1972-03-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Kaplan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: -to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Last week, over the weekend and, indeed, as late as yesterday there have been suggestions and claims that the telephones of some members of parliament have been tapped and that mail addressed to some members has been opened without their authorization. These claims cannot help but cause suspicion in the minds of the general public and therefore can hinder members in performing their duties. It is most important that this matter be investigated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


M. Ervin Pringle: -so that members can carry out their work without any doubts or suspicions about security.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a motion he should put it to the House now without argument.


M. Ervin Pringle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am only taking my lead from my friends in the opposition. Therefore I ask leave of the House to move, and I do move, seconded by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner):
That the allegations concerning wiretapping and opening of mail of members of this House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion is made under the terms of Standing Order 43. It can be put to the House only if there is unanimous agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I will therefore put the motion. Mr. Pringle, seconded by Mr. Penner, moves:
That the allegations concerning wiretapping and opening of mail of members of the House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges, and Elections.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Pringle) agreed to.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave of the House to move a motion on a subject of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the government's announced intention of reducing regional disparities in Canada, and in view of the fact that increases in freight rates have the effect of further weakening the competitive position of Maritime industries vis-a-vis the rest of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House instructs the Minister of Transport to appear before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications at the earliest possible date to discuss plans for an immediate reduction in the freight rates which have such a deleterious effect on the Maritime economy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity and the motion therefore cannot be put.


Mr. Bell:: What have they got to hide over there that they cannot give us a break?

March 14, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising from the drop in the labour force between January and February, the largest reported in the history of Statistics Canada. Is the minister commissioning any inquiry into the reasons for this? For example, is he having any study made to see whether this may have been partially caused by the new tax laws that have gone into effect?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I do not
accept that suggestion, Mr. Speaker. The figures speak for themselves. I derive some encouragement from the latest figures, but that is small comfort for those men and women seeking work. As I have suggested to the House earlier, statistics are no substitute for the human problems of unemployment.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I quite agree but I wondered whether the minister might make some inquiries as to the cause for the drop in the work force.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: What did you do with Rock today?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that the increase in employment recorded between January and February is about average, find despite the fact that the local initiatives program presumably created some thousands of temporary jobs during that period, is the minister considering any measures to stimulate the rate of investment by industry in Canada, thereby creating jobs? I ask this particularly in view of the fact the government's own surveys show that investment intentions and commitments in industry are only about as high in 1972 as they were in 1971.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, any measures taken by the government will be announced at an appropriate time. I believe these figures reflect a deep human problem and should not be a statistical game played in the House of Commons once a month.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I could not agree more with the minister, Mr. Speaker, but in regard to the latter statement I should like to ask whether he can inform the House when he will be presenting a budget? Can he also assure us that when he presents it he will at that time indicate his goals and objectives for the year 1972 with regard to economic growth and lowering the rate of unemployment?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I cannot tell the hon. member if or when there will be a budget.



PROGRAMS TO PROVIDE JOBS FOR PERSONS RECEIVING MANPOWER TRAINING AND THOSE NOW EMPLOYED UNDER LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM

Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, like the Minister of Finance I am very happy to see the down curve in unemployment and I hope it will continue in future months as well. I want to ask the Minister of Finance the following question. Since there are now, I am informed, over 100,000 men and women under manpower training-in school, as it were-and some tens of thousands of people employed under LIP temporarily and as that program expires on May 31, may I ask the minister whether the government is now giving consideration to programs following May 31 to make sure that the people who are now being trained and those now employed under LIP will have jobs to go to?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give consideration to that suggestion. The objective of this government is to ensure, so far as we can, that the economy is reflected, in human terms, in jobs.
[TranslationJ


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Richmond rising on a supplementary?


Mr. Beaudoin:: No, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT-MEASURES TO ASSURE STEADY WORK FOR PEOPLE OF QUEBEC

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the minister.
Since the province of Quebec has an unemployment rate of over 7 per cent at the present time and the Quebec people are concerned about the employment situation, due to the fact that except for the local initiatives program no other measure has been taken to provide regular employment to Quebec workers; can the minister tell us, to give hope to the unemployed in Quebec, that they will have a regular job after the implementation of this program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that this is a question that the minister would normally answer on motions by making a general statement. The minister might want to answer something along this line.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, could I explain my question?
I repeat it, in view of the fact that in Quebec the unemployment rate is 7.7 per cent, what does the Minister of Finance intend to do to offer an alternative to the unemployed who will find themselves on the labour market-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is repeating his question of a moment ago. I suggest to him to ask it only to the extent that he is inviting the minister to make a statement on motions.
March 14, 1972



May we have order, please. It is very difficult to hear. Order, please. It is very difficult for the Chair to follow proceedings with all the conversations that are going on at present in the House. I invite hon. members to wait for a while before they pursue these conversations.



UNEMPLOYMENT-SUGGESTED ACTION TO BRING ABOUT TRANSFER OF INVESTMENT FUNDS FROM RESOURCE TO MANUFACTURING SECTORS TO CREATE JOBS

Mr, Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the Minister of Finance give serious consideration to increasing the rate of taxation on the resource sector of the economy to at least the level of the manufacturing sector in order to bring about a transfer of investment funds from the resource sector to the manufacturing sector soon and, thus, the creation of many more jobs?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take what merit I can from that suggestion.



FINANCE


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Is it correct that his department has initiated discussions with the provincial governments in order to find a formula for financing the public sector, particularly municipalities, so that the latter may be able to proceed with the urgent works they have to do and for which they lack money?


John Napier Turner: Not at present, Mr. Speaker.



AIRPORTS


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to explain to the House why the government has found it necessary to pay the contractor an additional $21 million over and above the original contract price to enable the new air terminal building at Toronto International Airport to open in June whereas the original contract required that it be opened in March?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the estimates of the department will very soon be before the committee, at which
Inquiries of the Ministry
time I will be prepared to answer all questions relating to this item.


George Harris Hees: At the time the minister is answering all questions, will he also be prepared to answer questions as to why the contractor has said that he, the contractor, is not responsible for any delay in construction or increase in costs? Will the minister explain who is responsible and why?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: Have we got another Bonaventure on our hands?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



NEW TERMINAL BUILDING, TORONTO-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF CONTRACTS

David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Transport a different kind of question relating to this subject. Will the minister table the amendment to the contract with Piggot Construction and the details of the arrangements with that company so that members of parliament can see exactly what is involved in view of the fact there has not only been, I understand, a $2.5 million additional payment to Piggot but also an additional $1.7 million for delays for which the department is alleged to be responsible? Will the minister table the contracts involved and the amendments to the contracts?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that it is within the government's power to do so and these are not private matters of the contractor, I will be glad to table or make available to members all details relating to this particular project.



CRIMINAL CODE


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that on December 29, 1967 the House of Commons deemed advisable to amend section 202A(2) of the Criminal Code, dealing with capital punishment in Canada, with a few exceptions, made the amendment to remain in force for a five-year period ending on December 29, 1972, can the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to have the House deal with the matter this year, during the present session?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to broach this matter during the present session. Normally, a new session should begin in the fall. Normally also, the present government will be in power and we shall then be able to deal with the problem.
798

March 14, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the recent findings of dangerous amounts of radiation being given off by machines used for teaching and other purposes, what steps has the minister taken to stop or control the use of faulty machines and the purchase of cathode tubes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might reply briefly to the question. I have the impression this is a question that ought normally be placed on the order paper. Of course, I do not wish to be unfair to the hon. member. The minister may want to reply briefly to the question.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I would not disagree with you, Mr. Speaker. I will take the question as notice and try to get an answer for the hon. member.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the hearings in Calgary last week in connection with the Lake Louise project were alleged to be totally- ^adequate for the number of people who wished to present briefs, will the Prime Minister consider rescheduling hearings with regard to the Lake Louise project in other areas of Alberta before a decision is made?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to look into the matter. I have not been following it. I will discuss it with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.



SUGGESTED TAX OR CREDIT INCENTIVES TO STIMULATE EXPORTS

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact the export figures for last year have now indicated that Canada's export performance not only lagged behind the growth of world trade generally but was indeed less than the average of the exports of the 14 leading industrial countries, is the minister prepared to initiate any new tax or credit incentives to increase our trade, and can we expect a statement in the House shortly?


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: First, Mr. Speaker, I want to report that the first two months of 1972 have been very good, 11.4 per cent. As to the subject of taxes, that could be answered by the Minister of Finance. With regard to incentives, I am surprised the hon. member has not seen the number of communiques which the department has issued with respect to what is being done in supporting financially bidding abroad by Canadian exporters, participation in fairs, in bringing buyers to Canada and so on. We are working very hard at it. I could refer, also, to the missions which have produced good results up to now-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Harold Warren Danforth: May I ask the minister whether he would forgo all the cosmetics and get down to the prime factor? Will he tell us whether or not there is difficulty in arriving at a comparative value as between the Canadian and the United States dollars, a difficulty which is holding up some of our exports and delaying settlement of the automobile trade agreement between Canada and the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not understand the last part of the
question, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry.



INQUIRY AS TO REVOKING OF DRILLING PERMITS FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA COASTAL WATERS

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Last week I asked the hon. gentleman for certain information with regard to the granting of oil exploration permits to Petrotar Development Limited of Calgary covering some 2.7 million acres of coastal waters in British Columbia. The minister promised to look into that situation. If I may particularize, I have in mind the 1.4 million acres in Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound and the 1.3 million acres west and northwest of Vancouver. Were these permits granted and, if so, have they now been revoked?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: of how the proposed zoning arrangements will affect the permits to which he has referred, but I will be glad to keep the hon. member-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the minister. Unless he wishes to return to motions and make a statement I suggest he might allow the hon. member to ask a supplementary.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that permits for seismic operations must inevitably lead to oil drilling permits unless the government breaks faith with those who take out the permits, and in view of the commitment made by the Minister of the Environment that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources intended to revoke these permits, may I ask the minister whether it is now the policy of the government to revoke all oil exploration permits off the Pacific coast?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out that if seismic studies indicate there is no field there, then, of course, there will be no drilling.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the-the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands seems to have a lot more to say, so I will sit down.



INDUSTRY


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since it is difficult for Canadian textile and furniture industries to compete, as a result of the present policy under which too many imports are flooding the Canadian market, is the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask a question. He should not take advantage of a question to put forward an argument. He should ask his question as quickly as possible.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Owing to that problem, is the minister considering the opportunity of altering that foreign trade policy in favour of the Canadian market.
Hon. ]ean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I am truly offended, considering that the policy respecting textile products is now recognized by both employers and employees as one of the federal government's big successes. I am surprised by the reaction of my hon. friend.
I cannot explain the whole policy once again; he should have knowledge of it.
Inquiries of the Ministry
As for textile exports, in the primary sector, they exceed 100 million, while clothing exports are close to 90 million-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Malpeque.



TRANSPORT


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Since the air traffic control facilities are now functioning at a level which allowed the minister to make a welcome visit to Prince Edward Island yesterday, can he now give some assurance that the capacity of the Borden-Cape Tormentine ferry service will be increased so that rail freight especially can be handled more expeditiously during periods of bad ice conditions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think I can give that assurance. We had some very useful discussions with the government of Prince Edward Island yesterday. The immediate difficulty does not appear to be with the ferry services themselves but with the shortage of reefer cars. I am told that approximately 100 of these were moved to the island or were on their way to the island over the weekend, and the situation does seem to have been relieved quite a bit. So far as the question of ferries is concerned, capacity would seem to be adequate and we intend to keep it that way.



SUMMERSIDE, P.E.I., AIR SERVICE-RESULT OF DISCUSSION WITH LOCAL REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister regarding his conversations yesterday with the government of Prince Edward Island. I believe that one of the purposes of his visit was to determine the adequacy of air services, particularly in view of the termination of air service by Eastern Provincial to Summerside. Can the minister report on the difficulties that are being encountered by business people in the Summerside area, and can he also indicate the reasons for the dismantling of the air terminal in light of the fact that EPA was granted a suspension for only two years, not a complete termination of service?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the second part of the question I would imagine that is a matter for the airline itself to decide. It is their property, if they choose to dismantle it.
With regard to the first question, we had a lengthy discussion with a delegation from Summerside yesterday and a number of alternatives were discussed. I put forward some; the group from Summerside put forward others. We are now in the process of comparing these suggestions with the objective of restoring some form of air service, the best and most desirable form of air service, to Summerside.
Inquiries of the Ministry INDUSTRY

March 14, 1972



UNITED STATES DISC PROGRAM-ACTION TO OFFSET EFFECT ON CANADIAN COMPANIES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in relation to what is ordinarily referred to as the United States DISC program, on which we have questioned him many times before. Has the minister now determined the effect of this program on Canadian industry and what action, if any, he proposes to take to offset this program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I trust that the minister can reply briefly. The Leader of the Opposition will recognize that this is a very general question. Perhaps the minister might attempt to reply very briefly. Otherwise he should reply to the matter by way of a statement on motions.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I shall be as brief as I usually am. The answer is simply that the regulations under the DISC program have not yet been published. Second, all the efforts we have made to assess the use that United States companies will make of the DISC program have produced contradictory results. If my hon. friend himself knows what the results of the program will be on the Canadian economy, or knows people who know, then by all means I should like to hear from him, as a contribution to the body of knowledge presently being assembled.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister.
Could he tell us if the Quebec Premier has given some answer to his proposals with regard to the family allowances policy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, not yet.



SECURITY OF MAIL AND TELEPHONES OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT-PROTECTION OF JOBS AND CAREERS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO TESTIFY BEFORE COMMITTEE

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister arising out of the statement he made in the House yesterday, following which he gave certain assurances at a press conference outside the House with respect to employees of the government feeling free to come forward to testify on the material contained in his statement yesterday. Can the Prime Minister in the House, on his own behalf and on behalf of all his cabinet ministers, give the House his assurance that no

public servant who appears before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to testify will be fired or have his or her career in any way prejudiced as a result thereof?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is rather like the kind of question about whether you have stopped beating your wife.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Maclnnis:: Have you started?


George Harris Hees: Give him a chance; he is going to need help here.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as I can answer the question without any of the aforesaid implications being read into it, of course the assurance is yes. It is not the practice or policy of this government in any way to seek retribution against any people who testify before a parliamentary committee.


George Harris Hees: Except the Auditor General.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question in view of the importance of the matter. Now that the subject has been referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and since the Prime Minister went beyond what he has just said at the press conference yesterday, when he gave his outright assurance and said that public servants would be commended if they came forward to tell of any such incidents, all I am trying to get from the Prime Minister is his assurance that if any civil servant does come forward he will not be fired or in any way have his career prejudiced.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the hon. member is repeating the question. I may have missed something, but this appears to me to be the same question.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but with the greatest respect I did introduce a further element by specifically quoting what the Prime Minister said at his press conference yesterday. I wonder whether he might be permitted to reply, because the assurance I am requesting is extremely important.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly prepared to renew those statements and assurances. I would only hope that if the hearings before the committee show that the allegations of the hon. member are pure fabrication his seat will be at stake as a result.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order? Otherwise we should go on to the next question as we are running short of time.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a point of order. I simply want to set the Prime Minister's mind at ease immediately by telling him that the Liberals have been after my seat
March 14, 1972

since 1963, but I will not give them any assurance that they will regain it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that I wanted to direct to the attention of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Having in mind the growing problems of urban transportation, particularly public transportation in areas like Vancouver and the lower mainland of British Columbia, can the minister say whether he was correctly quoted in the Vancouver press to the effect that he really has no-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he cannot ask a question in those terms. He cannot ask whether a minister is correctly quoted or whether a statement in the press is correct.


Barry Mather: Perhaps I could rephrase my question. Can the minister say whether his department is working on a public transportation policy?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, various aspects of public transportation are being examined within the government, not only within my own department.



CANADIAN COASTGUARD


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the anxiety still existing in regard to the future of the Canadian Coastguard College in so far as locale is concerned, would the minister advise when tenders are going to be called for the reconstruction of the gymnasium and library which were destroyed by fire last year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether this is the kind of question that normally ought to be asked during the question period, but the minister might reply briefly, the question having been asked.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall an item in my department in one of the reports from my officials having to do with expenditures at Sydney in the current year. Whether they apply to the gymnasium or not, I am not certain. If the hon. member will give me a day or so I will get him an answer.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member on a supplementary, but I think I ought to remind hon. members we will be running short of time very soon. We should try by co-operation to limit supple-mentaries and get on as quickly as we can.


Robert Muir: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I speak very rapidly in any event. Can the hon. gentleman advise when the report of the committee which is studying the future locale, co-ordination and operation of the Canadian Coastguard College will be presented, and would the minister also outline to the people why he said there were no immediate plans to move the college and the minister in Nova Scotia said there was no foundation whatsoever to these rumours?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I guess it is a matter of semantics. I am quite prepared to confirm the statements of the minister representing Nova Scotia in that there is no-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the minister and to the hon. member that we are getting down to a debate between two hon. members. The hon. member for Oxford was recognized a moment ago.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-ISSUANCE TO QUEBEC UNDER NAVIGABLE WATERS PROTECTION ACT OF APPROVAL FOR BRIDGE ACROSS BELL RIVER

Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which concerns the James Bay project. Yesterday the Prime Minister took the question as notice so today I will address it to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister inform the House whether under the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act the Quebec government presented an application to the federal government for approval of the construction of the bridge that is now being built across the Bell River as part of the James Bay project and, if so, was approval granted by the minister?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that an application was received from the Department of Natural Resources of the province of Quebec for a bridge to cross the Bell River at Matagami and this was approved on January 28, 1971. I want to make the date clear. I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition because I said I did not think anything had been received recently, but when we looked into the files we found the application was made presumably in 1970 and approval was granted on January 28, 1971.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the minister inform the House when the application was received by him?

March 14, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
Mr. ]amieson: I do not have that particular date with me but obviously it must have been before January 28, 1971. If members are not right in suggesting that my department is reasonably slow in these matters, which I deny emphatically, it was obviously some time in late 1970.



JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT-INQUIRY AS TO APPLICATIONS FROM QUEBEC RESPECTING DAMS OR OTHER PROJECTS

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transport indicate whether any application has been received from the province of Quebec in respect of any dam project or any other projects in respect of this undertaking?


An hon. Member:: Watch your language.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Don't say "dam".


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, so that I do not get into the same trap I will say that I do not think there have been any applications for any cotton-picking projects but we are reviewing the matter further, the Prime Minister having called it to my office's attention this morning.



AIR TRANSPORT- LOSS OF DEPOSITS BY CUSTOMERS OF CHARTER FLIGHT INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the business failure of an air charter firm in Toronto known as Charter Flight Information Services, resulting in the loss of deposits by many customers, what action will the minister be taking to have the deposits returned to the customers, and what protection do air charter passengers have in such cases?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice as to detail. Protection, of course, is provided if the carrier is one licensed by the Canadian Transport Commission, but I do not know what the specific circumstances are in this case.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the fact that the contract with the postal union has almost expired-I believe the date is March 27 or March 29-has the President of the Treasury Board anything to advise the House in respect of the negotiations and whether he is hopeful of an early settlement?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the hon. gentlemen both in the House and in committee, I do not think it would be helpful to constructive progress of the negotiations to conduct them in public. Consequently I will withstand the temptation to make a report. I am hopeful, of course, that we will be able to reach a settlement before the contract expiry date.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. In light of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board has accepted a policy of reducing strikes in the Public Service rather than withdrawing the right to strike, can he advise the House when he will in fact be laying on the table the policy and the plans with regard to that attitude of the President of the Treasury Board and whether in fact this follows from the Bryden report?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention and, indeed, it is not my hope to lay before the House a policy on what the hon. gentleman calls strike reduction. I must confess I do not quite understand that. In so far as the so-called Bryden report is concerned, I think the House leader has already made reference to that at an earlier date.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member wishes to ask a further supplementary but if he will look around him he will see there are many hon. members who are anxious to ask questions and we are running short of time. For the moment the Chair might be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Richmond.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would hope that with the indulgence of the Chair, we might clear up the matter in respect of what I was trying to bring out.


