1973-03-20

PRIVILEGE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, at page 2344 of yesterday's Hansard I asked the following question:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister what purpose his personal envoy, Mr. Head, has in visiting various Commonwealth countries at this time?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave me the explanation. The passage then reads:


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, what particular message was to be conveyed to General M'boto of undistinguished notoriety, the head of Uganda? What was the message to him?
The Prime Minister replied:
Mr. Speaker, President M'boto is no longer president of Uganda.
As members will recall, yesterday afternoon the House was in a very happy and rather vociferous mood. I like it that way. The result was that what was said was not recorded by the reporter because it was drowned out. The Prime Minister understood me to ask about somebody I did not ask about. I asked about Amin and he thought I referred to General M'boto. He replied as I have already stated. His answer was correct, of course, because M'boto was at one time president of the Congo. Altogether, it was a comedy of errors. So that the record may be complete, I was referring and I did refer to Amin but, as I said, the House was in that feeling of high exhilaration which sometimes interferes with communication, but enjoyably so.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, there may even be more errors than the right hon. member understood because in my answer, and I did not see the blues, I did not say "President M'boto". I said "President Obote", who was indeed the president of Uganda when we had the last Commonwealth Conference, so this makes it even more complicated.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister for clearing up the whole matter. We all recall that even Homer nodded, so the Prime Minister and I were both in that category.



MR. OBERLE-ANSWER TO ORDER PAPER QUESTION NO.

Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I will need Your Honour's advice on the validity of my question. First of
all, I would like to have the confirmation of the House that as the representative of the people in my constituency, as the representative of people who put their trust in my office, I am entitled to ask questions of the government. I should also like to have it confirmed that after I have asked these questions the answers that I get to such questions are factual and are answers on which I can base further action.
I placed on the order paper question No. 984 dealing with the Inter-American Indian Institute. It is in three parts and the questions are simple. The first part reads as follows:
Has the government been requested to join the Inter-American Indian Institute and, if so (a) by whom (b) on what date?
The third part reads as follows:
Has any employee of the government, its agencies or Crown corporations ever attended any conference meetings or symposia sponsored by the Inter-American Indian Institute over the past six years and, if so (a) who were these persons (b) on what dates-
The answers I received to these questions are less than factual. I happen to know that there was more than one attempt by the Inter-American Institute to have Canada join. There were many occasions prior to the date indicated in the answer. I also happen to know that many delegations sponsored by the Canadian government attended these meetings.
These facts, Mr. Speaker, are underlined by a secret or confidential document which obviously is no longer confidential because I received it this morning. In it, an official of the government indicates that the answer to question No. 1 is less than factual. Another section outlines the reasons why the government is embarrassed about the Inter-American Indian institute. I quote from the document:
Indian leaders might be tempted on occasion to use the International Indian Institute as a forum in which they could put forward their grievances against the federal government.
Another paragraph in the document reads as follows:
The composition of the International Institute would need to be carefully conceived as it could generate friction among native people in that it would be undesirable and, in any event, virtually impossible to exclude representation from the Metis and nonstatus Indian groups.
These are the reasons the answers to my questions are not correct. Here is yet another cabinet leak. As a result, I should like to move the following motion, if I may do so, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Taylor):
That this matter dealing with the International Indian Institute be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members do from time to time bring to the attention of the House and the Chair the complaints
2384

March 20, 1973
Privilege
or grievances as to the contents of answers given to their questions. It is a long established rule that these grievances, although they may be the subject of a debate, cannot found a question of privilege. I refer the hon. member to citation 113 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition:
Members often raise so-called "questions of privilege" on matters which should be dealt with as personal explanations or corrections, either in debates or in the proceedings of the House. A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in parliament.
And further:
A dispute arising between two members as to allegations of facts does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
The hon. member suggests that information conveyed to him in reply to a question on the order paper is incorrect. That may be so. The hon. member said that he was seeking my advice. My advice to him and to the House, and my ruling at the same time, is that I cannot find there is a prima facie question of privilege here which should be put to the House for debate at this time.


Mr. Woolliams:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the hon. member told us he has a document which he described as "another cabinet leak", and as he quoted from this document, I wonder whether he would be prepared to table it so that it could be before the House in the proper manner. I realize this is a somewhat delicate matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The rules do not, of course, provide for the tabling of documents, even official documents or so-called confidential documents, quoted in the House by private members. The rule only applies when such a document is quoted in debate by members of the government. It cannot apply to hon. members generally. The suggestion is very often made in debate, when hon. members refer to or quote from a document, that the document in question be tabled. Certainly we would become involved in a very complicated practice, a practice which could easily lead to abuse, if we made it possible for members generally to table documents. I think that is not the purpose of the rule deeding with the tabling of documents.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In the light of your ruling, Mr. Speaker-and I must agree with Your Honour that the rule does not apply in this case, which is why I suggested this was a somewhat delicate matter-perhaps the House would give unanimous consent to the document being tabled in the circumstances, bearing in mind the allegation the hon. member has made and that it seems to be a genuine document.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously there is not unanimous agreement. In any case I would hesitate to seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow a private member to table a document. I doubt whether this would be a good practice in which to become involved.


Frank Oberle: May I make one more comment?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member should resume his seat. He can, perhaps, rise on a point of order but there should certainly be no debate after a ruling has been made. I will hear the hon. member if he has a point of order.


Frank Oberle: The point concerns your reference to my conflict with another member of the House. It is not with another member of the House. It is with the Department of Indian Affairs and the government as a whole.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is, of course, doing what I suggested he cannot do once a ruling has been made.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, over a week ago the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) attended the first meeting of the Group of Ten and of the European Economic Community to discuss the exchange crisis, and later tabled the communique of that meeting. I should like to table the communique of the second meeting held last week in Paris.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order that I must raise because it never occurred to me that the President of the Treasury Board would simply file a statement in the House rather than making one. Therefore, in light of this very unusual procedure in the context of a worldwide emergency I must ask the minister whether he or the Minister of Finance will make a statement on motions in regard to this matter tomorrow in order to enable the House to discuss the question.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I was not filing or tabling my statement. I was merely tabling the communique that resulted from the meeting last week in Paris which I attended on behalf of the Minister of Finance. Because of the widely publicized information given in the press last week I did not propose to make a statement on motions.



FISHERIES


Mr. lack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity. The continuing threat to Canada's marine resources in the North Atlantic dictates the need for emergency action by the Canadian government. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the resolution on fisheries problems in the North Atlantic presented by an all-party Canadian delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly in Bonn, Germany, last November and accepted by the assembly comprising 15 nations of the alliance be referred to
March 20, 1973

the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry for consideration and action.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe. This motion is made under the terms of Standing Order 43 and requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion therefore cannot be put.



INFORMATION CANADA


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table the second annual report of Information Canada in both official languages.



CONSTRUCTION OF RETAINING WALL IN BERTHIER AND LASSOMPTION COUNTIES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to propose a motion under Standing Order 43.
In recognition of the emergency situation in which the inhabitants of flooded areas of Berthier and L'Assomp-tion counties now find themselves, and since the appropriate minister had already been requested to build a retaining wall, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Berthier (Mr. Yanakis):
That this matter be referred to a special committee by the Minister of Public Works, so that immediate measures may be taken to build a protective wall in the municipalities affected.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion by the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.
Brandon University Chorale



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a pressing matter.
This motion is about a problem which is quite urgent in view of the interest shown by the four political parties of the House in the course of our debates.
In view of the serious administrative problems now existing in the Unemployment Insurance Commission which are due to an excessive centralization of services, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That this House do appoint a special committee made up of representatives of the four political parties of the House in order to investigate the serious problems which exist within the Unemployment Insurance Commission, in the best interests of all Canadians. This special committee shall report to the House and present the relevant recommendations resulting from its findings.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion introduced by the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



BRANDON UNIVERSITY CHORALE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Sourls):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 I would move a motion of appreciation to the Brandon University Chorale for introducing an atmosphere of harmony to Parliament Hill today. As proof of the new entente cor-diale, the Chancellor of Brandon University, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), is seconding the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has very serious doubts about the propriety of this motion. I hesitate to say so in view of the circumstances of the event to which the hon. member is referring, but I doubt very much that it would be in order to put the motion. Of course, if this is what hon. members wish me to do I shall, but I think it will be a serious departure from the long established practice of the House if this type of motion is submitted. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 20, 1973
Oral Questions SOCIAL SECURITY



OLD AGE AND VETERANS PENSIONS-PRESENTATION OF PETITION FOR IMMEDIATE INCREASE

Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 29,880 people in Edmonton, urging all Members of Parliament "to do everything possible to bring about a significant increase in old age and veteran pensions immediately", which petition was personally presented by Mayor Ivor Dent of Edmonton this morning to an all-party delegation of members who welcomed the intention of the petitioners and the initiative of Mayor Dent. On their behalf I pray this House to accept the petition and table it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Claude Wagner: In response to my friends on the other side I would say-


Some hon. Members:: In French!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.

In view of the fact that no statement-

In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made no statement to the House on his trip to Viet Nam, can the Prime Minister assure us that parliament will be consulted officially before any decision is taken concerning our participation in Viet Nam?


Some hon. Members:: In English!


Claude Wagner: Again, at the request of my friends across the way-

Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that no statement has been made to the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether it is necessary for the hon. member to repeat the question in English. I would suggest to hon. members that, as we have only 40 minutes for the question period, if every question and answer are given in both French and English we

might get into difficulty. I do not want to cause any difficulty to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. [Translation]
The right hon. Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to tell the hon. member that his off the cuff translation is very good and I shall ask the minister to answer the question personally.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Muir:: Now in French.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is my intention, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: If I may translate, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention tomorrow, if I am asked by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to appear before it, to answer questions and give some account of the visit that my colleagues from the New Democratic Party, the Social Credit party and myself and one member of the Senate made to Viet Nam. It would be my intention to make a statement in the House just as soon as we have reached a decision on whether we are going to continue or withdraw from the commission.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Would the minister please let the House know if it is the government's intention to consult the House before a decision is taken by the government on this subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have said in the House on a number of occasions, as is customary I think it is the responsibility of the government to make a decision and bring it before parliament. This I intend to do.


VIET NAM-MINISTER'S POSITION ON MEETING OF CONDITIONS FOR CONTINUED CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN SUPERVISORY COMMISSION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question on the statement which he did make, namely, the one after his return from the Paris conference. As a result of his conversations during his recent Indochina visit, is he in any way reassured now as to the actual conditions which he declared in Paris would be essential to Canada's continued participation in the International Control and Supervisory Commission?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. Our visit to Viet Nam tended to
March 20, 1973

confirm the position I expressed in the House that the International Control Commission is not operating very satisfactorily. The conditions that we laid down have been met to some extent, but the overriding question, of course, is whether the International Control Commission itself is making a useful contribution. The difficulty with this proposition, as the hon. gentleman knows, is that, while we may feel we are not making as much of a contribution as we would wish, I have received many requests from countries throughout the world that we should continue because notwithstanding our own doubts we are in fact making a very useful contribution.


REPLY OF NORTH VIET NAM TO INQUIRY RESPECTING LOST CONTROL COMMISSION PLANE AND PASSENGERS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I also address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his reply to a question of mine as recorded at page 1051 of Hansard for February 7, the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated his hope that the establishment of diplomatic relations with North Viet Nam would enable the government to be more effective in pursuing its inquiries relating to the loss in October, 1965, of a civilian International Control Commission aircraft on a scheduled flight from Vientiane to Hanoi. May I now ask the minister if, during his stay in Hanoi, he was able, because of the establishment of diplomatic relations, to make further inquiries about this matter and whether he received satisfactory answers from the North Viet Nam authorities explaining why the search for that civilian aircraft on International Control Commission business was held up for a matter of days, if not weeks?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as a result of having recognized North Viet Nam I was, of course, privileged to visit there and while there I raised the matter referred to by the hon. member. I explained the circumstances and asked if they would make further inquiries to discover whether these Canadians are still alive and, if so, where they are. I also took advantage of the occasion to inquire about Mr. Oppel.


Donald W. Munro: Would the minister be prepared to have the International Commission for Control and Supervision asked to make a special inquiry into the fate of that plane and its passengers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I might consider that, although I doubt whether it would be very useful. This event took place in 1966, I believe, and I think it would be difficult to do more than what I have done, namely, to have the government of North Viet Nam look into the circumstances and see that they can discover for us.


POLITICAL PRISONERS IN SOUTH VIET NAM JAILS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I welcome the Secretary of State for External Affairs back after his very valuable trip.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Francis Andrew Brewin: The question I would like to put to him is whether he was able to secure any information or make any representations when he was in Saigon about the plight of the literally tens of thousands of political prisoners in jails in South Viet Nam? Was he able to do that, or will he report to us on that subject later?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am quite sure that when I appear before the committee tomorrow my hon. friend will address inquiries to me. May I just say by way of general information that when I did raise this question with the government of South Viet Nam they claimed there were only 5,000 such prisoners.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Do you buy that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should try to move to the second question. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West on a final supplementary and then see the hon. member for Waterloo.


