Transport. At the present time I believe there are between 40 and 55 applications lodged with the Canadian Transport Commission by Canadian National Railways to cease passenger transportation to various communities in Canada. It is known by everyone that the CNR has no intention of abandoning this passenger service. But in order to secure the subsidy which it seeks, it is necessary for the company to appear before the Canadian Transport Commission with an application to abandon rail passenger service.
It seems to me it. would be extremely simple to agree to an amendment so that when a railway company is applying for a subsidy it should have the right to go the direct route. In this way the local municipalities, chambers of commerce, citizens-and railway unions, for that matter- could support the railway in its application and it would be in their best interests to do so. The public relations benefits to be derived from such a procedure are self-evident.
However, when a railway sincerely wished or found it necessary to abandon a passenger service, it should make direct application to do so. In these instances the municipalities, chambers of commerce, railway unions, passengers and others could present their briefs in opposition to such an application. The opponents of such an application might very well establish that the passenger service could run, if it were subsidized, so the project could be dropped in the second category and a subsidy provided. Surely, however, the time has come to stop placing the railway companies in the position where they apply for the abandonment of a line in order to secure a subsidy.
These, then, in capsule form, are my recommendations: First, a national conference, probably using the tri-level
[Mr. Cullen.)
June 6, 1972

meeting of municipalities, provinces and the federal government to discuss the transportation policy and transportation problems; second, the Department of Transport should be headed by a minister of transport with the assistance of three ministers of state, each responsible for a particular area of transportation; third, an amendment to the legislation which would permit the railway companies to apply for subsidies when they are looking for subsidies and to apply for the discontinuance of routes when that is their intention.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, after listening to "Cullen's fairy tales" I would suggest that if the hon. member is fortunate enough to come back here after the next election he might well qualify for fourth acting critic of the opposition on transportation.
There is only time for me to make one comment, and it is this. The national transportation policy as enunciated in section 3 of the act has been a dismal failure. It has not operated, it has not worked. This country is in a difficult and unfortunate position because of the failure of the government to implement anything like that policy.
I conclude this very simple statement by saying that when a new government takes office it will certainly have as one of its priorities a review of the national transportation policy and will do it, not through experts as the government would like but through a committee of the House, and it will propose a new policy and a new National Transportation Act. We are overdue in that regard. After listening to hon. members on the government side, it is quite plain that is what we must have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have perhaps only one minute in which to make my remarks.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps by consent the hon. member might be given 30 seconds.


Mark Willson Rose: I would just like to say that I was very interested in listening to that beautiful man from Sarnia, and his great defence of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). I attended the meeting of the transport committee at which such glowing remarks were made about the minister. I agree that the Minister of Transport is an old smoothie, and I suggest he has a tremendous future in radio if he ever decides to retire from politics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to special order made June 5, the time provided for the consideration of the business of supply at this sitting has expired.



FOREIGN TAKEOVERS REVIEW ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, June 5, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pepin that Bill C-201, to provide for the review and assessment of acquisitions of control of Canadian business enterprises by certain persons, be read
Division
the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.09 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday. June 7, 1972