Mr. Speaker:: That is not a point of order. It is the responsibility of the Chair to decide when we should go to the next questioner. I have recognized the hon. member for Richmond, but wishing to be fair to the hon. member for Hamilton West I will return to him before the end of the question period.



INDUSTRY


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

March 14, 1972

The press announced a few days ago that the minister had met with Canadian shoe manufacturers, especially those of the Eastern Townships and that the latter had brought to his attention the excessive importation of shoes into Canada.
Can the minister indicate whether his department or the government propose to do something to improve this situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, we are working with the Quebec Industry and Commerce Department to develop an over all program that should enable us to approach this question of shoe imports in a similar way to that which was used in the case of textiles and clothing.
Discussions are continuing in that direction and we hope soon to be in a position to make the usual announcements.
* *
*



INCOME TAX


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that T-4 slips, particularly for old age pensioners and other types of superannuated people, have gone out only during the month of March and are now being received and many of them have already submitted their income tax returns, imposing a particular hardship on these people, what action is the department going to take in respect of this tardiness in the administration of the Canada Pension Plan?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take the question as notice.
*
* *



HARBOURS


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Last fall I asked the minister if he would consider the appointment of a Prairie representative on the port of Vancouver authority. At that time he suggested that the national port authority had representation from the Prairie region. In view of recent problems I wonder whether the minister would reconsider the possibility of appointing someone from the Prairie region to the port of Vancouver authority?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No,
Mr. Speaker. I do not believe that would be consistent with the policy, nor in fact would it achieve the objective which I think we share. I had hoped we would have the National Ports Council in operation now. I believe I have a nominee from Saskatchewan, but I have had some difficulty with the change of government. Some names have
Inquiries of the Ministry
come forward from different sources. I will get it done as quickly as possible.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Raymond Rock (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the high unemployment in Montreal, what action is the government taking to prevent Northern Electric from moving out of Montreal, which will affect around 3,000 jobs?


An hon. Member:: Is that the best you can do?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I would like to check first on the validity of the information. I am not aware of any significant move by Northern Electric. The different ways in which the federal government through my department has supported Northern Electric in the past are well known and the support has been quite substantial.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

Is the hon. member for Sainte-Marie rising for a supplementary?

Again I bring to the attention of hon. members that there are just three minutes left before the end of the question period.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a very important question.
Recent newspaper reports had it that the Northern Electric Company expected to leave the province of Quebec.
Could the minister say whether he has taken measures so as to make sure that this industry will not move out of Montreal, in order to protect the employment of the 3,000 workers who will be affected by the-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has just repeated the question which had been put in English by the hon. member for Lachine.
*
*



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. Gordon 1. Fairweather (Fundy-Royal): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. It is a question that was asked of the Prime Minister yesterday by the gentleman who is now sitting
[Stage Direction]
March 14, 1972
Inquiries of the Ministry
beside the President of the Treasury Board. In the interest of promoting fairness, will the minister now report on the status of Ann Booth, the CRTC employee who wishes a leave of absence to seek a nomination for the forthcoming federal election?
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that an application for leave of absence to seek the nomination in a local constituency was made by Miss Booth. That leave, which may be accorded or withheld by the Public Service Commission, was in fact not granted by the commission. Consequently, Miss Booth's action or intention to proceed to seek the nomination anyway would be against the Public Service Employment Act. Miss Booth has been suspended by reason of failure to comply with the act.


Mr. Fairweather:: Is the treatment of Miss Booth likely to be duplicated as other public servants seek nominations?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I hope that all public servants who seek nominatioh will, as the law provides, seek leave of absence for the purpose of getting it and proceed in accordance with the decision rendered by the Public Service Commission.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It arises from the question yesterday to the Secretary of State who is not in the House today. In view of continuing reports of difficulties in the CBC with NABET, would the Prime Minister ensure that the Secretary of State will come into the House tomorrow and make a statement on motions or at some time during the day to clarify the situation, since the fluid position which he said existed on Monday, according to NABET today has not improved from the position which existed in May, 1971, and I suggest is stagnating.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the minister answering for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration or to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the many representations that have been made calling for a revision of the definition of earnings regulation under the Unemployment Insurance Act in so far as it relates to severance pay and holiday pay, may we be told whether considera-

tion is being given to revising that regulation with respect to either or both of those items?


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Consideration is being given to this matter. Both subjects are under study by the minister at the present time and an announcement may be forthcoming shortly.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. A moment ago the Chair undertook to recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West for a last supplementary question. I would bring to the attention of hon. members that there has been a concentration of questions by frontbenchers today. I hope the Chair will be given an opportunity tomorrow to look a little more to the fourth and fifth rows as a number of hon. members there would like to have a chance to ask their questions. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Hamilton West.



PUBLIC SERVICE


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I wish to follow up my earlier questions with a supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board. In light of the fact that the President of the Treasury Board has indicated he is more interested in reducing strikes than in withdrawing the right to strike from the public service, I wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board intends to make a statement regarding the criteria which will be set in order to accomplish this, or whether it will be done by way of legislation and, if so, how soon we can expect this legislation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the House leader has given an indication of when there will be possibilities or otherwise of legislative enactment in this respect. My practice will be to ensure that the negotiations and the framework of negotiations are such as to lead to the conclusion of an agreement rather than the precipitation of strike action.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with the business of the House. The government House leader indicated to me yesterday that he would have an answer for me today as to whether he would permit the petition of the people of Old Crow to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
March 14, 1972


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have examined the petition and also the machinery and procedures that might be used in respect of the grievance that has been submitted by this group. I have concluded, in consultation with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that the commission which has been established by the government under Dr. Barber would more probably produce better results in this case than a reference to a standing committee. I understand that the Yukon Native Brotherhood has had preliminary discussions with Dr. Barber and will be making formal submissions including the matter contained in the petition which my hon. friend laid on the table of the House.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to a point of order concerning House business, I would like to ask the government House leader when the report of the Committee on the Constitution will be tabled in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not a point of order. The hon. member is putting a question which could have been put during the oral question period; I am the first to recognize that he did not have the opportunity of doing so. It might be simpler to allow the minister to answer it. But, again, I remind hon. members that it is irregular to put questions under the guise of points of order, once the oral question period has ended, unless hon. members agree to it unanimously. In any event, the question having been put, the minister might perhaps answer it quickly.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know when the committee will report, but I will have a word with the chairman.


Mr. Broadbent:: I rise on a point of order or question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this afternoon the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, in reply to a question by the Leader of the Opposition, misinformed the House. I know the hon. gentleman well enough to believe that he would not deliberately do so. The question referred to whether or not the United States has formulated regulations arising out of the DISC program. If I understood the minister correctly, he said that the U.S. government had not formulated such regulations. If that is what he said, it is contrary to the fact, and I refer the minister to Sunday's New York Times which contains an article pointing out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a question of privilege; that is a point of debate between the minister and the hon. member. Orders of the day.
Income Tax Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a Ways and Means Motion to amend the Income Tax Act.
John Napier Turner: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Income Tax Act and to provide among other things:
(1)	That with respect to taxable income earned after June 30,
1971	and before January 1, 1973, the tax payable under Part 1 of the said Act for the 1972 and 1973 taxation years by every corporation liable to pay tax computed under sections 123 or 143 of the said Act as it reads in its application to those years be reduced by an amount equal to seven per cent of the amount by which
(a)	the tax so computed exceeds
(b)	the deductions permitted by sections 125 and 130 of the said Act as it so reads, and that consequential adjustments be made in the manner specified in the said measure in computing the amount of any applicable refunds of tax permitted by Part 1 of the said Act as it so reads.
(2)	That the tax payable under Part 1 of the said Act by an individual for the 1972 taxation year be reduced by an amount equal to three per cent of the aggregate of the "tax otherwise payable under this Part" (within the meaning assigned by paragraph 120(4)(c) of the said Act as it reads in its application to the
1972	taxation year) and any amount added thereto pursuant to subsection 120(1) of that Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Napier Turner: that Bill C-169, to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the first time and printed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 9, 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.
Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, while I am personally convinced that, so far as bringing about
806

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
necessary changes in the operations of the Canadian National Railways is concerned, this debate is an exercise in futility, I feel I cannot pass up the opportunity to place on the record some of the many important changes which should be made in order that the Canadian National Railways may better serve the purpose for which it was established. Year after year, we find this railway appropriations bill before us. Year after year, members stand in their places and make recommendations on how the railway's operations could be improved, and year after year the government pays absolutely no attention to those representations.
There was a time when this railway did serve the people of Canada well. There was a time when it served the purpose for which it was originally intended, but I am afraid that situation has passed, and today the railway is definitely not performing the function which it was established to perform. I lay the major portion of the blame for this failure to perform its proper function, on the Canadian Transport Commission. It is the duty of the Canadian Transport Commission to see that the railway functions properly. One of the reasons that Commission was set up was to see that the railway provided the services which it was originally intended it should provide when it was first built across Canada.
Quite obviously the Commission is overlooking the basic premise that communications are the key to economic development. I suggest that economic development cannot take place unless we have good communications. We cannot have satisfactory economic development without a proper transportation service. Industries will not establish in an area where transportation is inadequate. They can hardly be blamed for that because an industry must be able to get its product to market at a minimum of expense, and a minimum of inconvenience. This basic fact was recognized as far back as 1961 by the MacPherson Royal Commission. That Commission was set up to study the whole subject of transportation. I think it important to place some of its recommendations on the record in order to indicate that the Canadian National is not now carrying out the recommendations made at that time.
The report of the MacPherson Royal Commission on Transport at page 72, volume I, reads:
Locational and resource disadvantages are well known in Canada. Remedies for overcoming them have been built into national policy. Transportation has been used as one instrument for mitigating locational disadvantage ... Locational disadvantages can still be ameliorated by national transportation policies.
The Commission pointed out that the railways retain a real economic advantage with respect to many essential traffic movements and that they will remain, for some time to come, the backbone of the transportation system in Canada. The Canadian Transport Commission unfortunately fails to recognize this fact.
The Commission report continued:
It is also apparent that each of the different modes of transport comprising this system-rail, road, water, air and pipe line- makes it own unique and necessary contribution to the functioning of the whole. There is a need for all, and there is room for all. We have reached, in other words, the era of competitive co-existence in transportation in Canada and it is the task of the public, and of the industry itself, to ensure that present and future policy is formulated in the light of this development.
[Mr. McQuaid.J
We should note the Commission's observation that transportation has been used to mitigate locational disadvantages, and that such disadvantages can still be ameliorated by national transportation policies. It is too bad that the Canadian Transport Commission is not guided by that observation. Had it been guided by it, we would not have seen literally hundreds of railway stations close down throughout the length and breadth of the country, with the accompanying loss of jobs, and accompanying inconvenience to employees who had to move themselves and their families to other parts of Canada.
Railway passenger service is in a sad state. It has been drastically curtailed, and in some provinces, such as my own, it has been completely eliminated. When you curtail or eliminate passenger service you eliminate the ability of the public to choose among different modes of transportation. I realize that air transportation is speedy. In many cases it is convenient, but we must realize that not everybody chooses to travel by air. Not everybody likes to travel by air. The services of the railway should have been retained for those people who want to travel by that method. Indeed, that is the prime reason that this railway was constructed in this country, and I think it is nothing less than criminal to allow the Canadian National Railways to discontinue passenger service in some parts of Canada.
The elimination of railway passenger service naturally increases the use of the automobile as a means of transportation, and we have now reached the point where it is becoming a menace because of the pollution disseminated and the traffic congestion. If railway service had been maintained, and those people who prefer to travel by rail given the opportunity to do so, we would not be suffering from pollution and traffic congestion to the degree that we do today. There is another important point, Mr. Speaker. In many cases our road systems are not adequate to handle the increasing volume of traffic.
The excuse offered by the Canadian Transport Commission and the government for eliminating or cutting down the railway service is that it was not making money. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that profit-making should not be the sole criteria. Essential public services must be provided to the people of Canada whether or not they are profitable. We have innumerable examples of public services which are not operating at a profit and, to my mind, there is no excuse for the government or the CTC eliminating railway services simply because they are operated at a loss. Railways were built to provide service to Canadian people, not necessarily to make money for the government. If they can be operated at a profit, that is fine, but the fact they can not is not a reasonable excuse for eliminating them.
Within the last week the railway announced plans to increase sleeping car fares on passenger trains by 5 per cent to 9 per cent. The increase is to become effective on June 1 this year, and apparently is the result of a directive from the Canadian Transport Commission that sleeping and dining car services must be self-supporting. Mr. Speaker, I by no means agree that these services must be self-supporting. They are a public service and as I have
March 14, 1972

said, there are innumerable public services operating in this country today which are not making a profit.
Let us consider the matter of freight rates. In the Atlantic provinces we are more affected by this than people in any other part of Canada. In the past 29 months we have suffered eight increases. There was a freeze on freight rates until 1969, and since then we have suffered these increases. To give an idea of how serious they are, I offer the following figures. In June, 1962, the basic freight rate per carload of potatoes from Charlottetown to Montreal was 46 cents per 100 pounds. In 1967, it was 51 cents; in 1969, it was 54 cents and in 1970 as well as at present, 57 cents. In 1962, from Charlottetown to Toronto, the rate was 61 cents; in 1967, it was 67 cents; in 1969, it was 71 cents, and in 1970 and at present, 75 cents. That is an increase of 14 cents from 1962 to 1972. The situation is even worse from Charlottetown to Newfoundland. In 1958, it was 88 cents; 1959, 95 cents; 1967, $1.04; 1968, $1.06; 1969, $1.15; 1970, $1.19; 1971, $1.30; and 1972, $1.44. From 1958 to 1972 an increase from 88 cents to $1.44.
These increases are detrimental to the potato industry in the province. As hon. members know, we are heavily dependent on that potato industry. With these increases we cannot compete with potatoes grown in other parts of Canada, despite the fact that Prince Edward Island produces a quality of potato superior to that grown in any other part of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melvin James McQuaid: Industries are discouraged from coming to our province because of the vicious freight rate structure. We have no raw materials in Prince Edward Island, so they have to be brought in for the purpose of manufacture. Then, the finished product is sent to market, but with the high freight rates on the raw materials as well as the finished product our industries cannot compete with those in other parts of Canada. This naturally is a discouragement to industries which might otherwise be interested in settling there.
Just last Wednesday, the Department of Agriculture announced changes in the Canadian livestock feed freight subsidy for feed grain. This grain comes from western Canada and the freight rates are subsidized. The subsidy was raised for the provinces of Nova Scotia, Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and British Columbia but Prince Edward Island was not mentioned. Mr. Speaker, if there is a province in Canada to which the increased subsidy should apply it is Prince Edward Island, where the livestock and dairy industries are suffering because of the high cost of feed grain. Practically all feed grains have to be brought in from western Canada. I very sincerely ask the government why they have discriminated against Prince Edward Island in this matter.


An hon. Member:: They have no seats there.


Melvin James McQuaid: Possibly that is the answer but it is a most unfair situation, and one to which I take very serious exception. The increased subsidy should have been granted to our province because our need is equal to, and in some cases greater than, those provinces to which it has been applied. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) is reported to have made a statement that the changes were
25020-52*
CNR and Air Canada
made to bring freight subsidies in line with changing costs during the last year, particularly in the remote areas. Mr. Speaker, our area may definitely be classed as a remote area, especially so far as the transportation of feed grain from western Canada is concerned. I want to know from the Minister of Agriculture or the government why Prince Edward Island has been so grossly discriminated against with respect to these subsidies.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Melvin James McQuaid: Another serious complaint heard in our province relates to the lack of availability of refrigerator cars used for shipping potatoes. The growing of potatoes is a prime industry in Prince Edward Island, and we must get those potatoes to market. It will be impossible to get them to market unless the railway provides us with the necessary refrigerator cars. The situation during the past week, as noted by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) today, has been very, very serious. When refrigerated cars are not available, we cannot transport our potatoes to markets which are crying for them. As I say, potatoes cannot be shipped if the railways will not supply us with refrigerated cars. Other modes of transport are not available, refrigerated motor trucks not being available in sufficient quantities to transport our potatoes to market. I hope, therefore, that the department will take steps to remedy the situation as soon as possible.
The last matter I want to mention, Mr. Speaker, is the matter of air transport. Strangely, some people apparently do not recognize Prince Edward Island as a province of Canada, because we are the only province of Canada to which Air Canada has refused to come.


Mr. Forrestall:: That is disgraceful.


Melvin James McQuaid: A few years ago an application was made to Air Canada for the provision of air transport to Prince Edward Island, at least to a limited extent, so that we would be serviced in the same way as the other provinces of this country. Air Canada refused. I say with considerable pride that we have been able to get along without the services of Air Canada. That, however, does not excuse Air Canada for refusing to serve that area. Eastern Provincial Airways is presently providing a modern, up-to-date service to our province. The airline operates three Boeing 737 jets, each of which can carry either 108 or 109 passengers. It also operates eight other propeller driven aircraft which provide transport facilities between the island and other parts of the eastern seaboard. Eastern Provincial Airways presently employs 500 people. So, it is an industry. There is now a non-stop flight from Montreal to Charlottetown. The trip takes one hour and fifteen minutes, and the aircraft continues on, from Charlottetown, to Halifax and various other places in Newfoundland.
Eastern Provincial Airways presently has an application before the Air Transport Commission for a service which would link the three Maritime capital cities with Montreal. It is proposed that this service shall start in Charlottetown at eight o'clock in the morning. The aircraft is to proceed from there to Halifax, Fredericton, Chatham, New Brunswick, Charlo, New Brunswick, and

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
then to Montreal. I presume, and take for granted that this service will be in addition to that presently being provided. I certainly hope that the Air Transport Commission will grant the application and permit Eastern Provincial Airways to expand its service to Prince Edward Island, and will bear in mind the refusal of Air Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melvin James McQuaid: I have talked about some of our transport problems. I cannot resist the temptation to suggest that, in addition to the remedies I have mentioned, there is another remedy which, if it had been applied, would have improved our situation tremendously. If the government in power today had seen fit to build the causeway to Prince Edward Island, our situation would have been transformed entirely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Melvin James McQuaid: I was interested to read a speech made in the other place a few days ago by Senator Bonnell, a Senator who comes from the island. He said in part:
Honourable senators, what is needed to prevent this continued isolation-
He was speaking of the isolation of Prince Edward Island.
-is something we have heard about so often-the causeway. Different prime ministers have promised the causeway, but each time the project has been postponed by some tight money policy or high rates of interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that it is irregular to quote from the debates of the other place.


Melvin James McQuaid: Mr. Speaker, what the Senator neglected to say was that if the Diefenbaker government had remained in power, Prince Edward Island would have had a causeway today connecting it with the mainland. There is absolutely no question about it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Make it retroactive.


Melvin James McQuaid: I sincerely suggest that if the government wants to improve our communications in that way, it is not too late for it to do so. Let the government go ahead with the construction of the causeway, and let there be improved railway service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it would be impossible in the time that I will have today to deal with all the questions and issues which have been raised in this debate.