VIET NAM-ATTITUDE OF LARGE POWERS FOLLOWING CEASE-FIRE AGREEMENT
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact there are few material differences between the current cease-fire agreement and that negotiated in 1954, in view of the fact the United States, by the admission of one of its former, now late, presidents, deliberately and systematically undermined that cease-fire, and in view of the fact President Nixon has recently threatened to resume bombing of the north because of alleged violations of the cease-fire agreement by North Viet Nam, was the Secretary of State for External Affairs able to discern during his trip any evidence of increased good will on the part of the United States, or other large powers that have armed the respective sides in the civil war, which leads him to believe that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is making a speech. The minister will be allowed, of course, to reply to the hon. member, but I have some difficulty in respect of the form of the hon. member's question. The preliminaries are perhaps not quite in order. Having said that, the minister should be allowed to reply to the hon. member's question.


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it would have been useful if I had had with me a member of the party opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I would be very happy to accept and to answer questions of this kind as best I can in committee when I appear. But the hon. member will have to depend upon my word and not upon the independent judgment he might otherwise have been able to make.


Peter Reilly: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I resent being the subject-

March 20, 1973
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter Reilly: I will stand down when Mr. Speaker tells me to, not when you lugs tell me to. The question I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs was, to the best of my knowledge and ability, a fair question and fairly placed. I take strong exception to being told that it was not a proper question. I also take strong exception to the Secretary of State for External Affairs' condescending put-down of a perfectly legitimate question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Waterloo.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Are negotiations now going on between the government and the Canada Development Corporation to take over the federal government's 45 per cent share of Panarctic Oils?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take that question as notice and get an up to date report from the chairman of the Canada Development Corporation.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Considering the almost complete confusion existing within the administration of the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the conflicting statements of the minister concerning the application of regulations at the unemployment insurance offices, does the Prime Minister intend to set up a special committee of the House made up of representatives of the four parties to investigate the application of regulations and the procedure used by officials to find out the administrative defects and report to the House making proper recommendations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Since I do not accept the premises of the question, Mr. Speaker, the answer is no.


BENEFIT CONTROL-REQUIREMENT OF PROOF OF EFFORTS TO SECURE EMPLOYMENT-REQUEST THAT MINISTER INVESTIGATE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.

Can he tell this House unequivocally whether any particular instruction has been given to the unemployment insurance offices ordering them to refuse to pay any benefits where there is not enough proof that the beneficiary has actually sought employment and, if so, can the minister say when these instructions have been issued?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that there have been confusing instructions sent.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the minister cannot accept this since he is not aware of what is going on at the Unemployment Insurance Commission, but I would like to put a supplementary.
Could he honestly inquire from the commission or one of the deputy ministers to find out since when claimants are required to file written proof that they are actively seeking employment and, if so, could he honestly inform this House?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the act requires claimants on unemployment insurance benefits to be actively searching for work and it calls for the commission to enforce that act. In the process of enforcing the act they ask claimants to indicate, sometimes in writing and sometimes verbally, that they are in fact looking for work actively.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will be allowed a supplementary and then I shall recognize the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


André-Gilles Fortin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Is the hon. minister aware that when a claimant applies for a job the prospective employer tells him that he deals with manpower centres and that furthermore the Unemployment Insurance Commission demands that each claimant not only registers in manpower centres but also supplies written proof that he is seeking employment, so that if he complies with these requirements he is denied benefits?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, there is a requirement that unemployment insurance claimants register with manpower, but there is not a requirement that that is the only place where they can seek work. We encourage recipients of unemployment insurance benefits to seek work beyond manpower offices, through union hiring halls or in any way they can because we think that the best way for them to get off the unemployment insurance rolls is to find a job.
March 20,1973


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In doing so I suggest that while the committee has its place, questions have to be answered in the House. Having visited South Viet Nam some two years ago I know something of the difficulties of that country and its terrain. My question arises from the fact that the President of the United States has stated, on the basis of information available to him, that thousands of troops are infiltrating from North Viet Nam into South Viet Nam and large numbers of tanks are following into that area. Now that the minister has been over there and has seen at first hand, did anyone bring to his attention when he was there that this was going on, and is he in a position to say, because of his first hand knowledge gained through personal observation, whether there is in fact that infiltration not only of manpower but of munitions into the south?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, one of the problems that is causing us concern with relation to the International Control Commission is just the kind of question raised by the right hon. gentleman. There have been thousands and thousands of incidents-


John George Diefenbaker: Of what?


Mitchell William Sharp: -thousands and thousands of incidents of breaches of the truce, which have been admitted on sill sides, including the kind of breach of the truce represented by the movement of people and supplies down the Ho Chi Min trail into South Viet Nam, but the International Control Commission has never been asked nor permitted to make any investigation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, if thousands of North Vietnamese troops are getting into South Viet Nam with tank equipment on such a large scale as stated by the President, that is more than one incident among thousands. It is very serious to the future of a continued interregnum toward peace. Surely the minister is able to tell the House, having consulted with so many, for so long, in so many places-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -whether or not there are in fact thousands and thousands of North Vietnamese getting into South Viet Nam along with military equipment, which can only lead to aggressive war?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, all the information that I gleaned while I was in Viet Nam and in Laos tends to confirm the statement made by the right hon. gentleman now. All I am saying is that Canada is trying to work on an international control commission where these matters would not be charges and countercharges but could be ascertained as a matter of fact. Unfortunately that is not
Oral Questions
the way the International Control Commission is now working.


John George Diefenbaker: How is it working then when a serious situation has arisen sqch as I have pointed out and which, after two questions, the minister now agrees has actually taken place? What is the Central Commission doing to meet the serious situation that will arise in consequence of such dangerous action on the part of the North Vietnamese?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I have said on many occasions in the House, in the committee and elsewhere-


John George Diefenbaker: That was before the minister went there.


Mitchell William Sharp: -the International Control Commission cannot keep the peace. That must be done by the parties to the peace agreement. All we can do is observe and report upon alleged breaches of the truce. The problem at the moment is that the commission is neither being asked nor being given the necessary clearance to investigate these breaches of the truce. Otherwise I should not have taken the attitude I have toward our continuation on the commission.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a frightening admission.


REQUEST FOR LIST OF DRUGS THAT FAILED TO MEET TESTS AND NAMES OF COMPANIES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that 3 per cent of the drugs that have been tested by his department under the QUAD program have failed to meet the standards set by the department, when does the minister intend to make a statement listing the names of the drugs that have failed to meet the standards, and the names of the companies that produce those drugs?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting yesterday with the Minister of Justice in this regard and I hope to be able to release the names as early as possible. However, I still must have some legal points clarified by the Minister of Justice in this connection.


David Orlikow: In view of the fact there cannot be any question about the right of the minister to make a statement in the House, is there any reason that the minister cannot make that statement in the House giving Members of Parliament and the public, who are vitally interested in this question, information to which they are obviously entitled?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the matter that the Minister of Justice and I are studying at the moment is linked to
2390

March 20, 1973
Oral Questions
difficulties that might arise from proceedings that might be started in the near future and I should not wish to cause any prejudice to those involved.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board or the Minister of Finance. In light of the agreement reached in Paris last week that the European currencies would float but would float within some sort of range and would be a sort of dirty float, were any commitments made by the government of Canada with respect to the position of the Canadian dollar vis-a-vis the United States dollar, that we would move to a range and keep us in parity in that way?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No,
Mr. Speaker. The level of the Canadian dollar is to be determined by the market.


James McPhail Gillies: Does that mean that Canada did not agree with or participate in the 14-nation agreement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. gentleman perhaps has not had a chance to read the communique. We did participate in the agreement. The agreement provided that while certain European currencies would be kept within a fixed margin of two and a half per cent, the Canadian currency, along with some others, would float.


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS-PARIS AGREEMENT-ARRANGEMENTS TO CURTAIL EXPANSION OF MONEY SUPPLY IN EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND CURB INFLATION
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the European currencies of Germany, France, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg and Denmark are floating jointly in relation to the United States dollar, and as the U.S. dollar is for all practical purposes also afloat, what agreement was reached by the participating countries to apply a break on the expansion in those countries of the money supply in order that currencies that are afloat will not go adrift and so that inflation may be curbed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly the hon. member is asking what device will the European countries use to ensure that inflation does not allow disparities to occur, interrupting this joint arrangement. The answer, I think, is the fiscal mechanisms, the monetary mechanisms, of the European Economic Community. The ministers were conscious of the fact that one of the dangers to be guarded against in every country was the threat of inflation.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a brief supplementary. Was any agreement reached to remould the world monetary system so that there will not be an Atlantic trade war, with the European countries applying import charges on one side and Canada and the United States applying them on the other side?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think it would not be exaggerating too much to say that the main thrust of the previous meeting and of this one was to avoid just such an eventuality, and there is some hope that we have been successful in this respect.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members seeking supplementaries on this topic. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition and then the hon. member for Simcoe North who has a supplementary to the previous question. After that the Chair will attempt to see some of the members in the third, fourth and fifth rows.


INTERNATIONAL MONETARY CRISIS-CONSIDERATION AT FINANCE MINISTERS CONFERENCE OF MEASURES TO CONTROL MOVEMENT OF SHORT-TERM MONEY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should ask the President of the Treasury Board whether the government is afloat, adrift or sinking.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But I will ask him whether any conclusions were reached at the conference with regard to any measures to control the movement of short-term money, which is being used on such a massive scale to raid various currencies of the world? Was any solution reached with respect to this urgent problem?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. gentleman's search for guidance in his first question, let me say that the government is afloat, and fully afloat.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A clean float or a dirty float?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: As to the second question, at the present time there is a lack of precise knowledge as to the sources and effectiveness of these various large capital movements of a speculative nature. The governors of the central banks will do some research into this problem and hopefully come up with a device or series of devices that will restrain these movements. I may also say that there is recognition of the fact that the large overhang of Eurodollars does represent a continuing threat, and steps are contemplated to try to remove this to some degree.

March 20, 1973


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT DRUGS ON MARKET ARE SAFE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the widespread anxiety and fear on the part of many people who are using lifesaving drugs with regard to the threefold increase in the deterioration of drugs over a period of one year, can the minister assure the House that those lifesaving drugs have now been thoroughly checked and that no unsafe drugs are on the market?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to say that it has not been a 3 per cent increase. Under the QUAD program 3 per cent of drugs tested were rejected, while previously, not under the program that we have at the present time, the rate was around 1 per cent. This was a different program carried out in a different way. As far as the testing of drugs that have been found faulty, they have all been withdrawn from the market and destroyed. I cannot give the assurance to the hon. member that all drugs on the market now are safe. That would mean checking every lot of every drug all the time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: May I ask the minister how long it will be before those drugs are checked? The firms that make these drugs are known. He has been asked that question before.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, all the drugs mentioned have been checked and the lots that have been found faulty, as I said, have been withdrawn from the market and destroyed.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Is the minister assuring me that none of these inferior drugs are being sold today?


Marc Lalonde: None of the drugs that have been found faulty are on the market today.


MANPOWER
Mr. Harry Kuntz (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the fact that many worth-while employment creating projects have not been approved under the local initiatives program because of a lack of funds, in view of the fact that there are still approximately 11 weeks left until May 31, the completion date of these projects, and as these weeks are normally a period of good construction weather, would the minister tell the House if he has any plans at this time to place more funds in the local initiatives program?
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if such a decision is made I will place it before the House.


INCOME TAX
Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, while I am on my feet and to save the Leader of the Opposition the necessity of chasing me, if I could reply to his question of yesterday expressing concern about a possible delay in sending out TP4U slips for unemployment insurance. I have been advised that the commission met its statutory obligation to mail income tax statements by February 28, 1973, in the number of 1,918,717 T4U and TP4U slips. Of these, 55,650 were undeliverable, mainly because of change of address of the recipients. However, as a result of the advertising campaign and other measures launched by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, 38,000 people have contacted the UIC and received duplicate T4U slips for those that were not delivered because of the address problem. We are continuing to do our best to locate these people.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I should like to ask the minister if he is acquainted with recently published reports stating that two Eskimos are more or less being kept prisoners in a Brossard mental hospital, and whether he has asked officials of his department to intervene. If so, what stage has the inquiry reached?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no reports of this, but I will make inquiries immediately and report to the hon. member tomorrow.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, I shall break into English now as I wish to quote from an English document and I cannot translate it too well. May I ask the minister if the policy implications that are involved in this report are indeed the policy of his department? The assistant administrator of the hospital said:
They-
The Eskimos.
-were forced on us by the Department of Indian Affairs. We told federal authorities the only space we had was in a basement room, and they agreed.
Is this indeed the policy of the minister's department?
26087-6J

March 20, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is not in order. The question should be asked directly rather than in relation to a statement made outside the House. The minister may reply, after which I shall recognize the hon. member for Ottawa East.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can say is that it is certainly not the policy of the department, but there are always errors. I will make inquiries and reply tomorrow in French.


NATIONAL CAPITAL
Mr. lean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like, through you, to ask a question of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister please tell the House whether or not historic LaSalle Academy, situated in my riding on Sussex Drive, has been purchased by the federal government and, if so, for what purpose the building has been acquired?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I hesitate to suggest this to the hon. member, but this would be a very good question to consider at the time of adjournment. The hon. member would be entitled, because of the urgency and importance of the matter, to some priority in having the question considered at ten o'clock.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox-Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General and pertains to the recent riot by convicts at Millhaven Institution in which thousands of dollars worth of wilful damage to public property was done by the inmates. Will a public inquiry be held in order that the government and the Canadian people may know the facts concerning this incident?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the situation at Millhaven is almost back to normal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: Explain.


