1972-04-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 67 I wish to present to the House of Commons a petition signed by approximately 8,000 Canadians from all parts of the country requesting initiatives to strengthen the United Nations so that that body will become a more effective instrument for world peace, justice and development.



FISHERIES


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43 I move that Canada's unilateral proposal to ban commercial salmon fishing on the Atlantic coast for ten years be referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry so that various points of view may be heard and considered before a final policy announcement is made by the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. This motion, presented to the House under Standing Order 43, 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 at this time.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had some questions for the Minister of the Environment who was supposed to be here today but no doubt he is unable to be present. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether he can tell the House in what form the information and data that he intends to make public with regard to the proposed Pickering airport will be made available and when it will be made public?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a group of experts, I suppose one could call them, is now in the process of distilling the volumes of information that led to the decision. Some of that material has already been produced and additional material will be available early next week. On Wednesday morning, I believe, at nine a.m. I am to meet with one of the groups interested in this particular project. I have also indicated that I would be prepared to meet with any other groups. These preliminary meetings will be for the purpose of indicating to them just exactly what information is available and to try to work out some formula or format so that they can have an opportunity to examine all of it in detail. In other words, it will be a question of getting a response from them on what they feel is the best technique to employ that will be meaningful and give them all the facts that led to the decision.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister intend to make available to these groups and to the public generally the relevant reports and documents and the reasons for the decision taken a number of years ago in favour of an additional airport in the area? I am not referring to the decision on the location.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As far as the government and myself are concerned, all the work that has been done dating back in fact to 1966 will certainly be opened to anybody who wishes to see it. By that I do not mean on an individual basis, with many thousands of people wandering in and looking at individual documents, but the record in its totality is available. What we have done as a first step is to take these many thousands of documents and attempt to distil the information so that we can indicate to the groups what is available. It will then be for them to decide how much further they want to

April 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
go and whether the distilled versions we have prepared and are in the process of preparing are adequate. If they want to go deeper into it, it will then be strictly a mechanical question of the best way of arriving at that kind of arrangement.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention of the minister to make arrangements to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications? I think this was suggested by the Prime Minister at one time as a probable course. Does the minister intend to appear before that committee with all the documentation and subject himself and his officials to such examination as the committee may care to make into the question of need for an additional airport quite apart from the actual choice of location?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in two forms if hon. members so desire. I might remind the Leader of the Opposition that my main estimates are being examined at the present time. I have not yet appeared personally before the committee, but this would be one opportunity. If the committee were to decide that it wished to have a special session with regard to the matter of airport development, I would certainly be more than pleased to attend. It goes without saying, of course, that the information to which I referred earlier will also be available to all members of the House.



PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-POSSIBLE RECONSIDERATION OF DECISION FOLLOWING COMMITTEE INVESTIGATION-REPRESENTATIONS BY PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO PRIME MINISTER

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary arising out of the questions that have been asked and regarding which I raised a number of questions several weeks ago. Following examination of the documents by the committee, would the government be prepared to reconsider the whole question and not finally determine, as apparently is now the case, that Pickering township will be chosen as the area for the airport? Second, would the minister make available the representations made by the hon. member for York North, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, revealing in detail his opposition to the choice of this area for the airport and the sound and appropriate reasons that he gave in opposition thereto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the right hon. gentleman's question, I think it would be premature for me to anticipate what the conclusions of the committee or of any other group would be. I might remind him that a very large number of people support this decision and it is conceivable and, indeed, likely, that hon. members and others will see that we have made a wise decision. Therefore I have no idea as to what will flow from the discussions. I might simply say in conclusion that, of course, much of the work was done on the basis of very strong representations from members on both sides of the House who, indeed, had been accusing me for a very long time of dragging my feet with regard to establishing a second airport for Toronto.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister, who has a fabulous memory, has forgotten the second question I asked. Would he say that there is as yet no finality in the determination of the location of this airport?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member is the living example showing that there is no finality to anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Apparently the minister is referring to longevity. I have already said on other occasions, when I received the award from the Jewish people, the Tree of Life, that I still have many years to go before I will have equalled Moses' record of 120 years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Will the minister tell the House first, what were the representations of the hon. member for York North, potent and powerful as they were, against this area being chosen and, second, will the minister say whether the decision regarding the Pickering area is as yet tentative, that the matter has not been finally decided by the government and that the decision is subject to change?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, in so far as representations have been made, I think the hon. member for York North has been a most efficient spokesman for his constituents and he has also been very farsighted in the various proposals that he advanced. He advanced them prior to the decision that was made in this case. The hon. member for Ontario has done the same thing,, as have other hon. members. On the second part of the question, I have no wish to hedge in answering the right hon. gentleman. All I am saying is that the decision of the government with regard to this site and our plans for it is, in my judgment, a good one. I want to make the fullest case for that, and I think I am perfectly justified in saying that I will leave my options open until there has been time for such reactions as come to me to be examined.



PICKERING TOWNSHIP SITE-REQUEST THAT MINISTER PRESENT REASONS JUSTIFYING NEED IN APPEARANCE BEFORE COMMITTEE

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister, when he appears before the committee, deal not only with the question of the location of the new international airport but present a summary of the reasons for any need for such a new international airport, which seems to be the primary consideration in this matter?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I think that is the No. 1 question which perhaps should precede any other examination, the question of need. For my own part, I am perfectly satisfied that this can be demonstrated without qualification, and I will undertake to do that.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West on a last supplementary on
April 21, 1972

this subject, to which we might return later, and then recognize the hon. member for York South.



MOUNT HOPE, ONT.-POSITION OF EXPANSION COMMITMENT-OPPORTUNITY FOR REPRESENTATIONS BY INTERESTED GROUPS

Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport in light of the answers to the questions just raised. Can the minister now assure the House and the people of Hamilton that the commitment of $25 million for the expansion of Mount Hope airport is in fact a definite commitment, or is it also something that is up in the air at the present time?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question illustrates the nature of the quandary. Of course it is a definite commitment and we are prepared to proceed with it immediately. But in an issue of this kind it can be seen from the line of questions directed my way this morning that there are differences of opinion on some of these matters, on the government side, indeed, and within the country as a whole. In so far as the expansion of Mount Hope airport is concerned, provided always that I can meet the requirements of the council and the various municipal authorities in that area, which I believe I can, I think it would proceed regardless of any other developments that might occur in the Toronto area.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact it is my understanding that there has not been any definite arrangement for the minister to meet not only the council but other concerned citizens groups who, rightly so, would have objections in some small part to the expansion, can the minister advise whether in fact a date has been set for a meeting with these groups so he can obtain their ideas regarding expansion?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Perhaps the hon. member will forgive me for not knowing the exact name-I am not certain whether it is the township of Hamilton or the council of Hamilton. In amy event, I have been in touch with them and have indicated my willingness to hold a meeting with them. The problem is that while it may be possible to expand airports it is impossible to expand time, and if I should not be in the House in the near future to answer hon. members' questions it will be because I am trying to meet all the requests for meetings that have come to me, all of which I am prepared to attend.



INDUSTRY


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he give the House any information on whether or not the government is contemplating ordering 50 twin Otter aircraft from de Havilland in Toronto, whether any
Inquiries of the Ministry
discussions are taking place or have taken place and what the situation is in this respect?


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, discussion is indeed going on in the government on this matter of the situation at de Havilland in Toronto, centred on a research development project called DHC-7. This project would include some purchases of the type mentioned by my hon. friend. An announcement will be made rather soon on that subject, hopefully.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to hear what the minister has said because this involves the jobs of a good many people in that area. May I ask the minister when he thinks he will be in a position to make an announcement concerning the aircraft he mentioned and other developments in relation to aircraft-technically I am not very knowledgeable in the field-as well as whether discussions are taking place regarding the manufacture and the production of more Buffalo airplanes at that plant?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I chose my words very carefully. I said "rather soon" which is sooner than soon.



FEDERAL CONTRIBUTION TO CONSTRUCTION OF DHC-7 PLANES-PROPOSED USE

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Could he tell us in what way the government has contributed in the construction of a hundred or so DHC-7 aircraft, nearly half of which will be in service in Canada?
Will this fleet of 50 planes be added to those already in regular service for Air Canada, or will they be used by the Armed Forces?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I would need to take that question as notice. I am not sure of the details and I will get an answer for the hon. member as soon as I can.



FISHERIES


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Fisheries. Although members of parliament are conscious of the need for conservation measures, how does the government anticipate that a policy decision to ban commercial salmon fishing on the Atlantic coast for ten years will make Denmark or any other fishing country anymore amenable to an international treaty to control the fishing?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: The question put by the hon. member is apparently based upon a

April 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
press report of an interview and it is inaccurate in several respects. The Minister of the Environment and Fisheries will he making a statement in the House, but I can reassure the hon. member on two points. The policy does not contemplate a complete ban, and it is not for ten years.


Mr. Fairweather:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries is on the roster to be here today. Whether or not the press report is accurate is, of course, for the government to say, but the press report was based on an announcement or interview outside the House which the minister must have known would raise serious questions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member might like to ask his supplementary. I have the impression-is the hon. member rising on a point of order? I did not appreciate that. I thought he was seeking the floor for the purpose of a supplementary.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: No, Mr. Speaker. It was a point of order arising from the absence of the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. I suggest, with great respect, that the government can do a great deal better than this. It really means that the minister and the government are treating us with great contempt when a situation is allowed to arise which will seriously affect the livelihood of a great number of Canadians.



PROPOSED BAN ON COMMERCIAL SALMON FISHING ON ATLANTIC COAST-SUGGESTED DEFERMENT UNTIL CONSULTATIONS HELD WITH FISHERMEN AND PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ]ohn Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate): I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister a very simple question involving the Atlantic salmon fishery. In view of the fact that almost every fisherman in the Atlantic area is involved in one way or another in the salmon fishery and that on the Newfoundland scene there is scarcely a fishing boat that is not involved in that fishery, and as the minister has proposed to buy all the boats engaged in the Atlantic salmon fishery, which would put an end to the fishery in that area, will the minister give an assurance to the House and to the fishermen of the Atlantic region that no steps will be taken, even in a prepared statement on motions, until there has been complete consultation with representatives of the fishermen, the fishermen themselves, and the provincial governments of that region to make sure that no steps will be taken, born out of ignorance-
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he is making a representation. Perhaps the first part of the hon. member's speech was a question and we might allow the minister to reply to that part of the hon. member's statement which was a question.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my
understanding that the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries intends to consult with all interested parties.


Mr. Lundrigan:: In view of the fact the directors of the federal Department of Fisheries are not even today in possession of copies of the last six fisheries treaties which 
were signed and are not even aware of them, can we have a guaranteed assurance that the Minister of Fisheries, who has made several very serious moves to hurt the Atlantic fishery-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question is not in order. The hon. member is obviously making a speech and presenting an argument. In those terms the question cannot be acceptable.


John Howard Lundrigan: May I rephrase my question?


Mr. Speaker:: That is highly irregular. The hon. member should know he cannot ask a question using that approach, making representations and accusations, and then request permission to rephrase the question. It should have been phrased correctly in the first instance. However, having said this, I will allow the hon. member to rephrase the question.


John Howard Lundrigan: I will rephrase my question, though I should like to debate some of the points which have been raised in the last few minutes. Will the minister assure members from the Atlantic region and all our people that no moves will be made until there has been thorough consultation?


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have said, the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries consults with all interested parties in all these respects. Therefore I do not accept the presumption that he does not. He will consult with all the interested parties, and I am sure his policies will continue to be as popular and as desirable as they are now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is an element of argument and debate, both in the answer and in the question, that is irregular in both instances.



CONSULTATION WITH UNITED STATES FOLLOWING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THAT COUNTRY AND DENMARK TO CURTAIL SALMON FISHING OFF GREENLAND

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. On February 22 of this year the United States Department of State announced that an agreement had been reached between the United States and Denmark to curtail salmon fishing off west Greenland. Has the minister consulted with his United States counterpart concerning the U.S.-Danish agreement, and has he recently made any attempt to secure a similar agreement with Norway as well as Denmark?
[DOT] <1130)


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there has been consultation with the United States government, particularly by my colleague the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries. We are now engaged in what we hope will be successful efforts to persuade the Danish government that the harvesting of fish like salmon, which spawn in coastal states, should be the responsibility and the right of the coastal states.
April 21, 1972



POSSIBLE ACTION TO BAN IMPORT OF FISH FROM COUNTRIES REFUSING TO ADOPT CONSERVATION MEASURES

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The United States Congress has recently passed legislation enabling that country to impose a prohibition against the importation of fish and fish products from any nation that refuses to accept and to carry out fisheries conservation measures as approved by ICNAF, the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries. Is this government considering taking similar action in the event that agreement cannot be reached with these two nations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, our experience in these matters is that these kinds of measures are not particularly successful and that it is better to reach agreement by negotiation, not by blackmail.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are a number of members, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, the hon. member for St. John's West and others, seeking to ask supplementaries. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition for his supplementary, then recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and return immediately afterwards to other hon. members who have supplementaries.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Acting Prime Minister. When can we expect the statement from the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries? Will it be soon, or very soon, and how long is soon?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I may define these terms, "soon" means next week.



POLLUTION


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of an answer the Prime Minister gave on April 17, reported at page 1348 of Hansard, in which he said that the Secretary of State for External Affairs had expressed to Secretary of State Rogers of the United States the advisability of referring the matter of oil tankers coming down the Pacific coast from Alaska to the International Joint Commission. Has the minister made any formal proposal to the government of the United States for such a joint reference to the International Joint Commission regarding the shipment of oil from Valdez to Cherry Point down the Pacific coast?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister has already
Inquiries of the Ministry
said, I did raise the question with Secretary Rogers who said he would take the matter into consideration. Until I have a reply I do not think it would be advisable for me to make formal representations because, as the hon. member knows, references must be joint references and therefore we should get the prior agreement of the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the minister assure the House that any reference to the International Joint Commission on this question, unlike the reference on the Skagit Valley, will not deal merely with how to militate against the worst effects of possible oil spills but will deal with whether or not, on the basis of all available information, the trans-Alaska pipeline project should be proceeded with at all?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I very much doubt the wisdom of extending the reference in that way. The Canadian government would, of course, have no objection if oil from the trans-Alaska pipeline were to be carried from Alaska to California without coming into the narrow waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Georgia Strait and ships, for example, were to move 300 miles offshore. It would not be a proper subject for the International Joint Commission to consider.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that a refinery has been built at Cherry Point and therefore ships will have to go through the Strait of Juan de Fuca, may I ask the minister what terms of reference the Canadian government has in mind in the event that the United States government is agreeable to a joint reference to the International Joint Commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the assumption contained in the question. I do not think ships would have to go into Cherry Point. That refinery could be served from the interior.



FISHERIES


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister that is supplementary to questions asked previously by other members. Is it the government's intention to impose a ban during the forthcoming salmon season? I ask the question because there is a lot of confusion and the salmon fishing season will open shortly.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I did not quite catch the question. Could it be repeated?


Walter C. Carter: Will the proposed ban announced by the Minister of Fisheries take effect this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the House should await the statement of the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries which will deal with all these matters.

April 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry ATLANTIC SALMON-PROPOSALS TO DENMARK RESPECTING CONSERVATION


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact that Denmark is the worst offender in reducing salmon stocks on the high seas, can the minister indicate what specific proposals the government has made to Denmark and what their answers were?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in our view a system that would meet the criteria both of conservation and of equity would require the delegation to coastal states of the sole right to harvest the salmon bred in their own rivers.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the interest by females in the cadet movement in Canada, and in view of the women's liberation discrimination movement, will the minister consider changes in the National Defence Act to make the sea, army and air cadets co-educational?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Defence):: should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I am in favour of co-education. We have had representations from the army cadets and we will be hearing from the naval and air cadet associations. If there is unanimous agreement among all three I would be glad at some future date to propose a change to the National Defence Act.



PURCHASE OF SCORPION ARMOURED FIGHTING VEHICLES

Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the government decided to purchase Scorpion armoured fighting vehicles for the use of the Canadian forces? If so, how many of these vehicles are to be secured?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, Mr. Speaker, this is the vehicle which is favoured by the armed forces. A contract has not yet been negotiated. We are dealing with the manufacturers and I would not like to indicate quantities or amounts until such contract is negotiated, if the negotiations are successful.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the minister tell the House what units are to be supplied with these armoured fighting vehicles? Will it be merely forces overseas or also armoured units in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, without getting too close to saying exactly how many, it would be both.



POSSIBLE INCREASE IN NUMBER OF ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL

Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact General Sharp recently commented that the 82,000 figure for the Canadian forces might be too low, would the minister indicate to the House whether he has any intention of increasing the number of personnel in the Canadian armed forces?


Edgar John Benson: Not at
this time, Mr. Speaker.