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister might at least try.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I might say to the hon. member opposite and others that I fully intend today to make a very objective and non-controversial speech. I hope it will be received in that way. I repeat: I would find it impossible to cover all the matters which have been raised in the time allotted to me. Transportation is such a complex subject that it simply cannot be covered in a speech of 40 minutes. I assure the House and all hon. members, including the

hon. member who made a remark just now, that I am at their disposal, either in committee or elsewhere, as often as they wish and for as long as they wish, to ensure a full discussion of those matters that are of concern to them and fall within my area of responsibility.
I agree with the claim that a reorganized structure is necessary in order that members and the country generally can obtain more information, and obtain it more easily, about all aspects of transportation. With this objective in mind, I propose to bring before the House in the next session three important pieces of legislation on which work is proceeding at the present time. The first of those is a bill designed to reconstitute Air Canada as a separate Crown corporation, thus divorcing it, as it were, from the CNR. I will also introduce a Canadian National Railways revision act and a companion piece of legislation covering amendments to the Railway Act. Hon. members will know how involved and far reaching these changes are; they have been asking for them for the last two or three years. These changes have entailed a great deal of work, which is still proceeding. I believe, however, that these bills are essential and I will bring them forward as soon as they are ready.
Since there will be time for a wide-ranging discussion in committee, I thought that it might be appropriate if, today, in the 40 minutes which are available to me in this House, in accordance with a commitment previously given, I were to discuss and deal with one subject that is obviously of very great interest to a large number of hon. members, the matter of a transportation policy for the Atlantic Provinces. I feel reasonably confident that we can all agree that the transportation problems of the Atlantic region cannot be considered in isolation. This is on all fours with my own judgment since I, like most hon. members, recognize that transportation policy must be the means to the attainment of economic and social objectives. Unless we who live in the Atlantic area know what it is we want to achieve and gear our transportation planning to assist these objectives, there is every possibility that we will repeat the mistakes of the past and fail to make our initiatives in transportation responsive to our wider and more basic objectives and ambitions.
I think we have to agree, as well, that the record of the period dating back almost to confederation is crammed with evidence of attempts at economic development that failed to meet the expectations of their well meaning and often dedicated promoters. There are many reasons for these costly failures; amongst them is the inadequacy of past transportation policy and facilities. It would be a mistake, however, to preserve the mythology, entrenched by nearly a century of frustration, that great industrial complexes would blossom throughout Atlantic Canada if only the transportation drawbacks were removed. Regrettably it is not that simple.
The problems of the past in attracting industry to this area will be compounded in the 1970's. We have only to look at such centres as Toronto, Montreal and a few others to realize that most new types of developments tend to polarize around large metropolitan centres. I am compelled to state my belief that despite the best efforts of aggressive Chambers of Commerce and the provision
March 14, 1972

of attractive incentives by DREE and others, few so-called secondary industries are likely to locate in comparatively remote regions where they are isolated both from the other undertakings upon which they must rely and the major markets on which they depend for their viability.
Given these predictions, Atlantic Canada faces a number of alternatives. We can accept the trend as inevitable. If we do, the historic erosion of our best young native talent will accelerate. It is estimated, for example, that at least half of the students in Newfoundland's Memorial University will leave the province soon after graduation. The future may not be quite as bleak in the Maritimes, but I have no doubt that the same trend is now in evidence. If we are to reverse this migration, it is clear that ways must be found to provide an increased number of more rewarding jobs in the Atlantic region. I do not suggest that greater employment opportunities are the whole answer, but without them all else is futile.
Where, then, are the additional jobs to come from, and how can we improve the lot of the present work force so that they will not be attracted to better opportunities in other parts of Canada or elsewhere? And what role can transportation play in answering these questions? The most logical approach is to make the most of the natural advantages we possess. There is encouraging evidence that both public and private agencies are having an increasing degree of success in this task.
The industrial complex now growing up around the Canso Strait area is one example. The Churchill Falls development is another, although in a different category. I believe that efforts in recent years to rationalize and stabilize the fishing industry will prove to be highly successful and beneficial. Other natural resources are also making an increasing contribution, with mining showing a considerable improvement, particularly in New Brunswick and Labrador. The creation of promising container ports at Halifax and Saint John, of refineries in Newfoundland and other Atlantic locations, are other examples of the effective promotion of a natural asset Atlantic provinces possess because of our geographic location. These and other developments illustrate that we stand our best chance for economic improvement when we seek to make the most of the opportunities that are, in effect, at our doorstep, applying the value-added principle whenever possible and, of course, benefiting from the service industries that will follow with their generally high employment prospects.
I have said that most industries today are reluctant to operate, as it were, in isolation. The exceptions, of course, are those undertakings that require specific natural resources or those to which Atlantic Canada can offer certain special advantages. It is obvious, however, that even in these cases there is a preference for a comparatively large community or at the very least, for ready access to the services, amenities and social attractions that a larger community has to offer. This is why the Department of Regional Economic Expansion has chosen to promote the growth centre concept.
The leaders, private and public, of all four Atlantic provinces have indicated their agreement with this principle even though, like me, they realize that it must be done with great care and with the proper respect for the rights
CNR cmd Air Canada
of the individual and for the important traditions of a way of life that has served residents well in the Atlantic area for centuries. Also, transportation and greater mobility are extremely important to the growth centre concept. An understanding of the growing phenomena of industrial interdependence and an acceptance that such a trend is inevitable for a variety of reasons will help our planners to avoid the dissipation of effort that has brought something less than total success in the past.
In summary, therefore, I agree with those who see, as a first priority for the Atlantic region, the development of all of our natural resources, not simply in terms of first phase exploitation, that is the exporting of raw materials, but also in upgrading our natural products within the region to the maximum extent possible. Secondly, I see the need for the strengthening of the general framework of our larger and more viable communities, not merely because these are the most logical centres for economic growth, but also because they offer the best chance to our people to enjoy the levels of services which all of us now accept as our right in the Canada of the seventies.
In all of this, transportation has a vital role to play. I have indicated that transportation policy must be responsive to the general objectives of the region. This, however, is an over simplification. Proper transportation planning can help to shape the Atlantic region of the future. We who have responsibilities in this field must initiate as well as respond. That is what we are seeking to do, and I may say that the role of the initiator is by far the more difficult.
Much has been said about the Atlantic Premier's Report of 1969. This provides recommendations for the implementation of a basic transportation policy in the Atlantic provinces. Recommendations are made under the following headings: Rail Regulation, Highway Regulation, Subsidies and Public Policy, Role of the Carrier and Shipper, Highway, Rail, Air, Ports, Ferries, Water, Research Organizations and Freight Rate Freeze. The report called for a national policy which will require for the Atlantic provinces an effective combination of competition, regulation and financial assistance. It called for a revision of the Maritime Freight Rates Act, something to allow flexibility for changing circumstances over time.
It will be useful to examine the major recommendations of the report, and I would like to comment on what has been achieved so far. I will deal with the headings as they are, in fact, set out in the report.
First, rail regulation: Recommendations were made concerning the interpretation of the term "alternative, effective and competitive service" under the act. The weight base of 30,000 pounds for maximum rates is queried, and a suggestion is made that where a maximum rate is increased, such increase be limited to the increase in variable costs. It is suggested that the Canadian Transport Commission should be empowered to suspend a rate, presumably a rate increase, where it has received prima facie evidence that the rate is discriminatory, and it is suggested that the provinces or their agencies should have access on a confidential basis to relevant railway cost data.
Apart from the first point, which reflects the intention of the legislation anyway, that is to provide alternative

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
and competitive means of transportation, the others would require changes in legislation. The 30,000 pound weight base was the subject of lengthy debate in parliament. I think it is fair to say there was a wide difference of opinion in all parts of the House as to this particular matter. Limiting increases to variable costs only would in time lead to distortion as new rate patterns were established. Suspension of an increase where evidence of discrimination appears to exist is a reasonable request. As far as costs are concerned, publication of average costs might go some way toward allaying some concerns, and I am presently raising this possibility with the Canadian Transport Commission and with other persons who would be concerned in answering this particular question.
There are, of course, a number of cases proceeding under Section 23 of the National Transportation Act, and it would be premature to think of changing the act until these cases have run their course and their impact has been assessed. Section 23 permits appeals in cases where it is claimed that actions of the carriers are detrimental to the public interest. This has not been decided up until the present time. A number of applications under Section 23 are now being decided. I am sure the findings will be historic and, indeed, may form a very strong base for future action.
Most of the points made in the section of the Premiers' report dealing with highway regulation relate to items under the control of the provinces themselves. The comments generally refer to the need for uniformity of regulations within the Atlantic provinces and wherever possible between other provincial and state authorities.
Proclamation of Part III of the National Transportation Act is in the spirit of what is said in this section. I have had three separate meetings with the provinces regarding an appropriate federal role in this field and, without labouring the subject, I can say that we are prepared to act as soon as the provinces reach a consensus amongst themselves as to how we can best co-operate with them in this complex regulatory field.
In terms of subsidies and public policy, the call of the premiers was for updating of the Maritime Freight Rates Act so as to effectively assist the economic development of the region and to give assistance beyond the unilateral subsidization of rail traffic. The provinces emphasized that they would be prepared to accept modification in the blanket subsidization of intraregional traffic provided that a federal-provincial agency, located in the region, was empowered to administer transportation assistance from federal funds on a more selective basis. This agency, it was proposed, would have funds at its disposal for the existing MFRA westbound rail, $5 million for extending westbound subsidy to other modes, and an amount to be negotiated for other forms of more selective assistance.
In response, the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act of 1969 did introduce more flexibility, and in 1969 the outbound subsidy was extended to trucking. The Federal-Provincial Committee on Atlantic Region Transportation was set up to advise on subsidy policy, not as an agency to administer funds as had been contemplated. The reason for this decision was that both the provinces and ourselves questioned whether the provinces acting unilaterally would be able to agree on an equitable distribution of funds. Also, it is important to note that the $5 million requested to subsidize other modes is only about one third as much as will be paid out this year to subsidize trucking within the region.
The section of the report dealing with the role of carrier and shipper discusses the avenues open to carriers and shippers in the use of new technology and by joint efforts in pursuing expanding markets. Recommendations here concern reductions in intra-maritime rates referred to in a November, 1967 announcement, deferment of the elimination of less-than-carload freight rates in the Atlantic provinces and ask that the density rule of one cubic foot equalling ten pounds be changed. The deferment of plans for elimination of less-than-car-load rates in the region was subsequently agreed to by the railways. The density rule applies across Canada and does not appear to raise problems elsewhere.
The recommendations relating to rail refer to implementation of rail realignments where these are shown to be worthwhile, and the need for research into passenger traffic by road, rail and air. The recommendations are not specific, but the transport development agency of the Ministry of Transport, as well as other groups, are continuing very detailed studies of these and related questions.
Recent actions taken by some hon. members with regard to the matter of the discontinuance of passenger service in Newfoundland, actions which may require me as Minister of Transport and as a member of the government to become involved in possible judicial proceedings, make it improper for me to comment on the issue at this time. I can, however, make some general remarks on the matter of rail service in Newfoundland. It is the government's intention to see that the rail line across Newfoundland, coupled with the ferry services between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, remains the main transportation link for goods moving into and, I hope, in ever increasing volume, out of the province.
I do not agree that a standard gauge system, costing a very large sum of money, is necessary to achieve this objective. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent already on improving the existing right of way, not to mention the even greater amounts which have gone into terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, North Sydney, the Canso Straits and Argentia, plus the cost of additional ferries, many of which were designed to accommodate themselves to the narrow gauge system. I am not unmindful, either, of the great social disruption which would occur, particularly at Port aux Basques and in southwestern Newfoundland, if a standard gauge track was introduced. The livelihoods of many hundreds of families are at stake, and I intend to see that these are protected.
In my opinion, it would be far better to use the tens of millions of dollars that a standard gauge system would cost in order to help provide still more good roads in Newfoundland and Labrador, a policy which, as the record shows, the government has been carrying out at great cost and with good effect over the past three years and, indeed, before that.

March 14, 1972

During the weekend I held the most recent of many discussions with officials of the CNR with a view to improving the existing rail route still further. There are grades and curves which it may be possible to eliminate, and I have asked for detailed costs and other estimates. As for rail passenger service, I want to repeat what I said a few days ago to the representatives of the national rail unions when they met with me here in Ottawa. The evidence is growing that the future of rail passenger travel depends to a large extend on new technology. Experience in Canada and in the United States has shown that conventional rail travel cannot compete with other modes over long distances and through sparsely populated areas. This is why the Ministry of Transport and the CTC, at my direction, have stepped up their research in this important field.
We have produced the first comprehensive assessment of a transportation corridor concept between Windsor, Ontario and Quebec City. We are examining very carefully new methods and designs for surface transport. A commuter study for the area of metropolitan Toronto, involving all levels of government, will be completed in May or June. All of this work and much more, some of it centered in our universities, as well as our agreement which I was happy to negotiate to share research information with the United States, will, I am sure, lead to a great deal of improvement and innovation in the years ahead. It is by no means inconceivable that out of this combination of research and testing will come ideas and new designs which will make wholly new and more rapid and comfortable means of rail travel possible in many parts of Canada, including Newfoundland.
I turn, now, to air transportation. The Premiers' report called for a redefinition of air transportation policy in order to permit a redistribution of air routes between trunk and regional carriers and suggested compensation for carriers servicing uneconomic parts of the network. It proposed federal aid to the regional carrier to enable it to re-equip its fleet and upgrade its airport facilities and navigational equipment.
Air Canada has already initiated talks at the regional carrier level with a view to a redistribution of some routes. Goose Bay has been transferred from Air Canada to EPA. EPA received a total of $1.3 million in subsidies during 1970. My department has a five year plan for improving its airports and equipping them with appropriate navigational aids. Much of this work has already been done. At St. John's, Newfoundland, although we encountered some unanticipated technical problems, the instrument landing system for one of the main runways is operating satisfactorily and a second system on another runway will be operating later this year.
Incidentally, and this will be of special interest to hon. members on the other side who understand the technicalities involved-I am thinking, in particular, of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)-the region's engineers are working to establish this facility to what are known as category two standards, that is, visibility, 100 feet altitude, one-quarter mile horizontal. If this effort is successful it will help to cut down significantly on the degree of interference by bad weather with airport operations. I see the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. CNR and Air Canada
Macquarrie) is here today. I should like to advise him there will be a substantial upgrading of Charlottetown Airport this year involving something like half a million dollars or more.
Under the heading, ports, nothing specific was called for in the Premiers' report but reference was made to the need for joint consultations, studies and financial arrangements between provincial and federal governments to take advantage of opportunities offered by technological change. A number of such consultations and studies have been going on, particularly with regard to Saint John and Halifax where much actual consultation has already taken place. Establishment of the National Ports Council and of local port authorities in National Harbours Board harbours is a significant response to this item.
Reference was made in the report to the need for additional capacity on the Wood Island-Caribou ferry service and a request was made for lower truck rates on P.E.I. ferries. A new vessel is under construction for the Wood Island service, and in the fall of 1970 truck rates on P.E.I. ferries, as well as on Newfoundland ferries, were reduced. Two new vessels, the Holiday Island and Vacationland, were introduced to the Borden-Tormentine service last year providing much improved capacity. The report also called for an acceptable fare structure on the Digby-Saint John ferry service. Indications are that the level of service and rate structure presently provided have been well received, and this is confirmed in the second report of the Federal-Provincial committee.
The section under the heading, water, suggests a need for a broader examination of coastal services and for further studies of ocean services and rates.
The Darling report has subsequently been prepared and is currently under study with, I may say, many differing points of view being presented in response to my invitation.
With regard to transportation research and organizations, comments here concerned primarily the need for work to be done by the provinces themselves.
With regard to freight rate freeze, it was suggested that this be maintained until the new regional policy was effected; however, the freeze was lifted in 1969 for reasons I have explained and which I believe are very valid.
With regard to rail rate increases since 1969, I want to point out that the freeze on freight rates which began in 1959 with the Freight Rates Reduction Act was continued in the Atlantic provinces for 30 months longer than elsewhere in Canada. This means that there has been a lag in applying increases in the Atlantic provinces and while the lag has been reduced to some extent, it does not now appear that it will be entirely eliminated. In addition, the Maritime Freight Rates Act keeps rail rates in the select territory and on outbound movements to other points in Canada below the levels that would otherwise apply. When compared with similar rates elsewhere in Canada, therefore, Atlantic province rates still remain below the national average by a sizeable amount.

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
These were the main recommendations of the Atlantic provinces report. I think it is clear that we have acted positively on the majority of them. This does not mean that the job has been completed. Probably more detrimental than freight rates themselves, are the still complex and often costly distribution patterns within the Atlantic area. I agree with the premier's report that greater rationalization of distribution is desirable, even necessary, and considerable progress is being made along these lines. One has only to look at the remarkable increase in truck movements to see that this is so. And the process of change will continue.
We in the ministry of Transport accept the need for change. What I, as minister, do not accept, however, is the idea seemingly entrenched in the minds of some that at some given moment we will present an all embracing and final transportation policy, something that in its own way would become as rigid and permanent as the Maritime Freight Rates Act once was. Transportation policy must be an evolving plan. It must not only seek to meet presently identifiable goals, it must also be sufficiently flexible to respond quickly when need become apparent or when long established requirements cease to exist.
Historically-I believe this is often overlooked-the main purpose, perhaps the only reason for freight subsidies and similar assistance to Atlantic Canada, was to enable industry in this area to compete on a more equitable basis with industry in other parts of our country. The basic argument was that goods of various kinds produced in the east were not marketable on a competitive basis because the transportation cost of reaching the markets to the west was unreasonably high. The same basic principle led subsequently to the provision of subsidies within the region so that Atlantic industry and commerce could, to a greater extent than previously, supply the regions own internal needs. I want to emphasize that only in comparatively recent times has the relationship between transportation charges and the cost of bringing goods into the region become a central issue. Today, in much of the discussion and argument, it is the main theme of many who protest rising freight rates and other changes in the tariff. No one is more aware than I of the high cost of living in Atlantic Canada, but confusion is inevitable when the two objectives of industrial development and, for example, lower living costs become part of the same argument.
When a subsidy is paid on the whole range of goods entering the Atlantic provinces, this is clearly a benefit to manufacturers in other parts of Canada who ship their merchandise into the region. It surely follows that such subsidies must be detrimental to manufacturers within the Atlantic provices who are in direct competition with those from outside. To some extent at least, therefore, blanket in-bound subsidies, while they may do something to reduce cost, are self-defeating in terms of the other and broader aim of economic or industrial expansion.
I believe, therefore, that it is necessary to separate these two frequently opposed objectives. In my judgment, economic expansion is by far the more important, and it is to this aim that we must direct our efforts in evolving the transportation policy to which I have referred. I want to emphasize that I am not unconcerned about the cost of

living aspect, but there are other mechanisms that can be employed more effectively in dealing with this problem. I should say in passing that it is not only in the Atlantic provinces that freight rates and the like add to living costs. The same general problem exists over a very large part of Canada, and I believe it is generally agreed that in this one problem area at least, greater and more effective competition rather than subsidization will provide the most effective solution.
In the course of my remarks I propose to show the remarkable way in which this competition is increasing and also the relative differences between rail freight rates in the Atlantic provinces and the rest of Canada. I believe I can demonstrate also that on the matter of industrial growth, there is little evidence that the previous formula for subsidies was truly effective. This is due in part to the fact that up until the past year or so the available assistance applied only to rail shipments. This, as you know, has now been changed for out-bound cargoes and I am encouraged by the extent to which trucking is now offering the railways more effective competition.
As to the subsidy now being paid on movements within the region, once again there is growing evidence of the comparative ineffectiveness of present arrangements. Within the past few days, I have received the second report of the federal-provincial committee established in 1970 to make recommendations concerning the so-called intra-subsidy and a number of related matters. Within a short time I propose to make it available to members. There has not been an opportunity as yet for a thorough study of this second report, but I think it can be said that its findings confirm that further changes should be made in the present methods of payment to make these more selective and thus more efficient.
The first committee report revealed some surprising facts in support of this contention, and I recall them to the attention of hon. members. For example, it is interesting to note that in 1970 about $8 million per year was paid in subsidies on rail shipments within the Atlantic provinces, and this figure had not changed substantially in the past decade. This suggests that most, if not all of the growth that has taken place in recent years, has been as a result of the activities of motor carriers. It is also significant that the greater part of subsidized rail movements originate and terminate within the same province. This is true of 68 per cent of all such movements in the Atlantic region as a whole. Not surprisingly, in Newfoundland the proportion is as high as 91 per cent. Obviously, therefore, the role of rail transport is not as important as that of other carriers in interprovincial trade.
A further finding of the committee, as some members will be aware, is that a relatively small number of commodities generally characterized by heavy weight and low dollar value account for the greatest part of rail movements. Only about 12 commodities, led by petroleum products and pulpwood, accounted in 1970 for as much as 65 per cent of the subsidized rail movements within the Atlantic region.
Despite this concentration on movements of such commodities, the average length of rail shipments within the Atlantic region is only about 150 miles, a distance which is well below the optimum range of railway operations in
March 14, 1972