William Warren Allmand: Some aspects of the disturbance are being investigated by prison officials, other aspects by the Ontario Provincial Police, and I expect reports shortly. At this stage a further inquiry does not appear necessary, but I will await the reports referred to before making a final decision.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Has the Solicitor General's department laid informations and charges against the rioters in the provincial court at Napanee?


William Warren Allmand: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but disciplinary action and possibly criminal action are being considered. We are awaiting the reports I referred to.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hastings.


TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker got the riding right.


John Raymond Ellis: That is all right. Mr. Speaker got the riding almost right the last time, and I am happy that he got it right this time. On March 9 I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding the safety of the travelling public on trains. Yesterday, just ten days later, there was another major train derailment just south of Ottawa in roughly the same area. This was not a passenger train-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member ask his question?


John Raymond Ellis: Will the minister tell the House what steps he has taken to protect the travelling public and if he is undertaking an inquiry into the frequency and severity of these accidents?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Transport Commission has an investigation committee composed of representatives of the industry and officials of my department and charged precisely with improving security measures.
As to the accident which has just been referred to, I am told that a railroad car of chemicals was overturned and it will doubtless be necessary to adopt stricter regulations in order better to protect the people and the environment.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Porth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. On March 6 I asked the minister what steps he was taking to place valuation day values on farm marketing quotas because of the criticism of farm organizations of the budget provisions in this regard. At that time the minister advised that it was his opinion that these groups, specifically the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, were not all that dissatisfied. In light of the briefs and other opinions

March 20, 1973

Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
received by the minister in the last two weeks universally condemning this inequity in the budget, would the minister now advise what steps he has taken or intends to take to assign valuation day values to these quotas?
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am still of the same opinion as I was before.


William Herbert Jarvis: Did the minister hear the brief?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, I certainly did hear the brief and I also met with the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture this morning and discussed it further with him.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
Is he willing to provide assistance to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration so as to solve the many problems now existing within the Unemployment Insurance Commission, especially in Quebec, like he did for the management of the local initiatives program in Quebec?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Manpower-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister advise the House what reasons have been reported to him by his officials for the very poor reception the government's $450 million reconversion loan has received on the bond market since it was presented, and does the minister have any steps in mind to improve this situation?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the new $450 million refunding issue was brought to the market at a time of great uncertainty in international money markets. This was evidenced by the news on Monday morning of an increase in some United States commercial bank prime rates from 63 per cent to 63 per cent. While the design of the new issue and its pricing reflected recommendations received from primary distributors and also anticipated difficult market conditions, it did not fully offset the market reaction to developments in the United States market. None the less, the new issue has been largely placed and it is expected that it will soon be fully sold.


POSSIBILITY OF SOME PERSONS PREFERRING TO DRAW BENEFITS RATHER THAN LOOK FOR WORK
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In reply to a question today the minister stated that recipients of unemployment insurance were being disqualified because they were not actively looking for work. While I personally endorse that position, I ask the minister whether he is now stating that jobs are in fact available, and that these jobs are not being filled in some cases because unemployment insurance recipients would rather stay on benefits than look for work?


Hon. Robert K. Andros@Minister of Manpower and Immigration: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the first part of the question, an active search for work requirement is exercised in areas where there have been jobs identified. As to the second part of the question, I do not agree with it. I think that nearly all the claimants on benefit are actively searching for work and would prefer to work.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. It is prompted somewhat by the earlier question dealing with the Millhaven institution. I wish to direct the minister's attention to the British Columbia penitentiary. How long can the B.C. penitentiary be expected to continue with the kind of overcrowding it has and of which the minister is aware? Can the minister give the House some indication when that overcrowding is going to be alleviated?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member an exact date. We have approved new maximum security facilities to be built in New Westminster to take up some of the surplus population at the present New Westminster penitentiary, but I do not know exactly when construction will begin.


THE BUDGET
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the dissatisfactions that have been expressed by national farm organizations, producer groups and individuals concerning the lack of adequate tax changes in the recent budget, is the minister considering any changes in the near future to eliminate these hardships and, if so, when?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member is referring primarily to the tariff changes. The Minister of Agriculture and myself

March 20, 1973
Oral Questions
have set up a committee to review any adverse effects that may be established or proved under the tariff cuts. If any changes are to be announced they will be announced to the House in due course.


HARBOURS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. It concerns questions I directed to the minister two weeks ago about Ladner harbour. At that time he told me the government often tries to do the impossible but could not promise it. When I asked my next question the minister said he had heard my submission. In that two weeks has the government decided when the dredging of Ladner harbour will commence?


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I said several times that dredging operations would-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is perhaps of the same type as another question asked earlier and normally should be placed on the order paper.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In his absence, possibly the parliamentary secretary could answer it. In light of the request by the railway companies for the conciliation services of the Department of Labour and in view of the statement by the minister that a federal conciliation board would probably be set up to deal with the contract dispute, can the parliamentary secretary inform the House what progress has been made in the negotiations between the dissident parties?


Charles Robert Turner: Mr. Speaker, this question is under advisement with the department. A conciliation officer will be appointed shortly.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of yet another recent murder here in Ottawa my constituents have requested that, on their behalf I 
demand to know how much longer the government is planning to allow known potential murderers-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps I interrupted the hon. member too soon. I was trying to recognize as many questioners as possible before calling orders of the day. I had the impression that the hon. member's question asked in those terms was perhaps argumentative. However, I will allow him to complete the question and perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Otto John Jelinek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try to rephrase my question. In view of recent murders, including one here in Ottawa, I wish to ask the Minister of Justice how much longer the government is planning to allow known potential murderers, whether on bail or on parole, to roam our streets and endanger the lives of innocent Canadians? Also, are any immediate steps being taken to make the necessary changes in the Bail Reform Act and, if so, when can we expect improvements in this regard and what will they be?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister can reply briefly to all of these questions he will be recognized for that purpose, but I have some reservations about parts of the hon. member's question.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, certainly, the doubts are there, but I thank you for the opportunity to say that the question is both illogical and completely improper in suggesting that kind of motivation on the part of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Everyone out of step but Otto.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cumberland-Col-chester North.


George Harris Hees: How can one man be so right?


Mr. Coates:: All right, George; that's enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED BAY OF FUNDY TIDAL PROJECT-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is the minister in a position to provide the House with information as to the status of the re-examination of the programming board report on tidal power that has been going on for some time? Is he in a position to indicate when that report will be presented to the House?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the board recently conducted a seminar in connection with this particular question with other interested parties. I understand they are con-
March 20, 1973

tinuing with their studies. At the moment, I have no definite date when they will be in a position to report.


RAPESEED-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY ON MARKETING
Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. In view of the fact that the speculative marketing of rapeseed is a mint for the private traders and the rapeseed producer is being shafted since price spreads between country elevator points and export position in Vancouver regularly range over 70 cents a bushel, is the minister now prepared to declare official government policy to overcome this situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. member knows, rapeseed is sold on the open market and is not subject to direct government control. Even so, I will say that I do not accept the premise of his question. On the other hand, it has been clearly stated many times that we propose to put to producers in the near future a question about their wishes with regard to the marketing of rapeseed and to follow the wishes of the producers.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, having been informed yesterday by D. G. Newman, President of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, that the federation was dissatisfied with municipal participation in DREE projects and having seen the minister's statement in the Montreal Gazette-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member and others that it is not in order to preface questions by statements or allegations or "whereas" clauses. Questions should be asked as briefly as possible. Hon. members should come to the point in asking their questions.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will keep it simple. May I ask the minister whether he has found any means or device to ameliorate the problems encountered by municipalities in dealing with DREE projects?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: To the best of my knowledge, the president did not make the reference apparently attributed to him in the newspaper item. In answer to the substantive part of the question, may I say I had a further meeting with the president yesterday afternoon, and with other mayors, and we have been considering a number of alternatives
Transportation Policy
which I shall be glad to discuss with the hon. member or with the committee at any time.


FINANCE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: should again like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he can give me a breakdown of his cash requirements announced for the next fiscal year. I assure him that I am not fussy about the form in which this is done. If he would just send it across the floor to me I would be very happy to receive it.


John Napier Turner: I have looked into the practice very thoroughly. The practice with regard to both budgetary and non-budgetary items is to present them in a global fashion. I believe there are sound reasons for this practice. In the first place, the non-budgetary forecast contains provisions, the release of which could be prejudicial to the dealings between the Minister of Finance and Crown corporations whose budgets I still have to approve, and discussions between government departments or agencies and the private sector might well be prejudiced were those figures prematurely released. I assure the hon. gentleman that I am relying on the past practice of ministers of finance either from his party or mine.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: That this House, noting that the government has failed to bring about an integrated overall national transportation policy, and further noting the inadequacies of ministerial response to Canada's transportation problems, deplores the government's failure to recognize that Canada's transportation is vital to Canadian unity, regional equality, the encouragement of resource development, the increase of international and domestic trade and the betterment of the urban and rural quality of life and urges that immediate action be taken to establish an over-all national transportation policy to bring about these obiectives.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I present this motion to the House this afternoon on behalf of the Progressive Conservative party. I believe the motion bears particular significance inasmuch as the minister responsible for transport has said very little about transportation during the present parliament. I believe, also, it is obvious that the government has failed to recognize the fact that there is, indeed, a transportation problem in this country and that it must be tackled immediately.

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
I am sure there is no one here who doubts that one of the most important issues facing Canada today is the need to develop a sound, co-ordinated, futuristic transportation system. Indeed, it is fair to say that developments in the next 20 years will play a major part in defining that future. On September 1, 1966, when the Hon. J. W. Pick-ersgill introduced his new policy for transportation, he spoke in glowing terms of what it would mean for the future. According to Mr. Pickersgill, a framework had been created in which transportation would operate not only to serve the public but also to better insure the Canadian treasury and the Canadian taxpayer against unnecessary and undue charges, and, in some cases, duplicated charges for duplicated services. Unfortunately, the government has totally failed to develop a national transportation policy-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -pursuant to section 3 of the National Transportation Act, and has failed to take measures to revitalize and rebuild Canadian transportation so as to meet present and future needs. As a result of this inaction, we have failed to achieve the two goals of which Mr. Pickersgill spoke. The public is not getting the kind of service to which he referred, nor are taxpayers relieved of what he described as unnecessary and undue charges levied against them.
As a result of the legislation brought down in 1966, the railways have parliament and the minister right where they want them. The companies eliminate services, remove railway stations, close crossings, raise freight rates without any regard for the effects on the people concerned, without any regard for social disruption or the impact on the economy, particularly on the economy of the smaller communities affected. Yet, the people pay. They pay the price in huge subsidies and they pay the price by being deprived of services.
I believe the railways have an obligation not only to provide services. I believe they also have a social and moral responsibility. They grew as this nation grew. They form an integral part of our country. Though now through government hand-outs and their own approach to business they have become stale and stagnant. They have adopted a policy of driving business away, especially in the area of passenger traffic. There is plenty of evidence to support this contention. I am sure every member of the House has received communications from throughout the country critical of railway passenger service. While this is going on, losses climb and taxpayers foot the bill. At the same time, they must suffer discontinuation of services, loss of facilities, confusion and frustration.
One wonders what to expect from the government. The Speech from the Throne contained some reference to transportation but used words like "explore", "examine", and "recognize". Such words can only lead one to conclude that the government is without a policy to deal with transportation issues, though this area is vital to the future of our social and economic fabric. I think it is time we took a bold, new approach toward solving the transportation problems of this country. It is imperative that we do so. The government's inaction is a further manife-

station of its bankruptcy of ideas and its total failure to communicate with the provinces and with the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I repeat that bold, positive initiatives must be taken. In the Speech from the Throne the government, as its fourth economic objective, proposed to ensure "that all regions benefit from the prosperity brought about by an expanding economy". No one can argue with that objective. The objective, however commendable, cannot, and I submit will not, be achieved without overcoming some of the gross inequities that are prevalent in our transportation system, particularly as they affect the western provinces and the maritime regions in our country. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that if he wants to stamp out western alienation let him start with an equitable transportation system and an equitable freight rate structure. No longer is the west interested in simply supplying raw materials and export jobs to the central regions of Canada. If the minister wants the economy of the Atlantic provinces to flourish, let him overhaul the transportation system. For far too long now inept transportation policies have stymied growth and development in this region.
It was just last week that two of our national farm organizations met with Members of Parliament and with the government in the city of Ottawa. Both of these farm organizations used words like "urgent", "critical" and "crucial" with reference to the challenge of overcoming the problems in our transportation system. They advised us that it is vital to overcome some of the inequitable features of our transportation policy if the needs of our agricultural industry are to be met, particularly in the area of fruits and vegetables. If this country is to maintain its leadership role in the supplying of nutritious foods at reasonable cost, it is vital that we take positive steps to overcome transportation inequities as they relate to the maritime provinces. Furthermore, if we are to develop to a greater degree the processing of our agricultural products in the areas where they are produced, then it is imperative too that we institute a more equitable transportation scheme.
What is the government doing about this, Mr. Speaker? In particular, what is the minister doing about this problem? The minister says that he is enjoying his post, but are we getting any leadership from the government or from this minister?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Of course, the answer is no. Are we getting any answers on important matters of policy which we raise in this House of Commons?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Again, the answer is no. Is the minister doing anything about the serious problems that are brought before this House day by day during the question period?