HARBOURS


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister agree to make a statement to the House on motions clarifying the various rumours floating around about the future of the administration of small vessel harbours? Would he also clarify in such statement what is going to be done to cope with the pollution crisis on docks which has been created as a result of the proclamation of regulations forbidding the dumping of garbage at sea?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will consider both of these matters. The first one is probably easier to deal with in the form of a statement on motions or otherwise. The other question might be better dealt with in committee where officials who are concerned with these matters could be present to give the necessary details.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-POSSIBLE ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POSITION FOLLOWING PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Prime Minister regarding the James Bay hydroelectric project but in his absence perhaps I might direct it to the Minister of Transport. In view of evidence given to the parliamentary committee on national resources that preliminary conclusions have been reached on environmental factors, will the government shortly be in a position to announce its stand on the whole James Bay project? I ask the minister this question in his capacity as the minister responsible for the Navigable Waters Protection Act.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that is a rather tenuous peg on which to hang that kind of question to me. Nevertheless, I would have to take the question as notice. I think I
April 21, 1972

Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
have answered all the questions that have been asked in respect of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but we will try to find out something more for the hon. member.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask the question of the Minister of the Environment or, in his absence, the Prime Minister, and in looking at the front benches I could not see anybody else who might possibly answer the question.



HARBOURS


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint ]ohn-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of recent speculation about a free port policy, can he say, in so far as he has responsibility in this matter, whether it is under consideration, and would he be prepared to receive briefs from organizations such as the Canadian Importers Association on the need for a free port in Atlantic Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than pleased to receive such a brief as well as briefs from anyone else. This matter is not merely under consideration; but is a matter of discussion with, I think I can now say, at least two of the four Atlantic province premiers. Any representations I receive will be looked at very sympathetically. It sounds like a pretty good idea.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the minister give every assurance that all ports are starting off on equal terms in respect of such a policy and that the port of Saint John particularly will be ahead of all others?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That appears to be a representation.



PLANS FOR HONOURING RICHMOND HILL DYNES, WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP SOFTBALL TEAM

Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. I should like to ask him what plans the government has to honour the Richmond Hill Dynes, world championship softball team, which won the world championship title for Canada recently in Manilla and whose members are in the gallery at the present time with Mayor Lazenby of that great city?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the hon. member that the government recognizes the great honour this team has done Canada and intends to entertain them this evening and make a presentation which they so richly deserve.



PROPOSED NUCLEAR TESTS BY FRANCE-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS

Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can he say whether a reply has been received from the French government in regard to Canada's representations about the planned nuclear tests by France in the Pacific and, if so, what is the nature of the reply?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question the other day on this subject I said we had not yet made representations because the French government has not yet indicated when it intends to make this test. I do not think it would be appropriate for us to protest or make representations until we know for sure they are going to go ahead with the test. As soon as we know the date we will be making our representations and I will inform the hon. gentleman of the response, if any.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, would it not be better if we made the protest before rather than after?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that question is a submission.


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, is on the same point. Will he check with Australia and New Zealand to find out what prompted them to make their protests already and perhaps ascertain when we should make ours?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we shall be making our representations, but our experience is that if you make them too soon you have to repeat them when the date is fixed and in that way you weaken the credibility of our representations.



NUCLEAR TESTS-SUGGESTED REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED NATIONS

Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he will place this problem of nuclear testing before the United Nations? Will he indicate to the Canadian delegation that they approach the United Nations about this particular test and urge that all nuclear testing by every country in the world be stopped?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this has been the position of the Canadian government over a period of years. I regret to say our representations have not been accepted, but Canada is the leading advocate in the world of the ending of all nuclear testing whether in the atmosphere or underground.

April 21, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry AGRICULTURE



FROST DAMAGE TO ONTARIO FRUIT-REPLY TO REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has replied to the request by the tender fruit industry of Canada, specifically Ontario, in respect of the frost damage done to their crops, and will he give some indication of what this reply might be?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we have not replied in respect of any assistance because, quite obviously, the people who have expertise in these matters from having observed such situations in the past admit they cannot assess the crop loss at this point in time. Obviously there has been some damage to the blossoms and buds, but the level of damage done to the volume of production is unknown at this point.



DATE OF OPENING OF LIVESTOCK QUARANTINE


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Agriculture but relates to a different subject. Has the government now been given a definite date for the opening of the incoming quarantine station at Edmonton International Airport and, if so, have the applications now been processed and granted for the importation of cattle from Australia and Tasmania?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, we have a tentative date from the Department of Public Works, which is building the station, as to when it will be ready to receive these animals. We are now in the process of reviewing the applications that have come in with a view to allocating permits to some of the applicants. Obviously there is not room for all of them in view of the number of animals that would be coming in. I do not believe we have reached the stage where we are ready to set a positive date on which the applications will be approved.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Roch La Salle (loliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In connection with the James Bay project, I should like to be advised whether the government has received any formal request from the Quebec government to co-operate in this project, and whether there have been any negotiations between himself, his officials, and the Quebec officials responsible for the James Bay project?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the existence of any formal application; I know, however, that there

have been consultations with some departments, including mine.



HOCKEY-PROPOSED CANADA-RUSSIA GAMES- REPRESENTATIONS TO NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE RESPECTING USE OF PLAYERS

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare perhaps I might direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since there is considerable interest across the land in the proposed series between NHL players and a Russian team, and in view of the fact there is some evidence that certain United States based teams are reluctant to allow their Canadian players to participate, is the government considering making representations to the NHL headquarters in Montreal, expressing official Canadian support for this series?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it will be necessary to make any such representations, but I can assure the hon. member that the Canadian government is very much in favour of games between the Russians and the Canadians to see who really is the best in the world.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Murray McBride (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the special designation of areas, such as Renfrew County, by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is to expire as of June 30, 1972, and in view of the great importance of this program, will the minister advise the House when he will be in a position to announce whether or not an extension of these designations is to be granted?


Jean Marchand: As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we are in consultation with the provinces on this matter. As soon as we have completed these consultations I will announce the new designations. The word "soon" as I have used it is not the same as the word "soon" as used by another minister.
April 21, 1972



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. It arises from the proposed establishment of a huge hog production and processing complex in southern Alberta by North American Integrated Food Processing Limited. Have the minister and his officials had an opportunity of assessing the impact such an operation will have on other established production and processsing enterprises in other parts of Alberta and elsewhere in Canada?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure it would be appropriate for the Department of Agriculture or in fact any branch of the federal government to make that assessment except that the promoter of this plan has indicated it is dependent on whether or not a regional economic expansion grant is given. When an application comes forward in that regard, a thorough examination will certainly be made on that basis.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since the location of this plant will be in a designated region in southern Alberta, can the minister advise the House whether an application for an incentive grant for this facility has been received by his department?


Jean Marchand: I will take this question as notice and give an answer next week, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. I hope that some of the questions hon. members have may wait until Monday, although hon. members might allow the Chair to recognize the hon. member for Assiniboia who has been trying to ask a question for the past few days.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of his announcement this week of the leasing of cars from the United States to move lumber products in northern British Columbia, can the minister inform the House whether any action has been taken to lease United States boxcars for grain handling?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, on the Thursday before Easter, about two or three weeks ago, I had a lengthy meeting with Mr. MacMillan, chairman of the board and president of CNR. At
Inquiries of the Ministry
that time he advised me that a considerable number of both cars and locomotives had in fact been leased and were either in Canada or en route to Canada. I can get the actual totals for the hon. member within a day or two. This morning I sought to reach the president of the CPR but was unable to do so because he is in Calgary. I hope to meet him next week and one of the topics we will be discussing will be this matter.


William George Knight: In view of the announcement by the CNR of a $4 million order for the building of flatcars by a firm in Montreal, can the minister inform me whether there has been any move by the railways to have more hopper cars built for the carrying of western grain?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: My recollection is that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, referred to this matter yesterday or some time during the past few days. This whole question of the construction of additional hopper cars is now very much under active consideration, and the meeting with the head of the CNR to which I referred dealt with that subject as well.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seeks to ask a supplementary question but we have gone three or four minutes beyond the question period. There are other hon. members who are seeking an opportunity to ask questions and they have been asked to wait until Monday. We will have to do the same thing with the hon. member for Regina East.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, March 14, consideration of the motion of Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton) that Bill C-4, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from January 1, 1971 to June 30, 1972, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railways Company, and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and the amendment (Mr. Thomson) p. 823.
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity to complete the remarks which I started on a previous occasion when this bill was before the House. I would like to set forth some of the considerations and concerns that exist, certainly in my constituency and in the prairie region, regarding railroad conditions, particularly in relation to the CNR. As I started to say the other evening, there is considerable concern among the men who work on the railroads about safety factors, such
1520

April 21, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
as the condition of the roadbed over which they have to handle trains, often at the risk of their own safety. All of us, no matter what our occupation in life, take a certain amount of risk, but it has become accepted practice in modern times that the risk in all gainful occupations should be minimized. Even in self-employed occupations such as farming, we find the safety councils of the provinces advising farmers to take certain precautions to avoid being injured.
Concern is even expressed about the use of safety belts in privately owned and operated automobiles, as well as about the manner in which the automobile is operated. Concern is expressed about the number of deaths on our highways. In industrial occupations, there is even greater concern regarding the safety of the employees who operate the machines which keep our industrial society going. I have received letters from the brotherhood, and from the workers in my constituency, in which they complain rather bitterly about the conditions to which they are subjected when they work on branch line trains in Saskatchewan. I have put those complaints before the Committee on Transport, as well as before the Transport Commission, and have documented them. It surprised me a little when, with regard to certain derailments on some of the branch lines, the charge was made that the trains were travelling above the speed limit which had been imposed on those tracks. I asked where the report was of the official investigation which had been made which indicated that was the case. If you are going to lay the cause of a derailment or any type of train accident at the door of some individual or group of individuals, the proof should be obtained before the charge is made. I have not seen it yet.
I have here a report from the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, dealing with its investigation into three specific accidents. Among the duties imposed upon the Railway Transport Committee by the Railway Act and the National Transportation Act is the obligation of ensuring that all railway operations in Canada are carried out in maximum safety. According to the information which I have,'Mr. Speaker, I do not think this obligation is being carried out. Indeed, I have here a statement made by the railway, as the result of an investigation carried out by an investigator of the Railway Transport Committee, in which it is admitted that the railbed is in poor and unsatisfactory condition.
In addition, I have here a statement made by the local Chairman of the Brotherhood of Enginemen in Biggar in which he states that, in his opinion, three railway subdivisions running out of that town are in such poor condition that safe train operation can not be carried out, and that their condition is a hazard to employees. This is a very serious charge.
Again, quoting from a letter signed by C. W. Rump, Secretary of the Railway Transport Committee, referring to these same divisions, I read:
Our District Engineer's report indicates that there is no doubt that the three subdivisions are not being maintained to a very high standard due to the possibility of abandonment; however, if speed restrictions are adhered to, and the length of trains on the DodsfMr. Gleave.J
land Subdivision limited, no abnormal hazard to train operation would exist.
I question the second part of that sentence in view of the first part which indicates that the three subdivisons are not being maintained to a very high standard. The letter went on to say:
The present level of maintenance work being done on the subdivisions, is not, in our engineer's opinion, sufficient to maintain present conditions; however, as track conditions continue to deteriorate, the railways should further reduce speeds.
Further on in the letter, he said that it had been pointed out to the representative of the railroad that in some cases trains had exceeded authorized speeds.
The point I wish to make again is that to my knowledge no in-depth investigation has been carried out which would entitle anyone to lay the blame at the door of those people who operate the trains. I think there should be an in-depth investigation. I do not think workmen should be required to operate trains under conditions and in circumstances that we know endanger their safety.
As I said when I started to speak, Mr. Speaker, there are times when all of us carry out undertakings that are hazardous, such as getting in a car and driving out of Ottawa on a winter's day when the roads are icy. We know the roads are icy and hazardous, but we choose to run the risk. But I question very much whether as a society we have a right to- ask a crew of men to take out a train, which has a thrust of thousands of tons, under conditions which are known to be hazardous, which the Transport Committee knows are hazardous, and which the railroad, which is owned by the people of this country, is aware are hazardous. I do not see how we can justify that. These are matters that must be given consideration.
As well as that, there is the problem of moving goods over those branch lines. But even this is secondary to the safety of the men who operate the trains. To put it brutally, Mr. Speaker, if a man is injured the cost is too much. And, as shown in this report of the inquiry into three accidents in which one man was killed, we run the risk of killing men. When a man is killed, he is a long time dead. It is a pretty final act. So, I say that the ability to move goods surely must be secondary to the safety of the individuals who are responsible for operating the trains.
When it comes to the question of moving our wheat whether by the CNR or CPR, and in this case we are dealing with the CNR, we must look at the total movement from that little branch line on the Dodsland subdivision right through to Thunder Bay, or Vancouver or Prince Rupert.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alfred Pullen Gleave: When I mention the names of these places there is an immediate reaction. You know, Mr. Speaker, the humour of my colleagues sometimes kills me. I don't know if it does anything for the government, but as Wellington said of his soldiers, "I don't know what they do to the enemy but they sure scare hell out of me."


Mr. Drury:: With justification.
April 21, 1972


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I think it is very kind of my friends to enliven proceedings. I am probably making a very dull speech; I would not be surprised if that were the case.
We have to look at the total picture of what is involved, Mr. Speaker. I think that the CNR and the government are suffering from an attitude toward rail transportation that had its origins in the MacPherson commission. The report of that commission was essentially negative. It recommended a cutback in rail transportation suggesting that the railroads be given an amount of money while phasing out parts of their operation in order to rationalize the whole system. Since then, we have been rationalizing so effectively that the safety of the men who work on the railroads is in jeopardy. We have rationalized to the extent that we cannot move a crop of grain from the prairies to the tidewater where ships are waiting. We have rationalized so well that Ontario complains it cannot get lumber from British Columbia and we have rationalized so well that the people of Newfoundland claim their transportation system is chaotic. That has been the effect of rationalization in the past, and now there is a proposal before us for more money so that the system can be rationalized even more. I think the government has a nerve to ask this House for more money without presenting a plan to develop a transportation system which will serve the country.
In reply to a question asked from this side of the House today, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) said that he had met with the representatives of the CNR and they were going to provide some more cars and locomotives. I believe they were to be leased from the United States. He said that he was also to meet with the CPR and that he hoped they were going to do the same thing. Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Transport or the government has to approach our railway companies periodically to ask them if they are going to provide enough equipment to do a job, it indicates how badly our transportation system is organized. Time is lost when it is necessary for the minister or the grain companies or the Canadian Wheat Board to go to the CPR and CNR in order to get action. In the meantime 21 or 22 ships are sitting in English Bay waiting to load and the opportunity for effective action is lost.
What we need without further delay, Mr. Speaker, is an effective program for communication and transportation. A study of grain transportation and handling has been submitted to the Minister in charge of the Wheat Board, but apparently he is afraid to make it public. I suspect it says that if some more branch lines and grain elevators on the prairies were knocked out that would effectively assist in the further deterioration of the facilities and so the whole thing would work better! I suspect there was no consideration at all given to the whole package, and that it will be a long time before this study will see the light of day. This matter requires consideration and the government and the ministers involved should look at the total picture instead of picking out pieces here and there to be patched up when they can no longer be ignored.
When the estimates were before the Standing Committee on Agriculture I asked what research had been done into the facilities for the transportation of grain. The answer was, none. I feel that we could usefully examine in depth the type of carriers and so on that are available. There should be an objective study of the needs of the
CNR and Air Canada
country, and how rail transportation fits in with highway transportation. Storage and handling facilities should also be examined. For example, how can we get a balanced handling at Prince Rupert in relation to the rail and port facilities and the storage available. The same question arises at Churchill. The question of the movement and storage of grain in relation to ice conditions and getting it out to the Atlantic coast should also be examined. In that way we shall obtain a total package, total understanding and real co-operation.
The people who actually operate these trains will have confidence in this system, as will those who use this service, whether they are farmers or lumbermen, to move their products to market. They will be confident that the job will be well done and that the resources of Canada will be available for getting that job done. That is the kind of approach we need. If we adopt that kind of approach, we will have a far better transport system. We will probably need to spend money and put people to work, if the system is to be improved. Yet, why not do that, Mr. Speaker? Would it not be better to put people to work in the areas where they are needed than tolerate a 6 per cent unemployment level and not do those jobs which need to be done? I urge the government to give consideration to an over-all approach to this problem and to say to the CNR, as well as the CPR, "Bring forward a program which will meet the needs of Canadians in Canada." On the day that is done, we shall be able to act effectively in the area of transportation.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I do not imagine anybody pays too much attention to what is said about Bill C-4. However, under our parliamentary system I can still reserve the right to try to make an impression by directing attention to problems that are evident in my part of Canada. I am talking about problems that should be the concern of the government which has a responsibility to provide rail, air and water transportation and associated services, including telecommunications services. I have looked through Hansard to see what has been said about this bill. In my perusal, it has become evident to me that no one, as yet, has mentioned the recommendation accompanying this bill. I therefore feel that it might be worth while mentioning what is contained in the recommendation.
It is recommended by the Governor General to the House of Commons that authorization be given to the CNR to make capital expenditures including investment securities of affiliated companies, in the calendar year 1971, not exceeding $220 million; to make capital expenditures in the first six months of 1972 of some $83 million for discharging obligations incurred prior to January 1, 1972; to further enter into contracts prior to July, 1972, for equipment, additions and conversions requiring payments not exceeding $162 million. It is further recommended that authorization be given to borrow an amount not exceeding $27 million for the construction of branch lines-this is a joke; to make loans and guarantee issues of securities of Air Canada in the amount of $114 million, and even to guarantee debentures in English currency. Without going into too many details, let me say we are