the light of most North American transport experience. This indicated a misallocation of transport resources and tended to suggest a certain discrimination against the motor carriers which, there is little doubt, was detrimental to all parts of the region, but particularly to the two island provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. It seemed evident from the committee's findings that changes in the internal subsidy were called for and, as members know, we introduced these along the lines of the committee's recommendations. I will deal with these in greater detail in a few moments.
While, as I have said, the second report has not yet been studied fully I can tell the House that I have already made certain decisions on some of its recommendations. The second report of the federal-provincial committee suggests that the intrasubsidy reduction from 17.5 per cent to 15 per cent go ahead as planned this year but that exemptions to the reduction be made to the potato industry and certain sectors of the wood residue industry.
The report suggests that the exemptions be regarded as special assistance cases where the high subsidy level or the differential between the normal and high level be paid to the shipper rather than the carrier. The latter course may be one which is relatively simple to implement and could be the beginning of a more selective subsidy policy.
I favour these recommendations and fully expect that they will be implemented. I do, however, want time to explore their ramifications and decided, therefore, not to reduce the present intra-subsidy of 171 per cent on April 1st as the committee suggests, but only at a later date and after consultation with those concerned. I am aware of the widely held view that when assistance is provided, it should be paid direct to the shipper rather than to the carrier. I subscribe to this principle and assure the House that if, in fact, we do not get the benefits to industry this plan is designed to achieve, then we will accelerate the changeover to our shippers more quickly than in the policy I have described today. It was in the interests of getting the plan into operation quickly that the decision was taken to use the simpler system, but we will continue to work on the problem of payments to shippers, beyond the initial step I have mentioned today.
The reading of statistics can be a dull business, but as painlessly as possible, I would like to give the House some indication of the levels of federal spending on transportation in the Atlantic provinces in recent years. This is the backup and support that I have been indicating today. We have implemented the recommendations of the provinces themselves.
In 1970-71, all forms of subsidies, maintenance and operating costs in the Atlantic provinces totalled $113 million. In 1971-72 this figure increased by over $5 million to more than $118 million. Of these totals, subsidies to various ferry services amounted to about $36 million per year. Last year, the first full year of the trucking subsidy, payments to both rail and trucking totalled over $20J million in the first year in which we were paying the trucking industry. This immense figure may surprise hon. members, but it supports the tremendous growth in the Atlantic provinces. I now estimate that the trucking portion alone is likely to reach close to $14 million in the
CNR and Air Canada
current year, just within the Atlantic provinces, and that does not include the subsidy on westbound traffic or the out-of-the-region subsidy.
National Harbours Board capital expenditures combined for the current year and the previous two, add up to about $15 million and all the capital expenditures of the Ministry of Transport and its related agencies, over the same period, fall just short of $72 million dollars.
Over and above direct spending by my ministry, other departments have contributed substantially to the improvement of the transportation network of the Atlantic provinces. Between 1968 and the current year, both inclusive, the Department of Public Works has undertaken capital works in the region worth about $33 million, excluding such large lease-back projects as the $20 million wharf for the Come-by-Chance refinery in Newfoundland and a similar structure on the Strait of Canso.
A special word is called for regarding assistance for road construction in the Atlantic Provinces. There was, first of all, special help provided for the completion of the trans-Canada highway in the region with the federal government contributing 90 per cent of the cost. At the peak of this program this support was at the level of about $57 j million a year.
Special DREE programs sustained this level of support from 1969 to 1971. Last year new agreements were negotiated with Neyv Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland totalling $60 million. Over the past seven years, therefore, federal support for Atlantic province highways has averaged about $45 million a year, or over the period some $315 million, with many projects being funded entirely by the federal government.
The Atlantic Premiers' report suggested a 10 year program, properly planned, and interim assistance of about $661 million. It can be seen from these figures that this second request has been met and exceeded, and long range planning for federal participation in highway construction is well advanced.
I emphasize these expenditures, because while they are not all made directly by the Ministry of Transport, they are nevertheless a vitally important part of our Atlantic transportation policy and have gone a long way toward meeting the needs of this area.
I would also like to recall some of the other federal undertakings of the past few years as evidence that we are moving ahead with a comprehensive program, which fits pretty squarely with what was recommended not merely by the Premiers' Committee but also by hon. members of the opposition and on this side of the House. Some of these projects may tend to be overlooked because of the present evident preoccupation with the problem of freight rates which, though important, is only one part of the challenges we face.
In 1969 as I have mentioned, the 30 per cent subsidy on outbound shipments was extended to trucking and railway express. Simultaneously subsidies were provided to maintain water transport from St. John's and Corner Brook to Montreal, and similar subsidies have been continued for service between eastern Newfoundland and Halifax. A good prospect for Halifax at the present time is again a program in which the federal authorities are

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
involved with regard to the shipment of automobiles from a special gathering point in Halifax to Newfoundland and perhaps elsewhere. During the same year we undertook a considerable expansion of ferry service to P.E.I. with two new ferries introduced last year and a third coming into operation this year. I believe it is agreed that results have been highly satisfactory. We have undertaken, in co-operation with the government of Nova Scotia, major improvements in the shore facilities for the Woods Island-P.E.I. service and these are now well underway.
In co-operation with Canadian Pacific, ferry service from Saint John to Digby has been modernized at a cost of many millions of dollars, and we have provided the financing for a ferry terminal at Yarmouth to accommodate a second ferry to New England which is being sponsored by the government of Nova Scotia. Construction in the Strait of Canso of a new rail car terminal provides an alternate ice-free port for the Port aux Basques ferries. New harbour facilities have been constructed at Corner Brook at an estimated total cost of about $5 million. This year the National Harbours Board will undertake studies expected to lead to expansion of St. John's Newfoundland harbour facilities at a cost of as much as $10 million. Last year and again in 1972 we will operate two additional ferries on the Gulf service, thus greatly expanding capacity.
Air services in the Atlantic region have also been improved through the provision by EPA of jet service to P.E.I. and to Labrador. In addition, I have obtained a detailed study of future air traffic patterns in the Atlantic provinces and in the Atlantic region and have made copies available to members. These will help us to determine our airport policy in this region in the future. Many improvements have been introduced at both major and minor airports throughout the region. By introducing the so-called "TOPS" program we reduced landing fees at Gander by approximately two-thirds and the runways at Gander have been lengthened, at very great cost, so that Gander can now accommodate the world's largest airliners.
These are by no means all the projects either completed or underway in the Atlantic provinces. We have provided much better transportation services to the Magdalen Islands and will spend close to half a million dollars this year to improve loading facilities in both P.E.I. and on the Magdalens. The hon. gentleman from Prince Edward Island who spoke earlier I am sure will be glad to hear this.


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


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May I continue, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed that the minister be allowed to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am just about finished.
A special commission recommended ways in which we could modernize the coastal boat services in southern

Newfoundland and the ferry operations between the Island and Nova Scotia and many of these have been implemented. A similar commission is now examining coastal services in the rest of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have also, I might add, provided a federally subsidized ferry service across the Straits of Belle Isle and supported several other short-haul ferry services in eastern Canada, as well as in other parts of the country. This combination of projects will, I am sure, continue to bring about worthwhile improvements in the whole mix of our Atlantic transportation services.
For over two years I have been very conscious of the need to integrate various waterborne and air services into our transportation planning. In line with what I have said about the need to encourage industrial development, I have asked for a detailed examination of the advisability of providing some form of assistance for various raw materials originating outside the Atlantic region but which must be brought in in order to permit greater manufacturing and fabricating activity. I believe this is one important issue to which all of us should apply ourselves. You will appreciate that it is not an easy task for I believe that such assistance must be provided on a selective basis and only where there is clearcut evidence that industrial stability and expansion would result. In cases where such raw materials are most economically transported by water, it seems logical that this mode should not be excluded from consideration for subsidies.
I am also seeking means through which Labrador, that increasingly important area of Atlantic Canada, can be assisted through new transportation policies. Obviously the long term solution lies in opening up Labrador through a good system of roads, but this will take some time to achieve and in the interim I have asked for an assessment of the possible benefits of an extension of water and perhaps air subsidies to communities in this region.
What I have recounted today is only a little of the over-all story. We have seen over the past nearly 100 years how intractable some of our problems are in the Atlantic region, partly because of the unnatural geographic makeup of Canada but also because of many other factors, some of which I have tried to outline. I think it is now clear, with the benefit of hindsight, that simply arguing for lower freight rates is not the answer. I have no quarrel with the argument that transportation costs have to be kept as low as is reasonable, but I suggest that it does over simplify the problem. Nor is it entirely a matter of providing more and ever more public moneys. These have to be spent of course, and when the total from all departments is taken into account, as I have shown, the annual federal expenditures in this region are by no means inconsiderable, and they are increasing all the time.
If I may have the indulgence of the House for another moment I should like to make a few general comments. What we must do with these expenditures is to channel them to the maximum extent possible into the creation of a stronger, more permanent economic base. I do not believe that any member of this House from the Atlantic provinces would disagree with this objective. It will serve little purpose in the long run if we build roads at great
March 14, 1972

cost only to find that their main purpose is to speed the movement of people out of the region. Lower freight rates will be of little consequence if we continue to face the present lamentably high levels of unemployment, and improved facilities for the transportation of passengers by air and sea as well as through surface modes will not constitute much of an attraction for people who just cannot afford to travel.
We must recognize far more than many of us do at the present time that government expenditures alone, no matter how lavish and well intentioned and no matter from what level of government they originate, simply cannot generate the kind of wealth necessary to give Atlantic Canada the level of services and the standard of living that will make those of us who live there feel that we are getting our fair share of Canada's prosperity. Only economic expansion with the fuller employment it offers can have the type of impact this region so desperately needs. I believe therefore that it is to this we must devote our major efforts and the undoubted talents that this region possesses, some of which are well represented in this chamber.
Let me assure the House that there will be no lack of federal enthusiasm and support for any worthwhile proposal that may be advanced. Let me be equally frank, however, in saying that like many of you we have reached the conclusion that there is little real future in pouring good money after bad or in supporting impractical schemes simply on the grounds that something has to be done.
As we enter the 1970's I have a growing feeling-and this I have not touched on at all in my general remarks- that the Atlantic provinces can become very attractive to an increasing number of Canadians who are being compelled by events to reassess their value systems. In short, I believe there will be a growing attraction in Atlantic Canada. Perhaps it is too narrow a word to describe it in terms of the tourist industry, but nevertheless I refer to the whole concept of people wanting to get away fr im it all. I do not mean that those who live in seriously troubled huge centres of population are likely to desert these in favour of the way of life most of us in Atlantic Canada presently enjoy. I do think, however, that if we take full advantage of our natural attractions and shepherd them well, and if we provide, as I think we can, decent means of transportation and opportunities for economic growth as well as for the development of the other important dimensions of our lives, we can look forward to steady progress and to the attainment of the goals that have eluded us so often in the past.
I want to thank the House for its indulgence in letting me complete this report, and I hope it provides some information to members.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, whatever the policy is, it is bound to dance, sing and skip to the lilting cadence of the minister whenever we get around to hearing it, and it will follow the old familiar tune. There is no question about that. There were one or two things in the minister's statement this afternoon that I think need immediate comment, such as the indication from the minister of the proposed separation of Air Canada from the Canadian National Railways. Frank-
CNR and Air Canada
ly, it comes as a surprise to me. It is a matter that has been discussed at some length in various circles.
We welcome the indication that study has been given to this matter, but I would express the caution that we be not overly hasty in this separation. We must maintain a political or institutional capability to control some concepts with respect to Air Canada, particularly that aspect of Air Canada that has to do with its national responsibility to serve Canadians from one end of this country to the other, not just in the most lucrative areas of the country. While we welcome the proposal, there is a necessity to project a note of caution with respect to it.
The minister indicated in a very clear manner, with respect to one of the major problems facing people in the Atlantic provinces, that he is in fact waiting for the premiers to agree. Hon. members are well aware of the necessity of coming up with some method of shifting the payment of subsidies from carriers themselves to some other aspect of the movement of goods, such as the shippers or subsidy. The fact the minister indicated that he is waiting for the premiers to agree on what is the best formula seems to me to be just another example of the length to which the minister and the government are prepared to go to avoid the required decisions, not only in Atlantic Canada where this has particular application but also throughout Canada. Western members who are deeply involved in the movement of wheat and who rely upon freight cars to move their product, are very much aware of the degree to which this government, while talking a lot, so far, has not been able to do much in a practical way.
We welcome some other comments made by the minister, such as the addition of substantially upgraded navigational aids for our airports, the upgrading of the runways, and so forth. These are all welcome. I regret deeply the indication from Air Canada of its intention to remove from the Halifax international airport its flight dispatch facilities as we are one of two areas of the world which have extreme difficulty with weather forecasting. The only other area that is as bad as ours is the Irish Sea. This is a matter to be regretted, and I think we must ask, as forcefully as we can, wt.ether or not Air Canada has in fact received comments from the Department of Transport with respect to safety, and whether or not there is a prejudicial implication in the removal of the dispatch office from the Halifax international airport to Montreal. We wonder why there is a dispatch office at Toronto, another one 250 miles away in Montreal, and now they are planning to leave the next 1,000 miles of Canada without what is in my opinion a very necessary service, particularly with the unique weather forecasting conditions that arise in the Atlantic area and especially in Nova Scotia. The dispatch office at Halifax serves not only our own area. It serves Saint John, Fredericton, Moncton, St. John's, Newfoundland, Gander, Stephenville, Sydney, Yarmouth, Boston, Bermuda and New York. It is a service that has come to be relied upon by trans-oceanic pilots, particularly because it is in the middle of a very unique weather area. I suppose that the closer you are to the fire the greater is the heat. I wonder about the efficacy of this decision. I wonder about any decisions that are based on experiences elsewhere in the world that only take into

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
account fact, and not necessarily the particular circumstances surrounding what appears to be fact.
One of the reasons given for the removal of the dispatch offices from Halifax is that one of the major U.S. airlines, I believe it is Eastern, has centralized all its dispatch facilities in Florida. The question is asked: if they can do it there, why can't we do it here? This seems to ignore the fact that there it is essentially a north-south operation, while here we are talking essentially about an east-west operation. In no other part of the Atlantic seaboard is there such a concentration of all the weather coming off the North American continent as there is in the Atlantic provinces.
I understand that this matter is presently under consideration. I urge that it be given the most thorough review possible, by transport officials, from the point of view of safety. It should be determined whether or not we are downgrading the safety of the operations of Air Canada. This is something that is important not only to us in the Atlantic provinces. There are only a dozen or so jobs involved, possibly 55 or 60 people involved. That is bad enough, but the important consideration is whether or not the removal of the dispatch office, together with its responsibility, to a site 1,000 miles away, taking into account the uniqueness of the weather situation in Halifax, is a wise decision.
We again warmly welcome the minister's indication that for the time being he will stay any reduction in the intra subsidy rate, the percentage reduction from 17 per cent down to a suggested 15 per cent. As I say, this is welcome. We hope that the studies which the minister is undertaking, and which he indicates he intends to continue undertaking during this stay of execution, will be fruitful, and that out of them will come the type of responses that are urgent and necessary to businessmen in the Atlantic area. In this connection I think most members of the House, particularly those from the Atlantic area, would welcome an early opportunity to examine the second report to which the minister made some considerable reference this afternoon.
The minister made a very forceful point with respect to the level and the impact of rail transportation, particularly within our region. He cited a lot of statistics. He will have to read them tomorrow to see just what in fact he was saying. For example, it would be interesting to ask how much of that $15 million was used to subsidize the movement of furniture out of the Maritimes, and thereby families, to other parts of the country. I am not at all sure that that major loophole in the decisions of 18 months ago has been corrected. If it has not, it is time that it was corrected. The very thing that the minister was commenting upon is indeed encouraged by the existing policies. The minister was correct when he said that essentially we must get the most advantage out of what we have available to us. That goes without saying.
Now, dealing with an entirely different area, Mr. Speaker, I wonder when the minister will be able to deal effectively with the establishment of independent port authorities. I would like the indulgence of the House to discuss

this matter for a few minutes, and summarize the events of the last eight or nine years.
In 1963, the Glassco Royal Commission, in volume V of its report dealing with the organization of the government of Canada, at page 87, recommended, and I quote:
Control of the seaports and airports now under review is centralized in Ottawa. This results in criticisms of standards adopted for capital works-too lavish to be economic but short of what local pride demands- of services provided, and of charges therefor. Internationally, the trend is to decentralize administration of harbours and airports, thus passing responsibility for capital and service standards to either municipal authorities or to local bodies created for the purpose. The geography of Canada being what it is, your Commissioners are of opinion that the aim should be to foster local pride and promote local participation, and to arrange that standards of works and services be such as to permit charges that are fair and reasonable.
On July 24, 1970, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) told a news conference that the government would phase out the National Harbours Board and decentralize port management. He said, and I quote:
All Canadian ports have different problems and decentralization would enable local authorities to deal with their own special problems in each area.
The new national authority will act as custodian of all federal port property, recommend national objectives, establish tariff and user charges, and set guidelines for leasing, licensing and contractual agreements. Local port authorities will submit an annual budget to the central executive.
The local authority will administer daily operations including traffic promotion, maintenance, property and lease hold management, and planning analysis for long and short-terms. It will also handle capital investment, co-ordination of port development planning and liaison with local governments.
That sounded pretty specific to me, and I am sure it did to a lot of other Canadians. But about a year later the minister had changed the emphasis slightly. In a statement on May 12, 1971, he said:
I am convinced that the federal role can be achieved best through the closest co-operation with the provincial governments and even more particularly with those concerned with the particular ports themselves.
I propose to create local port authorities for each of the nine major ports now administered by the National Harbours Board.
I also emphasized the greater emphasis which was to be given to decentralization of responsibility and to the concept of financial viability through the balanced use of the principle of cost recovery. The new ports policy is not only consistent with this objective, but an important step in carrying it forward.
A point of interest will always be the extent to which shipping in the St. Lawrence will pay on the principle of cost recovery on winter arrangements for the support of navigation. Throughout the winter information is available on the constantly changing ice situation, advice on the easiest routes to follow, and icebreakers are available to escort ships through difficult areas. If they happen to be there on flood control duty, well, that is the way we tend to approach these problems. Then, there are all the additional services and projects on the St. Lawrence that have been added since the above details were provided by the then parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport in reply to a question on December 20, 1967. Sometimes one may be forgiven if one suspects the minister has a policy of granting subsidies to the wealthy, and payment on a cost recovery basis for the poorer provinces. This is
March 14, 1972

particularly true if we look at the additional charges on oil shipments, when they are brought into the picture.
On October 8 last year the minister stated in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas):
I cannot do the latter, that is, announce the make-up of the nine port authorities. I can say, however, that most of the problems have been resolved.
In the Atlantic region, Mr. Speaker, we are still waiting for the local Port Authority. We are waiting to see whether it can foster the pride suggested by the Glassco commission some nine years ago. Not only are we waiting for the degree of decentralization which the present minister has designed to give to ports so far, but there are considerable fears that the new local Port Authority will in practice only add yet another level of administration. The best we are promised-and promised and promised and promised-falls far short of the effective decentralization envisioned and recommended by the Glassco commission. It is difficult to imagine that the time delay, even under a local Port Authority, in port capital development projects would be shorter than at present, with the submission requirements for annual budgets, closest co-operation with the provincial government, national objectives and guidelines, not to mention the minister not being able to make up his mind.
Such is the dynamic speed with which the Minister of Transport acts that in his May 12, 1971, statement to the House he was able to reiterate the following vague outline some eight years after the Glassco Royal Commission reported:
Details concerning the responsibilities and make-up of each of these authorities will be worked out through consultation.
Isn't that a wonderful thing? It is exactly what we want?
In general terms, I can say that each group will be as representative as possible of all local interests, including management and labour, municipal and provincial authorities. Each will have a good deal of autonomy, including consultation in the appointment of port managers-
Hah!
-the preparation of budgets, forward planning and all other important matters.
When compared with the minister's statement a year before at the Transport and Communications Committee on April 9, 1970, we are able to see clearly the inability of the minister to make a significant advance in the decentralization of the administration of the ports of this country.
In fairness to the minister, he did indicate that he felt the big problem was trying to define the levels of responsibility and authority both of the local manager, or whatever it would be titled, and the national body. That is a direct quote, "of the national body". I thought we were going to decentralize but here we are talking about a national body. The minister went on to say:
This is an extremely intricate arrangement and, as I said this morning, I do not believe that you can apply it in precisely the same way at every port across the country-you have to take local conditions into account.
CNR and Air Canada
Mr. Speaker, a principle is a principle. How it is applied in different areas may differ but the principle remains. Either it is hollow or it is not.
As recently as October 8, 1971, the Minister of Transport stated:
It is the intention of the government to locate one member of the National Harbours Board in the Atlantic provinces, but where he will go is the key question, as the hon. member well knows.
If the location of the regional member of the National Harbours Board is a key question, he will obviously be important in the determination of port policy and decisions. If he is that important, it is also evident that the decentralization is not intended to be significant. The minister cannot have it both ways simultaneously.
Either the regional National Harbours Board representative will be important or we will have effective decentralization. This would place in the hands of our communities the major portion of the responsibility for the operation of those ports.
Yet, decentralization is essential if we are to avoid the kind of federal mismanagement which led to the development of two container berths at the south end of Halifax over opposition and in face of the accusation that you are rushing out to do something because somebody said it had to be done. I agree that it had to be done and it has given Halifax a significant jump in capturing containerization markets in North America. We wanted that and we welcome it, but I still make the point that the absence of a local authority led to what most people in the Halifax area agree was an unwise location. Now, we have prospects of an immediate expansion of this capability at an alternative site which should have been developed initially and which would have been capable of expansion. At least ten berths could have been provided at one site instead of the split site operation now to be imposed on the port of Halifax-Dartmouth. At present it is difficult to see how the limited decentralization promised by the minister and as yet not realized in the Atlantic provinces will be able to resist adequately the present government's penchant for error and short sightedness. I hope they will not repeat the errors that have been made to date with respect to the management of our ports.
In view of the many disadvantages suffered by the Maritimes, it is something of a blow to find that geographical nearness to European markets is no advantage since it is costing shippers at the Montreal railhead the same as at the Halifax terminal to send goods to Europe. This, despite the $80 to $85 cost of sending a 20-foot container from Montreal to Halifax. How do you rationalize these things?
The whole transport policy of the government must be clearly stated so that informed criticisms and economic responses may be made, particularly by the people directly affected. In recent days in this House we have heard members from the western provinces pleading for boxcars to move their grain to market. Why have we not got them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: We get excuses such as in wintertime this or that cannot be done. That is nonsense. You do it. If

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
there are not enough boxcars, then buy some more or rent them from the United States.