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 20, 1973
i


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The answer, of course, is no. What I say is in no way to be construed as a personal attack upon the minister; I know him to be a very personable and amiable chap. He may even be somewhat sympathetic to the needs of transportation. But I am not really sure whether he is interested in transportation, and I am not so sure that he is really happy about his portfolio. Above all,
I am not sure that he is really serious about the importance of his portfolio. Perhaps he might enlighten us a little today.
When we review the performance of this minister in this parliament during the period January 4, 1973 to March 12, 1973 the minister is found to have replied inadequately to about 108 questions in this House of Commons. The minister's answers to questions that have been directed to him are punctuated with expressions such as "I think"; "I do not think"; "I believe"; "I do not know"; "I will inquire"; "I will take notice"; "I cannot"; "I am not aware"; "It may be"; "it might"; "it probably"; "I will check"; "when"; "it is very difficult", "in a few weeks"; "as soon as" and "I hope".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am very happy to see the minister checking some of these punctuated expressions, and as I said before this should certainly not be construed as a personal attack upon the minister. I appreciate the fact that he is taking it in good form.
Furthermore, the minister seems to engage in a game of buck-passing, perhaps because of his lack of knowledge, or because of his attitude toward hon. members on this side of the House, or because of the government's lack of policy. I must say that his repertoire of non-commital catch-phrases serves him exceptionally well in warding off any commitments by his department or the government. This non-commital, non-answer philosophy of the minister can only result in further confusion and disservice to Canadians in an area where an effective policy is most essential in combatting regional disparity and promoting national unity.
When the minister spoke in the debate on the Speech from the Throne, he even failed to mention transportation or to elaborate to any degree on the promises which were put forward in the Speech from the Throne. Instead, he harped about the French-English language problem with reference to the election backlash. When he was asked in the House whether he would tell the House what he intends to do about our transportation problems, he simply ignored the question. He engaged in a game of chastising some hon. members for raising certain issues during the election campaign.
In addition, the minister has repeatedly promised in this House to look into such matters as rail line abandonment, rail passenger service, improved airline service, station agency closures, price competition among our airlines. We have not received any answers to these questions. Most of the answers that he has given us are in the form I have just described He and other ministers preceding him have often shrugged off inquiries about increasing travel and freight costs by stating that the Canadian Transport Commission has the authority over such matters. The Canadian Transport Commission itself is an ineffective, misguid-
Transportation Policy
ed and confused authoritative body under the semi-leadership of the Minister of Transport and the direct guidance of Mr. Benson. The latest example is the fiasco of the manner in which it handled the ABC charter regulations, which from time of inception created confusion, and even today we still do not know what is the accurate interpretation of these charter regulations.
The CTC has not carried out the duties assigned to it by Section 3 of the National Transportation Act. It has not concerned itself with the needs of the public and those who use the services of our transportation system; rather it has dedicated itself to the protection and preservation of our airlines and the railways.
Part III of the National Transportation Act which deals with motor vehicle transport is no closer to being implemented today than it was when the act was written, notwithstanding the fact that there have been a number of federal-provincial consultations in this regard. This is most discouraging, Mr. Speaker, and it is unfair to the trucking industry because of the lack of uniformity in highway regulations from province to province. Failure to implement Part III of the act makes it virtually impossible for the Canadian Transport Commission to respond effectively to Section 21 of the act, the object of which is to co-ordinate and harmonize the operations of all carriers engaged in transport by rail, water, aircraft, motor vehicle and pipeline. Truckers, particularly those from western Canada, tell us that it is easier for them to travel the American routes than the trans-Canada route because of the different regulations from province to province. Does that promote national unity Mr. Speaker? Definitely not!
The present minister and his predecessors have persistently said that they have no authority over the Canadian Transport Commission. Whether this is merely passing the buck or a reluctance on their part to become involved in aiding Canadians in the midst of the transportation crisis, I am not sure. However, it appears, according to the ministers, that the Canadian Transport Commission is an autonomous entity and parliament cannot control it. If this is the case, I suggest that the structure should be revamped so that its decisions will not continue to have the detrimental effects they now produce not only on Canadians but on the economy as well.
I want to say to the minister, through you Mr. Speaker, that the answers we have been getting to the transportation problems that effect our country are far from satisfactory. I believe it is fair to say that hon. members on this side of the House are not going to tolerate these nonanswers for much longer. I do not believe we are going to tolerate the inexcusable lack of action in various areas of the transportation portfolio. I believe that the time has come when the minister should start levelling with us in the House of Commons and give us some of the information that we so rightly deserve.
However, I am informed that there may be a new era coming. I am informed that a gentleman by the name of Jim Davey has been assigned to the office of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). According to my information he was previously attached to the Prime Minister's office and was in charge of special projects.

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy


An hon. Member:: Where did he run?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Davey has an interesting background as evidenced by his two most recent occupations. He was formerly the vice president of the chartered accountant firm of Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. of Toronto, the firm which was involved in the controversial CNR auditor switch. This was the move that saw the auditor changed via the Benson-Turner formula without parliamentary approval. After this, he was employed as a systems coordinator for Canadian National Railways. His recent assignment to the office of the Minister of Transport may be of significance, since he is considered somewhat of an expert in the transportation field. I am sure that all hon. members on this side of the House will be looking forward to his performance with great interest.
Now, I should like to refer briefly to the matter of freight rates and the discriminatory effect of their structure in the country. That this is so was agreed by many prominent members of the other place when an interesting debate took place there. There is no doubt that freight rates are not only retarding growth in western Canada but are aiding the increased feeling of western alienation toward the rest of Canada. If the Minister of Transport is so concerned about national unity, as was evident in the Speech from the Throne debate, why has he failed to introduce constructive measures to promote this cause in the field of transportation? Shortly after the election the former minister of transport said in Alberta that Alberta must get more industry. According to local newspaper reports, he admitted that Ottawa is to blame for the condition of the economy in the west, and said that a lot of the trouble was due to the fact that we do not have an effective, over-all transportation policy. But what did he do about it? Nothing!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: They moved him out.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: He realized, after the election, that there was a problem. Western Canada is deeply concerned about discriminatory freight rates, rail line abandonment, station closings, and the reduction of passenger service. It is also concerned about the rationalization taking place in the transportation and handling facilities with respect to grain. We do not know what the government's policy is in this area, but if it does not have a policy perhaps it should delay withdrawing services and closing stations until an adequate and effective review of the situation has been undertaken.
In the Maritimes, the Council of Maritime Premiers has recently condemned the policies of Canada's two major railways. The reasoning behind this is a charge that the railways and the federal government fail to understand the transportation problems of the Atlantic provinces. Most maritime businessmen say that high freight rates and federal transportation policies retard industrial development in the region. The situation has become serious enough to induce the three provinces to embark on a joint effort to tackle regional transportation problems.
Obviously, if this is the case, the federal government's ability to combat the regional disparities in its so-called transportation policy is sadly lacking. If the provinces must take the initiative, then what useful purpose does the

federal department and the Canadian Transport Commission serve? The same thing is going on in western Canada where the ministers of the three prairie provinces have met to discuss economic objectives, the question of transportation as an instrument of economic policy, railway abandonment and railway structure. The initiative comes from them, Mr. Speaker and not from this minister. Why? This government's approach to federal transportation matters is not good enough. The federal government must develop a policy to co-ordinate all transportation systems or the economic growth of all Canadian regions will suffer. The failure to do so will give rise to further dissatisfaction in the realm of federal-provincial relations, and will create a great deal more alienation and ill-feeling because of regional disparities.
This government has only paid lip service to the demand of the provinces with regard to transportation. Transportation built this country, Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian Pacific Railway linked east and west, and now this link has fallen apart leaving in its wake regional disparities and dissension. There is a lack of planning, a lack of initiative and in view of the inflationary pressures involved, it is urgent that this situation be corrected. As transportation costs increase, so does the price of the goods which must use the transportation systems. The government's inadequacy in this area is severely restricting the economy of the regions. If we were to delve more deeply into the problem, I am sure that we would find one of the root causes to be the failure of the Canadian Transport Commission.
The hold-down policy of the government is interwoven with evidence of a lack of social consciousness of the decisions handed down by the CTC. If the ministry of transport cannot come up with a formula to combat the mismanagement of transportation-and we have some doubt about this because this administration is pretty shaky-then I suggest we should recommend that the Canadian Transport Commission answer to a special parliamentary committee and ensure us that this violation of the public interest will be stopped. If the government and the Minister of Transport cannot come up with an effective transportation policy, then I believe it is time that we had some answers because there is ample evidence outlining the problems. There has been study upon study, and there is no shortage of evidence. I would recommend that a parliamentary committee be struck which would be empowered to study and review this whole matter.
As I say, a great deal of urgency must be attached to this particular question. The government must show a willingness to grapple with the problem and, above all, must show a willingness to accept in a serious way some of the recommendations which may emanate from such a committee study. In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I simply say we are looking for leadership from this government in the area of transportation, and if it cannot supply that leadership we shall.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I in the New Democratic Party welcome the presentation of this motion by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). In fact, I am even a
March 20,1973

little jealous. I wish we had got there first. However we welcome it. Until some significant changes are made in and about transportation in Canada, it is a matter which should come before this parliament as often as possible. In a country like Canada all aspects of transportation must be treated as essential public services, public services at cost. A national policy and legislation must be designed to effect that objective. I submit that transportation is in the same category so far as Canadian public need is concerned as streets, highways, sewers, water systems, post offices, electric power and telephones. Transportation is an essential public utility. A major revision, and in some ways a reversal, is required in respect of the National Transportation Act. What is required is a major revision of the principles underlying the present archaic approach to transportation which has its roots in the national policy of the 19th century.
In the 1870's, the much subsidized CPR was seen as a vehicle for achieving an integrated national economy from the Atlantic to the Pacific and for joining this country of Canada from sea to sea. In contrast, the National Transportation Act of 1967 states that the national interest is best served by developing an economic, efficient and adequate transportation system, making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest possible cost. With this kind of transportation act, the federal government's foresight, and the foresight of the Canadian Transport Commission, is now restricted to economic efficiency within the transportation system itself. The monopolistic providers of the service can therefore proceed toward their own internal development, and their own objectives, unencumbered by and without regard for any broad national economic or social considerations. This is, in fact, the essence of the hinterland exploitation mentality as it exists today in respect of the whole question of transportation.
The most glaring example of this is the discriminatory setting of freight rates on everything but grain. The railway companies are legally free to maximize revenues where they can. Prairie customers, and to some extent the Maritimes as well, are captives of the railways because of the nature of the goods they have to ship and receive and the length of haul. The west is subject to horizontal freight rate increases and an inequitable transcontinental rate structure. This is an intolerable situation in relation to the development of secondary industry in the west. I should like to give some examples to remind this House again and remind the people of central Canada what is and has been developing in respect of freight rates.
Let us take angles, beams and other steel products. From Contrecoeur, Quebec to Vancouver, the revenue per ton mile is $1.02 while to Regina it is $2.55. In this case, the revenue is more than double. The distance from Contrecoeur to Regina is 1,200 miles less than the distance to Vancouver. The situation with respect of Saskatoon is even worse. The revenue per ton mile is $2.59 compared to $1.02 to Vancouver.
Let us take wire, nails, staples, wire fencing and other steel products. From Sydney, Nova Scotia to Vancouver the revenue per ton mile is 95 cents. To Regina it is $1.77. To Saskatoon it is $1.88. Then, let us take some foodstuffs. I might say that these rates are all taken from the tariffs
Transportation Policy
of the railways which are available to the public. On a
100,000	pound carload the revenue per ton mile from any point in Ontario to Vancouver is $1.41. To Regina it is $2.63, and to Saskatoon $2.73. The tariff on foodstuffs from points in Quebec to Vancouver is $1.35 per ton mile. To Regina it is $2.36 and to Saskatoon it is $2.46.	[DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: If you really want to learn about the situation, let us hear about Prince Albert where it is even worse.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I say to the right hon. gentleman that the situation in respect of Prince Albert, North Bat-tleford or Swift Current is even worse. Let me emphasize again that Vancouver is 1200 miles farther away than Saskatoon or Regina, and yet the rate per ton mile in this inequitable freight rate structure is almost double to Regina and Saskatoon.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My colleague asks why. It is because of the Canadian geographical situation. Many Canadians are penalized because they happen to live in the far north, in the Maritimes or on the Prairies. I fail to understand why a system of equalized and/or subsidized freight rates cannot be applied all over Canada. The cost of transportation forms a large part of the cost of living in Canada. For example, as I mentioned in the budget debate, Canadian citizens living in Fond du Lac, Saskatchewan have to pay 95 cents a quart for milk. Almost two-thirds of that price is transportation cost.
Because our transportation act of 1967 allows our railways to do what is best for them, the best interests of Canada and Canadians are not being served. Besides discriminatory freight rates of 100 years standing, there has been and is now a continuing downgrading and erosion of railway services in this country. There is a reduced or non-existent passenger service. Secondary and branch rail lines have been allowed to deteriorate to the point of being a disgrace. Rail line abandonments have been announced by the companies which will result in the death of dozens of communities which could and should otherwise be viable. There is an outrageous lack of effort and funds for research and development of modern, faster and safer rail transportation components, particularly in respect of trains and tracks.
I find it passing strange that a national government can allocate $67 million in research and development to private aircraft manufacturers for a short take-off and landing aircraft to haul 15 or 20 people, yet have a dearth of funds in respect of research and development for rail transport or other forms of ground transportation. Canadian National, practically single handed, is carrying on research and development into the turbo train. It gets all the brickbats and this government sits as a patsy for private aircraft manufacturers, most of whom are American owned. Several successive federal governments have been party to and have encouraged the de-emphasizing of rail transportation with a disproportionate priority given to the airlines, most of which are privately owned.