April 21, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
even extending the limits to the magic figure of $1 billion, which probably puts this agency into a special category so far as government expenditures are concerned.
However, the most important part of the recommendation is the part which recommends that this parliament give carte blanche authority for meeting deficiencies in operating revenue, regardless of cost. This is where the hypocrisy lies in all the operations of the Canadian Matronal Railways company. This parliament is expected to give that company permission to write its own cheques up to the sum of $1 billion and we, as protectors of the public money, have no control over that spending. Not only are we to give the company unlimited amounts of money, but this government does not seem to have any control over how the company operates. I wonder if anyone has ever looked carefully at the CN annual report and seen the two pages listing the executives of CNR. On page 30, anyone who wants to look will see listed no less than 30 vice-presidents and assistant vice-presidents as well as another 50 general managers, directors and executive assistants. Mr. Speaker, do you know that all I have ever heard from any of them in my limited dealings with them have been tales of woe as to which railway line they were going to close down or how many employees they were going to lay off or how many stations they would have to close.
I do not know why we complain about the poor Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and all the staff he is gathering around him to try to run the country. I think that all he is trying to do is keep up with the CNR. I have not bothered looking at the executive staff of Air Canada. Frankly, I would hate to look, because I am sure that company must be equally overloaded with executive staff who are quickly learning the way to downgrade service, because they cannot manage a business which has a clearcut monopoly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: At any rate, I hope they do not mechanize their executive staff, because we could expect a big run on manpower offices and we would experience a bigger unemployment crisis than we have now.
Many of my colleagues have expressed themselves quite forcibly on the continuing trend towards the closing down of railway lines which started back in 1968 in Newfoundland. This operation ought to go down in history as the most calculated railroading job that Canada will ever experience. These rail line abandonments have to be about the most ridiculous piece of action you will ever see since, for no reason that sane people can think of, the supposedly responsible authorities stripped my province of the fundamental, basic mode of transport which any country or province must have if it is to build an economy. Without regard for the people who were served by the Newfoundland passenger service and who continue to experience the discomfort and danger inherent in the new method of transportation, these supposedly responsible Canadians, saddled with the responsibility of acting in the best interests of the people, pulled off an act that ought to bother their consciences for the rest of their lives.
I am sure all hon. members will recall the plea that my Newfoundland colleagues made in this House in 1968 when we were stripped of our main transportation ser-
vice. Hon. members criticised us for making our plea and for continuing to make it. What do they think now, those people who are now losing their rail passenger services in the same way as we lost ours? What do those people now think, when the web is closing in on every province of Canada? What did we get in Newfoundland in place of that rail service, Mr. Speaker? We got a bus service. Yes, we got a bus service that was introduced on the basis of a designed strategy and it was introduced before anyone realized the implications of this strategy. The bus service was established without the least bit of consideration of human needs and with no appreciation of the purpose it would serve. That is how the service was established in the province. The service does not suit the climatic conditions of the province and does not fill the needs of the people it was supposed to serve.
Notwithstanding all the expertise that the CN people professed to have, and I mentioned this earlier, it became obvious they did not have a clue as to how to run a bus system, because they started the service without even a basic shelter or station for passengers awaiting the arrival of a bus on the Trans-Canada Highway. People have so stand on the highway in the middle of winter waiting for a bus which is often hours late. There was absolutely no provision for the carrying of invalids who have to travel hundreds of miles sitting up in the bus, or for the carrying of stretcher cases. There was no provision for passengers who had to stand for miles with children in their arms because they could not reserve space in advance or because they lost their seats at station stops when they got off for a bite to eat. Mr. Speaker, there was no planning whatsoever; and then the CNR bragged about their cheap prices and oversold tickets. Now, the company is applying to the appropriate provincial agency for a 30 per cent increase in bus fares. Let me tell you that some passengers had to hire taxis to follow the bus. There have been cases where people had to get to the hospital, and they hired a taxi to follow a bus in the hope that a passenger would get off at a stop and make a seat available.
Let me tell you about one of the communities served by this Canadian dream bus system in my district of Newfoundland. There is at the community of Howley, which is some 30 miles from Deer Lake, a station stop for buses. Anyone travelling from Grand Falls to Howley has to go 30 miles beyond Howley to Deer Lake because the bus will not stop at the junction, and then hire a taxi to travel that same 30 miles back home. That is the system presently set up. About three years ago when the president of CNR appeared before a committee, I asked him if the company had had any experience with providing bus services. He said they had not had such experience. I then asked why the company had not approached a bus company like Greyhound, or some similar company, for advice on how to set up a bus service. Now, after an interval of four years, CNR is going to Greyhound and asking that company to tell them what is wrong with the bus service presently provided in Newfoundland.
This is the system they set up. These expert executives are listed in the CN report as corporate planners, as vice-presidents of express and highway services, as marketing specialists, as experts in passenger sales and ser-
April 21, 1972

vice and as experts in research and development. These are the people who planned and provided this bus system which should be the laughing stock of Canada. I could tell you about the people living in small communities which are away from the main highway. These people have to hire taxis to get to the bus because the CNR does not provide a feeder service. This same company, the CNR, keeps feeding monthly figures through the press about all the passengers they carry and the increase in the passenger load. What else can one expect when there is no other way to travel. They give a service alright, so long as people live on the trans-Canada highway.
Let me tell you what else they are doing in Newfoundland for the Canadian dream. For years, private individuals have provided a bus service under provincial licence by the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities, an arm of the provincial government. This commission is almost a part of the Jessie James bargain, imposed when the agreement was made to eliminate the rail passenger service. These private bus companies provided a service under the worst road conditions before the advent of the trans-Canada highway. They eked out a bare living. Now, what has happened? As soon as the CN was ready, it obliterated the small businessmen. It will continue to do so as road conditions improve. It will not serve communities which are not on paved highways. However, as soon as the roads leading to these communities are paved, the CN will move in and put the small operator out of business. We talk about unfair competition under the Competition Act. I hope the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Andras) will look into this matter. Every small bus operator will be out of business in the next few years as the octopus CNR closes its tentacles around the rest of the province. We in Newfoundland demand the return of our railway service because it is vital to our economy. We demand the return of the railway system because its continuance was guaranteed under the terms of confederation. There is no reason this cannot be done, because all that is required is improvement of the rails, the cutting out of some of the curves, which should have been done in years past.
Although I doubt it, I hope that someone will listen and this will come about. We demand a rail passenger service because of the repeated promises by this government that every Canadian will be accorded equality of opportunity, regardless of where he lives. We demand it because of the stated objective of the Canadian Transport Commission just last year, the development of a basic transcontinental passenger service which will justify whatever cost there may be to the federal treasury and which will satisfy the needs of the travelling public. This has to be done for all Canadians from coast to coast. If the commission cannot fulfil this promise they should resign, and the government should resort to its usual procrastinating task force concept to find out why the rail service is not being provided. It may not be too long before they will no longer have any control over it. Probably, however, I am being a little too insular in my attitude towards the Canadian transportation scene as a whole. We have all become aware that the automobile is one of the major sources of pollution, as is the supersonic transport in the skies.
CNR and Air Canada
Let us look for a moment at a booklet issued by The United Transportation Union. Under the heading "Does Government Care?" we find this:
But the question remains: Who's going to save the passenger train in Canada? Certainly not the railways. They continue the systematic process of dismantling their passenger services, with the blessing of the federal government and its agency, the CTC.
It is ironic to recall that the CPR once promised that it would "forever efficiently maintain, work and run the Canadian Pacific Railway," in exchange for vast grants of land and cash and generous tax concessions from its friends in government.
Further down on the same page there is this:
If the government were seriously concerned with the kind of transportation services Canadians are getting, it would force the CPR to change its priorities.
Then another part of the booklet reads:
The history of the CNR is evidence enough that nationalization alone is no guarantee of good service. At any rate, the government seems to have no objection at all to the CPR's priorities, and neither does the Canadian Transport Commission, which under the National Transportation Act administers transportation policy.
The Act is largely responsible for the uncertain future of passenger service in this country. Its passage was Jack Pickersgill's crowning achievement as transport minister, and it seems to be deliberately designed to encourage the railways to get rid of their passenger trains. If a railway wishes to abandon a service, it must first prove that it is losing money on it to the satisfaction of the CTC. Then the Commission, after considering "all matters that in its opinion are relevant to the public interest," rules on whether the railway can go ahead with the abandonment. If it says no, the railway must keep it going and the government will subsidize its losses on the service to the extent of 80 per cent.
This provision came into effect just after the rail passenger service in Newfoundland was eliminated. Nobody told the CN they could continue the service and apply for the 80 per cent subsidy. They cut out the service on the assumption that it was costing $900,000 a year. This is ridiculous.
Moving on for a moment to other responsibilities of the CNR, I wish to bring into question again, as I have on other occasions, the ferry service between the Island of Newfoundland and Labrador. St. Barbe North, which is in my district of northern Newfoundland and which everybody seems to forget, is in northern Canada. In spite of all the policies and millions of dollars being poured into northern Canada, and in spite of all the need for the movement of goods and services between Newfoundland and Labrador over a distance of 10 or 15 miles, we cannot seem to get the government to realize the need for a proper wharf so that the ferry can dock and so that the service may operate in a modern way. Many papers come across my desk indicating what the Canadian government intends to do about the north. I must say that it would seem that the northern part of Canada in my riding of northern Newfoundland gets little or nothing. I demand that this ferry service be looked into, and I hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) will do so.
There are many weaknesses in Air Canada's service and I hesitate to go into them, but it is obvious that the transportation system, particularly in my province, leaves much to be desired. It is difficult to understand why the government, on the one hand, spends many millions of dollars creating new agencies like Information Canada and, on the other hand, cannot provide a service in the

April 21, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
province of Newfoundland. This seems to be beyond comprehension. I can only ask that the government take another look at the situation or even speak to me, because I am willing to meet with them and discuss the matter. This might allow me to get over my frustration because I feel the province of Newfoundland should be considered as a part of the Canadian dream.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, the CNR financing bill before us brings to the attention of hon. members a potpourri of problems relating to transportation across the country.
But there are four main areas of concern-financing, pensions for employees, passenger transportation services in relation both to rail and air transport, and the involvement of the government in future planned development. If two ministers should be here today, they should be the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson). The only official person I see here today, however, is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Buchanan). Well do I recall his speech when he introduced the legislation on behalf of the government. I believe it lasted for no more than ten minutes, probably for about seven minutes. It was the type of speech one would make to a Kiwanis Club or to a Kinsmen's Club or to a Chamber of Commerce. It was innocuous. It was anaemic. It was a nothing speech. Yet here we are, considering areas of concern which affect all Canadians. One would think the government would make a determined attempt to be persuasive and put forward a convincing defence of the position it has taken.
This has not happened. When I think of the Minister of Transport, I remember the late "Satchmo" Armstrong. "Satchmo" Armstrong was a man who was all smiles. His gravel voice put out a multiplicity of words. What he performed on the trumpet was really sweet music. The Minister of Transport is all smiles and he is all sweet talk. The difference is that he blows nothing on his trumpet. Nothing comes out. He is all puff, but there is no performance. It is a sad note that he is not here today. It is sad to think he has not been here during the debate to listen to the representations made by various members of the House concerning the troubles they have encountered in the field of transportation.
I appreciate that the areas of responsibility which the minister must assume in the railway and transportation fields are wide. But it seems to me, from his performance so far, that he has been a captive of his officials, that he has become the yo-yo of their policies and decisions. Substantially, they have no policies and, in fact, they make very few decisions unless those decisions are dictated to them or influenced by CNR officials.
I notice, now, that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is presently in the House. I hope he will bring to the attention of his colleague, the Minister of Transport, that he has been compared with "Satchmo" Armstrong. I compare the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with Maurice Chevalier.


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is usually Fernandel.
fMr. Marshall.!


John Gilbert: The late Maurice Chevalier is usually thought of as a man who was all song and dance and it seems to me that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is all song and dance. I hope he will bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport that the latter has been compared with "Satchmo" Armstrong. "Satchmo" played sweet music and put up a tremendous performance. The Minister of Transport is all smiles, all sweet talk, but there is no performance.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not very appreciative.


John Gilbert: These are words I must use in reference to the Minister of Transport. Sometimes I have to say certain things about the Minister of Industry, Trade and commerce. I well recall that when 600 men were laid off at the Dunlop plant in Toronto, he adopted a soothing approach and said everything would be done. In the event, little or nothing was done about the jobs of these 600 people. Yesterday, when I heard the hon. member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Allmand) talk about unemployment at the Northern Electric Plant in Montreal the idea which crossed my mind was this: I hope the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will not treat the employees of Northern Electric in the same way as the employees of the Dunlop plant were treated.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I wonder whether the hon. member who has the floor would return to the motion before us. I am anxious to hear him move on to another minister.


John Gilbert: It is unfortunate there is a time limitation, otherwise I could spend the afternoon moving from one minister to the next.
May I say that the Minister of Transport has really contributed nothing new, nothing dynamic, nothing constructive to the solution of the main problems facing us today in the transportation field. Your Honour will recall that I said there were four areas which were of particular concern. The first concerns finance. The CNR has been the recipient of the financial burdens of railways which were operated by private enterprise in the past and which failed. When reorganization took place around 1920, the CNR assumed those responsibilities. From that time until today it has continued to bear this burden in the form of bonds and liability for interest payment. These liabilities have proved to be an albatross around the neck of the CNR and have, indirectly, been the cause of a great deal of unfair criticism directed toward a public enterprise. Critics of public enterprise point a finger at the CNR and say: This is an example of what happens when an enterprise is taken over by the government. They do not go back into history and remember that the CNR was saddled from the beginning with an almost impossible task.
I would imagine that the main question we should be asking ourselves is this: How can we best approach the rationalization of this financial position? How can we set up a financial structure which would give the CNR an opportunity to succeed? I hasten to add that the CNR has shown a profit on its yearly operations in terms of the profit and loss sheet. The difficulty has arisen with regard to the repayment of the bond holders in connection with the debt the railway assumed around 1920. One would
April 21, 1972

think, therefore, that the government would consider taking the initiative by paying past debts of the company and setting up a new financial structure.
It appears to me that the financial problem to which I have referred could repeat itself in the area of air transportation. Air Canada has in the past had the exclusive right to provide air transport, but from the time it was set up to the present day there has been a whittling away of the monopoly that Air Canada should have in the provision of air transport. The CPR entered the air transport field and has taken away some of the routes Air Canada served in the past. We now have other air transport companies entering the field, again trying to fragment and to whittle away the monopoly that Air Canada should have. The small companies, with their so-called feeder services, are attempting to encroach upon the operations of Air Canada. Need I mention the recent application of TransAir, which now wants to provide passenger service from Toronto to Winnipeg, thereby again cutting in on the service of Air Canada.
Surely, the day will be reached when the operations of Air Canada will be so fragmented by the encroachment and intrusion of private air companies that we may find a repetition of what happened to the railway services in 1918, where finally the private companies failed and were merged into the CNR. I suggest you may find Air Canada failing in the future as a result of the intrusion and encroachment of private companies. Then, the logical result would be that the private air companies would fail, and then the business people would look to Air Canada to assume their debts and also to acquire their routes.
One of the things that worries me is that, with the setting up of the Canada Development Corporation, there has been a great deal of talk about such companies as Air Canada and Polymer being purchased by the Canada Development Corporation, then shares being issued which would be made available to the public. I can almost anticipate what would happen, Mr. Speaker. I do not think one has to be an old testament prophet or a Jeanne Dixon, a woman we hear about in the United States who forecasts the future, to see what might happen. We will find the CDC, by assuming the assets and operations of Air Canada and Polymer and making shares available to the public, stressing the profit aspect of their business operations and forgetting the service aspect.
In that situation the corporation would be concentrating on profit rather than on service, and it may get into the same hoary mess that the CNR has got itself into in the field of transportation. I hope that this does not happen. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will take the message back to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) and have him spend a weekend in retreat thinking through some of the problems that have been presented to him by all members of this House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton is seeking the floor.


Mr. Blair:: Mr. Speaker, might I have the floor to ask permission to ask the hon. member a question?


John Gilbert: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.
CNR and Air Canada


Duncan Gordon Blair: As I understood the remarks of the hon. member, he said that Air Canada was going to be sold to the Canada Development Corporation. I wonder where and when that was announced.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I have great admiration for the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), and I appreciate his fears regarding the forthcoming election in view of the high calibre of candidates who will be facing him.


Duncan Gordon Blair: What about answering the question?


John Gilbert: I would have hoped that he had listened to me, because I did not say that the Canada Development Corporation were going to acquire these corporations. I said they may acquire Air Canada and Polymer. I am sure that now he has heard the answer he will be persuaded that what I have said has not only strength but soundness.