Mr. Benjamin:: You would think this is the first year we have had snow.


J. Michael Forrestall: My colleague from Prince Edward Island spoke about the lack of refrigerator cars for moving potatoes from the island. What in God's name can be the rational excuse for not being able to move our goods to market? We give these companies millions and millions of dollars year in and year out, yet our farmers cannot sell their wheat because they cannot move it. This is lunacy, and I cannot understand it. I can only suspect that the same situation obtains when the minister stands up and says in such a convincing way, "That is a great question; glad you raised that. We were talking about that just this morning and I am going to have something done about it before tomorrow. If the hon. member will give me a couple of days we will straighten it out". Then, you never hear of it again. It is the same with boxcars for moving wheat and refrigerator cars for moving potatoes, the same thing with fish.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Every year for four years.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, but I am not worried so much about the past as what it augurs for the future. We have had talk about this for months. Are there not enough boxcars'In Canada to move grain? Why not? If the CNR has not got the initiative to get them let's sell it to some enterprise that can build the boxcars.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, no, don't do that; it is worse in the CPR.


J. Michael Forrestall: I am not sure which is the worst.
Mr. Speaker, this is what I have been trying to illustrate on the subject of national ports-the minister is emphatic about something and everybody talks a lot but nothing happens. Of course, these problems pose difficulties; but please do not tell us that they will be resolved, that they are being worked on and that they will be squared away the day after tomorrow when, actually, you do not have the foggiest idea as to where in the world you are going. Do not mislead people. If there are not enough boxcars, do something about it. Do not simply admit the shortage and do nothing, which is what is now happening. Western Canadians and people living in the Atlantic region deserve somewhat better treatment from their national transport system than the sort of treatment they have been getting in recent years. There is a need to resolve our problems in the east as well as in the west. I think most problems could be resolved if people spent more time working them out instead of talking about them.


Mr. Rod Thomson (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Buchanan) is covering the debate on behalf of the minister.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's a lot of help.


Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: I think, perhaps, that it is. I have found the parliamentary secretary a hard working fellow and conscientious. Moreover, he does his homework. If he is to solve the problems that have been raised in this debate, he will have to work at night, too. I want to talk about some problems. I hope he listens to suggestions that I and others might make and, hopefully, deals with some of these matters.
In my hand I hold a collection of newspaper articles which deal with more export trade for Canada. One column in the Globe and Mail is headed, "More Pacific trade predicted by Pepin". That is okay. I hope that this is not merely a pep talk by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin). Logically, we can expect more Pacific trade, and I hope it will come about. I hold here a news release from the Canada Department of Agriculture. In it the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Olson) refers to record export sales of agricultural products. I hope that the statements in the release are not merely political statements. I come from an area which exports agricultural produce, and we want that trade to continue.
I now pick up a report from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool which refers to the new trade agreement involving wheat sales to Russia. The first paragraph says that Canadian grain producers are assured of good wheat deliveries; the author assumes that we can get the grain to market, of course. Then, I pick up a copy of a speech which was delivered by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Humboldt (Mr. Lang), otherwise known as the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. He spoke in Thunder Bay about transport matters. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, he certainly makes a good speech. He knows all the details and talks of what should be done with new and modern methods of transport and so on. But you know, Mr. Speaker, that is not enough. Making studies or studies of studies is not enough. There comes a time when you must decide to act on the basis of those studies. That is where I criticize the present government. We have seen more white papers and studies during the last four years than in any previous four-year period in Canada's history. Some of those studies have been wonderful. However, when it comes to doing something constructive to meet some of the problems uncovered by those studies, the record of this government is not so good. I hope the parliamentary secretary is listening.
I want to say something about shipping grain to the west coast, or about trade and the west coast, if you will. The bulk of my remarks will be on that theme. In that connection I have in my hand an article that I wish to quote from extensively. It comes from British Columbia and is entitled, "Is Vancouver's port strangling?" It is written by John Clarke and reads in part:
The end of the U.S. West Coast dock strike will only partially relieve pressure on the port of Vancouver. The port's basic problems are made in Canada or, more precisely in the words of Vancouver officials, in Ottawa.
For weeks upward of 20 ships have been lying idle in English Bay unable to get to a berth to load cargo. Already prairie grain farmers have lost $3-million this winter, the cost of penalties for late deliveries from West Coast ports.
Exports through the port this year are expected to be 43 million tons, nearly 22 per cent higher than in 1971. Shipments last year totalled 35.3 million, which was 30 per cent higher than in 1970.
March 14, 1972

Clearly, it looks as if trade is growing. I continue:
These statistics show Vancouver to be not only the busiest port in Canada but the busiest on the West Coast of North America. Only Long Beach, Calif., comes close. It handled about 27 million tons last year.
Most of the shipments through Vancouver are in bulk cargo-grain, sulphur, coal. Grain shipments have been held up not only by trouble at the port but because of delays on the railways which have been blocked by more snow slides than at any other time in memory.
The view of shipping people here is that the rail delays merely emphasize the lack of co-ordination in transportation systems that is slowly strangling the port. One official said this week: 'It's too late now to do anything about 1972. The port has been oversold and we're going to pay the consequences.'
But officials are looking beyond 1972. The startling increase in port volume forecast for this year is regarded as a portent of even greater problems ahead . . . The federal government has said it expects much of Canada's economic expansion in the years ahead to take place in the Pacific.
The federal government in this case means the Liberal party, Mr. Speaker, and they expect some trade expansion in this area.
Vancouver is the main funnel for east-west trade and the volume it will be asked to handle sends chills through port officials. The feeling is that Ottawa still does not-
I underline "still does not."
-appreciate these problems. A remark by Transport Minister Don Jamieson last November struck shippers as rather heartless and cynical. He said: 'I don't have a dollar's worth of business that I can justify expenditure of public funds on.' Delegation after delegation has gone to Ottawa in search of a listening ear and found none, even though Vancouver has been blamed by western farmers and businessmen for not living up to its responsibilities.
Vancouver can't do anything without a nod from Ottawa. The appointment earlier this year of a long-awaited Vancouver Port Authority raised hopes. But officials are puzzled by what they regard as a persistent lack of urgency in Ottawa's attitude. They have sought dock improvements, more up-to-date equipment, more container facilities not only as local amenities but as vital necessities for the good of the country as a whole.
Port officials believe the problem will have to be tackled on a broad scale. Rail and road operations will have to be dovetailed with improved port facilities in a total system that will provide alternatives when lines are blocked or delays of any kind are encountered. For instance, it's felt that much of the grain that's delayed between here and the Prairies could be diverted to U.S. rail routes.
I take exception to that suggestion. If we must use U.S. railroads, then we must. Surely to goodness, Canadian railroads will be able to haul this grain. I continue:
It's also felt that pressure in the congested Vancouver harbor area could be relieved if the increased bulk traffic were switched to Roberts Bank, 30 miles south of Vancouver.
That article, Mr. Speaker, sums up in language better than any at my command some of the problems afflicting the port of Vancouver.
May I also refer to a paragraph in the Palliser Wheat Growers Association bulletin or newsletter of February 29, 1972. It says that the Vancouver grain handling system can be termed a Mickey Mouse operation, and that that system appears to be obsolete. It goes on to say: Improvements can still be made in it, but with limited trackage through Vancouver, and at the terminal elevators, coupled with the time-consuming cleaning process, it is very unlikely that the port can increase its throughput enough to allow for increased sales to Pacific Rim countries.
CNR and Air Canada
The point I am trying to make is this. The government has actively sought new trade in the Pacific rim countries, and for that I compliment them. They have not tied in the transportation with this important trade, nor do they appear to be looking at the problem as thoroughly as they should. If you are going to improve one line of your business, you have to improve some of the facilities that service the increased business. The government has been lacking in its efforts to do something about the problem with which it is faced.
There are some very urgent things that should be done at this time, even thought they may be temporary measures. I will only give some examples because I do not claim to be an authority on transportation. We might look into unit trains or renting diesel units or boxcars from the United States. Perhaps we could divert boxcars from other sources and, if necessary, have more overtime. We should do whatever is required. Let us not lose any business. In view of the unemployment problem in Canada, we should not lose any business. By giving some thought to this problem, we might create employment for some of our unemployed by supplying some of the transportation needs of this country.
With regard to long-term measures, we should consider another rail line to the west coast. Perhaps we should make more adequate use of the northern route. Judging from the use that is made of the port of Prince Rupert, one would almost think it was not there. Is Vancouver the only port in British Columbia? Possibly we should make better use of the port facilities at Prince Rupert. Why not expand this port and make more use of that route? I ask the parliamentary secretary if any study has been made of this route or any studies with regard to shipping grain out to Prince Rupert? Is consideration being given to making greater use of this route? Attempts should be made to solve this problem. I would be sympathetic if some mistakes were made. However, I am not sympathetic toward a government which sits on its hands and does nothing. In the field of transportation we have done nothing for too long, particularly with regard to shipping grain to the west coast.
I have been farming for over 20 years in a part of this country that has been faced with grain shipping problems. Whenever we have a big grain sale abroad, it is always said that we do not have the facilities to handle it. After 25 years, something should be done about this problem. It has been suggested that the CNR or CPR join one end of the PGE and use that route into Vancouver. I am not in a position to say whether this would be a good move, but I suggest that we look into it. These problems will get worse if we do not do something about them. If the organizing efficiency is not improved, we can count on the problem becoming worse. The government tends to react to emergency situations instead of planning in advance.
I want to commend the government on the block system on the Prairies. If the parliamentary secretary wants to take credit for this, that is all right. The block system is an improved system of handling grain. The many elevator agents, station agents and people involved in the movement of grain to whom I have talked have almost univer-

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
sally told me that this is working better. I thought perhaps the government and the parliamentary secretary would like to know there has been some reaction. For years farmers have argued that better use could be made of the boxcars. It has even seemed obvious to people living along the track that we should make better use of these boxcars. This system seems to be working better, and I commend those responsible for it.
I would like to talk for a few moments about the servo centre concept which has been suggested by the railroads. Some members of parliament presented briefs to the Canadian Pacific Railway hearings that were held on the prairies. Actually, this is something which both railroads are doing. It seems that the freight service on the Prairies, at least in Saskatchewan, has been downgraded as far as the railways are concerned. They- are only interested in moving items that can be moved in bulk. Anything else is to be discarded at their earliest convenience.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House agreed that we call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint John-Laneaster (Mr. Bell)-Pollution-Reconsideration of levies on oil tanker shipments to provide contingency fund in case of spills; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin)-Unemployment Insurance-Montreal-Payment of benefits delayed-Investigation requested; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave)-Grain-Allocation of boxcars to increase stocks at Vancouver.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is a disposition among parties to take up four bills relating to changes of names of constituencies. These are Bill C-55 standing in the name of the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan), Bill C-74 standing in the name of the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Deakon), Bill C-92 standing in the name of the hon. member for Renfrew North (Mr. Hopkins) and Bill C-167 standing in the name of the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Lajoie). If it is agreeable to hon. members, I wonder if these bills could be taken in that order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the proposal of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman). Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex) moved: that Bill C-55, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, when redistribution took place on the last occasion my riding changed an awful lot. It took in part of what was called old Essex-East and old Essex-West and part of the riding I represented at that time called Essex-South. Since then, the City of Windsor has annexed a large part of the suburban areas surrounding it. The city was part of my riding and is still part of my riding. The constituency I represent includes a large part of Essex County and also a large part of the new City of Windsor. The City of Windsor is a rapidly expanding industrial area. Many people have moved to the area in the last few years from other parts of Canada to find employment, and they did. Windsor has one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the country. It has one of the fastest growth rates of any constituency in southwestern Ontario. It has increased its number of voters by 10,000 since the last election according to the recent census figures.


John Edward Broadbent: They are all NDPers.


Eugene Whelan: I think the mayor of Windsor well described that group after the leader of the New Democratic Party went down there and said Windsor had not changed for the last 30 years. Even though these people may be supporters of the NDP they are not going to vote for a party whose leader does not recognize the great changes which have taken place in the city in the last 30 years, or in the last ten years, or in the last five years, if it comes to that.
It is important that this great constituency be recognized as part of the city and part of the county. I am, therefore, asking for approval of this proposal to change the name of the constituency from Essex to Essex-Windsor.


John Edward Broadbent: I listened with a great deal of interest to the reasons given by the hon. member opposite for changing the name of his constituency and I see no objection to this very sensible proposal. We on this side of the House feel it does not go far enough. We agree that a change in name is appropriate, but what most needs to be changed is the pervasive
March 14, 1972

and pernicious influence of the Liberal party. So, we are looking forward to a more substantial change after the next federal election.


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council):: Without getting into a discussion as to the validity of the last proposition, may I say a word about the motion from a procedural point of view? The motion as it stands asks that following second reading the question be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. There have been indications from members on all sides of the House that it might be better if the motion were amended so that the question would be referred to the Committee of the Whole. There seems to be some disposition to finalize the matter today, and perhaps this could be done with the consent of hon. members.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I am enjoying the humorous exchange between the mover of the motion and the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. Perhaps, when the chips are down, they will have had the fun and we shall have the seat.
The suggestion of the parliamentary secretary is a reasonable one. It is a tradition in the House that members requesting changes in the names of their constituencies receive the approval of their colleagues, and we are all in favour of expedition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The House has heard the proposal of the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed that the motion be changed accordingly? Perhaps we could agree to change the wording of the other similar motions so as to refer each of these bills to the Committee of the Whole House instead of to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I wonder if the House would also agree to proceed with the motions for second reading of the remaining three bills, at this time? We could then study all four bills in committee of the whole without unnecessary loss of time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Walter Deakon (High Park) moved: that Bill C-74, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to change the name of the present federal constituency of
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act High Park to High Park-Humber Valley. This change is asked for following the circulation of a questionnaire among constituents of the said riding, the result of which indicated that a majority desired the name to be changed. At present this federal constituency consists of parts of four provincial ridings, High Park, Humber, York West and York South. It contains within its boundaries two main parks, High Park and Humber Valley Park, one on either side of the Humber River. It is a very diversified riding and I submit that the change in name would result in a more accurate description of its component parts. I there respectfully solicit the support of the House for the passage of this bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North) moved: that Bill C-92, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reason I ask for this change of name is, I believe, a very valid one. As the result of the last redistribution, my constituency of Renfrew North doubled in size. It is now the largest of the 77 constituencies south of North Bay in Ontario.
The riding consists of 49 townships in the District of Nipissing and 15 in the northern part of Renfrew County in addition to the City of Pembroke and the towns of Deep River, Mattawa, Bonfield and several villages, including Petawawa. The north rn part of Renfrew County should not be identified with the town of Renfrew itself because the town of Renfrew has never been in the constituency of Renfrew North. There has always been some confusion over this; when I mention the name of my constituency people automatically begin talking about the town of Renfrew. It is my desire to retain the traditional name, Renfrew North, but to add to it Nipissing East so as to take in the 49 townships included in that part.
The County of Renfrew is the largest county in the province of Ontario and it is divided among three different constituencies and is part of each. It is my desire to consolidate these in Renfrew North-Nipissing East so that all the areas in the constituency shall be identified in the name of the riding.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Mr.   Claude-G. Lajoie@Trois-Rivieres: that Bill C-167, An Act respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.

March 14, 1972
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act He said: Mr. Speaker, the main reason for my asking that the adjective "metropolitan" be added to the name of my riding of Trois-Rivieres is that my riding really includes Trois-Rivieres, Cap-de-la-Madeleine and Trois-Rivieres-Ouest.
I am making this official request because the citizens of those three cities have asked me to do so, and also to avoid the confusion that exists between the name of the provincial riding and that of the federal riding. I must add that the provincial riding does not include Cap-de-la-Madeleine, a city which has a population of 32,500.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I understood that the hon. member wanted to bring a correction to the French version of the bill. Is this the case?


Mr. Lajoie:: Mr. Speaker, a slight printing error did, in fact, slip into it. The French name is "Trois-Rivieres-Metropolitain", whereas in English, this comes out as "Me-tropolitan-Trois-Rivieres". This is just a printing error, I think.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The correction can be made in committee. May I dispense with reading the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, just before the bill carries-and I hope I am intervening in time-do I understand that it is the intention of the Chair to recognize the mistake to which the hon. member has drawn attention in the English text, and that the electoral district will appear as "Trois-Rivieres-Metropolitain" in French and the equivalent in the English version?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: That is agreed. As I have said, the correction can be made in committee of the whole, and then the bill reported as amended.
Pursuant to special order the House will now go into committee of the whole on Bills C-55, C-74, C-92 and C-167.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: The committee will now examine Bill C-167.
On clause 1-Metropolitan Trois-Rivieres.


Claude G. Lajoie: Mr. Speaker, I understand your question very well. In other words, the name of the constituency in French as in English would read "Trois-Rivieres-Metropo-litain".