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
The CNR, as a publicly-owned rail system, is only paid lip service by the government. It is required to operate under financial handicaps and outmoded economic standards that effectively prevent it from adequately serving' the Canadian people and the nation. Successive national governments have set up public utilities, such as the CNR and Air Canada, and then have handicapped them with debt structure or limited operational ability to the aid and comfort of the privately owned sectors of transportation. I want to emphasize that, Mr. Speaker, particularly for the benefit of my good friend the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Successive old line party governments do not want, in fact do not dare to have, public utilities such as CNR and Air Canada succeed, as they can and should succeed.
Outmoded theories of competition between our national transportation systems effectively prevent the development of rail and air services to Canadians in all parts of Canada on an equitable basis. Hundreds of thousands of Canadians are discriminated against or ignored in the provision of transportation service which, I repeat, surely is an essential public service and a public utility. The concept of profitability as the main criterion for national transportation systems, inevitably, and by the very nature of transportation, results in inadequate, inefficient and unfair treatment of Canadian transportation needs.
Now, I would like to move to air transportation. Our publicly owned national air transportation system began in 1937. Trans-Canada Air Lines, with the backing of the federal government and of the people of Canada, were given the task of building, operating and gradually extending a national air transport system to serve Canada coast to coast. At a time when the great private, free enterprises could not and would not do it, the people of Canada, through their own public utility, took on the task of establishing a national air transportation system. Again, successive national governments gave lip service to our own publicly-owned system.
As Trans-Canada Air Lines and then Air Canada grew and succeeded, as its prospects, even for profitability and certainly for growth, appeared most attractive, the erosion of their position as a national and international air carrier began. Both old line parties, as governments, followed policies to make available to private enterprise, mostly the CPR, franchises and routes that should have gone to the system that the people of Canada built and own. But no, the CPR was to be again provided for at the expense of our Crown corporation as well as the Canadian public; it was given the gravy. For a number of years we have had an air transportation policy. It is not Orwellian, it is Pickersgillian. That policy is based on a theory which is still held by both the old line parties. The theory is that Air Canada should serve Europe and the Caribbean area, while the CPR should serve the Pacific and Central and South America. What happened?
The next thing we knew the Pickersgillian policy was ignored and CP Air was granted routes to Amsterdam, Lisbon and Madrid. My grade 5 or 6 geography tells me that those cities are in Europe and that particularly Amsterdam is in northern Europe. But CP Air got those routes and all the while our own airline, Air Canada,

continued to be excluded from the Pacific countries. Even if one were to live up to this asinine Pickersgillian policy, it is surely not logical, on the one hand, to allow CP Air to intrude into routes into Europe and, on the other, to exclude Air Canada from the Pacific countries. Surely, that situation should not be allowed to continue. In spite of an Air Canada application, CP Air was awarded the routes to Shanghai and Peking. Even while it grows, the government keeps Air Canada on the borderline of success. That whole policy needs to be radically changed, if not completely thrown out.
Similarly, on domestic routes, private regional carriers continue to be granted fat routes that Air Canada developed and that are supported by the Canadian public. The government continues to grant fat routes to private carriers which further prevents Air Canada from prospering as much as it should and prevents it from providing better services on new, isolated routes or on the less lucrative routes I suppose the classic case of the old line party pork barrel when it comes to airline routes is the granting of a route to Transair from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay to Sault Ste. Marie to Toronto, a route which is in the top ten of the best routes of Air Canada. It is passing strange. Prior to Transair being granted that route they had options on the purchase of two big four motor jets. It is passing strange that an executive assistant of one Jack Pickersgill was on the board of directors of Transair. It is passing strange that the Liberal candidate in the Selkirk by-election, within a matter of weeks after the by-election, became an executive assistant to the president of Transair. As I say, Transair got one of the ten best routes of Air Canada.


An hon. Member:: Collusion.


Mr. Peters:: That is not honest.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Air Canada has been placed in such a position that, in another 20 or 30 years, it will be like CNR; it will have a debt load that it can never repay and it will never be allowed to truly function as a national and international carrier representing Canada. The best it will be able to do will be to continue to be eroded and to be ignored in favour of outfits like CPR.
May I say a word about some other areas of transportation. Pipelines are surely public utilities as are other kinds of transportation service. A pipeline is an essential public service and should be publicly owned. It is a common carrier and part and parcel of our entire transportation system. Private enterprise has no relevance, is too inefficient and too costly, to control parts of our national and international transportation systems.
In the area of harbours I would like to ask my good friend, the hon. member for Vegreville, if he really believes that the financial and political powers in his party in central Canada will allow any downgrading or lessening of the importance of ports such as Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto in order to make sure that the port of Churchill is really developed, as well as ports such as Prince Rupert and other ports similar to those two. No way, Mr. Speaker. I have heard a great deal of support expressed by prairie Conservative members for the development of the Port of Churchill. Mr. Speaker, for six years they had an opportunity to do something really
March 20, 1973

imaginative about Churchill and Prince Rupert, and they blew it. The capacity of the Port of Churchill can be doubled and tripled within the next two years. Icebreaking services need to be improved. Wharf facilities, terminal facilities, and other ancillary services required at the port need to be constructed. A sum of $100 million or $200 million needs to be injected into the port, and a further $100 million should be spent on upgrading rail line service into the port. But this government, like all the other old line governments, has the imagination of a doorknob. If something is going to detract from Vancouver, Montreal or Toronto, then it will not do it. That is the government's way. And then members of the government wonder about alienation, and disaffection with it throughout great regions of the country.
I want to submit to the House, Mr. Speaker, what the NDP believes in and supports as part of a national transportation policy. The first and central thrust of such a policy should be that interprovincial and national transportation systems are an essential public services, and should be treated as public utilities which will provide service at cost, with profitability taking second place. An NDP government would bring about public ownership of the CP system, not just of its railway but of its airlines, its ships, pipelines, mineral rights, and various processing plants which it now operates. Everything that the Canadian Pacific system has built up over the years has been derived from the grants of money and land made to it, with the consequent siphoning-off of railway profits into other operations such as high rise office buildings and land speculation. What business the CPR ever had in getting into such things is something I do not know.
An NDP government would bring about a transfer of the balance of the CNR public debt-almost $2 billion-to the government of Canada in exchange for an equivalent value of shares, thus making the people of Canada the sole owners of our railway system. An NDP government would also bring about public ownership of interprovincial and multiprovincial pipelines. We would bring about a combination of equalized and/or subsidized passenger, freight, express and telecommunication rates right across Canada, in order to eliminate discrimination against Canadian citizens and enterprises because of geographical location, and apply such rates to the kinds of goods that people in all areas need to ship and receive.
Immediately needed is a five-year moratorium on railway branch line abandonment and agency closures, and we should halt and reverse the over centralization of customer service centres. Mr. Speaker, I see you are about to get to your feet, and I would like to tell you that I should be able to finish in about two minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Perhaps the best way to do this would be by unanimous consent, in view of the fact that the time allotted to the hon. member has expired. Does the House agree unanimously to let him continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Transportation Policy


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your kindness and that of my colleagues. I shall conclude quickly.
The seventh thing the NDP believes in and would bring about as a government would be the complete integration of rail, air and ground transportation services. Surely, it is nonsensical to waste so much money and investment on trying to improve air service from downtown Ottawa to downtown Montreal, considering that those two cities are so close together. I suspect that even now one can get as quickly by bus or rail from Ottawa to Montreal as one can get by air from downtown Ottawa to downtown Montreal. Surely, the current expenditure on this air service is a waste. Our ground and rail transportation systems suffer as a result. All three modes of transportation should be integrated, particularly rail and bus service for certain short hauls, and rail and air service for long hauls. The equalization of air fares is also essential for the movement of people in Canada. Without equalized air fares, people who live in Inuvik or Yellowknife are discriminated against outrageously simply because they do not happen to live in Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto.
The eighth thing an NDP government would do would be to undertake massive public investment into research, development and production of turbo, air cushion and monorail transportation for intercity and city transportation systems. Our metropolitan areas alone cannot cope with the necessary research and development, let alone with the installation and operation of the new kinds of systems that are required.
I close by saying that we must quit handicapping the public transportation utilities, mainly Air Canada and Canadian National Railways. We must quit preventing them from being the kind of success that they can and should be. We must quit stacking the decks against public enterprises in transportation systems. We must quit doing such ridiculous things as having Air Canada go to the New York financial market to issue $26,633,000 worth of securities, none of which were offered for sale to the Canadian public, all of which were offered for sale in the United States, half of which were bought by four U.S. insurance companies and bonding companies, with the rest going to what are called institutional investors in the United States. This is shameful. It should make any Minister of Transport blush. And all of this money went for the leasing of 2 Lockheed aircraft after the government let $50 million go down the drain on a Canadian hydrofoil. Surely the people of Canada would have provided that kind of investment money for Air Canada.
The transportation systems of Canada must become public utilities. They must be publicly owned. The sole basis of their operations must be service to Canadians, moving goods and people at cost, without discrimination against where people live. This means equalization of fares, freight and express costs. Without these things this country cannot stay as united as it should be. Without these, sections of our country will still feel angry and alienated. But with these things we can have the kind of transportation system of which we are capable, a system that can operate in a northern climate over vast distances, and that can serve citizens in any part, and I stress any part, of the Dominion of Canada.

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, we are very happy to participate in the debate on the motion presented by the Progressive Conservative party and which reads as follows:
That this House, noting that the government has failed to bring about an integrated overall National Transportation Policy, and further noting the inadequacies of ministerial response to Canada's transportation problems, deplores the Government's failure to recognize that Canada's transportation is vital to Canadian unity, regional equality, the encouragement of resource development, the increase of international and domestic trade and the betterment of the urban and rural quality of life-urges that immediate action be taken to establish an overall National Transportation Policy to bring about these objectives.
Mr. Speaker I am very happy to see that the minister is here. I think he is noting our remarks and I hope that this day will be more fruitful than all the speeches we have been making for years.
I recall the period of Mr. Donald Gordon, the years of struggle. We have known difficult years which bore more fruit than all the years we are living now.
At that time at least, the president of the Canadian National reacted but for some years, we seem to be running our head against a wall: the more we talk, the less effect it has. I think that if things keep going as they are now, in my area at least, the Canadian National will disappear.
Today I want to talk a little about the CN and then deal with our air service.
Are we justified in comparing what it costs the country to administer a company like the Canadian National, in return for the services provided? I think any hon. member is shocked when he is made aware of the disbursements of the Canadian National. For example, a bill in favour of the Canadian National that has just been introduced in the House, sets forth the estimated requirements of this company for 1973.
The Canadian National, in spite of all its receipts, says that in 1973 it will have to invest $138,978,000 in railway properties, $13 million I in branch lines, $31,897,000 in equipment, $25,946,000 in telecommunications, $5,679,000 in hotels and $8,800,000 in the CN Tower Limited, for a grand total of $225.5. And we are told what to expect for 1974, costs of $75 million and a few $100 million, with an almost unlimited borrowing power.
I wonder when the government will finally realize that perhaps the civil servants do not play their part in an impeccable manner. I do not blame the minister because he just assumed his new responsibilities. I am sure he is not more responsible of that situation than I could be myself, but the CN high ranking officials have full powers and they are those who are responsible for the astronomical administration cost of the services provided by the company.
Quite a few things can be seen in this administration, Mr. Speaker. Really, it is to be wondered whether the administrators want to give more services to the Canadians or if they simply want to break the government of Canada through the CN. The more we go-and they call

this evolution-the more the offices are filled with personnel, the more we see people getting annual salaries of $30,000, $35,000, $50,000 or $60,000. What are they doing in those offices? I ask you.