Duncan Gordon Blair: I am just as confused now as the hon. member's constituents.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Broadview.


John Gilbert: I can just picture the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton practising law full time within a few months.
The second area of concern for most Canadians is the question of CNR pensions. I am sure the parliamentary secretary heard the remarks made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has raised this matter over the many years he has been here and has commented on the unfairness and the discrimination being experienced by employees of the CNR. I think that the CNR operates on the principle of divide and rule, much like the British government did during its tenure in India.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The rule of all empires.


John Gilbert: As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) says, this has been the rule all empires in the past have operated under.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It started with the Romans.


John Gilbert: As the hon. member says, it started with the Roman empire. I thank him for his historical note on the subject.
The main issue on the subject of pensions, which I think all members should be apprised of, is that CNR employees receive 1 1 per cent per year of service calculated on their best five years salary. For example, if an employee works for 20 years, at 11 per cent he would receive 30 per cent of the average of his best five years salary. May I remind all hon. members of the House that federal civil servants receive 2 per cent of their salary, or half a per cent more. I suggest this represents a great disparity and I would be delighted to tell my colleagues about that following the recess, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.

April 21, 1972
CNR and Air Canada AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, prior to the luncheon adjournment you will remember that I said there were four main areas of criticism with regard to the performance of this government in the transportation field, both in its railway service and its airport service. You will recall that I said that first, the criticism related to financing, second, to pensions, third, to passenger service, and fourth, to the involvement of the government in land development. I underlined, in my usual low key style, that the performance of both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has been very bad, not only so far as their lack of attendance to hear the representations of the different members of the opposition is concerned but also as regards the performance of the officials of the Department of Transport.
With regard to pensions, I said that the government was applying the divide and rule theory to CNR employees so far as their pensions are concerned, according to which the government pays only 11 per cent of the salary of the employee during his years of service and the calculation is based on his best five years of service. The example that I gave was that if an employee worked for 20 years he would receive 11 per cent per year of service which would make 30 per cent of his best five year average salary, whereas the federal civil servants obtain 2 per cent per year under the same formula. Therefore, the federal civil servants receive 40 per cent of their salary while the CNR employees receive 30 per cent which, in my opinion and that of many others, is rank discrimination and unfairness. Not only that, there is also the question of the recent catch-up payment made by the government to meet some of the shortages that railway employees were experiencing in the country. I think the government gave them a one-shot payment to make up the difference, whereas the federal civil servants have a continuing formula. Therefore, again there is discrimination with regard to the railway employees.
This indicates the callous, indifferent and political attitude of this government concerning pensions of CNR employees. This divide and rule theory has been applied not only to CNR employees but to the senior citizens of this country. The government has used the same technique with regard to cost of living payments to people who only recieve old age security payments and to those who receive old age security plus the supplement. The people who receive old age security and who have contributed a great deal to this country are thereby denied any cost of living bonus. This principle is being applied to the CNR employees, and many of us look on it as a double standard used by the government. We think it is distasteful and disdainful.
The third area of criticism that we in the opposition have relates to the passenger service performance of the CNR. Over the years I have heard many people refer to the great performance of Mussolini in Italy who made the trains run on time. I have also heard comments regarding the fantastic railway service in Japan, as well as the fast, efficient and well administered railway service in certain 
European countries. The question arises, why are these tributes paid to these countries but when it comes to the transportation in Canada people are dismayed and disgusted. Some say that it is because of the public ownership principle in countries such as Japan, Italy and other European countries where the public demands efficiency. Here, we have historical facts which run against us, where we have one railway line operated under public ownership and the other, the CPR, under private ownership. This conflict does not produce an efficient type of service which people want and expect.
The tragedy with regard to the railway service is that the CPR dominates the transportation scene in Canada. When they decide, for example, to abandon the passenger service, the government says "yes, sir, we will assist you to do so". So they abandon rail lines and services while the government stands idly by and the minister takes no active part to protect the people of this country. When the CPR says that they will discontinue the passenger service because it brings no profit but they will continue freight service because it brings profit, then it is high time for the government to take the initiative and set down a transportation policy which would meet the needs of all Canadians. Surely, the time has come when the CPR should be confronted with the situation which exists in transportation, and if they have ideas regarding the discontinuing of passenger service then I hope we will not make the same mistake as was made by the CNR back in 1918 when private companies failed and their debts were assumed by the CNR. I hope that if any compensation is given it will be minimal, because what we need across the country is an integrated service which will meet the needs of all Canadians and which will use up-to-date transportation techniques, not only with regard to passengers but with regard to products.
When one reads of track air cushion vehicles and yet find we have had no real research and development by the CNR in this area, one wonders what they have in mind with regard to future development in this field. This also brings to question the cummuter train service which to date has been haphazard and very inefficient. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Buchanan) will bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport some of the failings that we have experienced in the transportation service.
With regard to our air service, lately we have had the problem of the new airport in Toronto. You will recall that a few years ago when air transport needs were very pressing in Toronto, the government recommended the expanded use of the Toronto international airport at Malton. You will recall also that the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beer), and other hon. members who were directly affected raised such a furore with the government that it backed down and changed its decision with regard to any future expansion of the Malton airport. I notice that the hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe is present this afternoon.
I think I should say to him that I am not being unduly critical of him, or the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Chappell) with regard to the opposition from their constituencies concerning expansion of the Malton airport. But what
April 21, 1972

I am saying is that this would indicate a lack of planning with regard to an expanded airport at Malton. To permit builders to build homes so close to Malton airport, when the government should have had the foresight to know the area would be required for expansion, makes me believe the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) has been negligent in the performance of his duties.
What happened? The hon. member for Peel, and possibly the hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe-


Mr. Beer:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would get my constituency right. I represent the riding of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe.


John Gilbert: I apologize to the hon. member for not naming his constituency correctly. Mr. Speaker, I was sad to read the news that he is about to retire from his constituency. I hope he enjoys the full benefits of his pension. As 1 was saying, the representations made by the members representing these constituencies were so valid and strong that the government backed down with regard to expanding the Malton airport. As a result we had a continuation of the problem of transport in Toronto.
Then, the government brought forth the second suggestion, that the airport should be located at Pickering, and for the last while we have had discussions with regard to the new location. It would be fair to say that the Liberals are incomplete disarray concerning it. Here I mention the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik). When I think of him. Mr. Speaker, I think of Charlie McCarthy because he appears to be speaking out of both sides of his mouth. He appears to be saying yes to some, and no to others. It will be interesting to see which side he comes down on with regard to the site.
I also think of the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson) who, when the motion concerning CNR financing came up, did not touch on the airport at Pickering but said he would prefer the new airport to be located at Peterborough. Actually, he indicated he was in favour of the airport at Pickering, but when the flack reached his ears from constituents who found that the flight pattern would be right over their property he had to take the position that many people take when trade unions become involved in organizing. It is known as the mug-rump position. They have their mug on one side of the fence and their rump on the other. He reminds me of the fellow who goes to the old swimming hole, takes off his clothes, goes in for a swim, comes out, finds his clothes missing, and runs around screaming, wondering where they are. The hon. member for York North is running around screaming trying to find out what position he should take.
What do we need with regard to a new airport in Toronto? First of all, Mr. Speaker, we must establish that there is a need for a new airport. Secondly, if there is a need, we must establish what is the best location. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on this matter, and in it touched on two problems that exist. In it he wrote:
First of all, I do not believe that any convincing case has been made out for the need for a new international airport in the Toronto area. If such a need exists it should be shown to the public to exist. Secondly, assuming the need, I do not believe that
CNR and Air Canada
a case has been made out for the site now chosen as the best possible site.
Then, he pointed out a precedent in England which most of us should know about. I quote:
I note that in the United Kingdom when in the planning stages of developing a third London airport, a commission of inquiry, the Roskill commission, was created to advise the British government as to its timing and location. The commission engaged a research team and a number of outside consultants. Public hearings were held to establish the facts and a further public hearing was held in London following publication of a cost benefit analysis. The commission made its report and it was submitted to the government.
The public was invited to present its arguments in favour or contrary to the proposed plan. Witnesses were cross-examined to ensure that the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence would be made apparent.
I think this should be the approach with regard to the new site at Pickering. I am not alone in this belief because I notice that the Ontario Liberal leader, Robert Nixon said recently that the province might as well hold public hearings immediately on the proposed Pickering airport. He is attempting to say that the onus is on the Ontario government with regard to public hearings. In light of the new expropriation laws that have been passed, I think the government will take the position that there must be public hearings, and will have them held under the provisions of that act. That is not adequate, because under the Expropriation Act there is no requirement on the person holding a hearing to delve into all the pros and cons. His jurisdiction is too narrow for that.
What we need is a public inquiry along the same lines as they had in England, where a commission was set up which made a detailed study. A report was submitted to the government and then the government submitted that report to a public inquiry to determine the pros and cons. This would be a fine example of participatory democracy. At the moment, we have only the Minister of Transport acting in a very cute and shy, concealing way with regard to the government's plans.
My final point deals with the participation of the government in land development. The example I have in mind is Metro Centre in Toronto, a development of the southern part of the city towards the lake, extending roughly from Yonge Street to Bathurst, and embracing a good number of acres. This venture has required the joint participation of the CNR and the CPR. Very little public information has been given out by the CNR or by the minister with regard to the government's involvement in Metro Centre. I would like the parliamentary secretary, and possibly the officials in the gallery to make note of some of the questions I have received concerning Metro Centre. Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I note that you are keeping your eye on the clock. I would like to remind you that we did not start until 12 minutes after two o'clock and so I have another five minutes to go.
These are some of the questions that I have received: one, what happens when a public corporation, the CNR, and a private corporation get together and produce an offspring, namely, Metro Centre Development? Surely, the legitimacy of the results of such a union should be questioned? Two, what has the CNR contributed to this union? How is it being financed? Three, what reason does CNR give for tearing down Union Station and building a new terminal just south of the present Union Station site?
1528

April 21, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
Four, how much land within the Metro Centre area does CNR hold title to, and approximately where is it located? Five, what guarantees can CNR give that in the event a new terminal is built, passengers will not be inconvenienced by longer walking distances between subway, GO-trains and mainland trains?
What guarantee can the Canadian National provide to GO-train passengers that the new terminal will be located no further from the center of the city than the present Union Station? Has the Canadian National investigated the possibility of retaining the present post office terminal 'A' building for an air terminal and, later, bus terminal? Has Air Canada shown any interest in retaining the post office downtown for an air terminal where outgoing passengers can be ticketed and transferred to Malton by rail, thereby bypassing the passenger terminal at Malton? Is the Canadian National engaged in any studies to provide additional commuter passenger train service, in co-operation with the province of Ontario? Is the Canadian National engaged in research, or is it sponsoring research with regard to track air cushion vehicles? Those are some of the questions submitted to me with regard to the Metro Centre, and I hope we get answers to them. As I said at the beginning of my speech, four main areas have been covered but we have had little or no response and the only conclusion must be that the government feels "the public be damned, long live private enterprise". I am ashamed if that is their position.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-4, to finance and guarantee funds to the CNR and Air Canada provides the annual opportunity for members of this House to discuss transportation problems. These two companies service most of Canada, along with the CPR and CPA and so transportation problems in Canada in general may be touched upon as well as any specific cases. The lack of a viable transportation policy affects people from one coast to the other and the economic problems involved concern all members.
In commenting upon this bill this afternoon, I should like to be as objective as possible. I certainly do not intend to mention political parties because this problem affects all of us. However, in Atlantic Canada Transportation has always been a problem and, in fact, the basis of our entry into Confederation was access to the central Canadian markets. In fact, the Maritime Freight Rates Act was supposed to guarantee that Atlantic Canada would have equal access to the central Canadian markets, but regardless of what party was in power, problems have existed.
On March 14, when the minister introduced the bill he outlined the problem. While some of his speech was interesting and philosophic, I felt that he tended to ignore the historic right of equal access given in the Maritime Freight Rates Act. He mentioned that our freight rate increases are under the national average, notwithstanding the fact that we have had eight increases in the past 29 months. I should like to illustrate how these increases affect a manufacturer in my area. Ironically, two years ago this manufacturer received assistance through a DREE grant in order to expand his plant so that he could compete in Canada. His ability to do this is seriously

impaired by these freight rate increases in such a short period.
The Maritime Freight Rates Act was designed to give goods manufactured in the Atlantic provinces access to the central Canadian market. When there is a freight rate increase across the board of, say, 10 per cent, that has less impact on the short-haul shipment from Ottawa to Toronto or Montreal than it has on the long-haul shipment from Halifax to Montreal or Vancouver. This has been recognized by various transportation commissions and they have attempted to resolve it. The formula in the Maritime Freight Rates Act represented an attempt to solve the problem, but now that act has been superseded. It is not good enough for the minister to say that our freight rate increases are still under the national average. Because of the distance involved, any increase hits us harder than it hits the shipper in central Canada.
The MacPherson Royal Commission stated in volume one of its report at page 18 as follows:
It is the regions of Canada where competition to the railways is less intense upon which the present freight rate structure bears most heavily. Although monopoly no longer characterizes the transportation system as a whole in Canada, there are still vestiges of it in areas which, because of inadequate highway facilities, distance from markets, or other factors which have inhibited the development of competition, continue to be dependent to varying degrees on railway transport. While it is true that the number of competitive rates and agreed charges is growing in both the Atlantic provinces and western Canada, the indications are that they are comparable neither in quantity nor quality to those applicable within central Canada.
And here is the important part, Mr. Speaker:
The end result appears to be that the uneven impact of competition, transmitted through the freigh rate structure, tends to produce a greater relative increase in the price of moving goods by rail for the Atlantic and western shipper than that experienced bv shippers in Central Canada. This effect is particularly noticeable on long-haul shipments to the markets of central Canada. For example, the marketing consequences of a 20 per cent increase to a long-haul shipper who has been paying $500 a carload to get his product to the Toronto market and will now pay an additional $100 are obviously more serious than those upon his short-haul competitor who has been paying $50 a carload to get to the same market and will now pay only $10 more.
In Atlantic Canada, there are not too many viable companies manufacturing the basic necessities, but I should like to illustrate the impact of this freight rate increase on a company in my riding, the Canadian Keyes Fibre Company, Limited. As a result of the last freight rate increase, and there have been eight over the last 29 months the last talking place on February 14, 1972, the transportation manager of the company wrote to the minister and pointed out in graphic terms how these freight rate increases, one piled on top of the other, are pushing this company to the brink of survival, since most of its customers are in the west and central parts of Canada. He wrote:
On February 14, industry in Nova Scotia, and across Atlantic Canada will be faced with an increase in most rail rates, ranging from 4-8 per cent. Some people may say "so what, a rate increase of 4-8 per cent in many industries would not be considered unrealistic." The startling thing about this increase is that it is the eighth time in the past 29 months that rail rates have increased!
Canadian Keyes Fibre Company Limited, located in Hantsport, Nova Scotia, manufactures a variety of molded wood pulp prod-
April 21, 1972