Gérald Laniel: From a procedural point of view it might be preferable to have another hon. member move

the amendment. However, is it agreed that the translation be amended to read "Trois-Rivieres-Metropolitain" instead of "Metropolitan! Trois-Rivieres"?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall I report the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill C-55, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Whelan.
Bill C-74, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Deakon.
Bill C-92, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act-Mr. Hopkins.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some disposition, now that all these electoral boundaries bills have been disposed of, to call it six o'clock.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, on a note of personal privilege and before Your Honour leaves the Chair, could I remind all hon. members of the showing of "The Tenth Decade" in the Railway Committee Room commencing at seven o'clock this evening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The time appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed 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 Railway Company and certain debentures to be issued by
March 14, 1972
[Stage Direction]
Air Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Roderick J. (Rod) Thomson: Mr. Speaker, before five o'clock I had intimated I wished to speak for a few moments about the servo-centre concept introduced by the railways. This may or may not be a good concept; perhaps time will supply the answer in this regard. It seems to me, however, that the hearings in western Canada were an exercise in futility. Several members of parliament, the Senator from Saskatoon and a great many individuals from different communities in Saskatchewan, presented briefs at those hearings. For all practical purposes the hearings might not have been held, because in this case the CPR was given leave to introduce the services it sought to introduce. I am concerned that railway service has been downgraded, at least in western Canada, an area with which I am quite familiar. It may be that we should not expect to have some of the services we have had in the past in little villages, but it would seem that at least there should be some, if you like, over-all concept of freight service to the people of these areas. I suggest there is no such service.
In the past there have been unilateral changes of position by individuals and groups who have needed a particular freight service. I refer specifically to federal government changes. First, there is the mail service. At one time the railways provided this service, and finally the government, by putting its trucks on the road or through contract took the service from the railways and provided it in a different manner. Similar changes have been made by various organizations picking off a little business here and there, as it were. Not much in the way of service which paid was left to the railways.
We have Federated Co-operative Trucking using its own trucks, we have the dairy companies hauling their products, we have the buses hauling people and the trucking lines providing services. The business that was left was not profitable for anyone. It would seem to me very unfortunate that such a situation has arisen, at least in our prairie districts, because it means downgrading of service and economic activity. The result is that people are being forced out of business because they do not have the freight service which is necessary to remain operational. We might take the example of a garageman who must be able to obtain parts in order to repair vehicles. When he was unable to do this because of existing freight services he went out of business or moved to another location where these services could be provided. We have seen much of this in the Prairies.
I could talk at length on this matter but it seems to me we are beating a dead horse. We on this side of the House are not very happy with the way in which the government has managed transportation by rail. We are not satisfied with the way in which the government has handled the pensions of CNR employees. Also, we have complaints about lack of policy and future planning of freight needs. Earlier this afternoon I indicated that Canada's trade with the Orient has increased by leaps and bounds but that transportation service to the west coast has not improved. We find that the capitalization of railways has been inade-
CNR and Air Canada
quate in view of the transport needs of the nation. For these as well as other reasons we do not believe the government is entitled to a vote of approval by this House. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding):
That Bill C-4 be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months' hence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Hon. members have heard the motion of the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson). It seems to me to be a proper amendment and the House will proceed on that basis.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on Bill C-4, the annual CNR financing bill. We must remember that the history of Canada in the past 100 years has been largely the history of the railroads, at least in relation to that part of the country west of upper and lower Canada. Because this is a debate which arises every year it provides me with an opportunity to present a few ideas on railway transportation in western Canada in particular.
I should like to say a few words regarding CNR transportation in the Hudson Bay area and the town of Dauphin which I represent. Although the comments I will make are in many respects local, in total the changes are indicative of what is happening all across the country. I am referring to the CNR changes from so-called areas to so-called regions. These changes from area management to centralized regional management have caused considerable disruption of CNR personnel and have been the cause of widespread fear that small communities will lose out so far as jobs and services are concerned. As was stated by the last speaker, there is great disillusionment in western Canada and the feeling exists that many small communities will disappear because of the attitude of the railways, particularly of CNR, with regard to the area that I represent.
The changes mean, in effect, that jobs will be moved from smaller communities to areas of greater concentration such as, in the case of my riding, Winnipeg. It has been said that this area type management has created a situation where there are 18 small railroads corresponding to the number of areas created by the CNR. If this is the effect of the so-called area concept it means that ultimately there will be considerable disruption in the towns and villages which the CNR services, and in fact this is what is happening.
For years the CNR seems to have been making much of the transportation policy for western Canada, and the inactivity and unresponsiveness of the federal government to the needs of the people has been detrimental to western Canada. From the practical point of view, the fact that the CNR has its main office in Montreal means that it views the problems of western Canadian transportation in the context of its location there. We cannot quarrel too much with that, but I think that probably the CNR management does not realize the dependency of western Canada on the railways and the lack of alternative methods of transportation which are available in the east. It has neglected the fact that there is lack of competition in western Canada, which is not the case in the east. The trucking industry has introduced a measure of competi-

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
tion in western Canada but there are many bulk commodities such as grain, fertilizers, and so on, that must travel by rail. The concentration of CNR management in Montreal makes it unlikely that on-the-spot decisions will be useful to western Canada.
At present the Canadian National transportation, reporting and control system has been introduced in Montreal and the final phase of the TRACS program is to be implemented by 1975. Ultimately, the whole CN system will report to a computer in Montreal. This facility will process the data fed directly into the computer from operations in the field. The information thus obtained will be returned directly to the operations in the field in the form of advance train notices, bypassing the present regional control centres. The information could, and probably will, be used as a basis for administrative decisions, which will greatly reduce the need for regional administrative people. The objectives of the program are commendable if the costs of transportation are reduced and better service is provided to the public.
We will have to live increasingly with the changing technology which will result in the considerable decrease of CN jobs in Manitoba, most of them in Winnipeg. It appears that the centralization which has occurred so far with respect to Winnipeg and other regional operational and administrative centres has been only an interim move. Probably the most significant feature of this centralization of the CN is that the decision-making process will be further removed from the action, at least so far as the west is concerned. Policy made elsewhere will govern, in some measure, day to day life in Manitoba and other parts of the west. This illustrates return to an attempt to control from Montreal substantial segments of the life of western Canada. The CNR, by circumstance, has become a government corporation controlled in the main by federal prerogative. To concentrate the decision-making process so far away from many regions can lead only to misunderstanding. Modern centralization might be advantageous at times and necessary in the interests of efficiency, but centralization of control of a transportation system that is so vital to western Canada should not be carried to this extreme.
Phasing out the area system with respect to the Hudson Bay region may well be followed by the downgrading of other regions in favour of more centralization in the east. The net result will be loss of jobs in smaller communities and a feeling of remoteness on the part of employees and of the public served by the CNR. The CNR seems to allow situations that are not good to develop, and takes a long time to correct them. But once it starts something the CNR seems to overreact and to create other situations that are not good.
In phasing out station agents in various parts of western Canada both the CNR and the CPR have opted for servo-centres. Presumably, the idea of the servo-centre is that it will give better service to the customer-but it eliminates the station agent in small communities, a person who acted as a public relations man as well as the business agent for the railway. Where conditions are such that a trucker can undertake the work previously done by the railway, he will have the benefit of residing in a small

community and personally serving business establishments. Servo-centres are impersonal and business contacts with them may be difficult. The inauguration of the servo-centre idea means that the railway has opted out of the business of less than carload lots in carrying freight.
The concept of phasing out an area has created considerable dislocation and alarm in the town of Dauphin due to the possibility of people moving from the area. So many misgivings were expressed by the mayor and council of the town of Dauphin that the CNR issued a public statement in February, 1971. The gist of the statement was that the CNR claimed that 27 jobs would be transferred from Dauphin but 24 new jobs would be created in the servo-centre, meaning a net loss of three jobs. It also suggested that when centralization was completed, possibly another 14 jobs would be transferred or abolished, making a grand total of 17 jobs lost. The CNR also claimed to know of no further plans for attrition. It stated that Dauphin would remain an important rail centre and that any further movement of employees would represent only a small percentage of its work force in Dauphin. In February, 1972, the CNR issued another press release in Dauphin stating that the net employment loss in the town was 39. Canadian National employee groups claim that there has been a loss of 69 positions and the creation of only seven new ones, making a net loss of 62.
The community has lost employment supervisors and staff, an area engineer and complete engineering department staff, an accounting supervisor and staff, an equipment supervisor and staff, bridges and building foremen and staff, administration or general offices and staff, freight and passenger sales supervisors and staff, superintendents of transportation and staff, a road foreman of engines and staff, supervisors of car distribution and work equipment and staff. Again, the CNR has stated that Dauphin will remain an important rail centre, but it does not yet seem to have decided what departments will finally remain there. The phasing out of management in this area has created considerable disquiet. It has caused loss of jobs and has detracted from the importance of the community. Whether railway operations will show increased efficiency remains to be seen. I would hope that when the CNR makes changes affecting small communities it will demonstrate forbearance and will be absolutely sure that the changes it makes will provide a better transportation system.
I would now like to mention the problem of the railway running into the port of Churchill. The possibility of record grain sales this year seems to present a transportation problem. These projected record sales are given in terms of bushels, not in dollar value, and it should be remembered that Canada does not export much more agricultural produce than it imports. There have been reports of ships waiting in Vancouver harbour to be loaded with wheat. There is widespread feeling that more use should be made of the port of Churchill, thus further diversifying our grain handling ports.
Increasingly the railways have been accused of not being able to move sufficient grain to the west coast or even to the lakehead and Churchill. One of the methods by which the port of Churchill could be made more useful would be to undertake an increase in storage facilities at
March 14, 1972

the port. These should be increased to handle up to 20 million bushels. This would allow a much more orderly movement of grain out of Saskatchewan and Manitoba and would provide a steadier use of the Hudson Bay railway line. In this way there would be no necessity for the grain rush that occurs each June in order to get the port of Churchill opened.
Enlarged storage facilities would double or triple the amount of grain that could be shipped out of Churchill. In the cold climate of Churchill the storage of grain can be undertaken with minimum risk of spoiling. It is generally considered that the structures required to store grain there could be relatively inexpensive. If adequate types of grain were in storage at Churchill it would do much to minimize the bottle-necks that occur in the railway system in delivering wheat to the west coast and other grain handling ports.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief remarks to make on this bill to legalize the granting of money to Canadian National Railways, most of which money already has been spent. It goes without saying that railway lines are being abandoned right across Canada. To many people, particularly those in rural areas, this is foolish. If Canada is ever to achieve the potential that we all seek and which is envisaged by the statisticians, railroads are necessary for its growth. Why abandon rail lines and tear up the tracks now, only to relay them later? We have a startling example of this in the electric railroad that used to run north from Toronto through Thornhill, Richmond Hill, Newmarket and Aurora right up to Lake Simcoe. It was abandoned, but now traffic on Sundays is so congested that travel is almost impossible.
Canada, and Ontario in particular, is growing rapidly and will require more food. We shall also have to produce food for sale abroad. It is estimated that at the turn of the century the world's population will be over six billion; therefore more food, more space and more transportation will be required. As we see it now, additional transportation will have to be provided by motor car, train or bus, making for even greater problems of pollution caused by exhaust fumes and litter on the highways. We should realize that every foot of pavement we lay stops the production of oxygen from our plants and trees.
The automobile is our major source of pollution and we cannot but be alarmed when we see cars with only one or two occupants. A good example of what pollution can do can be found at the international airport at Malton. In the unloading area it gets into your eyes and you can even smell it. We must stop using for the construction of highways arable land that provides food and oxygen. We must stop driving cars, which create two-thirds of the pollution in our cities. Transportation must, therefore, be by rail or large buses. It is said that people will not travel by rail. But, Mr. Speaker, if we provided a speedy, clean rail service, people would travel by rail. But now they are not given this choice. The speed of trains today is about the same as it was 50 years ago. The old International Limited was fuelled by coal and run by steam, but it made the
CNR and Air Canada
Montreal to Toronto run as fast as the trains do today- and it had to stop to take on water and fuel!
Trains serving Simcoe county have been cut off until in an area of about 100,000 people there are two trains daily; one down to Toronto in the afternoon around 2 p.m. and one up at 5 p.m. leaving Toronto for Vancouver. This is the daily train service except for the dayliner at weekends, which is always crowded. The Supercontinental is supposed to go through Orillia at 2 p.m., but it is often 12 to 14 hours late. Who is going to sit around a station for that length of time? How can people travel by rail when the service is once a day each way at haphazard hours? People cannot afford to rely on this type of service when they have appointments to keep. A few days ago there was a snowstorm in the area and the train was stuck for three hours between Washago and Orillia. The railway had to send to Toronto for the snowplow to come to the north country and dig out the train. That is the type of transportation system we have in Canada today. I should say, also, that the train was 14 hours late. People will wait once and will learn not to do it again.
In London, England, trains come into the station every minute or so. The same thing applies in Europe: trains run on schedule. We are supposed to have a lot of technology in Canada, but even so we cannot get an efficient railway service. Yet Sir John A. Macdonald, that great old Tory and Father of Confederation, was responsible for our building a railway across Canada by pick and shovel and mule train.
In Japan, trains run up to 150 miles per hour, about twice as fast as ours. But our transportation system is run by an ox-cart philosophy. In other words, the transport commission is run by a man who was once a cabinet minister and who created the job for himself. I do not know whether he set the salary, but there he sits, not responsible to parliament except that he comes here after the money has been spent and asks us to pass the bill.


An hon. Member:: He is certainly not earning it.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that control of this railroad should be brought back to Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: The National Transportation Act, which gave this gentleman his job and set up this commission, should be repealed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: The railroad is neither adequate nor efficient.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: How about the government?


Philip Bernard Rynard: You could probably say that about them, too. The subsidy passenger clause which reimburses the railway for 80 per cent of its losses should be removed. There is not much incentive to run a good passenger service and make it pay under those circumstances. A railroad running on schedule at satisfactory hours during the week would carry many people to work and cut down dramatically the one and two-passenger automobiles hurrying to work, polluting the atmosphere, crowding the

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
roads and using up parking space. A re-examination and reorientation of railway service in keeping with the last half of the twentieth century must take place right away. The first thing to do, Mr. Speaker, is to get rid of the Canadian Transport Commission and bring control back to parliament, to the representatives of the people.
I should like now to make a few remarks about airports. It is my opinion that as far as possible airports should be constructed on waste land. Failing that, we should use water transportation as far as possible. I say this from the standpoint of an airplane landing, from the standpoint of pollution and from the standpoint of usage of land. An airport should be far enough away from urban centres so that people do not suffer excessively from noise and pollution.
I have been wondering about the new airport proposed for Brougham, a town near Pickering. It makes one pause and wonder why good farming land so close to the city of Toronto would be taken. It is within 30 miles of Toronto and will add to the pollution of that area. There is also talk about establishing another city of 200,000 people in the area. Yet this government talks of green belts and regional development and doing away with pollution. One wonders why the government is doing what it is. Why is it taking over good, arable farmland that over the years could produce cereal grains, beef cattle, hogs and chickens-food that we will need when our population increases? By paving that beautiful, arable farmland you also stop the production of oxygen from trees, grass and other plants. Therefore, not only are you adding to pollution; you are stopping the creation of oxygen. It seems to me that the government could have used waste land which is less productive. I am thinking of level areas north of the proposed site that is waste or poor land. Such land is not economically viable as farm land. Why could not the government have used that?
I also wonder why we must take two bites at the cherry and build two airports. There is to be an international airport at St. Scholastique, Quebec. Now there is to be another one at Pickering, making two large airports for the Toronto area. Why must we take two bites at the cherry and run backward and forward across Toronto between one airport and the other? What is the purpose of putting the airport there? My question is as simple as that.
The minister is the person who says where national and international airports are to go. The other day in the House I asked why the proposed site has been chosen, but he had nothing to say and made no statement in the House. I suggest that parliament and the people are entitled to know the government's reasons for putting the airport at the proposed site. Perhaps there are good reasons for putting it there. If there are, give them to us. It now appears, that the airport will not be large enough, if the forecasts of statisticians about the size of the population in the area are correct. If their forecasts are right, my argument will be strengthened. I do not know, and not many in this House know why the government is putting the airport there. I think parliament has the right to know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Bernard Rynard: I say this because Parliament and the public deserve an explanation. Other sites are cheaper and not as economically important. Why have they not been chosen? Since this is to be an international airport, the minister is obligated to tell this House why he prefers that site. When the head of the Canadian Transport Commission was a cabinet minister I asked him if he would consider asking the airlines to instal escalators for the use of the aged and those with heart conditions when boarding airplanes. If one looks through Hansard he will see that the minister promised to look into the matter as soon as possible and see that such escalators were installed right away. Well, he has gone. However, the escalators or elevators to help people board airplanes have not been installed. This matter is of medical importance since many travelling today suffer from heart conditions. When you consider that one male in three over 50 in this country suffers from a heart condition, you will readily understand why I am concerned about this matter.
I should like to conclude with another observation. The airlines are to serve many people at Toronto International Airport. The other night when I was at the unloading ramp I could not stay there because of the stink in the air from polluting exhausts and from buses. The polluted air was overpowering. What a foul place it was! That operation is run by the Department of Transport. Without using any fancy adjectives, let me say that is a heck of a way to run an international airport. I hope that the former minister of transport who now heads the Canadian Transport Commission will read my remarks and remember some of the promises he made when he was minister of transport.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Bill C-4 which is to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period January 1, 1971, to June 30,1972, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the CNR and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada. These matters are outlined in the bill now before the House. The presentation of this type of bill is an annual event. We are being asked, actually, to rubber-stamp the approval of expenditures made by these Crown corporations. However, this legislation gives us an opportunity to speak on general transportation problems and to make suggestions for change. This, Mr. Speaker, I intend to do.
May I speak briefly about the fixed charge debt of the CNR. This guarantee was given by the federal government many years ago when the CNR system was formed in 1923 from a number of railway lines which were on the verge of bankruptcy. The CNR guarantee at that time was more than generous, but I feel it saddled the Canadian taxpayer with interest payments on a debt which could not be justified. The CNR continues to carry this unjust debt load upon which we still pay interest. I believe the CNR capital structure ought to be changed again, for the railway can never be a paying proposition considering the immense load of debt and consequent interest payments now being carried.
The shareholders of the almost bankrupt railway companies which eventually made up the CNR fared well at public expense over the years. In retrospect, Mr. Speaker,
March 14, 1972

it would appear that Canada and the CNR would have been better off by hundreds of millions of dollars if a start had been made with companies which had gone broke. Instead, we bailed them out and we have been paying ever since. Regardless of past history, a thorough review of the CNR capital structure is in order and should be carried out. We should consider that question in conjunction with our consideration of this bill. When the bill goes to committee I hope this will be one of the items to receive a great deal of consideration and discussion.
The leader of my group spoke about the need for an integrated transportation policy that would take into account all four major means of transport-air, rail, road and water. This is a necessity in any modern, industrialized nation. Canada has a long way to go in this regard but seems reluctant about approaching the problem. There is no doubt that a modern, efficient and integrated transport system is one of the main requirements of a modern, industrialized nation if that nation is to meet the many challenges from its competitors throughout the world. The quick, cheap and effective delivery of raw materials or goods is of prime importance in the world of today.
I feel, Mr. Speaker, that a modern and efficient transportation system can also be a major factor in the unity of our country. It is necessary that raw materials, finished products and people have quick and cheap access to every part of our nation. We talk about trying to eliminate regional disparities in Canada, yet we have set up programs to deal with disparities on a piecemeal basis. At the same time we find that this government has done nothing to eliminate the rank discrimination which exists throughout Canada in relation to freight rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Randolph Harding: This problem alone is the cause of great friction and hardship in some parts of Canada, including British Columbia. I feel that one of the greatest unifying moves we could make in Canada would be the bringing about of equalization of freight rates in our country. For too long successive governments have allowed this problem to remain dormant.
I would like to deal briefly with my home province of British Columbia. For the most part, the freight rate structure has been rank discrimination as far as we are concerned. The tendency has been to force trade north and south rather than to the east. This is to be deplored. A proper freight rate structure years ago along with adequate government policies, of course, could and would have helped build a different economic approach to that which has been developed in our nation. Nevertheless, the unfair freight rate structure is still with us. I hope this Parliament will be in a position to make sure that this is changed. I hope it will be one of the priorities of any national transportation policy.
This afternoon I listened to a number of speakers from various parties dealing with freight rate problems concerning their areas. The story is the same. It does not matter where you go; in the eastern and western parts of Canada this is one of the major problems facing the
CNR and Air Canada
provinces. I will use the maritime provinces as an example. All you have to do is look at the unemployment figures which today were made public. The maritime provinces have one of the highest rates of unemployment in Canada, just over 11 per cent. At one time there were a number of industries in the Maritimes which do not exist today. They were able to ship their goods to other parts of Canada. However, discriminatory freight rates have effectively barred them from the best market for Canadian industries, our home market. There are 22 million people in Canada, yet discriminatory freight rates have forced a number of industries out of business by barring them from this market. The same applies in the western provinces.
As I said earlier, I regret that the equalization of freight rates has not been tackled by the present administration. This is something we need. It would help to bring unity to Canada. I mentioned the need for a national transportation policy. The government will say we have a national transportation policy, and this is so,-but it is a national policy to a rather minor degree. There are one or two things which a national transportation policy should include. A policy of this nature should include the moving of Canadian goods and raw materials over Canadian transportation systems. I raise this matter because last year we had in Ottawa a hearing before the Canadian Transport Commission. This was brought about by the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company in British Columbia which wishes to build a spurline from the American border to the coal fields in the East Kootenays with a view to shipping a large portion of the coal currently being mined in that area south over the Burlington Northern railway lines to the Pacific coast. The Canadian Transport Commission rejected the application by the Kootenay and Elk Railway. At present this matter is before the Supreme Court of Canada. It is my understanding that if the Kootenay and Elk Railway Company had applied to become a common carrier, it might well have been granted permission to build this link to the American border and hook up with the Burlington Northern. Away would go many hundreds of jobs for Canadian railway men and many millions of dollars of revenue for our country.
I would like the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) to make a statement in the House that we are not going to allow Canadian goods to be carried over foreign transportation lines when we have our own communication lines. The provinces of British Columbia and Alberta are very anxious to see railway links built to hook up with American railway lines. I have no objection to some kind of link if the normal interchange of goods must take place, but the day we allow such railway links to be built with a view to transporting our raw materials or finished products, when they should and could be going over Canadian lines, we will be doing something completely wrong.
As far as rates are concerned we have a public utilities body in the federal field, the Canadian Transport Commission. If rates are out of hand, let the commission pull Canadian Pacific or Canadian National into line. Under no circumstances must we allow another phase of our economy to get into the hands of foreign- controlled transportation companies. We have lost enough, Mr. Speaker. We have lost control of a great portion of the Canadian economy. It is time for the Minister of Transport to get up