Some hon. Members:: They are not doing much.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: As the hon. member said, they are not doing much.
So as to increase this personnel they are reducing the number of men assigned to various services so that now they are getting involved in the construction of hotels.
Some civil servants are convinced that the CN is a hotel system whereas it is a transportation service. They forget that the people needed to fill up these hotels must get there by railways. I warn my dear civil servant friends that if they want their luxury hotels to turn a profit they must first send back a fair number of workmen on the railway to fix it and to make it more accessible to "big transportation" because we have had more derailments over the last few years than ever before.
Let us consider the losses caused these last few years by derailments. There are no more maintenance crews. We now have three foremen for one every maintenance man. I think the government will have to get involved and remove some freedom from all these senior officials who only dream of grandeur.
In my constituency, a servo-centre was established. Mr. Speaker, that is a wonderful thing. I even went to the opening of that centre, about which the following was said and I quote:
The establishment of this centre is a significant step in the CN service improvement program. That program provides for the establishment of a country wide servo-centre network, under which one of the most modern data processing systems will be made available to customers in the most distant areas.
I wonder where the Canadian National gets its customers in our area because the only people using the CN are the Aluminum Company of Canada Limited, Domtar Chemical Limited and four or five big manufacturers. It seems as though everything had been built for their benefit.
However, we read this:
The establishment of these centres in Canada concerns two essential railroad services: full carloads and express transport.
At the end, they say:
Servo-centres will also include passenger services and telecommunications.
Once more I wish to draw the attention of the House on passenger services. I said a while ago that the more progress we made the less service we got. We had two sleeping-cars last year, but today there is only one third of one. As a matter of fact, there are a few berths at the end of the lounge car and they call that the sleeping-car for the whole of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area. Quite an achievement considering all the money the CN is getting in our area. Let us not forget that in Quebec it is from our area that the CN gets most of its freight transport revenue. And I had figures published in this regard.
March 20, 1973

Not only is there no sleeping car but the coaches are not even clean, which is not likely to attract customers, so that each year their number decreases. When one has travelled by train once, one thinks twice before doing it again.
During my last trip, it took me exactly 20 hours to cover 400 miles. I spent 20 hours on the train-practically a work week-and the 40-hour week on the train is much more difficult than my 40, 60 or 70-hour work week.


Mr. Isabelle:: It is less of a strain.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Because it is less shaky.
Once more, I simply wanted to draw the attention of the House to this, because I have also heard that, for many years, senior officials have been willing to eliminate the passenger service, at least between Chambord and Dol-beau, or between Chambord and Chicoutimi.
As far as the servo-centre is concerned, I do not know who carried out the study, but we know that Chambord is the centre of the region since connections for the whole region of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean are made there. And in Chambord, there is nothing left! A servo-centre was established at the other end of the line, in Jonquiere, and another in Saint-Felicien, while had there been only one service in Chambord, the whole region could have been covered. But no, it was deemed useful to spend money and establish two servo-centres. Consequently, the service is quite unsatisfactory.
Before, in Chambord, they used to repair coaches or locomotives. Everything was closed down. When a car or a locomotive breaks down it is hooked onto the back of the train and brought back to Montreal for repair. A valve cannot even be repaired in Chambord. I have even seen passenger cars frozen stiff during winter. They have to be brought back to Montreal for defreezing whereas before mechanics used to repair them on the spot. All that was done away with to modernize and centralize. It is because of problems like that that we no longer have passenger services.
I do not want to take all my time to talk about the Canadian National because I have talked about it on several occasions here and because I am convinced that the result of this debate today will amount to a big zero. But I think that if people decided-


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Are you not confident?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: What?


Joseph Gaston Isabelle: Are you not confident?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: No. I have no confidence left. I hope the minister will try and restore confidence. As a matter of fact, he does all he can to restore confidence during election time. He promises the moon and stars but you do not see him afterwards. I like it when he comes to my riding, not when he comes just to make promises but to launch projects.
I hope that this time the minister will listen to us.
Turning to another subject I would like now to say a few words about Roberval airport. It is again an issue that
Transportation Policy
this minister knows very well because he actually walked on the runway at Roberval. He will remember that in the month of June 1972 the city of Roberval sent him a resolution from the minutes of the meeting of the city of Roberval which read as follows:
The Mayor told the members of the Council about the meeting with Messrs. Beaudry, Coulombe and Taillon of the Department of Transport. The latter announced that major alterations would be carried out at the municipal airport. Only 3,500 feet of the airstrip will be used, closing off a very bumpy section, while still allowing the safe landing of some types of aircrafts.
When a runway is damaged, instead of having it repaired, only part of it is used. Very soon, it will just be long enough for toy airplanes. Let me quote further:
The landing beacons will be set up accordingly and the existing ones will remain unused along the closed-off section. The 3,500-foot airstrip will be marked with white-painted lines as on the model provided and the costs will be incurred by the city.
The government could not even afford to get the white lines painted: he had the city pay for them. I continue with the question:
Following this statement, the following resolution was passed: It is moved by councillor Philippe-Auguste Morin, seconded by councillor Leonce Desgagne and unanimously resolved that the council of the City of Roberval make the Department of Transport aware of its disapproval concerning this decision and that it urges the said department to proceed immediately with the repair of the runway so as to make it usable on its whole length. Where minor repairs were involved, the City of Roberval assumed responsibility for them in accordance, as much as possible, with its contract with the Department. In the same contract, it is provided that any major repair is the sole responsibility of the department. It goes without saying that this work should be done at the Department's expense, even though the cost of the repairs are of a sizeable amount. The City of Roberval having invested over $600,000 in the development of the airport, the Department should realize the great extent of its participating and provide immediately for repairs.
Well, many representations have been made, in particular on June 28, 1972 when they acknowledged receipt of a letter I had written to the present minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) who was then Minister of Transport. I will quote another letter that I received from the city of Roberval. It stated:
To follow up our telephone call, please find herewith a copy of a letter we received from Mr. Baribeau, regional director of Quebec,...
And Mr. Baribeau's letter reads as follows:
Thank you for your letter of December 20, 1971 regarding the runway of your municipal airport which seems to have caused you some trouble in recent years. Before answering your letter I had to wait for my engineers to make a thorough study of the problem and they have just completed their report.
These studies show that the northern part of the runway (the first 1,500 feet) should be entirely rebuilt, at an approximate cost of $315,000, which would be very difficult to justify at present if one considers that the kind of aircraft flown by Fecteau Transport Aerien, namely the British Islander, may operate in all safety on the other part of the runway which is still in good condition.
When one of our aircraft used it about one month ago, someone did notice that the northern part of the runway was not in very good condition though quite safe for several types of planes. However, to be on the safe side, we propose to move the threshold of runway 16 southward, making thus a runway 3,500 feet long, which is enough for many aircraft including the DC-3.
And I happened to make a representation in this House about aircraft that are used for bush flights, to fight

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
against forest fires. Such aircraft cannot land on a 3,500 foot runway.


Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret that I must interrupt the hon. member, but his time is up. Unless he obtains unanimous consent of the House, he will not be able to continue with his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is it agreed that the hon. member should complete his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues.
Concerning the Roberval airport, I know the minister is concerned about it, since the project is on his desk. He will have the assistance of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) who committed himself during the last election campaign; I sent him a photograph, a photograph of him taken on the Roberval landing strip when he promised that he would personally make sure that the landing strip is rebuilt. I feel the Minister of Finance has made a tremendous commitment. I ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) not to hesitate, to go and see the Minister of Finance and have him keep his word.
Now, I wish to call the attention of the House to another airport now being built. I have delivered to the minister personally the specifications of the Dolbeau airport. A letter was sent to the minister on January 16.1 believe that this letter is on file at his office; I do not know who was the incumbent minister at the time. The letter reads as follows:
Two years ago, a committee was set up by the city of Dolbeau for the purpose of developing the local airport at Saint-Methode, county of Roberval. That airport is located in the geographic centre of Roberval county and was first built by the Department of National Defence in the forties to be used in emergencies.
We submitted a request to your departmental officials and those officials paid us a visit to look into the technical merits of our request.
The purpose of our letter is to acquaint you with the situation and also to ask you to agree to our request when your officials put before you a positive recommendation.
The minister is aware of the situation; I spoke to him briefly concerning that report, which I handed him. That project is worth studying, especially as the city of Dolbeau owns that beautiful flat land. I believe that the minister has gone over the field which it is quite suitable. I do not know whether he has given a final reply to the city of Dolbeau which simply asked that the work be speeded up. It would be a good thing if we could get something by next summer. This field would be used mostly as a stopover for tourist planes, fishermen's and forest protection planes. An asphalt coating for this runway would not be too expensive and I honestly think that this would prove to be a genuine asset for our area. It would complete the air transportation system at Roberval. I am led to believe the minister is willing to look seriously into whatever is wrong with the Roberval airport. I hope, also, that a thorough

study will be made in connection with the Dolbeau airport and that the area will get something for next summer.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the outcome of this afternoon's debate will be but surely certain facts will come out which will significantly help us, under whatever government, to follow a transportation policy which will truly meet our general needs.
It is normal and rather easy to criticize the government but if there is a concensus on general objectives it is not a total loss. I have been quite impressed by the remarks of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who stated a number of truths I will elaborate on later.
But the basic truth which came out of this afternoon's debate-and I would like everyone to remember it-is that this country, which we call Canada and which is ours, probably could not exist without an adequate transportation system, without all the regions being interconnected and, economically speaking, without all the Canadian regions being able to communicate with the rest of the country.
Canada-and this is nothing new-is a large country which spreads from Halifax to Vancouver and into the far north and surely if instead of speaking of unity in abstract terms each of those great regions were interconnected, that would do more for unity than anything else.
Over the weekend-if memory serves me right I left Friday noon-I went to the Arctic region. I stopped over in Calgary; I went to Inuvik and to Yellowknife and by five o'clock Sunday I was back in Ottawa without being unduly tired. This means that with modern transportation it is possible to know physically this country. Besides, I have had the opportunity to say in the North that a country which is not settled, which is not developed is not a country which actually belongs to us. It is a country which stays somewhat alien because it is not integrated, it is not developed. Furthermore it feels very isolated not only from the rest of Canada but from the whole continent.
We have today modern means of making it possible for Canadians to go out of their regional isolation. And this is very important. But at the same time, the fact that these modern means are put at the disposal of the public inevitably creates frictions.
There are things which were not accepted 50 or 100 years ago for the simple reason that what happened in Ontario, in Vancouver or in Nova Scotia was not known. But communications today enable us not only to be informed but also to travel very quickly from one place to another, so that we get the physical impression that this country is really ours and that we have the means not only to exploit it but also to enjoy it.
I think that this is the basic idea, both from the point of view of national unity and from the economic and social points of view. In fact, it is important that we have what my friend the hon. member of Vegreville (M. Mazankow-ski) called a policy of integrated transport and that, of course, even if we cannot do everything at a moment's notice, we know all the same the short and long term objectives so that Canadians know that in 5, 10, 15 or 20 years this country will really be crisscrossed by adequate transport and communication systems.
March 20, 1973

Mr. Speaker, I think that transportation in Canada is a tremendous subject and I also think that it is extremely important, even vital. It is probably one of the greatest problems in Canada: a problem of communications and a problem of transport. I simply regret that, especially in the case of the official opposition, no suggestions have been put forward.
I listened very closely to my good friend from Vegreville and I shall do like him, that is, tell him he is a nice fellow and then tell him unpleasant things. That is what he did to me; I am quite willing to play the same little game. I am sure he is sincere, but I told myself while listening to him: surely, at some point or other he will speak of transport, and tell us the Progressive Conservative party has pondered the problem. But no, he took pleasure in counting the times I gave evasive answers in the House. I shall give him the statistics: he will see that even on that score he is wrong. Anyway, it is all very amusing. As the new Minister of Transport, I am quite willing to be made fun of, because I intend to feel free to do so too.
In any event, I am sorry the Progressive Conservative party has nothing to offer with regard to such an important subject. Still the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) honours me by being here this afternoon. He will speak after me; I am therefore taking chances. I checked to see whether between 1958 and 1962 the Progressive Conservative party had really drawn up an integrated transport policy for Canada, but I found nothing. Doubtless he can tell me where I can find it, that we might be able to follow the pillar of light that got lost in the mists of time.
We see that there are problems. The most obvious of these is the problem of transportation costs, especially in western Canada. I am as amazed as anyone in the House when I come across freight rates that are higher for goods transported to Regina than for those transported to Vancouver or elsewhere. I can understand it in the context of the capitalist system, but that does not make it any more sensible; anyone who believes in profits and in the private enterprise system knows that any company tries for the highest yield that the market can absorb. And that is the only valid explanation, because from a rational point of view, there is no other. It is not just surprising, even if an explanation can be found within the context of the present system, but it is also not very rational in my opinion, it is even a provocation, to set up such a system.
That, Mr. Speaker, is why, in the debate on the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and immediately following it, I said that as soon as I had the time and as soon as the western premiers were free, I would be prepared to meet with them. They postponed the meeting with the representatives of the railway companies, not out of bad faith, Mr. Speaker, but because they wanted to have an opportunity to get together. I believe they are meeting on March 28 or 29; I do not remember the exact date. Then they will be prepared to meet the representatives of the railway companies, upon which they will be ready to meet me to talk about precisely this problem of freight rates and transportation costs in the West. And I trust that, with everyone's co-operation, we will manage to
Transportation Policy
improve the present situation, which is frequently intolerable.
We have been trying for years to do the same thing in the Maritime provinces, with the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, and also with a Transport Committee with jurisdiction over all the Atlantic provinces, which looks into all their problems. I am meeting the premiers of the Maritime provinces on April 9 to discuss how we can remedy the freight rate situation in that region. Unfortunately, I cannot do more than this; it will be the first chance I have to take action and, since our friends of the official opposition are tying us down and trying to paralyze government action as much as they can, of course, I have to ask the premiers of the Maritimes to come and meet me in Ottawa. Otherwise, I cannot see how I could do it, except on Sunday morning before Mass-for those who attend it. In any case, there is a problem in the Maritimes. There is no doubt about that. And it is a problem to which we are trying to find a solution.
Mr. Speaker, let me get away from regional demagogy for a while; one should not think that the one and only problem in the Maritimes is a transportation problem and that everything else would automatically straighten out if this problem were solved. Unfortunately, this is not true. How I would like it to be so, because the moment a solution would be found to the transportation problems, all the problems in those provinces would be solved, but that is not true. Still, we are going to make an effort in that direction.
Concerning this effort, we want it to be in co-operation with the provinces, with those concerned. If members think that by developing a general policy and applying it to the country in general, they will have solved the problem, they are mistaken, because they will only have given rise to new grievances, since the regions want the solutions we bring to really answer their respective needs.
This is why, when we conducted a study on urban transport in Winnipeg, for example, we worked jointly with the province and the municipality. We paid three quarters of the costs-I think it was $500,000-to determine whether it would be advisable to relocate the railway tracks in a city, whether to put them under or above ground, and what would be the best solution with regard to the impact on urban development. I hope that the example of Winnipeg will be followed in other cities, because the same problem occurs in many Canadian cities with railway tracks running through them and hindering the normal urban development. We are dealing with the matter and are making considerable progress.
I should now like to refer to the Maritime provinces. For example, we are told: "What are you doing about coastal traffic and the findings of the Darling report"? I will tell you what is being done with the Darling report after meeting with the Atlantic premiers who fear that the implementation of that report's recommendations would result in increased transportation costs, because, of course, foreign coasting vessels in the Maritimes often have extremely underpaid crews and do not have to bear the same costs as Canadian ships.
Nevertheless, I believe we should take every possible means in order that coastal shipping be done by Canadian ships and crews. But before we can make such a decision,