ucts such as Egg Cartons, Berry Boxes, trays for packing eggs, meats, produce, etc., Pie Plates for bakeries and disposable tableware. We presently employ approximately 325 people.
Most of our products are made from raw materials produced in Nova Scotia, utilizing the natural wood resources of our Province. These finished goods are sold in all major markets across Canada. We are, therefore, a "resource" industry that makes a major contribution to the real wealth of our Province. A very minor portion of our production is exported outside of Canada.
He went on to say:
We feel sure that if a manufacturer as vital to the economy as rail transportation were to apply increases at the rate of 8 times in 29 months, and a cumulative total of some 35-68 per cent, government action would very likely be considered.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that when the St. Lawrence Seaway workers were given a 30 per cent pay increase over a two-year period, there were objections. Some members in this House as well as people around the country, say that our present inflationary spiral can be traced back to that fantastically large increase, in percentage terms, which was granted to those workers. People have criticized that increase bitterly. As the writer points out, cumulative increases of between 35 and 68 per cent in other areas would bring cries of outrage from the members of this House. He illustrates how these increases have affected the transfer of goods from Hantsport, where the company exists, to the various shipping points where the customers are. I will not read the entire list. It is interesting to note that the rate from Hantsport to Cornerbrook was $1.13 on January 1, and now it is $1.81. From Hantsport to Montreal, the rate on January 1, 1969, was 93 cents; on February 14, after the last increase, it rose to $1.37. I might mention that these are increases on class 45 carload rates to these various points.
The rate to Toronto went up from $1.30, on January 1, 1969, to $1.84, after the last increase. To Winnipeg, the rate was $2.99 in January, 1969, and went up to $4.13 after the last increase in February. To Calgary, the rate went from $4.65 in January to $6.08, and to Vancouver it increased from $5.65 to $7.39. In view of these increases, one wonders how the company can continue competing in the markets of Canada. Instead of philosophizing about the national average of rate structures and saying that perhaps we are not far above or below that national average, the minister should consider how any across the board increase adversely affects the long-haul shipper, be he in the east or in the west.
These increases constitute real discrimination against relatively depressed areas of the economy and make it difficult for companies in those areas to compete. Apparently the minister either does not acknowledge the problem or has underplayed its seriousness. Certainly, the point at issue is not any national average for rate increases. That is not the point at all. The point we must consider is the history behind the maritimes freight rates legislation. That legislation was originally introduced to guarantee our producers access to the markets of central Canada. A subsidy was paid. That is no longer the case under the National Transportation Act. Consequently, the long-haul shipper, whether in the east or in the west, is much harder hit now with across-the-board increases.
I think the traffic manager of the company was most moderate in suggesting to the minister that such action
CNR and Air Canada
should not be taken again without further study, and that the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission ought to be involved in any study before there are any increases. In his letter he spoke about the impact of these freight rate increases and suggested that their impact be assessed before further increases are piled on top of the ones already imposed during the last 29 months. He suggested, further, that the minister obtain a progress report from the federal-provincial committee which was set up to examine the recommendations made by the premiers of the four Atlantic provinces in March, 1969. These actually have not been fully implemented. Only one or two of those recommendations have been implemented, most of the others are gathering dust.
The former minister of transport who is now the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) requested concrete suggestions on how to resolve these fundamental problems. We waited for two years while four Atlantic premiers of different political stripes set up a joint study. Federal funding was involved. In the end, the Atlantic Provinces Transportation Committee made recommendations that were unanimous. They were adopted by the Atlantic premiers, who adopted them regardless of political stripe. For the first time we had a report from the four Atlantic premiers, and it set out clearly positive steps that should be followed if the perennial problem of transportation was to be resolved. Since then, another minister of transport from eastern Canada has been appointed. Certainly, he is aware of these recommendations and is as vitally concerned about them as we are. Unfortunately, the mechanism that the premiers wanted to establish for resolving these problems is not in operation. The federal-provincial committee set up to continue the work begun by the four Atlantic premiers has not followed the recommendations of the four premiers.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: Also, the minister has ignored the committee report which endorsed the recommendations of the premiers.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: As my friend from Moncton has reminded me, the minister ignored the unanimous report of the transport committee that had travelled through Atlantic Canada. Ironically, it was tabled in the House on the very day when the minister brought in the most recent transportation bill, the Atlantic transportation fiscal arrangements act, or something like that, in 1969. We went to all the trouble of travelling around the various areas of Atlantic Canada. I was a member of the committee, as was my good friend from Moncton. This commitee heard all the government groups, the boards of trade, the manufacturers groups and the farm groups. The committee came back here and prepared a unanimous report which was not a political partisan document.
The great irony is that the report was tabled in the House of Commons on the very day the Transport Minister brought in the Atlantic transportation fiscal arrangements bill, as I believe it was called, a piecemeal transportation bill to help solve part of the Atlantic transportation problems. At that time, the minister said that other bills would follow after the transportation committee report was evaluated, and after the Atlantic premiers report was
25104-38(

April 21, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
assessed. That was in 1969, and we still have not had further items dealing specifically with Atlantic transportation. One might leave out the criticism I have made in respect of these eight increases over a period of 29 months and say I am being parochial in talking about Atlantic Canada. Of course I am, because I have the honour to represent a riding in that part of Canada.
Let us leave the question of the lack of Atlantic policies and talk about the general transportation policy in Canada or the lack of one. The National Transportation Act was supposed to be the great blueprint for all time. This is the act which created the Canadian Transport Commission. The Minister of Transport who piloted the bill through this House became the first chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission. I refer of course to Mr. Pickersgill who is now Chairman of the CTC. Even since 1969, there have been so many changes that some of the underlying premises of the National Transportation Act as we have seen it implemented should be challenged. I think the compensatory rates for competitive modes of transport must be seriously considered. I wonder whether they are really valid. As I wonder this, I should like to draw attention to what the Canadian Railway Labour Association thinks about a national transportation policy, or the lack of one. This organization made the following submission to the government on March 6, 1972:
We agree with the general principles of the 'National Transportation Policy' but suggest that it does not go far enough towards meeting the needs of the Canadian public. For example, the national transportation policy should be directed towards the fullest use possible of Canadian transportation facilities in the movement of our natural resources to export positions. We have in mind such cases as the exporting of coal from the Kootenay region of British Columbia to the Roberts Bank superport which was constructed partially with Federal funds. Our contention is that the movement of such Canadian natural resources should be restricted to Canadian modes of transport using Canadian routes. We further contend that such issues should be dealt with on a national level, that there should be a national policy for dealing with these issues, and that they should not be left with a provincial regulatory body or a provincial government. In addition in the application of the policy to date vis-a-vis the rail passenger situation, too much emphasis has been placed on the narrow concept of economic viability.
We have emphasized throughout this Brief the existence of change and the many ways in which change should affect policy in Canada. One dominant reason why change should bring about new and different policies is because, with the passage of time, the assumptions upon which existing policies are based become less valid, if not erroneous.
That is what I say has happened in respect of the National Transportation Act. The brief continues:
A case in point, and one which is of great importance to us is the National Transportation Act. Many of the basic assumptions upon which this Act is based date back to the MacPherson Royal Commission in the 1950s. We are very strongly of the view that many of the conclusions of the studies done for that Royal Commission are not consistent with contemporary views. The Act contains a built-in bias towards using economic viability as the over-riding criterion for determining railway passenger transportation needs. We suggest that the assumptions upon which the Act was based are not a sufficient basis for contemporary policy and that these assumptions are in contradiction with many of the Government's other policies.
The assumptions of the Act are insufficient today because the Canadian people and their Government have increasingly realized that while economic criteria are important, perhaps the most important criteria, they should not be the overriding consideration

in all cases. This is especially true when one considers the longterm results of any given action. We have realized that while the gross national product may be a reasonably satisfactory aggregate measure of the Canadian people's well-being, it is a poor measure of the quality of life.
Increasingly also economics and the other social sciences have placed renewed emphasis upon a vastly broadened concept of cost, realizing that public costs and benefits can, and frequently do, outweigh private costs and benefits. To consider only costs and benefits in a narrow sense is to accept a short-term and unrealistic framework for policy. It is not sufficient for the Canadian Transport Commission to look at the costs and revenues as submitted by the railways for such a service and merely weigh those arguments against the views of the public at a hearing.
This Government has increasingly demonstrated its willingness to view problems on a long-term basis and to do so within the framework of a broadened concept of costs and benefits, especially with respect to environmental questions. But your willingness to be farsighted on some environmental issues contrasts sharply with the underlying assumptions of the National Transportation Act, which is the basic element in Canada's transportation policy.
There are numerous ways in which the National Transportation Act conflicts with current policy. We wish to mention only two. With the elimination of rail passenger service the public's ability to choose among different modes of transportation is being restricted. This would not be such a serious situation if the various methods of transportation were perfect substitutes. They are not. They are in many ways complementary but not substitutive. Therefore the mobility of the public is being lessened and the cost of maintaining the same amount of mobility is being increased.
Secondly, the elimination of rail passenger service is promoting the increased use of automobiles at the same time as the public and various levels of Government are becoming concerned about the increasing costs of pollution, congestion, etc. The current policy is encouraging the elimination of rail passenger service despite the knowledge that such service is the most acceptable means of moving large numbers of people on an urban, interurban and national basis. We submit that the aims of the present policy of the National Transportation Act are outdated, inadequate, and inappropriate and should therefore be immediately revised.
I could read much more, because I certainly concur with a good part of it. In terms of Atlantic Canada, not only have we not moved ahead to implement the firm recommendations of the four Atlantic premiers or of the Atlantic transportation committee, but on a national basis there is a question whether we should review some of the underlying principles of the national transportation policy.
In the few minutes I have remaining, I should like to mention the question of re-financing in a very general way because it is a very complicated subject. It appears that the minister's statement can be taken at face value and we will have another opportunity in another session, if and when there is another session, to discuss other features of the Canadian National Railways or Air Canada. The minister said there will be a bill to separate Air Canada from the CNR and also that there will be, I believe he said, a new CNR revision act. I think members should take note now that in any so-called revision act we should not continue to perpetuate the myth about the debt structure of the CNR, notwithstanding the debt structure it assumed many years ago in respect of all the other railways. I do not have the time or expertise today to go into this in any great detail, but in 1952 there was a recapitulation of the CNR debt structure which involved hundreds of millions of dollars. At that time, and through that bill, as a result of the buying of shares and the low interest placed on some of the loans, the CNR was sup-
April 21, 1972

posed to be put on a position to compete with any other railway. It was felt then, that the CNR would not need to come back perpetually to the Parliament of Canada to be bailed out.
It will be very interesting when the new bill is introduced to see just what explanation will be given concerning why the taxpayers of Canada will again have to bail out the CNR because of the very heavy debt structure that has been criticized since 1952. This question has a real impact upon anyone involved in the trucking industry, because as we all know both CP and CNR carry on very large trucking operations. In the case of CP it is through Smith's Transport, and in the case of CN it is through CNCL and a host of similar companies which carry out the motor transportation operation.
The CN has not differentiated between these two aspects of its operations to the point where we can ascertain what costs are charged against rail and what costs are charged against motor transportation. This is a situation we should check into when the recapitalization bill comes before the House.
The measure before us will, if passed, perpetuate a situation in which motive transport is subsidized from the public purse despite the fact that this section of the railway company's operation is in direct competition with private trucking companies. It is one thing for CN or CP to be in the trucking business. That may be fine. But there are many other companies in the trucking business across Canada, and we are giving CN an unfair advantage if we enable it to get money from the public purse either by means of an annual financing bill such as is before us, or by way of the recapitalization bill which the minister talked about.
I hope that before the bill comes to a vote on second reading, steps will be taken to refer this matter to the transport committee in order that the proposals of the CNR can be examined by that body in a context which would allow representatives of the trucking industry and others concerned to cross-examine the railway company on its proposals. We might as well admit that members of the transport committee of this House do not possess the expertise necessary to carry out an effective cross-examination of the company officials in this area or to become involved in the complex financial operations of the CN. Nor can this be expected of hon. members, bearing in mind all the other claims on their time in discharging their various duties.
Even the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) would, I am sure, admit his inadequacy when it comes to following through the maze of CN financing, beginning with the fact that it is not possible to distinguish between expenditures chargeable to the trucking side of the enterprise and those chargeable to the rail operation. It is too complex for ordinary people to understand.


Jean-Luc Pepin: My father was a CN employee, and I know a lot.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am glad to hear that. Perhaps the minister will be in a position, when the recapitalization bill is
CNR and Air Canada
being dealt with, to attend meetings of the committee, not as a cabinet minister but as a private member and give us the benefit of some of the insight he learned at his father's knee.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Lots of steam!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I want to move on. I am being very nonpartisan this afternoon.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I can hardly believe it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This is too serious a matter to be approached in a partisan way. This is a problem which has affected governments of all political stripes. I believe that before any recapitalization bill is considered by the transport committee we should have the benefit of a public hearing before the CTC where people more knowledgeable than we are can form an opinion as to the need for any such refinancing measure. After all, the CN was refinanced in 1952 and at that time the then president, Donald Gordon, took the view that there would be no need for the company to return to parliament in the hope that once again the taxpayers would bail out the company.
I should now like to say one or two things about Air Canada. First, I do not believe that we in Atlantic Canada have complained sufficiently about the plan to remove freight service personnel out of Halifax and locate them in Montreal, assisted by a computer service to advise them as to the vagaries of weather. We who live in Atlantic Canada know that one place can be in bright sunshine while another just a mile down the road is in thick fog. I suggest that Air Canada will find out to its embarrassment that no matter where it may locate these service personnel and no matter what computers are used, the service will not be as good as if it were provided on the spot, particularly when we are talking about coastal weather conditions, the strangest weather conditions of all to predict.
Everyone in Ottawa knows about the difficulties which arise when trying to get a reservation on an airplane after a certain hour. I have been trying today to get a reservation for a flight to Halifax. I was informed of the prerecorded signal from the computer located in Montreal, or wherever it is, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the reservations service is still not as good as it was when the office was here in Ottawa. And this is a relatively mechanical, administrative process. What will happen when an attempt is made to predict weather conditions? A few days ago I left my riding in bright sunshine. When I got to Halifax airport, 60 miles away, I found that the airport was fogbound and that no traffic was moving. On one occasion I telephoned Air Canada to ask about the weather situation in Halifax and was told that planes were flying, that everything was all right. After a four-hour drive in foul conditons, I arrived at the airport to find the runways fogbound and no traffic moving.
Nowadays, when I want information about weather conditions I telephone the airport directly. In light of this and similar experiences I believe it is a retrograde step to move service personnel to another location, as Air Canada proposes to do. I believe the travelling public will be far worse served after this change than it is at present.

April 21, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
Though my time is limited I should like to say a word or two about freight. I will tell hon. members a little story to illustrate in a personal way the problems with which shippers are confronted. For more than three months I had been trying to ship a box of books from my office to Halifax. The consignment is now somewhere between Ottawa and Halifax. I have spoken to people in Montreal in CN and in CP. They tell me there is no rail service into my area. I have asked my secretary to get me the names of the people who are telling me this garbage, in order that an appropriate letter can be written to higher officials in an attempt to ensure that something as simple as shipping a box of books to my area can be accomplished. I might add that it is a moderately progressive area, with mail service. I am trying to find out what all this hocus pocus is about.
Then, again, while I was in my constituency during the Easter recess I heard a complaint from a businessman that instead of being able to get deliveries by express within two or three days from Montreal he has to wait up to four weeks for shipments which are vital to his business as a user of aluminum products which are sent to him in broken lots. Regardless of what grand proposals the minister may have in mind, it is questions like these which deserve prompt consideration. In addition, of course, there is the question of increases in rates. The question of rate increases must be studied so we can maintain access to central Canadian markets.
Secondly, I think the minister could do what was done in the west when we were worried about supplying boxcars to carry grain and there was pressure to get the grain to the coast. At certain times they had what was called a controller at Winnipeg, or wherever these men work, to expedite or co-ordinate the movement of boxcars so that the demand for grain could be met. I do not know whether to call such a person a co-ordinator or an expediter, but as a matter of service by the government to the people of Atlantic Canada we should have express shipments made in less than the two to four weeks that they presently take. My area is serviced by the DAR-the Dominion Atlantic Railway-a subsidiary of the CPR. There is a problem in obtaining transfers from the CN to the DAR, which is why it became known as the "Dangerous And Rotten". This is where the tie-ups occurred.
I notice my time has just about expired, but I hope the minister will seriously study the proposals of the Atlantic premiers which have not so far been implemented. Secondly, I hope he will follow the recommendations of the transport committee which have found blessing on all sides of the House. Thirdly, I hope the minister will set up a co-ordinator or expediter so that when a man pays for express service he gets it, thus being able to maintain his operation. Certainly this is difficult enough under the present trying conditions.