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
in this House and state that Canada will stand firm and insist on the movement of Canadian goods and raw materials over Canadian transportation lines to ports from which they are exported.
There has been a problem with snowslides in British Columbia. The provinces say these rail links must be built to ensure continuity of supply to coastal points. There are alternate routes that can be set up. I believe members of all parties should look into this question and insist upon these alternate routes being in Canadian territory.
I shall come back to the matter of hauling coal and the transportation of wheat. Over the past few months we have had the unhappy experience of trains being delayed. As far as the terminals in Vancouver are concerned, wheat supplies are short. This, again, is a matter of proper transportation policy. If necessary, this government should invest in a number of elevators at the ocean, in Vancouver. Wheat should be stored in these elevators to tide us over periods when we have two or three weeks of trouble in the winter due to snow. This can and should be done. It should be done in the interest of agriculture and that of our basic commodity, wheat. There would be nothing wrong with the government investing in an elevator or a series of elevators, not only at Vancouver but at Prince Rupert. There are other deep sea ports in British Columbia that could be utilized throughout the year. Stocks should be on hand there so that exports could continue regardless of weather conditions in any part of the nation. As far as wheat is concerned, this would halt the demand to build another link to the United States so that these commodities could be shipped by United States rail lines.
I want to go back to the subject of coal haul. Not only coal is affected in connection with the rail link proposed in the East Kootenay area. If an application goes through for a common carrier, tens of thousands of cars of lumber will be moving down what we call the Columbia valley into the United States and, once again, the number of jobs available to Canadian railway workers will be reduced. There will also cause a further reduction in the revenue of Canadian transportation systems, a reduction which would affect the whole economy.
I should like to say a few words about railway passenger service. The subject has been covered by other speakers but I, too, would like to protest the increasing curtailment of passenger service in various parts of Canada. In some countries of the world railways are beginning to come into their own again. I think the same pattern should be followed in Canada. Trains can be designed nowadays to run very fast, some of them at speeds well over 100 miles per hour. In some areas of Canada there are closely packed industrial complexes where this type of rail transportation should be used. The government, and in particular the Department of Transport, should pay far more attention to rail passenger service than has been the case in the past.
May I now deal with another matter which has not been talked about very much in connection with the bill before us, although it certainly comes under the heading of national transportation policy. I refer to the Canadian

merchant marine. We are a country with one of the longest coastlines in the world. We are one of the greatest trading nations of the world. Yet the shipbuilding industry which once flourished in Canada, and the ships which used to sail as Canadian ships or under the Canadian flag, have been practically eliminated. There was no need for this to have happened. Here are two basic industries. No trading nation in the world-and Canada is one of the leading trading nations-can afford to let this happen. We should be in the business of building ships. We should see that a great proportion of Canadian goods exported from our shores is exported in Canadian bottoms. I would go further and say there is no reason why a large portion of the imports reaching this country should not arrive in Canadian ships.
The neglect of the shipbuilding industry is nothing short of scandalous. Apparently the government feels we cannot compete in the international field of shipping and shipbuilding. This is nonsense. We can and should compete. The fact that our shipbuilding industry has dwindled almost to nothing, together with the merchant fleet, is an indication that the government has lost sight of one of the key factors in any national transportation policy. In British Columbia we had some of the finest shipbuilding yards in the country-in the world, if you like. They fell into decline and key workers were obliged to leave because jobs were not available. The same thing has happened in eastern Canada. It is no credit to the government or to the minister that this should have been allowed to happen at this stage in our development as one of the great manufacturing and trading nations in the world. We have allowed two important industries, industries which every important trading nation should have, to get out of our hands. We should build up a Canadian merchant marine owned, controlled and operated by Canadians, in the interest of Canada.
There are many railway workers in my area. They are very interested in transportation policies. One matter which is constantly brought to my attention is the lack of safety precautions. The big transportation companies are paying less attention to the roadbeds. Crews have been reduced. The amount of inspection carried on is, I understand, less than ever before. This is another aspect of rail transportation which I feel the minister should be examining, because serious wrecks in any part of the country could bring about major disruption in rail communications.
One of my hon. friends has moved that this bill be given a six months' hoist. I should like to put on the record some of the reasons why we feel the measure should be held up for a short period. They are as follows: Lengthy discussions took place last year on this subject-in fact, they have been going on for several years-in the course of which the very points I have been trying to make briefly tonight were gone over time and time again in this House.
We want to see some commitment by the government in regard to the matters we have been raising for years and which we have raised in today's debate. So far, there is no indication that these matters have received attention, far less the action which is called for. For instance, I refer to the fact that little or nothing has been done about CNR pensions. This question should be looked into. The capital
March 14, 1972

structure of the railway remains a problem which has not been touched. The fact is that railway services, including passenger service, have been rapidly going downhill, have been ignored, as has the whole question of freight rates and the need for the major changes which I have mentioned briefly. We feel these matters are so important that this bill should not go through the House until they have been dealt with. The only way to get the attention of the government is to endeavour to hold up the bill for sufficient time to give the government and the department the chance to discuss adequately both in committee and in this House the points I have listed.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, I have listened for several days now to this most interesting debate about the money to be made available to the CNR and our air transportation system. I often wonder how many pages of Hansard have been filled with suggestions and proposals each year as this particular debate comes forward. I wonder how many years of Canadian history have been spent discussing and debating railroad transportation policies. The railroads in this country have been tied so closely to history that one might think the history of this nation concerned little else.
We look back at history and find that governments have helped build the CPR by continually granting it sums of money, money given to a private corporation that is based upon profit for its shareholders. We reached a point where the CPR might not have been finished and may have brought the Macdonald government to its knees had it not been for those people living in Saskatchewan who supplied the country with rebellion. The role of the CPR in the building of the west is an interesting one. The railroad was paid off by the granting of land in the west. In the area around Weyburn and west of Weyburn there are many farmers farming quarter sections, half sections and whole sections which were originally CPR land. Railroads such as the CPR and the ones that followed were built on an assumption of an exploitative nature and were not based on any concept of service. Railroads built through the west were built mainly on the basis of bringing people into the west to provide a market for industrial goods from the east.
Throughout the years the railroads, through their freight rates and possibly at one time through their passenger service, accrued vast amounts of revenue from people living in the west. That revenue was used by the railroads, I suppose, in all parts of Canada, and this may well be justifiable. But in the course of time the very railroads that accrued a large amount of revenue from the west continued to erode the kind of service that the people of western Canada and of Canada generally deserved from its railway system. And each year this government continues to bail out, if I may put it that way, this particular system of transportation and to neglect the overriding problem of developing a national transportation policy for Canada.
This afternoon the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) made a speech-finally-in which he talked about this and that and about his department and what it is doing in the Maritimes. But as he went on he continued to ignore the
CNR and Air Canada
real necessity for sitting down and deciding what the national transportation policy of Canada is going to be.
What is the justification for building two new airports? What is the justification behind some of the railroads' application to dispense with station agents in the prairie west? In Saskatchewan over the years we have seen continual attempts by the railroads to cut back on the kind of service needed by western farmers. We have seen these railway corporations, whether it be the CPR or the CNR, with the backing, as far as I am concerned, of the federal government, withdraw the services of station agents on some kind of pretence that the public will get better service from a servo-centre when there is no proof at all that a servo-centre will serve the needs of the people in the west.
The Canadian Transport Commission, headed by its impartial chairman, implements policies that allow the railroads to curtail the role of the station agent. I suppose in coming years when that commission deals with the question of rail line abandonment we will again see its impartial chairman implement policies to abandon railway lines in Saskatchewan with no regard for the effect on various communities and the farmers involved, who will be given no alternative mode of transportation with which to market their goods.
The people in my riding have expressed real concern that many of the railway lines that service their communities, such as the line running from the town of Radville east to the town of Goodwater, may possibly be abandoned. They are concerned that the line running west from Radville through to Willow Bunch may be on the chopping block, that the line running through Coronach may also be on the chopping block and that the railways may apply to abandon the line running west of Estevan. As long as the government allows a kind of non-policy activity on the part of the Department of Transport, we will continue to see the eroding of services that are needed by Canadians.
Many farmers and people living in the rural areas of my riding have pointed out to me, as I have myself noticed, that service of the track running through the area is not up to par. The track is continually neglected and many parts are in need of service. The gauge of the track is far below what is required by modern diesels. Some of it is as low as 85 gauge, when it should have a gauge of somewhere around 120. Until the government commits itself to a national transportation policy we will continue to see the railways being allowed to carry out such unfair practices.
The freight rates association announced that on February 11 freight rates would be increased from 3 per cent to 8 per cent on approximately one-third of the goods carried by the railway. General grain and grain products are subject to the rate increase except where covered by statutory rates and traffic moving under agreed charges. Such increases are unwarranted at a time when the farmers of western Canada are facing economic difficulties in terms of ever-rising costs of production and low prices received for their commodities.
Once again I suggest there is need for a national transportation policy for all Canada. If this nation is to be held together as a single country, an attempt must be made to
830

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
bring in a national transportation policy that equalizes all freight rates across Canada, thus alleviating the disproportionate rates paid by western farmers. I call on the government to make public its transportation policies which have been kept hidden in the office of the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). Why has this report not been tabled in the House of Commons for the scrutiny not just of members of the House of Commons but of people in my constituency who will be affected by government policies in the future? They want to know where they stand. I believe it is the responsibility of this government to outline that program.
Is this report to suggest a reduction in delivery points in the Prairies? Is there to be some mention of rail line abandonment in this report which is in the minister's office? Further, will we see this report and be able to judge it before the next election? I have grave doubts about that.
Any new national transportation policy should be given jurisdiction over Canadian harbours. I point out that in the 1972-73 estimates the amount of money allocated for harbour improvement is down over the previous year. Yet we have seen a backlog of grain and grain-carrying ships at Vancouver as well as difficulties in respect of transportation. This is not the year for any government to be involved in the cutting back of expenditures for the development of facilities at Canadian harbours. I suggest this happens because the government does not draw up a national transportation policy for all of Canada.
There are other matters which could be discussed in terms of an improved transportation policy. It is time we developed a transportation policy based upon service and not profit. It is time the CPR was nationalized and made a public utility which would involve itself in service to the Canadian people. It is time the government ensured that the port of Churchill is put to full use. We in Saskatchewan and in the prairie west have for years heard the Hudson Bay route association representatives shouting for proper use of the port of Churchill, yet there has been no emphasis on this particular aspect of transportation by the government.
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) pointed out in the House a few days ago that there is a government terminal in the city of Prince Rupert. He also pointed out that the harbour there is one of the finest on the west coast. It is time the government re-examined its policy on grain transportation and looked into the possibility of the use of that terminal. It is interesting to note that when the hon. member for Essex (Mr. Whelan) spoke in the House on this matter he pointed out to the government that the agricultural committee started seven years ago to press for the need to improve port facilities. However, the government in its policy has not seen fit to give emphasis to the requirements in this regard. The hon. member for Essex is quite well known for his habit of pointing out the lack of consistency or lack of good policies by this government. I do not understand how he can still stand and vote along with them when the crunch comes.

I have taken up a considerable amount of time in respect of transportation related to railway and harbour facilities in Canada as well as the real need to equalize freight rate costs and the real need to give Canadians the opportunity to travel within their own country at costs which are less or at least equal to the costs involved in travelling to Europe. There are other parts of this bill which deal with the expenditure of money in respect of Air Canada. When this government came into power it suggested there would be an end to regional disparities. This sounded quite good to the people of the country. However, we have seen no proof of this. I wish to note in respect of spending on air facilities that there is to be an expenditure of 60 cents per capita for airport facilities in Saskatchewan, in comparison with an expenditure of $3.20 per capita in Ontario. Including the grant of $42,766,000 which is to be made for the building of a new airport in the area of Toronto, we would have a per capita expenditure of $10.05, compared to 60 cents in Saskatchewan.
As pointed out so adequately last week in Saskatoon by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave), it is high time the airport at Saskatoon was improved and the air facilities in Regina improved in order to meet the needs of the people of Saskatchewan. I have pointed out these things to the government in the hope that the Minister of Transport will come to grips with the problems of transportation in Canada. Earlier in the House I asked him about the possibility of Prairie representation on the port of Vancouver authority. At that time he said no to the suggestion. I repeat that I believe there is need for a new national transportation policy in which the prairie region would have the privilege, if you wish to call it that, of having representation on the port of Vancouver authority to look over and examine the policy and how our grain is handled at this west coast port.
In the short time I have been on this earth I have on many occasions travelled on passenger trains. On those occasions I felt that the service was relatively good. I often wondered, however, whether with a little imagination the railway companies in this country could develop a passenger service which would be attractive to Canadians who wish to travel from one end of the country to the other. When one travels from the east coast to the Rockies one can see an immense amount of beauty, and if one were to travel on the railway one could do so without the inconvenience of having to drive on our highways. I believe that with a considerable amount of imagination in the area of passenger service the railways could provide the type of service which would bring about increased use of our railways by people who travel in Canada.
I thank members of the House of Commons for their kind attention. I hope the government will support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Thomson), which would give the government the opportunity to draw up a truly national transportation policy to meet the needs of the Canadian people.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be a great expert on our transportation system, but I should like to deal with one particular aspect pertaining to western Canada, my riding and all prairie ridings. I refer to the grain transportation situation. This problem has been accentuated this year because of the heavier
March 14, 1972

than normal movement of barley. However, there is also the fact that in other years, because of railway service, sales have been lost.
When I think for a moment of the situation in which prairie farmers find themselves, of their incomes this year and in past years, of the transportation system which in a great many cases has not enabled them to sell their products to any great extent, I feel sick. The movement of our agricultural products from the Prairies is of paramount importance and is the whole foundation of the western economy. This is borne out by the statistics which show that 60 per cent of our agricultural products must of necessity be exported to other parts of Canada and to other parts of the world simply because we do not have the population in western Canada to consume the products we produce.
Historically, wheat has been by far the biggest crop in western Canada. Technology in wheat growing and other techniques have drastically reduced the causes of serious crop failures in western Canada as well as in other parts of Canada. Even in 1967 during the widespread drought conditions in Saskatchewan our grain crop exceeded the long-term average. We have hardier varieties of grain and greatly improved farm equipment, and the increased use of pesticides and herbicides and a much heavier application of fertilizers has contributed to the high yields per acre achieved in recent years which has given cause for optimism for the future. Improved technology has permitted farmers to put into production lands which formerly had been considered marginal or submarginal. I think it is significant that in 1968 nearly one million tons of fertilizer was used in the prairie provinces, compared with only 85,000 tons in 1950.
This trend will continue as farms become larger and the need to reduce costs per unit becomes greater. As a result, the Canadian wheat crop in the latter part of the 1960s has been extremely large. The crop harvested in 1966 was the largest on record and subsequent crops have also been extremely large. Improved farm technology is an important factor in the expansion of Canadian wheat production but it is also a big factor in the dramatic increase in self-sufficiency of the developing countries so far as grain production is concerned. For example, new strains of wheat have been developed for adaptation in warmer climates, which has led to improved harvests in many developing countries. Increases in wheat production in India and Pakistan are of particular significance. India now claims that within two years she might become selfsufficient so far as grain production or agricultural production is concerned. Advances in milling and baking technology have also permitted many countries to which we used to sell, to use their own wheat to greater advantage and hence not depend on our wheat to the same extent as a few years ago.
This is the background against which I think we should review the present government's position with regard to the grain transportation industry in Canada. A commodity such as wheat or barley depends on speedy marketing and a rapid response to customer needs, not only in Canada but also overseas. In this sense an adequate transportation system is essential. More than ever it is now
CNR and Air Canada
necessary to ship from western grain growing provinces to the customers, which brings honestly earned income to our farmers in western Canada. These markets must be won and held on a continuing basis.
I believe that given the proper initiative Canada could, and I expect she will within the next few years, export one billion bushels of grain a year. I foresee this in the near future. This depends on our ability, not necessarily to produce the product but to deliver it to our customers. Our agricultural system is only as strong as its weakest link and in the past few months it has been made obvious that the weakest link has been our transportation system to the west coast.
Rail traffic has suffered difficulties due to snowslides and adverse conditions in the Rocky Mountains, but I suggest that snowslides in the Rocky Mountains in the wintertime are not new. Clearly we must concern ourselves, not only as members of parliament but as grain producers, with what I consider to be the four basic needs which should be acted upon at present. As has been mentioned before in the House, we need increased storage at our Vancouver terminal. I realize as well as anybody else that building storage is an expensive business, but I think that given the proper techniques storage could be designed relatively cheaply. We do not need expensive storage but we need more of it than we presently have to be used for what I would call a surge capacity. So long as we have winters such as we have, threats of strikes or slowdowns of railway employees, we will always have the problem of transporting the product out to the port from which it will be shipped. I think increased storage is of paramount importance to the total grain transportation.
Secondly, a few months ago there was a unit train which was moved from one of our inland terminals at Saskatoon to Vancouver. This train, comprised of hopper bottom cars and three large diesel locomotives, hauled cleaned grain from one of our government inland terminals, which has not been used to a great extent directly, to Vancouver and then loaded it directly on to a waiting vessel. The system worked well at the time and I wonder why it is not being used at present to move grain out to Vancouver. The system is used so far as the potash industry is concerned and I believe it is high time this method was adopted on a continuing basis to move grain.
The third thing which should be realized and acted upon by the railways is that more hopper bottomed cars are needed and that these should not be put into service only when an emergency arises, as seems to be the case at present. I think we can call the present situation an emergency when we are roughly 30 million bushels of grain behind in our export shipments. Many of the railways cars now in use are antiquated. They are slow to fill and slow to unload. New kinds of cars must be purchased and used on a continuing basis. The old rail cars at present in use move about 2,000 bushels of grain each. The new cars can move about 3,000 bushels of grain and can transport it more efficiently and quickly. As a result, the unit cost per car is lowered. The unit train that I mentioned which ran to Vancouver carried 270,000 bushels of grain. There is no reason why two unit trains could not be moved from each of our inland terminals each week. This would amount to
25020-53J