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
I want to be sure that the Maritime provinces concerned are not only consulted but are satisfied, that their position will not be worse than it is now.
That is one of the problems facing us that we are trying to solve under a comprehensive program.
Reference was made to Canada's air policy, it is not an easy thing, to be sure, for this is a vast country and there are grievances against the companies. Certainly we are one of the few countries-apart from the United States- with two great intercontinental companies competing with one another at times, which obviously raises a real problem. How can it be solved? We are looking into the matter. Can they really live side by side and develop harmoniously? Time will tell, but the department is looking into the matter and the least we can do-and I believe that is what the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre said-is to act in such a way that the state-owned company, or even the other one, are not placed in such a competitive position that sooner or later Canadians taxpayers will have to pay the cost of that apparent luxury of having two big companies serving Europe and the whole world.
What is important and fundamental for us in Canada is that we should seek abroad our share of the market, that Canadians should be able to go almost anywhere in the world on Canadian carriers and that foreigners should be able to come to this country with our own airlines, which also applies to air cargo. That is what is important if we want to prosper. In principle, I see no objection to the operation of two air carriers, but I object to their destroying one another, with the taxpayer ending up picking up the tab. But if they are wise they can share the traffic and try to make the most of the dual system. That is worth considering. I tried to understand the policy of the Progressive Conservative party on that matter. I already know that of my hon. friend from Regina-Lake Centre. I did not understand that of our Progressive Conservative friends, but I suppose they will tell us what they think sooner or later.
We have tried to reach new agreements with some countries. We recently signed an agreement with West Germany which not only gives us access to two more German cities, but also gives us what is known as the "fifth freedom of the air", in other words the right to leave Germany for destinations in other countries. We have also signed an agreement with China, under which CP Air will serve Peking and-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who gets Milan and the other two places?


Jean Marchand: The next time we make a move, you will know who will get the Milan route.


John George Diefenbaker: When will that be?


Jean Marchand: In due course, as the right hon. member used to say when he was on this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, we are trying to develop our air transport companies; we are trying to have them serve as many 
places as possible, and thus get their share of the passenger and freight markets.
All this brings us to discuss the problem of airports in Canada. Ever since it has been my honour and my great pleasure to be the Minister of Transport, I have heard talk of nothing but airports. As I was saying recently, I used to think Canada consisted of ten provinces, with two official languages and various ethnic groups. I had a very naive notion of Canada; when you get down to it, that is not Canada. Our country is split into two groups: those who want airports and those who do not want them. And I am caught between the two.
Aviation has developed during my generation; when I started working several years ago and a friend made a plane trip, we used to go down to his place to hear about his trip, because at that time very few people travelled by plane. When I was a little boy in Champlain and we heard the sound of a plane, we used to run out to see that wonderful thing. It was extraordinary, but that kind of poetry has disappeared.
The plane is no longer a bird, no longer an expression of human intelligence but a monster threatening the lives of people, a kind of cancer, and some people are afraid of it.
When there was talk of building an airport in the province of Quebec, it was not because we were behind or because another approach was being taken, but because people fought for it throughout the province. Some wanted it at Drummondville, others elsewhere.
Toronto no longer wanted it. The people in Pickering want the airport to be built elsewhere-and I understand them-but those are decisions we have to make.
In Vancouver, where they have had an airport for less than 30 years, adding another runway has created a great problem.
Now what does that mean? That means simply-and I accept it readily-that we did not expect those new reactions from people who are not necessarily enthused over the fact that planes will be landing close to their homes. People want reasons; it is true that the sound produced by modern airplanes is a great inconvenience. There will have to be a new approach about people, that is to say that before making such important decisions we undoubtedly need more consultation and information so that people will not consider progress as a threat to their peace, their security and even their life.
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to have airports in Canada as long as I will be Minister of Transport because I would be making a great mistake if, except for very serious reasons, I were to deprive a city such as Vancouver of an adequate airport. I know that the coming generation would not forgive us.
Our territory is becoming more and more settled. This is now the case in the United States; one day soon we will hear about a report presented to the president of the United States which will reveal how shortsighted people were not to set land aside for airports.
There is one thing that we could not do without in 1972 and even less in 1980: the aircraft and especially the jet which is here to stay. Maybe some hon. members still enjoy the poetry of the bus, and so on, but I believe that
March 20, 1973

for practical reasons the great majority of Canadians prefer flying.
Our friend from Regina-Lake Centre spoke about research in the field of transport but he took inconsistent position: he referred to the STOL aircraft. He said that was designed to encourage private enterprise. That is not true.
With the STOL system, we wish to make an experiment not to establish a permanent system between Montreal and Ottawa but to show that this system is possible. If it is, it means that there would be an external market for STOL aircraft which would secure jobs for Canadians and allow our economy to develop in this particular area.
Now, the hon. gentleman bares a grudge against the fact that, very often, our aircraft industry is controlled by Americans. I agree with him. He only needs to ask his friend, Premier Schryer of Manitoba who is facing the same problem with the aircraft companies settling in Winnipeg.
I am not here to change the whole system but to see that development in the aircraft industry meets our needs. So, the STOL experiment is a research investment and we are trying to show that it will serve the travellers while providing an outlet on the international market. Furthermore, I have once again heard about the hydrofoil which cost I do not know how many million dollars. But if our friend from Regina really believes in research and thinks it necessary to find new transportation means, he must not forget that many million dollars will have to be spent and possibly for nothing. The very principle of research itself is that you cannot help but work without knowing exactly what is really going to happen. We know in what direction we are working, but we do not know what the result will be.
We simply have to recall the two scientists of the United States Bell Company, who have discovered the transistor principle. They had carried out research for many years and one day they invented the first transistor which possibly cost many million dollars. But when they found the secret, it revolutionized the world.
In order to deal with almost all subjects, I shall say a word about our maritime policy. What are we doing in this field? We are trying to make our harbours efficient. We know, for instance, that there is a change in the field of maritime transportation where they have started using containers as well as huge tankers. We are endeavouring to equip our ports to cope with these changes. So, it is incorrect to say that we are not considering these things. On the contrary, we do consider them, as we did concerning the Vancouver and St. John harbours.
We are now considering two other harbours, probably in eastern Canada, and more particularly in the Mari-times, because we know that the future of transport is in that field. In fact, we will see before long some huge cargo ships, container ships, or tankers in our harbours. And we have on the east coast an asset which is entirely ours.
There are, in fact, no deep-water harbours in the United States. Oif our east coast, we have them, namely in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland, near the mouth of the St. Lawrence and that is a tremendous resource which we are striving to develop as rationally as
Transportation Policy
possible. To benefit by that advantage, we must not only resort to dredging in certain places but we must also equip ourselves with port facilities geared to the future.
I shall now broach the subject of northern development. At the present time, it is not all just talk; we are extending the highway along the Mackenzie corridor. I have just returned from a visit to that region and I feel there are terrific developments there. They have modern airports. Actually, I officiated at the inauguration of two of them, where there have been extensions. They have been provided with facilities, electronic technology and equipment for the purpose of increasing air security in the region.
For instance, we shall soon be setting up systems called VORDME-Very	High Frequency Omnidirectional
Range-in Yellowknife, Inuvik, Frobisher Bay, Resolute Bay and Whitehorse, as well as distance-gauging instrument in order that air traffic in the north may offer a maximum of security.
The Northern Transportation Company Limited has met with great success this year; besides everybody wants to buy it.
Then again, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with the problem of the Canadian Transport Commission. I hope that I shall have the opportunity of discussing it further, because often we are told: You claim that Parliament cannot do anything about it. I think that the hon. member for Vegreville has been mistaken because if he checks the blues he will see that nobody ever claimed that Parliament had no jurisdiction over the Canadian Transport Commission. He probably meant "the government" because Parliament has jurisdiction over that commission. There is no doubt that should Parliament decide to change-
The House of Commons has authority over the Canadian Transport Commission.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It does not.


Jean Marchand: Of course, it has; we can change the law.

However, being the government, we cannot give instructions to the Canadian Transport Commission. Only in a few cases appeals can be directed to the minister, such as the granting of permits. Otherwise, right or wrong, the House of Commons has legislated on the status quo of this body, as for better or for worse there has been legislation on the autonomy of the CBC, the CRTC, the Polymer Corporation Limited and others. This indicates there is some kind of Canadian tradition whereby some activities are safeguarded even against government action. If this concept were to be a matter of doubt, I am quite willing to discuss it very freely, Mr. Speaker, because I have my own opinions on this subject. However, I had the law applied as it is and I have assumed responsibility for the commission as it has been established. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, I do not recall that, between the years 1958 to 1962, under the Progressive Conservative administration, there were important amendments to the National Trans-

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
portation Act to empower the government to give instructions to this commission.
There have been a few brief comments about charter planes. Naturally every time changes have been made- this is the second time a change has occurred in this field-there has to be a five or six month readjustment period. On the other hand, the opposition members have been really helpful in this area. Cases were submitted to me and I had some changes made. No doubt there will be other matters to look into shortly and hon. members will certainly not hesitate to tell me about them.
At any rate, I have dealt with only part of the department's operations. To say in very broad and vague terms that the department has done nothing, has devised nothing and produced nothing is somewhat exaggerated. To tell us that we have not acted quickly enough, that we have made mistakes, that there are better solutions, that is a bit too thick! The opposition members really are a little too secretive; having once pretended they were robbed of some of their ideas, they seem to put away in a safe their few other remaining ideas, but why do they not sport them in the open? I for one should be happy to hear them state an integrated transport policy as they conceive it, as well as a subsidy policy also the way they see it. Now the spokesman for the official opposition perhaps was not prepared to do it, but the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), former prime minister, for his part, is prepared. No doubt he will be in a position to tell me what I have to do in the department in order to have Canada effectively provided with the best possible transportation system, so that we might be able to meet the needs of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that a sincere effort is being made in the department, which includes the Canadian Marine Transportation Administration, the Canadian Surface Transportation Administration, the Northern Transportation Company Limited, the Arctic Transportation Agency, Air Canada, a Crown corporation, the Canadian National, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, the National Harbours Board. The department is extremely complex and if ever the hon. member for Vegreville becomes Minister of Transport-when he is very old-he will be able to see how easy it is to harass a Minister of Transport since he can never know everything, be aware of everything that may go on in such a complicated and altogether important box.
We must solve the transportation problems of the Mari-times and the west and we must ensure that our air transport companies develop normally. We also have a harbour policy as well as all the necessary elements to further the progress of Canada and I think had this resolution been serious in the least, it would have given rise to a really useful debate on the subject of transportation.
This motion so far has only given the opposition an opportunity to make a few jokes-I thought one of them was funny-and allowed my good friend from the Lake St. John area to speak about the Roberval airport. I think I shall not take up the time of the House to comment on this, but I shall see the hon. member and we shall certainly agree eventually on this question.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: 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-Lan-caster (Mr. Bell)-Shipbuilding-Extension of subsidies beyond March 31; the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom)-Ports-Churchill-Action to achieve greater utilization; the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier)-Bilingualism-Teaching of French on a trial basis in the national capital.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That this House, noting that the government has failed to bring about an integrated over-all national transportation policy, and further noting the inadequacies of ministerial response to Canada's transportation problems, deplores the government's failure to recognize that Canada's transportation is vital to Canadian unity, regional equality, the encouragement of resource development, the increase in international and domestic trade and the betterment of the urban and rural quality of life-urges that immediate action be taken to establish an over-all national transportation policy to bring about these objectives.
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I like to see parliament live. I enjoy a good debate and a contribution to the debate from whatever quarter it is made. For that reason I am always fond of hearing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) who, with a minimum of argument, makes a maximum of speech. The House lives when he speaks because he is actually debating. However, I think his speech may be well summed up by the words he used earlier when he said: "Whenever we decide to act we will let you know in due course". We found out today that "due course" has not yet arrived. We had a dissertation on the subject of national unity to which I want to make passing reference. The minister claimed that little or nothing has been advanced except by the hon. member from the province of Quebec, who I thought made a quite thoughtful contribution and one which indicated there is indeed a degree of diminuition of morale in respect of the Canadian National Railway that can be attributable only to the fact that there is not now and is apparently not in anticipation a national transportation policy.
Before I go into detail, I must congratulate the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) for what I thought was an exceptionally well reasoned speech on a
March 20, 1973