Mr. John Roberts (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the chance to speak on this motion before the House because it gives me the opportunity to bring to its attention a very serious situation in the area generally north of Toronto. I refer to the complete lack of sensitivity of the

Canadian National, so far demonstrated, in regard to providing what is so badly needed in that area, namely, an efficient system of commuter transportation. This is an area where Canadian National Railways has singularly failed to meet its responsibility to the public and, more particularly, to the citizens of my area. Perhaps it would be useful to give some indication of the background to this problem to show the need and the desire for this service which so far the Canadian National has signally failed to provide.
I am talking of the area north of Toronto up as far as Lake Simcoe which north of the boundaries of metropolitan Toronto comprises well over 140,000 people. If we take into consideration those Canadians who are living within the boundaries of metropolitan Toronto but who could equally be served by such a commuter service, then we are talking of a population of roughly a quarter of a million people who have expressed for the last ten years, through every elected official at every level of government, no matter of which political persuasion, unanimous support for the provision of a commuter service. As I say, this support has been echoed by every community, village and social organization. So I suggest there is not much doubt about the desire of this population pool to use such a service. Nor is there much doubt about the facilities. There are, in fact, Canadian National Railways' lines operating through this area which are capable of providing a commuter service if only the railway itself were prepared to provide it. Even back as far as 1964 the metropolitan Toronto and region transportation study, through its researches, indicated a definite travel potential for such a service and, as well, a strong desire on the part of those in the area to use the service.
Over the past ten years the public demonstration of the need and desire to have such a service has been extremely clear. But what has been the reaction of the railways to this need? The reaction has been to try to shift responsibility. Every time the railways are asked to provide a service, they look over their shoulder and try to find somebody else to do it for them. First of all they shifted the responsibility onto the provincial government of Ontario. When we think of the eastern and western commuter services in and around Toronto, the Ontario government was prepared to take up this burden. Indeed, the provincial government committed itself to providing commuter service north of Toronto. When the province retracted from this commitment, the federal government at that stage became involved and took the initiative in promoting a tripartite study of commuter problems, a study involving the co-operation of the regional, provincial and federal governments.
Of course, this study takes time to complete. It also has implications not only for the Toronto area but for other areas of Canada. It will establish precedents regarding federal involvement in the provision of commuter services as well as for co-operation between provincial and federal governments and it will take all levels of government some time fully to consider these precedents. But this, Mr. Speaker, lies in the future.
What concerns me particularly is not future need and how it is to be serviced; what I am talking about is the need of the present population living in the area which for
April 21, 1972

well over a decade has indicated its desire for an improved service, for a commuter service. These people have waited a long time and with patience, perhaps too much patience. The result has been the ignoring of their need by Canadian National Railways-a lack, if you like, of social responsibility on the part of the CNR.
Faced with a magnificent opportunity to provide profitable services that would be useful to the citizens of the area, the CNR has done nothing. I am sure we have all known some people who, when they stumble across opportunity, immediately pick themselves up, brush themselves off and hurry on as quickly as they can, pretending that they never stumbled at all. That is exactly what the railways, particularly the CNR, have been doing in relation to providing commuter services-picking themselves up, avoiding the opportunity, hustling on and doing other things that they would prefer to do. Just what is the view of the railway? It seems to me that the CNR is just trying to make money, or perhaps you might say just trying to lose as little money as possible. It finds it more convenient to ship goods, or to run hotels-even if it has the Hilton hotel chain run them for them-than to meet the needs of the people, needs that the railways were established to meet.
I think it is woefully wrong for the CNR to pretend that it is just another commercial institution, as if it were making hula-hoops or bobby-pins. If it finds a more profitable area of activity than the provision of commuter transportation services, then it just ignores the need for those transportation services. I suggest that the CNR exists not just to make money but to provide a service to the people of Canada. Certainly that is what it was chartered by parliament to do.
What has been the reaction of the CNR? What are its motives? It is hard to deal with motives as distinct from looking at what in fact has happened. The CNR has not been concerned with the provision of services that might be needed; and if any evidence were required in order to show they are needed I might cite the example of the Markham service which passes close to my constituency. The CNR resisted for a long time the provision of passenger services to the people in that area. Then when the Canadian Transportation Commission required them to do so, the railway found it had more business than it was prepared for. The CN were surprised at the number of passengers who wanted the service, which I suggest is a demonstration of real need and user potential.
Recently we have heard reports that the CNR is planning to close down the station at Stouffville, which would be vitally needed for a commuter service. Fortunately, yesterday in our discussion of the estimates before the committee on transportation it was made fairly clear by Mr. Pickersgill that there will be no reduction or closing of facilities at Stouffville which would in any way harm the passenger service.
We are not asking the CNR to do something unique, unheard of or never done anywhere else in Canada. There is a commuter service provided in the Montreal area. That service has been provided for well over 50 years. I suspect this service is provided at a profit, otherwise surely the
CNR and Air Canada
CNR would get rid of it since commuter services are not imposed on the railway by the transportation acts. If they can make money on commuter services around Montreal, or break even, why can they not provide similar services at the break-even point in and around Toronto?
The lack of desire on the part of the CNR to meet its responsibilities in relation to commuter passengers is one of the reasons I presented Bill C-24 to the House. That bill would establish a commuter passenger authority in and around the province of Ontario. It is because the CNR has not been conscious of its social responsibility that I have taken what is to some extent the drastic step of suggesting to the House of Commons that a new authority be established which would take into account, more effectively than is now being done, the need for commuter services in the Toronto area.
The tendency of the CNR has been constantly to hide behind the railway and transportation acts by saying that what is described there as the responsibility of the railways will be interpreted by them as the maximum of what they will do. It is true that when those acts were written it was not foreseen as strongly as it is today that there would be such a need for commuter services in and around urban areas of this country. These acts concentrate more on passenger service and place restrictions and limitations on the ability of the railways to get out of existing services, rather than concentrating upon the need for provision of new services.
I suggest as strongly as I can that it is wrong for the railways to say that what is the minimum required by law is the most they will do. That was hardly the kind of adventurous spirit that motivated the original railwaymen of this country to develop our country through the provision of an adequate transportation system. It is not even a businesslike attitude for any company, when given the opportunity, to resolutely refuse to take advantage of it because it is not required to do so by existing acts.
There is no doubt the CNR has the power to provide these services if it wishes to do so. My belief is that it would be profitable for it to do so. One would like to see the CNR much more forthcoming in meeting the legitimate needs of the population rather than concentrating too strongly simply on those things which are most convenient and profitable to it.
I hope that later in this session I will have the chance to discuss much more fully than I can this afternoon the needs I have described today and how they can be met effectively by Bill C-24. My purpose in speaking this afternoon is to bring attention to the House, as forcefully as I can, and to Canadian National Railways, the railway's responsibility to the commuter passengers-a need they are not now meeting but which I believe is a requirement this House should place upon them.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, two great transportation companies, Air Canada and the Canadian National Railways, are once again trying to obtain the authorization to use respectively $219,800,000 and 114 million dollars for their financial operations in various areas: transactions, development, payment of

April 21, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
bonds and new investment, including reserves for any deficiency in operating revenues until June 30, 1972.
I quite realize that corporations of the size of Air Canada and the Canadian National Railways are prepared to proceed with financial transactions from time to time, and I hope that this use of capital will be beneficial. Transportation in all its forms will always be with us.
Presently, we see that railway companies are testing various administrative procedures, and their officials claim that the objective is to show a profit. Unfortunately, that so-called modernization has resulted until now in massive lay-offs. Forecasts create a climate of insecurity among numerous workers who have given regular and valuable services to railway companies during many years.
As for results, I can point out certain facts of which the Canadian people are aware anyway, for instance, the increase in derailments, the downgrading of the passenger service through the removal of stops in convenient places. And I might even add the complete removal of train runs which would have been profit-earning, had the authorities been wise enough to take the advice of conductors before setting time-tables.
In our area, for instance, when the question of abolishing trains nos. 122 and 123, in the Chaleurs area, came up, the fact that our area was under a social and economic development program in which the population had been invited to take part, was ignored. Now, an important company like the CNR is negating every effort made over the past several years to bring together the different partners: governments, private decision making centres, and the population, refusing to take part in development projects and admitting casually that it has made a unilateral decision that could have consequences on the present experiment.
Yet, had its schedule been better balanced, the train could have run again during the holidays; and if some cared enough, it could be done immediately. If efforts are made to improve the service, there is no reason why it could not be profitable.
At this stage in my remarks, I want to point out one thing because derailments are increasing and the situation is becoming serious. Let us recall, for instance, that of the Rapido which occurred in early March, at Mile 33.3 near Joly in the riding of Lotbiniere, and caused the death of a family head. That accident was caused by the negligence of the authorities whose responsibility it was to make decisions about snow removal on that track. It is easy to conclude that the accident was caused by bad weather, but any serious observer will admit that a snowplough should have been used to remove the snow from the track before the train went through.
The maintenance staff is kept to a minimum in a misguided attempt to save money, and we have to mourn the death of an assistant engineer leaving a wife and three children.
The government sits back and waits. The situation is gradually deteriorating in the rail passenger service. The government is apparently ready to authorize them to

make various transactions, without making the necessary investigations which would undoubtedly reveal administrative mistakes which should be corrected. It might even be possible to find out one day what is the cause of those difficulties.
I have asked for a thorough investigation respecting the CNR's administrative procedures and I have not been the only one to do so. That is why I do not want to miss this opportunity to point out to the Minister of Transport and to the other members that it would be time to put some order in that bureaucratic organization.
Orders coming from management multiply, sometimes with prejudicial results. Here are some examples. In early February 1972, that is not long ago, about 350 mail bags of a total of 500 shipped to Levis, Quebec City and the area failed to be delivered because the employees assigned to that type of job were short of time. Orders issued by management set the train departure, with the result that the mail delivery suffered considerable delays. Those mail bags were carried clear across the province then back again and in some cases the delays greatly inconvenienced the addressees.
According to the information I got from reliable sources, such orders from management are no longer considered as errors but as a bad habit with disastrous consequences.
As for decisions to close down stations, most of the time they are based on an automatic command system whose efficiency has yet to be proven. This modern information system no doubt entails various inconveniences. One would not imagine that computers can replace men in all fields. Quite often, we are victimized by delays and errors though our era is one of mechanized robots. Fortunately, they are not hurt by the communicable fevers or the epidemic strikes that we are experiencing.
Among the reasons justifying a real inquiry, I have already mentioned the derailments that are multiplying at an alarming rate. A short survey of the statistics on this area is convincing. If we are to prevent accidents, strict control and regulations should be established for railways.
It happens too often that railway management is quite astonishingly ignoring railway operations. Economic matters are given priority over security with the results we all know.
Without saying that derailments are due to administrative inefficiency, since various factors sometimes create unforeseeable situations, I maintain that a fair number of them are attributable to exaggerated reductions in maintenance personnel.
The railway representatives say that this reduction was made essential because of technology and that the rails which used to be 39 feet long are now welded over 1,200 to 1,500 feet. Consequently, the rail joints may be checked much faster. Sleepers are made of hardwood processed to last 30 to 40 years, embankments have been widened by a few feet, gravel has been replaced by crushed stone and these are so many factors which should ensure better safety provided the maintenance and surveillance personnel is adequate and judiciously posted and thus in a position to make the required verifications.
April 21, 1972

No sensible observer will be easily convinced that railway maintenance may be carried out by a team of truckers however well-intentioned.
In order to provide some public explanations regarding the problem of derailments, I would say that they are the result of a lack of co-ordination between locomotive and railway car manufacturers and the companies which use this rolling stock. It is acknowledged that there is an imbalance somewhere. This is a valid reason for the representatives of various areas of the country to point out what they deem to be administrative mistakes that should be rectified prior to the adoption of legislation authorizing the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system.
Another important item which cannot be ignored when we speak of the administrative services of the CN is the question of indebtedness. Any firm which has to set aside $75 million of its annual operating income for servicing its debts, should admittedly be allowed a certain period of time "to juggle" with figures.
Under the heading of "General", on page 4 of the Canadian National Railways annual report for 1970, it is said that the Canadian National handled a larger volume of business in 1970 than in the previous year and was able to produce increased revenues from nearly all major services. However, the cost of doing business continued to mount as a result of higher wage rates and higher prices for materials and services. Some freight rate increases- applied within the price restraint guidelines set by the Prices and Incomes Commission-plus effective control of expenses and improved productivity enabled CN to offset part of the higher costs.
Following the table showing the revenue increase or decrease as compared with that of 1969, the report continues, and I quote:
The net income before interest on debt-that is, the "operating profit" of the Company-was $45.8 million in 1970. This was lower than in 1969. But it can be considered a good achievement in a year characterized by a slowdown in the economy, strikes in the automobile and pulp and paper industries, and a slackening in demand for automobiles and for lumber and other construction materials, as well as the annual reduction in payments related to the National Transportation Act.
Gross revenues from railway and other CN operations reached $1,167.7 million, the highest in the history of the Company.
On page 6, there is a statement of the amounts of interest due on the debt, and I quote:
Net interest on debt amounted to $75.5 million, an increase of $1.3 million over 1969.
This is rather serious!
As I suggested, following an investigation into the various CN administrative services, it might be possible to find a way to consolidate this debt through long-term loans with as low a rate of interest as possible-something along the lines of loan terms granted to underdeveloped countries.
In Canada, we had the advantage of experiencing several forms of development. Unfortunately, the financial system which creates debts has become an obstacle to our development, with the consequence that many enter-
CNR and Air Canada
prises-our country for one-are faced with the problem of unpaid and unpayable debts.
Even some of our so-called expert administrators feel they are doing quite well when they manage to pay nothing but the interest on the huge debts that are getting bigger. One can easily imagine what would happen if all the citizens had the same approach.
Taking into account the situation and the need to provide passenger service, the Transport Department should look more closely into the decisions made by the management of transportation companies and give the people adequate service.
In closing my remarks, I should like to read from an article that is much to the point, which contains a great deal of facts that sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with the approach taken by the management of our railways. I shall quote an article by Mr. Marice Huot published in Montreal-Matin on February 15, 1972.
-the service has alarmingly deteriorated. Does that mean that it could not be improved? We suggest that it can be, if we use our imagination in order to provide passengers with the service they are entitled to expect. In the United States, the passenger transportation service has been put into operation again for some time. Many old outmoded cars were restored, their inside decorated, children playrooms were made out of freight cars which can be coupled on to ordinary trains, such as trains of people going on holiday, thus enabling some families to travel with their children in a more human and more comfortable way. Tracks are improved thanks to more careful maintenance. They changed their staff's uniforms, hired smiling stewardesses like on planes, provided for entertainment such as movies and TV near large centres. Those trains also carry cars of people who appreciate not having to drive over long distances but who use their car once they are arrived. In other words, it is a whole new rail philosophy which has been started in order to make rail travel more competitive, instead of always speaking of abadoning lines, not because they could not be profitable, but because they were made unprofitable through remissness. Henceforth, we should attract the travelling public with pleasure trains. We should make travelling by train a pleasant experience and not a sort of punishment. Let us put as much effort into restoring passenger lines as we do for freight traffic and railway transportation will gain new lustre and activity. In sea transportation the trend is towards cruises; railways also could plan cruises on wheels if they got organized accordingly.
So, I think that Department of Transport officials should keep a close watch on how CNR management plans schedules and makes decisions without consultations, which is far from beneficial to Canadian residents who would sometimes wish to use railway services.
Besides , I was told recently again, "Try to inquire whether there are not people in the management of the CNR who have interests in bus or other means of transportations, as it would seem, from their attitude, that they are interested in people giving up the railway and using other modes of transportation.
I therefore hope the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) will look after the matter and that we can be assured of having a passenger transport service suitable for the population which has already paid a great deal for it.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the measure before us this afternoon, Bill C-4, authorizes the provision of

April 21, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the CNR system and Air Canada. I would like to say a few words today about the problem of strikes in regard to Air Canada and our airports and some of the conclusions to which I have come, very reluctantly, but which nevertheless I am sure are shared by many Canadians.
It has been a principle with me, as with many Canadians, that the right to strike is a basic right of a democratic society. The right to withhold one's services from the labour market is one that has been built, by our law and customs, into a right which has been respected by all Canadians. There have been problems in connection with the development of this policy: it has not been developed very easily. Resistance to this approach has been very strongly allied to the concept that the right to strike is a fundamental right. But like many rights, it also has responsibilities.
At this stage I want to say a few words about some of the problems that are raised by strikes which have taken place. Whether it is an airline pilots' strike, an air traffic controllers' strike, or the radar technicians who provide service to airports, and whether the employer happens to be with the Department of Transport or Air Canada is really incidental to the purposes for which I want to speak today.
I wish to quote from two letters I received from constituents. The first one is from L. A. McKeown who resides at 473 Mayfair Avenue, in this city. I have chosen this letter because I think it is typical and because I believe the opinions expressed in it are shared by many. It reads:
I would like to suggest that you re-examine the whole question of the right to strike. In extending this right to strike to essential services you have built the premise on false grounds. The right to strike is not a prime right. There are other rights which have higher priority. When a low priority right runs counter to a high priority right then the lower priority right has to give way.
For instance, national safety has a higher priority than the right of free speech. In the same way private rights have to be tempered when they run contrary to the public good. The freedom to act in any way by any two parties is limited only to the extent that they carry out this liberty in their own back yard and do not impede the liberty of others to carry out their normal and rightful duties. In other words, it has been considered so far permissible for a disagreement to exist between a private employer and employees of that company. The rights of disinterested third parties are usually not greatly inconvenienced too much in such a dispute. For instance, the General Motors strike about 15 months ago meant that I had to buy a Chrysler or Ford product rather than a General Motors product. However, when you give a monopoly to some group then you no longer have the choice of getting a Chrysler or a Ford. One of the responsibilities that a monopoly carries with it is that the monopoly guarantees to provide some particular product or service according to specification and that this security from competition is in return for the contracted monopoly.
The problem here relates to specific groups, in many cases small in number, and the amount of damage they are able to inflict on the public generally. I would also like to quote from a letter which I received from H. Lee Briggs, 2070 Dovercourt Avenue, in the city of Ottawa, as follows:
Perhaps the issues are most readily identified in the recent strike by the Air Traffic controllers union. In this connection let us try to establish some kind of a financial balance, in the knowledge that dollars are far from everything.
Two years ago there were about a thousand air controllers. On last January 17, 1,750 controllers went on strike. They had largely been trained at the expense of Canadian taxpayers for 141 months during which training time they received pay at rates between $4,900 and $5,500 per year. Their school training cost the government $4,700 per graduate.
He cites his source of this information.
Prior to strike, pay rates ranged AI-1, min. $6,962, to AI-9, max. $18,460. I am guessing the average rate of pay on January 17 to be $14,000. DOT payroll (including 23 per cent benefits?) would be some $3 million.
Strike demands were for a 60 per cent increase . . . plus a work week reduction from 35 down to 30 hours. This is $1,800,000 more pay to existing controllers, plus $260,000 for more people. Their demands, then, are $2,060,000. But let us say that they could be willing to finally settle for a mere $1 million. So we have 1,750 DOT employees, $3 million payroll, $1 million minimum demand to go back to work.
Now, Mr. Francis, look what has happened to Canada. Absolutely all commercial flights in or to Canada shut down. Air Canada net loss alone $2 million. Air Canada laid off 10,000 ticket agents, clerficals and related employees at the outset. Air Canada then laid off, 1,000 more of the same. Air Canada cut pay of 3,200 management level employees by 40 per cent. ..
One estimate of Air Canada pay cut off, $2,500,000.
Then he sums it up rather concisely, Mr. Speaker.
I, a mild mannered conformist from your constituency-
I think he is modest in his description of himself.
-am constrained to ask the Members of the Parliament of Canada, how does each one of you justify this bloody nonsense:
1,750 DOT employees, vs. A loss to the Canadian economy of Payroll $3 million.	$60 to $100 million, untold massive
Strike demands initi- inconveniences, tremendous waste of ally $1.8 million.	time and effort, layoffs everywhere,
pay stoppages, business thwarted except at higher cost, Canada chopped into small segments in midwinter.
My colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange), described the great hardship suffered by the outlying parts of Canada in the exercise of this so-called right to strike which up to this point I have supported in my public life almost without qualification.
In the Globe and Mail this morning a former premier of the province of Ontario was quoted regarding exactly the same subject. He talked in terms of the right to strike of teachers and asked the fundamental question of whether our society is such that teachers can go on strike and say that our children will not be educated until their demands are met. Where does this concept fit into a civilized society? I am not a simplistic person, Mr. Speaker. I have been head of a staff association in the public service and I believe that the right to strike is essential in democratic society in certain circumstances. But I say that in this forum-I know I say it with the agreement of a large number of people in this country-the right to strike by a small number of employees in certain critical areas has to be reconsidered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: There is no question in my mind that an air traffic controllers' strike, followed by a radar technicians' strike, followed by somebody else in a series of rotating

April 21, 1972

strikes by people given strategic bargaining positions in the economy, to hold the rest of us to ransom is not to be tolerated. I am aware that in periods of inflation strikes are more numerous than at other times. I am aware that in many cases there have been problems regarding the right to organize in many sections of Canada. But we have come a long way down that path.
It is with great reluctance but with a great deal of conviction that I say to hon. members of this House that the right to strike in certain key areas affecting the national health, safety and well-being of Canadians has to be re-examined when it is abused. And in my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it has been abused in the circumstances described.