March 14, 1972
CNR and Air Canada
an additional movement of 75 million bushels of grain per year.
The government, and through it the Canadian people, owns inland terminals on the Prairies. I point out that there is a terminal in Saskatoon which until recently was not used to any great extent. It can hold approximately five million bushels of grain. There is no reason why the railways cannot move grain into such terminals, keep them filled with a variety of grain, clean the grain in the terminals and load it into hopper bottomed cars for movement to a waiting vessel at the coast. This could mean a little more stress on our communications system to coordinate the arrival of trains and boats. But this is done for other commodities; it is done with respect to the movement of potash and there is no reason why it could not be done with respect to the movement of grain.
Rail travel, as is well known, has suffered at times from snowslides and other problems. These are not the fault of the farmer, of the government, of the railways or the railway employees. Snowslides are a problem that must be tackled with a long-range approach, adopting the four suggestions that I have put forward. We should utilize our railway system more fully so that temporary snowslides do not bring about a similar situation.
Recently, for the first time in many years, Japan tendered for grain in Canada but we could not offer grain because we thought we could not fill the order on time. This shows how serious is the present situation. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board has reported that for the time being we have stopped accepting tenders for grain sales. I believe the situation will not get any better unless worth while planning is undertaken and implemented.
We cannot expect the farmers to continue to bear the cost of government mistakes in policies. There is no justification in having the farmers pay, either directly or indirectly, $3,000 to $6,000 per day in demurrage charges for a ship waiting outside the port of Vancouver. The Wheat Board, I know, ultimately pays the demurrage charges but in the last analysis the farmers may lose their final grain payments. Some people in the grain trade believe that in a crisis situation such as we are experiencing we could use the Burlington Northern railroad which could transport grain through southern Montana out to the coast at Vancouver without encountering all the trouble the CN and CP meet running through the mountains to Vancouver. This is something that should be examined.
To summarize, Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a serious problem but it is only a small part of our transportation difficulties. Other hon. members have mentioned the discrepancies in freight assistance and have pointed out how regional disparities are encouraged by railway policies. In the present circumstance a concerted effort is necessary on the part of the government, the railways, the train companies, the people at the terminal positions and the farmers to reach a satisfactory solution. If we are to talk in terms of a billion bushels of grain per year, these problems have to be tackled and solved.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I heartily support the idea of giving this bill a six months' hoist. As the member representing the constituency of

Saskatoon-Biggar I am not prepared to see this bill pass until the government gives some adequate answers on transportation. Such answers have not been given yet. We have not had a clear indication that the government is prepared to come to grips with the transportation problems facing western Canada. Apparently the government is prepared to let western Canada be held to ransom by the railroads and the grain companies.
Our present situation is not altogether due to snowslides and difficult conditions in the mountains. The circumstances that exist were known as far back as when a Conservative government was in power prior to the Pearson government being elected. At that time meetings were held on the west coast to try to assess the problems facing the transportation of grain from western Canada. Since that time, and in addition to the movement of grain, we have been faced with the problem and the logistics involved in the movement of potash from Saskatchewan which has put another major volume of freight on our railroads.
We have also faced rapid growth in the movement of sulphur out of the province of Alberta. In other words, there has been a major increase in the volume of transportation and the need for transportation facilities in that period of time, but no comprehensive move on the part of the Department of Transport and those responsible on the other side of this House to meet that need.
When speaking to a certain individual the other day I mentioned that the only thing that has been done to my knowledge is that the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has built a five million bushel terminal at a cost of $25 million in Vancouver. I asked if he knew of anything else that had been done in the way of accommodation for the increased movement of grain.
A number of solutions have been advanced, Mr. Speaker. Some people suggest an increase in the movement along the line to Prince Rupert, some say increase the amount of storage in the port of Vancouver, others suggest an increase in or building of storage at Roberts Bank, while still others propose the creation of additional trackage down to the coast. I submit that we need to do all those things. What I am saying to this House, Mr. Speaker, is that we need a massive investment in rail transportation and grain storage if we are to cope with the situation facing us. We have to reverse the thinking that has prevailed in this country with regard to rail transportation since the MacPherson report. That was an abandonment report which suggested abandoning branch lines and cutting down on service. We are now reaping the result of that attitude and must move forward to a progressive, expansionist approach.
In my constituency the branch lines are in such shape that some of the railroad men responsible for running the locomotives will book off and forfeit their earnings rather than put a locomotive over the branch lines running out of Biggar on the subdivision. You can believe that or not, but I have the evidence in letters from the brotherhood in the town of Biggar and I have sent them to the rail transport committee. On behalf of the workers I asked the committee to investigate the complaints and the condition of the
March 14, 1972

trackage on the subdivision. A man was sent out there, or I suppose he was because he wrote a report. He said there was a limit on the speed at which they should drive locomotives on these tracks, 15 miles an hour. However, he did not go near the workers who made the complaint. I wrote the chairman of the committee and suggested that he again meet these people. I understand he was sent back and did meet the workers, but I have not seen the second report.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You never will.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: This is the stage we have arrived at with the railroads, and I can quote letters, dates, and so on, to illustrate this. In one case when they drove a snow-plow down the track and the snow pushed the locomotive off, the track was not solid enough to hold the thrust of the locomotive in this subdivision. How can you guarantee to bring grain off a branch line and put it on a main line to go to Vancouver when you do not know if the branch line will let you put a train over to go and get it? This is the sort of problem we are facing.
While we are looking at this mess in transportation we have money enough to build a multimillion dollar airport in Quebec and money enough to build another one outside Toronto. We have money enough to spend on research on short take-off and landing aircraft.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They don't haul wheat.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: I do not know exactly what they are going to do for us, but I hope they have a better pipedream than the hydrofoil and some other things that have been done. The government can think of all these things but they cannot think of the practical things that will enable the farmers in the western half of this nation to move their products to the markets of the world in order to sell them.
This is the nature of the crisis facing us, Mr. Speaker, and I do not know if it is even any use to talk of bringing it to the attention of those responsible. Something new is required. The Canadian Transport Commission should take some action instead of sitting on its butt making rules. It would be a new departure for them to go out and do something. Action is foreign to them and I do not know whether they could bring themselves to it. However, we can always hope for the best.
Sometimes I think that the grain farmer is the only risk-taker left in the whole system. There are other parts of the system such as the railroads, the grain companies and the stevedoring companies who are the scalpers, the play it safe boys. I wonder when some of them are going to take a risk for their money. The day they do, Mr. Speaker, they will make some money.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion POLLUTION-RECONSIDERATION OF LEVIES ON OIL TANKER SHIPMENTS TO PROVIDE CONTINGENCY FUND IN CASE OF SPILLS
Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, it is not very often that I take part in the "late show" so I should like to pay tribute to those members who do not go to bed but stay up and bring these important matters before the House. I have probably listened to more late shows than I will ever participate in, but I do pay tribute to those members who do such a good job. I also pay tribute to certain, and few, members of the government who help. The hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), the former postmaster general, who was here a moment ago, was very diligent, and I know the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson), who is here tonight, tries to fit it into his busy schedule.
The matter I wish to mention is in connection with oil levies for pollution in the Maritimes, and is prompted by a question asked on March 3. In answer to that question the minister said there was a willingness on the part of the government to meet various persons and government officials on this controversial matter. I refer also to another question asked on February 18 at the beginning of the session. At that time the minister intimated that the fund for pollution, correctly called the maritimes pollution claims fund, would probably reach a level of $25 million or $30 million.
Hon. members will recall that in the previous session we brought in Bill C-2 which, among other things, provided for levies on oil shipped in and out of Canada on ships of over 1,000 tons. The limit on levies was to be 15 cents a ton. The regulations were brought in on February 15 and went right to the limit: fifteen cents a ton was imposed. During the debate on that legislation we agreed that we would react to the sort of problems we had encountered with the Arrow and other ships and that something should be done about pollution.
I am not quarrelling with the contention that there is tremendous interest in pollution and that we need to do something about it. I do not deny that. I am merely saying that since then we have been looking at the whole problem from a new perspective. We now have Gulf Oil located in Nova Scotia and everyone knows that tremendous developments are taking place. Funds of which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) spoke so proudly have been provided by the federal government. Only this afternoon he took credit for the DREE work and this type of activity.
The president of Gulf Oil (Canada) Limited, Jerry McAfee, said last week, if 1 may paraphrase, that a 15 cents per ton levy is twice as high as is required. He failed to see why the government was insisting on such a high ceiling. What interests me particularly, of course, is that in New Brunswick there is a Continental Oil development outside Saint John involving $60 million that has been promised. The people there are very alarmed about the size of the levy, the amount of the fund and the number of years for which they will be required to pay.
I know the matter is under negotiation. Premier Hatfield, for example, has engaged in correspondence and

March 14, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion there have been replies. I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the minister and ask certain questions, not so much in the hope of a full reply this evening but in order to bring forward the seriousness of this matter affecting the joint development that New Brunswick is involved in at the moment.
My first question is this: Is the minister aware that this levy and the extent of it may kill the entire Conoco project for the Saint John area? Another question is: Is the minister aware that because of the way this matter is now developing-perhaps this was not foreseen when the legislation was passed-we are being unfair to legitimate producers and refiners and that the result may be a boom for tramp steamers like the Arrow which pass through that area?
My next question is: Is the minister aware that in this case the province of New Brunswick received no federal incentives grant? The province was legitimately and honestly on its own in this project. Another question is: How can we possibly be expected to compete with Portland, Maine, which imposes a levy of only one half cent, especially when we consider that through that port many products such as oil enter the Montreal market?
Those are the questions I wish to ask. The minister may reply that he personally is giving serious consideration to this matter at the moment. I hope that this will not be another routine type of bureaucratic matter that has come sliding over his desk. I hope he has not gone along with civil servants who may suggest that some people are overreacting to pollution without considering some of the development that we need in my province-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Miller Bell: I hope, Mr. Speaker, to receive some kind of answer from the minister that will give us hope for this development.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asked four key questions. Obviously, I cannot answer them in detail in three minutes. I will, however, assure the hon. member and the House at the outset that I am personally considering the matter. I have had several conversations with Premier Hatfield and have indicated my willingness to meet with him and, indeed, with officials of the oil company concerned or any others, for that matter, at any time he designates.
As to whether this will kill the project, that of course is something on which I cannot pass judgment. However, I would like to say that from our point of view it is a question of the minimum amount we feel is necessary in order to ensure that clean-up operations can be carried out effectively. We have determined a ceiling which I have clearly stated as being $25 million. That is the minimum amount we feel is necessary. The reason for this is that the Torre Canyon cost something like $16 million to clean up. It was a substantially smaller matter. These are vessels carrying 300,000 tons of oil. The Arrow cost some $4 million. As I said to someone the other day, it was carrying a mere teaspoonful in relation to these huge vessels. We talked about the Irving Whale which cost in excess of

$2 million. We are not talking about small change in terms of the Canadian taxpayer.
I do not want to put forward an unnecessary impediment to the development of industry, particularly in the Atlantic provinces. I have said that the ceiling would be $25 million. We put it at 15 cents a ton in the first instance because we deemed it advisable to get a fair amount in the fund initially. If we had put it at a lower rate it would have gone on for a very much longer period of time. My suspicion is that the shipping and oil companies would not have been much more satisfied had the amount been lower.
I said that if the fund builds up very rapidly, more rapidly than we anticipate-I emphasize that this is a preventive measure-we do not want to spend out of the fund and we will review it over a period, let us say annually. If we are getting an amount in there and we have not had any spills, we will consider reducing the levy. I have given that undertaking. Furthermore, since it will be more than the undertaking of the minister I have said we will try to incorporate such undertakings in the regulations.
As for it being unfair to legitimate operators, I think that the world or virtually all of it has now come to the conclusion that it is not a matter of legitimacy or otherwise: it is simply a question of these being huge hazards even for the best operators. We need to have some way to look after them. I was not asked for federal incentives. As for the state of Maine, they of course cannot carry vessels of this size.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-MONTREAL-DELAY IN PAYMENT OF BENEFITS-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY

André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have already directed a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Perrault) with regard to the delay in the unemployment insurance benefit cheques since the introduction of the new unemployment insurance plan which, as everyone knows, has replaced the former act.
Let us explain the problem briefly: Let us say that a worker became unemployed on October 16. By February 1 or 15, he has not yet received any unemployment insurance cheque. Yet, he has repeatedly contacted his regional office-and, in Lotbiniere, it is Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivieres or Quebec City-and each time the devoted official could only answer: Sir, an order for your cheque has been given to the Montreal office.
Now, the Montreal office, as we know, is the central office for issuing cheques throughout the province and those cheques do not reach those who are entitled to them.
To show the tragedy in this situation, I shall point out that some of these men have seven or eight children. Being without work, they have no income.
On January 26, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackasey), sent a letter, I believe, to all hon. members, promising that in all cases of simple delay a payment would be made within 48 hours and that a review would take place within
March 14, 1972

72 hours. This was not done, in spite of the minister's utterances and his good will. A little later, I handed to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a petition with 400 signatures, attesting to this. Those are the facts.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is tragic. I understand that the government took concrete remedial steps. Nevertheless, once the minister has given instructions to civil servants and the cheques have been issued, thus solving the individual's problem for two or three weeks, the same problem arises agaim The individual, after a waiting period of a month and a half, received two or three cheques. But he now not only does not receive a cheque, he does not even receive forms to be filled in, although he has made enough contributions.
I stand ready tomorrow to submit to the parliamentary secretary a list of over 300 names of citizens of my constituency and the neighbouring constituencies of the Eastern Townships who are faced with this situation.
Mr. Speaker, I personally called several times on the Sherbrooke, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal regional offices. I do not blame the officials, they are doing their best. Moreover, in the Sherbrooke office they hired 25 extra employees to face the demand, proof that there was a problem which has not been solved since the officials tell us they are too few to cope with the load and that they are forced to work in unsanitary conditions.
Mr. Speaker, this problem of unemployment is of national urgency and is far from being solved since the number of unemployed is increasing, the winter season is a particularly difficult one for those who are without work and without income.
Since I was not satisfied with the reply given the other day by the parliamentary secretary, I wanted to raise this matter again in the hope that the government will study the way in which cheques are issued at the Montreal office and will consider the advisability of decentralizing the system, since the whole Quebec population is obviously too much for computers to cope with.
I also hope that the government will study the operation of unemployment insurance district offices with a view to making them more efficient, and will help officers by giving them the necessary tools.
Mr. Speaker, let us review, once and for all, all those cases of delays, and let us stop saying, as the minister wrote in his letter-and instead of tackling the real problem of the issuing of cheques: If you do not receive your cheque, go to the welfare bureau and borrow money, and when you receive your cheque, you can pay the welfare bureau back.
Mr. Speaker, considering the interest you take in the fate of Canadian people, surely you will agree that the direct effect of this is to reduce to the most abject poverty those workers who become unemployed overnight and are then doomed to live on welfare.
Mr. Speaker, I do hope that the government has been sensitized to this problem. The prime minister came to Victoriaville recently, and people asked him that question. They gave him a rather cold welcome, as they should, precisely because this problem is so real.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely ask the minister to remedy this situation, to stop hiding and to really come to grips with the problem. I think that the Canadian people will be really grateful to him for doing so, since this is at present the most serious problem faced by Canada.


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has suggested that computer operations of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in Montreal have not been functioning properly and that this has caused delays in the processing of unemployment insurance claims. For the information of the hon. member I should like to say there have been no cases of delay in the Montreal office of the Unemployment Insurance Commission caused by computer breakdown.
Together with the hon. member and my minister, I want to see as speedy as possible processing of unemployment insurance claims. Nevertheless, I would point out to him that after his allegations of March 9, in which he stated there were 450 cases of unresolved unemployment insurance problems, it was determined upon investigation that he was apparently talking about all the cases he had looked into during the past six months, not only for Sherbrooke but also for Quebec and Trois-Rivieres.
I have been advised by the Unemployment Insurance Commission that between January 24 and today the hon. member has submitted to the Sherbrooke office a grand total of 132 cases, not 450. Based on commission experience across Canada in January and February, no more than one-third would have been designated problem cases.
In any event, as of March 10, 1972, the Sherbrooke office was in the process of answering only 19 cases which had been submitted by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin). Of this number, the commission has reported that at least half were cases which had already been submitted where people were not satisfied with a previous decision of the commission. In view of the foregoing facts it would seem that there have not been inordinate delays occasioned by alleged computer breakdown or by any other factor.
If in fact the hon. member has any specific cases of delays in the processing of unemployment insurance claims that he would like to bring to my attention, or if he can be more specific as to the nature and time of these so-called computer breakdowns, I will gladly have the charges investigated at the earliest possible opportunity. As the hon. member knows, my minister is determined to provide the speediest possible service for those with a legitimate entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits.



GRAIN-ALLOCATION OF BOXCARS TO INCREASE STOCKS AT VANCOUVER

Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, on March 9 I asked the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether, in view of the low level of wheat stocks at the west coast terminals, he could assure us that the volume of grain to be moved and the allocation of boxcars

March 14, 1972
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion by the two railroads would be such as to correct the situation. I had the assurance of the minister that it was not shortage of cars or shortage of motive power that was the limiting factor at the moment but, rather, the unusual and severe snowslide conditions in the Rocky Mountains which had prevented these rail facilities from carrying adequate amounts of grain to Vancouver.
My concern is really about the answer the minister gave. I think we are faced with a basic shortage of facilities for moving and handling grain destined for the west coast from the prairie region, a situation that I do not think is a temporary one. I realize, as I am sure the minister does, that we have had much worse weather conditions than normal, such as snowslides and so on but I think we have to be prepared to cope with that sort of thing. If you are operating a farm you come to know that you should not schedule a certain level of operation and expect it to continue uninterrupted; that just does not happen. What you have to do instead is to build in a certain amount of power, equipment or labour reserve to handle what we call "down time", a term that is also used by the construction industry. We know we will hit this condition to a certain extent.
I would be more encouraged were the minister able to assure the House that the government had in hand programs to move the volume of traffic that will have to be handled if we are to stay in business. If we are to move the volume of grain that the minister has forecast we are going to sell in the coming year, these programs must be formulated now. I am satisfied we could have sold more grain than the minister has forecast had the Wheat Board been given assurances that it could move sufficient grain to fulfil any contract the board was willing to undertake.
The minister has admitted, as has the Wheat Board, that contracts have been turned down because they could not afford to be in the position of being unable to deliver on contracts which had been made. They now, I am sure, must be very close to this position on some contracts which have been made. The information I have is that last week there were 400 cars a day unloaded, when they should have been unloading 800 cars. This is a chronic condition. If the minister can give the House some assurance that this situation will be corrected or that there are long-term plans, I believe the House would be very glad to hear this. I know I would be glad to hear it.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has observed the tremendous movement of grain in the country and out of the prairie region. Indeed, this year with the unprecedented sales level, even though we had a very good crop last year, we will probably be disposing of more grain than is grown in the prairie region. In the case of the port of Vancouver, for instance, notwithstanding all our difficulties and notwithstanding the fact that last year we had a record year in respect of exports from the west coast, as of March 1 our exports were running 25 per cent ahead of the figure for the previous year.
It is true that we have had snow difficulties in the Rockies, and I did tell the hon. member that during this period of time it is, in my view, not a shortage of cars or locomotives that is causing our problems but weather conditions. The railways have enough equipment to reach the 800-car target if weather conditions would permit. We are selling at record levels. We will continue to do so. We will continue to set ourselves new and difficult challenges in the selling of grain and in putting stresses and strains on the available equipment. I do not say we have enough equipment at the present time to meet next year's challenge, and we are looking very closely at the additional equipment needed for that purpose. We have been studying the grain handling system, so that we know a good deal about which way to go in making improvements.
With things like the block system and the co-ordinators working at both terminals, as well as the car pooling which goes on, we are getting much more out of the system than otherwise would be the case. As to the question of whether we have to go to a six or seven-day week in the elevators and in the terminals, we could get more out of the system in this way but I think we will need more rail equipment for the movement I see ahead, because we will go after new sales in very significant quantities year after year and we must go on building the system to accomplish that end.
We will need the co-operation of all parts of the system, the farmers, the handling system and the railways, in order to achieve these sales records, but I am confident that we can do so. We will take the necessary steps. When the difficulties of snow and weather began in Vancouver we had in store at that port about the right amount of grain. It was not as though those terminals were empty; they were relatively full to their working capacity. I believe this is something we should remember.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, March 15, 1972