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, I see that only a few minutes are left before private members' hour and this will not permit me to deal with all the matters I would like to discuss in the debate on the CN financing bill. Some people may wonder why, when the CN financing bill is presented to the House each year, a fairly lengthy debate takes place. I think this happens because of the importance of railways to Canada and the widespread operations of Canadian National Railways in particular. Railways have played an important part in the development of this country since confederation.
During this debate many suggestions have been made for improvement in the operation of the CNR. Hon. members have voiced complaints about its inadequacies. We cannot discuss CN operations and financing, however, unless we look at the over-all operation of railways in Canada, which brings us to consideration of the operations of CPR. It is my view that many of the basic problems of railway transportation in Canada cannot be solved until we have a government with the courage and wisdom to nationalize the CPR and the industrial empire which has resulted from generous grants made when its operations commenced. I think this is the basic step which must be taken, and I think the Canadian people are ready for it. But we need a government with the courage to take such a step which would be in the interest of all Canadians.
One other aspect of railway transportation must be considered during a debate such as this. That is the importance of developing a policy to equalize transportation rates across the country. This matter is of increasing importance because of the development taking place in our economy. A great deal has been said about regional disparities. In my opinion, one of the major contributing factors to this problem is the inequity in transportation costs. It is high time that the National Transportation Act and its concept adopted over the years was scrapped and we developed a policy to equalize transportation costs.
I see that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) is in his seat. On a number of occasions he has stated that the government is working on an industrial strategy, whatever that might be. A good deal has been said about it, but I shall not go into that matter in detail. However, I think there is general agreement that we need a greater degree of strategy and focus on priorities of industrial development and growth in Canada in the future. We cannot deal with this question, however,
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act
unless we also deal with the problem of inequities in transportation costs in Canada.
If we allow the present structure of transportation costs to remain while we develop a new industrial strategy, those regions which already face higher transportation costs than others will still be discriminated against. I suggest that some regions of Canada will suffer under any industrial strategy that is developed unless at the same time there is a change in our transportation policy which will result in equalized transportation costs across the country. This is an important matter which should be noted by the government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich) moved: that Bill C-ll, to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to come to the House today to discuss Bill C-ll. I have presented this bill on a number of occasions. It was introduced in the first session of this parliament, shortly after I was elected, as Bill C-189, in the second session as Bill C-91, and in the third session as Bill C-195-and now it is Bill C-ll. My reason for presenting it every session since this parliament began is that despite certain developments which have taken place since 1968, of which hon. members are aware, there is still need to improve our fisheries legislation and to define the limits which constitute Canada's fishing zones.
Before proceeding further I wish to thank two members of the Pacific Trollermen's Association, Dick Williams of the vessel Seabeam and his former deckhand, Mr. Meadows, who assisted me over the years with this bill and who took me out on the commercial fishing bank so that I might better understand the point of view and problems of the fishermen. I also wish to thank the fishermen of the west coast for circulating a petition which I presented to parliament two years ago in support of Bill C-91, which is the same bill as the one before us today. That petition, with 33,000 names appended, was the largest petition, I believe, ever to be presented to this parliament. These fishermen played an important part in persuading the government to bring in legislation in this area, specifically the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of 1970, which has improved the situation over what it was previously

April 21, 1972
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act although not to the point that my friends who fish off the west coast of Canada would wish.
I might also mention that the bill has the full support of the Fisheries Association of Canada which, at its annual meeting in 1971, went on record and resolved that Canada, at the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference, should maintain the position that anadromous species of fish are the property of the country of origin and that-
-the ownership of the creatures on and over the continental shelf and slope is vested in the coastal state which is responsible for establishing the regime for conservation and management of those stocks and the fisheries thereon.
That is the point of my bill, namely, extending our present limits for exclusive fishing zones, or exclusive fisheries management zones, from the limit presently set out to the end of the continental shelf. There are difficulties because international law recognizes many definitions of the term "continental shelf." One definition suggests that you can go out until you reach the 200-fathom mark; the second-again artificial-that you go out to the 1,000-fathom mark. A third definition suggests that you should go out until the continental shelf drops Off at a certain angle, a number of degrees. Still another definition is that you must consider actual differences in the quality of the seabed and thus determine where the continental shelf ends; that you can tell from the seabed when you come to the edge of the continental shelf and slope. Whatever is decided ultimately, I think that for the purposes of this bill we can safely say that we will go for the limit that is most realistic, which is 1,000 fathoms. We think that is where the continental slope incline increases and that is where the actual limit of the continental shelf ought to be.
The government, two years after I first introduced my bill, brought down the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of 1970. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) made interesting comments in that debate which I should like to quote. On April 17, 1970, he said, as reported at page 6015 of Hansard:
I have made clear, as has the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), that we will not back down one inch from our basic position on sovereignty but there is no interest on the part of the Canadian government in the exercise of chauvinism.
I agree completely with the minister's approach. This bill is not intended to be chauvinistic and is not directed against any nation or group of nations. I feel, however, that this is perhaps the only way in which the resources of the continental shelf and slope, and in particular the anadromous species such as salmon and sea-going trout, or steelhead, can be properly protected. The Secretary of State for External Affairs also said, as reported at page 6016:
-the bill would, in keeping with the government's approach to the question, enable us to separate fisheries jurisdiction from the complete sovereignty which states exercise in their territorial sea and internal waters.
This bill is specifically directed to solving some of our difficulties off the west coast. There are some serious problems that have arisen in connection with fishing on the big bank just off Vancouver Island. Hon. members will recall that on a number of occasions Canadian fishermen were harassed by Russian vessels and prevented from fishing in that area. Furthermore, our fishermen were endangered by what I consider to be reckless practices on the part of the Russians. The upshot was that the

Canadian government eventually made an agreement with the Russian government limiting the use by Russian vessels in the waters off the west coast. The Russians agreed not to fish in a certain area. Although that agreement was not of major importance, at least it established a precedent. An agreement was reached with the Soviet government for limiting the activities of Russian fishing vessels off the coast of Vancouver Island beyond the 12-mile limit; in other words, outside the limits established by the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of 1970. That agreement is particularly important from the point of view of conservation, and has been greatly discussed.
I will not discuss all the problems of the east which are associated with preserving Atlantic salmon. Today, hon. members opposite from the Maritimes asked questions on that very point. I think the situation in the Maritimes is potentially the same as that which exists on the west coast. Our salmon, too, spawn in Canadian and American streams. They, too, go to sea and perhaps join, we do not know where, with other salmon of Siberian and Japanese rivers. We do not know where they go; perhaps, one day, that will be discovered, just as it has been discovered that Atlantic salmon go off the coast of Greenland.
Perhaps when that discovery occurs, on the west coast we will have to consider the same sort of problem that is now being considered on the east coast, because perhaps then our resources will be damaged in the same way by high seas fishing outside our control. We feel that it is important, therefore, that we get going in Canada and establish the right of controlling, for conservation purposes, the species of our continental shelf areas before that happens. This, I know, will be a subject that will concern the Canadian delegation which will be taking part in the 1973 Law of the Sea Conference.
I was rather disappointed to read the article which the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett), whom I see sitting opposite, wrote for a west coast fisheries magazine in which he declared that the Canadian position was detrimental to the interests of west coast fishermen. I ought to point out that while there is reason for concern, the minister is aware of the difficulty of the troll fishery off Vancouver Island and has made public statements on the subject. I quote from a press release in which the minister said:
It is fully recognized that a substantial part of the troll fishery off Vancouver Island takes place immediately outside the 12-mile territorial limit (within the outer limits of the continental slope)-
He went on to talk about the Atlantic salmon and pointed out that we must bear in mind that a substantial part of the Danish high seas fishery fishes just outside the 12-mile limit off Greenland. The minister's position is perfectly clear. I should like to read a letter which the minister sent to me. It is dated April 18, 1972, and reads in part:
Dear David:
This will acknowledge your letter of March 17, 1972, concerning offshore salmon fishing.
Canada's position at the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference is still under development. For your information, I am enclosing a copy of a brief statement on the subject.
Yours sincerely,
Jack Davis
April 21, 1972

I believe it is important for people on the west coast to know that Canada's position is not firm, as has been erroneously reported, and that the minister is looking for ways to take into account the troll fishery which he mentioned in his press release and letter. I think that if we were able to accept the principle of my bill, which extends the limit for conservation purposes to the edge of the continental shelf, rather than fisheries closing lines plus the 12-mile limit which is in our present legislation, and if we accepted the extension of the principle that outside the present limits there may be areas of the continental shelf which should also be included, we could perhaps solve the difficulty which faces the minister in his attempt to reconcile Canada's position on the east and west coasts.
The bill before us, as I have said, is a proposal that the subject matter be sent to committee, because this is the best that can be hoped for from a private member's bill. I feel that this is a worth-while step toward achieving some sort of reconciliation of position which would be satisfactory to both east and west coast fishermen and would at the same time meet the very real needs of Canada to have a consistent position at the Law of the Sea Conference in 1973.
I believe the difficulties we have faced over the past four years on the west coast and on the east coast underline the need for Canada to continue toward progressive legislation in an effort to increase the area of its jurisdiction. I feel it would be quite fair to claim on behalf of the troll fishermen on the west coast, with their excellent petition to the House which I mentioned earlier, that they have had a large part in achieving the advances of the 1970 legislation. There has been a closure of many areas which formerly were open to people of all nations and which now are restricted to Canadians. I think this is a positive rather than a negative point, that is, that this extension of jurisdiction has allowed us to preserve resources in a way which I believe has been most beneficial to the species concerned.
Even if we extend our jurisdiction further, as I suggest in this bill, we can always permit the fishermen of other nations to come into our area under licence. It may be that they could fish certain species in which we are not interested. Hake is a good example on the west coast. It may be that we could work out co-operative arrangements with these fishermen to take a certain species in which they are more interested than us. The herring fishery is an example where the Japanese are involved. Japanese experts say when conditions are right, and they indeed suggest when the fishermen should set their nets because they know full well the use to which the product will be put in Japan and when the fish are in the best condition for catching.
When I speak of extending exclusive Canadian jurisdiction I do not necessarily mean exclusively for our Canadian fishermen. It may be a good idea to have others come in and help harvest the resources of the sea. If this were done properly, I can see no problem. However, it is necessary to have someone responsible for jurisdiction, regulation and licensing as well as for conservation and the scientific work which must be carried out prior to licensing or regulation.
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act
At present we are in the unfortunate position on the high seas where what belongs to everybody belongs to nobody. No one is interested in doing the scientific work and in spending money, because the people who would benefit might be of another state. If we can extend our jurisdiction to take in our major producing areas, we can perhaps persuade the government to increase the amount of scientific effort. I am sure the government could be persuaded to do so. I feel that when considering this bill- I know I am repeating a point I made earlier-it is not necessary to be too concerned about whether or not at this stage we can define the continental limits. I do not believe it is important at this stage to get too lied up in how this could create other difficulties in respect of our fisheries. I do not believe that it would. However, I feel it is important at this stage to proceed on a principle which the minister himself is on record as favouring, which other parties are on record as favouring and which I have been putting forward in the House frequently over the past four years.
I believe this is a bill which is modest in scope. I believe if we proceed as suggested we can achieve the objective without causing too much difficulty in terms of international retaliation. I agree that it does break new ground. It has certain risks in particular risk to our markets, which I do not wish to minimize; but I feel that in general it is a good idea at this stage to proceed with this legislation, send it to committee and thrash out all the details which, unfortunately, during private members' hour at the end of a week, and perhaps at the end of a parliament, may be difficult to cover. I trust and hope it will be possible for all members to agree with the proposal I have made.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, frequently when members of parliament rise in this House of Commons to speak on an issue which involves the fisheries not all members become as excited about it as I do. Perhaps this is good. Judging from the exchange we have had today and the motivation behind it, we could be taking up all the time of the House of Commons on this issue.
With regard to this bill and the remarks of the hon. member who introduced it, we are involved in an issue which is very fundamental. Although the fishery was a primary industry of what was to become Canada, for a number of years people in the House of Commons have treated the word "fish" as some kind of a dirty, four-letter word which has no relevance and no place in the House of Commons of Canada. We have begun to realize the risk we run in the involvement of other nations in this resource, and that unless urgency is given to the matter we will lose one of the most important and precious resources of the Canadian nation.
The bill introduced by my friend from the most western part of the country hits at one of the most fundamental problems faced by Canada. We stand in this House of Commons day after day, and we stand in committee day after day discussing issues which scratch the surface of such problems as this, and it always bothers me that we do not have more response in a practical way, not only in this government of 1972 but governments of the past couple of decades. I do not say this because the present government is in power.

April 21, 1972
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act
We have never received from Canada a full response on this very vital issue. I talk to a large number of young people from all across this nation as they visit this House, and also as I travel around the various parts of Canada. They are asking us to see that government responds to the real needs of the Canadian people. I am saying, for the record, that five years from now this government, which is in a position to do something about these problems, as well as the government which succeeds it, will be held responsible by the Canadian people unless we can get a more fundamental response to the major problems of the renewable marine resources of Canada.
The hon. member who preceded me was talking about extending the area of the fishing zones to include the extremities of the continental shelf. On the west coast, Mr. Speaker, the area of the continental shelf is rather small when compared with that of the continental shelf on the east coast. On the east coast it extends as far as 400 miles, and going back to 1944, I believe it was, various countries of the world-from that year until 1958-began to negotiate the rights of the coastal states with respect to the continental shelf.
It was agreed in 1958, in international law, that the continental shelf, as it was defined in the agreement of that year, would belong to the coastal state. So we have a unique situation where Canada owns the ocean floor out to the extremities of the continental shelf, as well as the air space above the water, yet we cannot establish any permanent claim to the resource between the water level and the bottom of the ocean. The result is that we have on the east coast almost every major nation in the world with a large fishing fleet daily harvesting our marine resources.
As hon. members listen to the east coast members from day to day they will learn a little about the problems facing this country. We have the Russian fishing fleet which is the largest fisheries predator on the east coast. A few weeks ago they were present with 75 large vessels. With their very sophisticated equipment, capable of detecting the exact movement of various marine species, they inhabit a fishing area and launch what we on the east coast call gang-fishing. To do this they lie abreast of each other, drop their very sophisticated fishing gear, and in a matter of weeks they clean out a whole area, including the spawning mud and the sands on the bottom of the ocean floor, thereby destroying the resources which should be there forever. This is what is happening on the east coast of Canada today, Mr, Speaker.
There is no need to talk to biologists to see what the results of these actions will be: one can talk to any fisherman. In January and February of 1972 the landings of fish by all the Newfoundland fishermen, with all their fishing gear-this includes the offshore fishermen with their dragging operation as well as the inshore fishermen with their longliners, their $50,000 boats, and the real inshore fishermen with their small boats-was exactly 50 per cent of what it was for the same period in 1971. If that is not of major concern to the Canadian people, then I think we are in the wrong country. I say that as a Newfoundlander.
Day after day we get up in the House of Commons to raise the question of Canada exercising some of the rights

it has as a coastal state. One of the rights Canada has which I should like to repeat for the record is that in 1958 at the Law of the Sea Conference at Geneva, the coastal state was given a particular right which stated that if the coastal state, after six months of negotiation with the nations fishing the resources on its continental shelf, could not arrive at a multilateral agreement on conservation and management, then that state had the right to unilaterally impose certain conservation measures.
The condition of exercising such a right was that first of all the state had to indicate there was serious depletion of various species. We know, for example, that on Georges Bank the haddock have disappeared to the extent that even the fisheries people themselves claim they do not expect the species to be replenished by natural process. This is an example of the total destruction of a species. It is a crime against our resources, yet we have the spectre of the Canadian government willing to stand by, despite all its talk about nationalism and foreign involvement in our country, and allow other nations to move in on our shores with sophisticated fishing gear and equipment and devastate our resources.
As a coastal state, Mr. Speaker, we have the right to impose certain conservation measures and we have the right to say to other nations that there are areas which shall not be fished during certain times of the year. We have the right to say there are certain species of fish which are not allowed to be touched because of the threat of depletion. We have the right to say there are certain areas in which we shall impose quotas and allow only certain catches of fish to be taken off our shores. Canada is not threatening to launch a naval war against these countries by merely exercising these rights. We are not forcing them from our coasts altogether. We are only, as a nation, saying that we are not willing to see our fisherman who settled this country back in 1497 placed in a position where their livelihood is completely destroyed.
Perhaps, more important, Canadians who understand the issue, particularly young Canadians, will not be willing to allow nations of the world, including Canada, to destroy for ever various species of fish off our shores. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) has got to his feet day after day and has indicated that all these difficulties should await the Law of the Sea Conference. In 1968, when this government first took office, the minister said that a couple of years from now we would hold a Law of the Sea Conference and we would get to the bottom of the problem. We were later told it would be 1972; then 1973. We learned today, Mr. Speaker, there is a very good chance that the Law of the Sea Conference will not be held until 1975; that Canada and the various countries concerned have not even agreed on an agenda and that Canada has not yet settled the position it will present at the Law of the Sea Conference even though a little country like Iceland has already printed in detailed form from its parliament the position they will take at the next Law of the Sea Conference.
There is another matter which ought to be realized. Even if we held the Law of the Sea Conference tomorrow morning, the matter of fisheries and renewable resources would find itself at the bottom of the totem pole because other areas of concern, such as the problems arising from
April 21, 1972

jurisdiction-the rights of coastal states in these areas- matters of pollution, matters of the disposition of weaponry, and so on, in the coastal areas would find themselves in a position of top priority. We are saying to the Minister of Fisheries and to the people of Canada that this matter has to receive more attention than is now paid to it.
We are also very much aware that the matter of fisheries is not a political issue in this country. We have seven members of parliament from the province of Newfoundland, which I represent, four from Prince Edward Island, 11 from Nova Scotia and ten, I believe, from New Brunswick. We have 37 members from the Atlantic region and six or seven from the province of Quebec-perhaps more than that-and the Gaspe area. The hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard) might put the number on record. So we have about 40 members directly concerned with the fisheries.
We are having trouble in the House of Commons and in Canada generally in attracting national attention to a matter which vitally affects the issue of our territorial sovereignty. Unless we can get the Canadian people, particularly members of the government, to respond more readily we shall never get action this year despite the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) is aware of the problem and is concerned about it. In spite of this awareness and concern, he is still not willing to place this question in a position of priority. The Minister of the Environment is not willing to place it in a position of priority. It doesn't have political sex appeal across the Canadian nation; it is not the sort of thing which will "turn on" people in Toronto.
This is a sad story, because regardless of how relevant the issue is-and the Minister of the Environment knows well the consequences of letting this issue go unresolved- we are not going to get action because we have been unable to sell the issue as a major national problem. We cannot get the House of Commons to pay full attention to it because the issue is not one which lends itself to this type of forum. We cannot go into great detail about the type of problems we face because there are so many other issues.
The members of the press, I say with respect, perhaps do not understand the depth or the breadth of the issues and the details involved. We could get up and talk for weeks about these matters, yet we would not get a sentence in the Globe and Mail, simply because this issue doesn't have the appeal to the readership of that newspaper. The sad story is that five or ten years from now Canadians will hang their heads in shame when they realize that the original great resource upon which Canada relied at its beginning has been so depleted that it has been crossed off as an economic issue in Canada.
It is shameful that we should stay here day after day and refuse to grapple with the problem. Today we had a typical response from the minister. We have had three examples over the last year which adequately demonstrate the lack of responsiveness of the minister to the Atlantic region. Let me say for the record that, despite the fact that this problem is so critical, the Minister of Fisheries has continually made changes in fisheries policy without any consultation with the Atlantic provinces or refer-
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act ence to his directors and officials in federal offices in the Atlantic region.
Last year the minister was prepared to sign a treaty with the Norwegians which would have allowed them to harvest our resources of seals nine miles inside the 12-mile territorial limit. The minister indicated that this was a trade-off in order to get them out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. A few weeks ago he introduced several treaties which had the effect of phasing out the operations of several other nations in the gulf. By as late as 1986 the French are to be out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Here again there has been no consultation with the provinces or reference to the officials in the Atlantic region.
If the minister were in the House this afternoon he would brag that this is an achievement. The fact is that by 1986 when the French leave the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the gulf will be as dead as the Sea of Gallilee as far as fish are concerned: there will be absolutely no fish left in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
Today we had an example of the sort of response we get from the minister who has publicly stated that he will eliminate the Atlantic fishery. We know that the Danes have been harvesting salmon on the high seas since 1965, when the famous incident, which has been well quoted both in this House and in recent articles in the press, occurred regarding the discovery of the feeding ground of the Atlantic salmon. Ever since that time we have brought this matter to the attention of the government almost daily, but we cannot get any proof at all that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has laid any material of a substantial nature before the Danes to convince them of our concern.
The minister says that the problem must be resolved through negotiation. We recognize that we are not going to declare war on Denmark, but has the minister on behalf of the government forcefully told the Danes that we are not satisfied with their actions and will adopt certain procedures against them if they will not toe the line? It is Denmark that is the guilty party here. That is the country that is sick, yet the minister is deciding to perform surgery on Canada to cure the illness. We all know there is something rotten in Denmark, but we do not have to amputate the salmon fishery in the Atlantic region to prove the point.
The contention of the minister is that if we cut off salmon fishing in the Atlantic region we will prove to the Danes that we are interested in conservation. Let me tell the Minister of Fisheries, through you, Mr. Speaker, that it will be a frosty Sunday in the Atlantic region when the minister gets our approval of that policy. We will not go along with any such insidious recommendation, one that is born out of an abominable ignorance of the fisheries in our region. We need the support of the Canadian people for our problems.
Several weeks ago there was an incident of intimidation off our coast. I am glad to say that the people of British Columbia did the Canadian people proud last year when they responded to intimidation by a Russian vessel that attempted to ram, or perhaps did even ram one of our vessels. The people of the area and the fisherman came

April 21, 1972
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act together and proved that together they were a force to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, our people did not respond recently in the same way. However, we have brought to the House accounts of several incidents in the last few weeks involving Russian fishing vessels off the east coast of Canada intimidating our fishing vessels. One vessel, the Zonnemaire-I forget the name of the captain-narrowly escaped being rammed and chopped in two by one of these great Russian fishing vessels off the southeast coast of Newfoundland.
We asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) if they would be prepared to make official representations to the Soviet Union, and I do not know whether anything has been done since. The only thing done of which we do have proof is that the director of fisheries for the Newfoundland area went out in the small boat, that is considered to be a patrol boat but would not survive the Rideau canal on a breezy day, and hove alongside the Russian vessel for three days in an attempt to board the vessel to make an official protest, but the Russians would not even allow the official on board.
Then the vessel had to return and a wire was sent to the Russian vessel stating, "We protest". The director of fisheries indicated that we were protesting their aggression and the Russians wired back, "We have received your telegram," full stop. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is a disgrace. If this incident had occurred anywhere else in the world there would have been a manifestation of grave concern against the aggressor nation. In our case, the director of fisheries at the local level manifests his concern. This is why the people of the Atlantic region are absolutely fed-up.
I am sure that if the Canadian people understood the magnitude and seriousness of the problem and how critical it is to the Atlantic region, they would support any government that showed a little muscle and exercised some control over our resources. The bill presented by the hon. member from British Columbia is a good one. We would like to see something similar along these lines for the east coast of Canada presented by the government. Unless we do, as a governing group we will be held guilty over the next four or five years for the continuing destruction of this very vital resource.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the bill introduced by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson). I might say in passing, and in a kindly way, that if he should find himself introducing this bill again in another session I hope he will do something to update the explanatory notes and put them in line with the amendments made to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act of 1970. The principle of the bill is a very simple one, as the hon. member said when introducing it, namely, that we should establish the principle that our fishing zones extend to the outer edge of the continental shelf.
I should also like to say a few words of congratulation to the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundri-gan) who has just given us one of his usual vigorous speeches. My observation of him is that he has added a good deal of backbone to the position of the official oppo-

sition when it comes to fishery matters since he has been in the House.
I recall that in 1964, when the territorial seas and fishing zones bill was introduced, some of us were finding that we had a government which appeared to be nothing but a jellyfish when it came to speaking up on such matters. Unfortunately, we discovered at that time that the spokesmen for the official opposition were very much like jellyfish too. This has always been a matter of great regret to me, because I think that if those of us in this party had had the kind of vigorous support for the point of view just outlined by the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate at that time, we might have been able to convince the government to go a bit further than it did in 1964.
However, I can say at once that I have a very obvious reason for indicating my support for the bill introduced by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich. I placed an almost identical proposal before this House in the form of a report stage amendment to the government bill of 1970. In order to clarify its content, may I refer to Hansard for June 4, 1970, where as reported at page 7744 I moved an amendment to the bill which would have substituted for section 4 of the fishing zones act the following:
The fishing zones of Canada comprise all waters adjacent to the coasts of Canada, the natural resources of whose subjacent submarine areas Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit, and such other areas of the sea adjacent to the coasts of Canada as may be prescribed by the governor in council pursuant to subsection (1) of section 5A.
The somewhat elaborate wording of my motion at that time was based on my desire that there should not be any deficiency in the form of my amendment. I used words which were parallel to those drafted for the use of the government bill on the Arctic waters pollution prevention measure which we had considered at about the same time. The response by the government to my amendment was made by the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Jean-Pierre Goyer. In beginning his remarks he said, as recorded at page 7749 of Hansard for June 4, 1970:
Mr. Speaker, the proposed amendment to the bill to amend the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act would in effect extend the fishing zones of Canada to the outer limit of the continental margins adjacent to our coasts.
This pointed out, of course, that my proposal was identical in principle to the one that is now before us. I should like to add a few words to the statement made by the parliamentary secretary at that time. In closing his statement he said:
-the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is premature and incompatible with the imperatives of the present situation.
Unfortunately, so far as I have been able to ascertain the position of the government on this subject has not really altered since that time. Therefore, I am perhaps a little concerned that the bill of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich may suffer the same fate as my amendment in that it will not receive the blessing of the majority of members who support the government.
I am, however, very encouraged that there is an inclination on the part of some members who sit on the same
April 21, 1972

side of the House as those who occupy the treasury benches to bring forward definitive proposals such as this, from time to time, for the consideration of the House. This is a practice that should be encouraged, because it tends to put real zest and verve into the discussions in this chamber when members put forward ideas which may not necessarily receive the immediate and full blessing of the government.
In his comments earlier, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich made reference to a statement he apparently read in Western Fisheries. If I correctly understood the reference he was making, it was based on a release I made on this subject. Let me point out to the hon. member, in view of what he said about my statement, that this release was based on a very careful reading of the text of a statement made by Dr. Needier, who is head of the Canadian delegation in preparatory meetings of the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference. I do not know whether the hon. member has read that statement, but if he has he will recognize that as far as the statement made by the official spokesman for Canada is concerned it was very clear that in so far as Canada is concerned our position is that there will be no fishing for salmon outside the territorial seas.
That was a matter of very great concern to the salmon troll fishermen on the west coast of Canada. If that was to be the Canadian position, it meant that a very substantial area, including the one to which the hon. member referred, where the Soviet Union has agreed to refrain from fishing, would be out of bounds so far as Canadian salmon fishermen are concerned. I made my comments on the basis of that statement.
Since that time, as the hon. member has quite correctly pointed out, some statements have been made by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) which indicate there has been some modification or elaboration of the position stated by Dr. Needier. I will not say this is directly the result of the public position I took on the matter, but I am sure the hon. member would not quarrel with me were I to suggest that the position I tried to put forward then was one that expressed the feeling of west coast salmon fishermen. They could see a very large part of their fishing area going down the drain if Canada took the position in advance that there should be no high seas fishing for salmon bound for our coasts.
I tried to make it clear-and I think this is equally as applicable to the Atlantic as to the Pacific-that none of us in Canada wanted to see this mid-ocean or high seas fishing for salmon taking immature fish. We take the position which is stated in the hon. member's bill and motions I have moved in this House, that species of fish such as salmon which migrate into the oceans of the world to feed and grow are the property of the coastal states in which they spawn and in which the young are reared. This is a compatible position both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific, and if I understood rightly what the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) was saying in respect of his concern, which I share, about the imminent prospect of depletion, if not the extinction of Atlantic salmon, this is a position with which he would agree.
Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act
There must be recognition of the need, under some circumstances, for us to harvest our fish beyond the 12-mile zone, particularly species such as salmon. This may have reference only to the west coast, Pacific troll salmon fishery, but the proposal that the waters above the continental shelf and the resources in them should be considered the property of Canada, subject to management and control of marine life and the preservation of the quality of those waters, is so apparent and necessary that I think the Canadian government is foolish in hesitating to state it as the declared position of this country.
The fact that we have, apparently without opposition, a right to the resources lying below these waters makes it an anachronism that what lies above the seabed is not equally our responsibility to conserve and harvest. There may be some circumstances, for historic or other reasons, in which we may have to agree to work out reciprocal arrangements for intermingling our fisheries with those of the United States. I think this is true certainly as between ourselves and the United States on the Pacific coast because of the way our fishing stocks intermingle along the north American continental shelf. With that sort of exception, we must recognize that unless we and other nations are prepared to accept responsibility and assume this jurisdiction, the long-term prospects for the preservation of the living resources of the sea are indeed bleak.
I think I have said all that time permits me to say during this debate. In closing I should like to emphasize that I am happy to support the bill introduced by the hon. member. I concur in his suggestion that it should receive passage and be sent to the appropriate committee for study.


Mr. Gaston Isabelle (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say a few words about this extremely interesting bill which the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Anderson) has introduced.
In my opinion, it might seem curious that a member from the national capital area should be interested in problems which have little to do with his own constituency. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for British Columbia who introduced this very valuable bill, the importance of which is recognized by all those who are concerned by this matter of fishing zones and by the Territorial Sea Act.
I also suggest, as the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) stated, that it may not be practical, as proposed in the bill, to establish the continental shelf as a fishing zone. If, in theory, this is feasible, it is very difficult to put this proposal into practice by establishing this sort of fishing zone.
It is also important to remember-and this is the objection which was put forward-that we must take all necessary steps in order to achieve true Canadian independence. We must also remember, however, that we are living in the international community, and that we should never make any unilateral statements nor pass any unilateral legislation on this important matter.

Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act
And this is so true, Mr. Speaker, that for many years, the government's foreign policy has always rejected unilateral statements, in order not to raise a general outcry in other countries, because as I mentioned earlier, one must have consultations especially about such an important matter as the one before us. And this is why Canada has such a good reputation in foreign countries: we have never made, during the last 25 or 30 years, any unilateral statements.
Also, when we discussed this important matter in the House, last year or in 1970, I think, at the time when we passed the bill concerning fishing zone limits, we had had consultations with about 15 countries which we were sure would give us their approval-which, incidentally, reinforced our position. In fact, those countries had told us: Go ahead and pass legislation, then we will discuss the other details relating to this important matter, for we have wanted for a long time the continental shelf to constitute the real limit of fishing zones.
The essential thing, in my opinion, is control of the resources which lie between the continental shelf and the water above it. It is far more important for us to control those resources than to adopt the principle according to which we would consider the continental shelf as the limit. This is a very important matter. In fact, it is only following consultation that Canada recently entered into agreements with France and England. Denmark has also
been mentioned. I feel that at the Law of the Sea Conference in 1973, we will be able to reach conclusions which will allow us to discuss this important problem and find answers without offending the countries which come to fish in our waters.
Anybody who is a nationalist wishes Canada always to be able to make its own decisions. We wish it indeed. However, as I said, you cannot, in an international community, act unilaterally and pass legislation which normally would suit this country but which might cause prejudice to the countries which deal with Canada.


John Howard Lundrigan: You would do better to stick to your profession, doctor.


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Those are the remarks I wanted to make. The hon. member for Gander-Twillingate has just alluded to medicine; I think he should understand. I know that he understands, as I do, that what he said may apply to problems of territorial zones, but that we cannot do as he advocates, as this would jeopardize our country's external policy.


John Howard Lundrigan: The power of diplomacy!


Mr. Speaker:: Monday, April 24, 1972