subject which needs to be discussed. The minister touched on no part of the resolution. He did not touch on the suggestion that there should be an integrated over-all national transportation policy. The hon. member noted the inadequacy of the ministerial response to Canada's transportation problems, and the minister's speech has fully established that. He deplored the government's failure to recognize that Canadian transport is vital to Canadian unity, regional equality and resource development. This represents a cogent criticism of the policies of this government, or the lack of policies if I might use a better description.
I have known the minister through the years. I remember when I was Prime Minister he belonged to a party other than the one to which he belongs today. That was before the three horsemen of the Apocalypse found their way into the Liberal party. I admire his capacity for speech. I admire the enthusiasm the minister can work up in making generalities very attractive. However, when you come to finally analyzing what he said, the question becomes a simple one.
For a period of years, he was Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. During that period of years there was no endeavour on the part of the minister or the government to do anything regarding regional development on the Prairies, for instance. They were forgotten. That is one of the reasons the government received such a shellacking on the Prairies in the last federal election. One would have thought there would have been some hope of reformation. The minister spent hundreds of millions of dollars in the area in which it pleased him to spend it, and he forgot western Canada almost completely.
He talked of national unity, but I will not deal with those speeches that he made immediately after the election when overcome by surprise, annoyance and frustration, he dared to suggest that anybody who criticized the government and any of its policies was undermining Canadian unity. That was not in keeping with the fine reputation that I had built around him. Some of the statements that he made were despicable, and there can be no other way to describe them. He intimated that because I disagree with the views he holds, apparently I become somewhat of an enemy of the state. That is not in keeping with the parliamentary tradition, and that is not the kind of argument that one would have expected from him. But he was annoyed, he was exasperated, he was overcome with surprise at the defeat that had hit the government. So, he had to attack.
To begin with, I say to him that I hope the same disregard of the prairie provinces and other parts of Canada, such as the Maritimes, will not become an epidemic with him as he now finds himself in a new portfolio. I do not know why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) shifts these ministers around. There were the four-the hon. gentleman himself and-but I cannot keep up with the portfolios. There was also the one who was the former secretary of state, and there was the solicitor general.


An hon. Member:: Who was that?


An hon. Member:: Gogo.
Transportation Policy


John George Diefenbaker: All I have to do is to mention them, and you realize what a terrible mess each and all of them made in those portfolios. Now, they are redistributed. I will not go into particulars, but I was glad that the former solicitor general was removed. He is now Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) and I understand he is giving specialized attention to brooms, pails, dustpans, pots, pans and Saniflush.
I say to the minister in all seriousness, when he pictures this great country that he has just crossed on his trip to Inuvik, which took a day and a half but left him untired and still determined to do his part for national unity, that I can suggest one thing which can be done at once. I noticed that in his speech he embraced the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).


An hon. Member:: Same party.


John George Diefenbaker: It is a great picture. He put out his great arms and he took him unto himself. It is a wonderful study to watch them.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We shall take this up in caucus.


John George Diefenbaker: So far as the hon. gentleman is concerned, he does not come into the equation. He was the officiating clergyman, apparently. But I was not going to deal with him. I always like to listen to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. He spoke of what could be done and what should be done. I wonder sometimes why the NDP government of Saskatchewan does not do some of the things that he advised today the government of Canada to do. But I do not want to bring about any dissension, I do not want to do anything that will separate the partners in this beautiful marriage. However, it was interesting to watch how the minister, with unusual velocity, found so much to approve in the speech of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. I can tell him this: it is not going to hurt the union. "What could be done?" he said.
Number one, when we were in office we refused to allow the development of these horizontal increases in freight rates. The discrimination then was 15 per cent against western Canada. What is it today? Horizontal increases across the board of 15 per cent, 30 per cent, 45 per cent and 50 per cent which have placed western Canada and the Maritimes in the position of being discriminated against three times as much as when this government came into office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: When I listened to the minister's virtuous exposition on the Canadian Transport Commission, I wondered why it was that he went out of his way to put the responsibility on that commission. He indicates, by a negative turn of the head, that he did not do that. No, the responsibility rests right over there. The first thing that should be done immediately is to put a ceiling on any further horizontal increases until there is a determination of a fair and reasonable transportation cost.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy


John George Diefenbaker: That is number one, and that could be done tomorrow. I ask the minister, when he wants suggestions, whether he will act in that direction.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre dealt with how successful governments could be in business. That was part of the general picture. I ask the minister not to be misled because I seem to remember that when the CCF government, the progenitor in fact which accepted the nomenclature of NDP, came to office, they said: "we will tell you what we are going to do: the government is going into business. We are going to operate all varieties of business". I do not have a list of them here because I was not expecting to have to deal with that, but I could give a few that I wrote down a moment ago, such as boots, leather, lumber, planing mills. They went into all kinds of business, even printing, and you know what happened? They said that there will be such great profits that they would be able to raise social security to new heights without having to increase taxation. Every one of the businesses they went into went bankrupt, every solitary one. All provinces succeed in one business, that is the liquor business. As long as there is water in the streams of Canada so long will there be profits for government in the operation of the liquor business. But outside of that, there was no success, and I hope that the minister is not giving any consideration, in spite of the close relationship between him and his party and the NDP, to going into any of these operations.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre complained of the erosion of private enterprise, thereby placing before the House the benefits of public ownership. All I have to say is: by our experience in Saskatchewan you shall measure and determine the course. Now, the minister said, "But what did you people do when you were in office?" He did not tell us what he and his government were going to do. What has his government done in connection with transportation costs?


Some hon. Members:: They raised the rates.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want such a high degree of unanimity, Mr. Speaker, but apparently it covers the whole House. Does the minister forget that it was under that government that expansion of the production of rape-seed in Saskatchewan was made possible, and in the other provinces to a lesser degree, by providing the support of the party as a whole for a private bill introduced by Reynold Rapp, which brought rapeseed under the Crows-nest Pass Agreement, and therefore not only made possible the expansion of rapeseed production but put the profit on every pound of rapeseed into the pockets of western farmers? I mention just those two things. I could mention others as well.
Just by way of example, what is the minister going to do about freight rates? What is the government going to do? It is not enough for him to say that, "Some time, somewhere, some place we will tell you about it in the future." Niddle-noddle is exactly the attitude he displayed today- neither this nor that, but words mounted in great eloquence. There was no answer to the proposition placed before the House by the hon. member for Vegreville in a remarkably astute, able, and well delivered speech.

The minister spoke of northern development. Did he find any when he was up there that was not brought into affect under my administration, or as a result of the policies of this party during our period of office? What did we do for transportation? We provided assistance to every province in Canada, $71 million over a period of five years either for the building of highways to resources, or in those provinces that did not have mineral resources, for tourist encouragement and the like.
What did we do, Mr. Speaker? Well, I remember all the criticism, I remember the Liberal party going up and down the length of Canada when I spoke of building roads into the north. They said it was a dream, that what I had in mind was to build highways from igloo to igloo. So original was that, that when I looked up the debates of 1874 respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway I found that the Liberal party of that day said "from wigwam to wigwam." That was the only change made in 80 years. There was no consideration given to the north.
I remember when we brought forward legislation to provide the guarantee for the building of the railway from near Grimshaw, Alberta, to Pine Point, how they jeered. You could almost describe it as cynical disregard for the facts. Today that railroad is one of the most lucrative in all Canada, and has opened up northern resources to an extent that was even dreamt of by us, although we realized the great potentialities of the north. We followed that policy in northern Canada, in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. But what did we hear today from the minister? He said, "I am going to build a couple of airport warning signals. We are really thinking about it." Mr. Speaker, no minister ever got an appreciation of northern development by flying to Inuvik and back in 40 hours. Look the situation over up there. There is so much that can be done, so much to do, and so much that will bring new wealth to Canada.
When I rose today, Mr. Speaker, it was not to deal particularly with these matters, but to discuss for a while a matter of very deep concern to me, one that deserves the consideration of the House. It has to do with a subject that is being discussed now all over again. How are we going to transport the oil and the gas of northern Canada to the markets? There have been a number of alternative plans. One is by ship, a most dangerous potentiality to environmental pollution. There have been a number of suggestions that there should be pipelines. Where? There are two different routes.
I suggest to the Minister of Transport that he should fully look into a question that I raised in the House on February 15, and to which I am going to direct my remarks. As recorded at page 1311 of Hansard I asked:
In view of the fact that one of the most important economic matters facing our country today is the question of the transport of oil, gas and so on from the Yukon and Alaska I wish to ask the Minister of Transport whether there is a task force now operating to the end that problems of environmental difficulty and so on will not come into being should the suggestion be accepted to build a railway from the north having its initial terminus in Saskatchewan...
But I am not going to argue that, even though with complete objectivity I would like to see Prince Albert in that position. There was not a word on that today. On February 15, the minister said:
March 20, 1973

So far as other highways or railways in the north are concerned, we are negotiating with the British Columbia and Alberta governments.
There was not a solitary reference to these negotiations in the wide generalities used in the speech which we just heard from the minister. On receiving that reply, I asked him:
I should like to ask him whether or not the most appropriate route would not be through Saskatchewan, and what is the estimate today of the cost of such a railway through British Columbia and Alberta with the terminus I mentioned in Saskatchewan. Have any such estimates been made?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It is with regret that I have to remind the right hon. member who has the floor that his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: According to the rules, the right hon. member can continue his remarks only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John George Diefenbaker: I thank my colleagues and all hon. members. The answer given by the minister was:
I have not yet met with the Premier of Saskatchewan. I intend to do so.
I would think there would be no more ideal time than the present. This is one of those things that cannot but add cement to the rather uncertain relationship that prevails now. The minister added:
I think we will have to study the whole question of transportation in the north in consultation with the provinces.
What has been done, Mr. Speaker? What has been done in the last month by the government in this connection?
The minister also said:
Whenever those studies are complete I will be happy to make a report to the hon. gentleman.
I do not expect to be here until eternity, Mr. Speaker, and I simply ask: when are we going to get this report? Any time the minister would like, 1 am prepared to give him my place to enable him to answer that question. What is he doing except talking?
When the oil field in Alaska was discovered some four years ago there was no suggestion of railway transportation. There was silence on the part of railway companies. There was silence as the icebreaker Manhattan chopped its way through the inland passage north of the Arctic circle. Even when Boeing proposed flying the North Slope crude oil out of Alaska there was no response from the railroads. I agree with what has been said today by members on both sides of this House about Canadian railway companies. They do not give a tinker's damn for the average Canadian, or for providing transportation. They have reaped the benefits, taken the cream and now they want to leave ghost towns and provide the kind of service in the Chicoutimi area of the province of Quebec that was referred to earlier today.
Transportation Policy
In the spring of 1971 the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport initiated an engineering, economic and environmental feasibility study of a railway to carry Arctic oil to market. Later, this study was expanded to include the transportation of liquid natural gas. The study was prompted by an earlier preliminary analysis by the Transportation Research Institute at Carnegie-Mellon University. With the co-operation of Carnegie-Mellon, the CNR, Canadian National Telecommunications, PROCOR Ltd., Canadian Pacific and Catalytic Enterprises Ltd., 16 professionals associated with CIGGT completed the oil transportation feasibility study. The report, which I have read carefully and which is available, concluded that such a railroad is technically and operationally feasible and appears to be financially attractive. There were various proposals. One proposed route would start at Prudhoe Bay, proceed along the Arctic slope to the Mackenzie delta and then southeast along the Mackenzie River valley for a distance of some 1,200 miles.
What is being done? What did the task force decide upon, if anything? What is the government doing today to consider the matter of railway transportation? Such a railroad would, according to estimates, require an average employment of 5,000 people for construction over a 5 J-year period. It would do much to open the north; it would mean that thousands of people would establish themselves in the north in the same way as they have already been established by the U.S.S.R. in similar latitudinal areas of that country. It would mean a great increase in population in the north. It would bring about not only direct employment but indirect employment. The economic benefits would be substantial for all of us in this country.
The figures which I have indicate that the railway would require some 360 six-axle locomotive units and
11,000	tank cars of 94-ton capacity. It would require 20 trains per day of 168 cars, towed by five locomotive units, to move the necessary 2 million barrels of oil. The railway would be double-tracked, with advanced communications.
What is being done in that area? There will always be some environmental difficulties. They are inevitable no matter what mode is used to transport this oil to market. The real environmental question is simply, which mode of transportation and which route can permit the required movement of oil at acceptable economic cost within an acceptable time period and with a minimum of environmental cost? That subject deserves attention.
Let me now speak of Arctic pipelines. The great difficulty with oil pipelines in the Arctic is that they must operate at high temperatures, between 150 and 180 degrees. Buried pipelines cannot be insulated to prevent permafrost melting under such conditions. Elevated pipelines are expensive and pose additional environmental problems. A railway does not generate heat to these high temperatures and accordingly need not melt the permafrost: the thick surface layer of crushed rock ballast is good insulation and thus it is easier to prevent ground damage than it is in the case of a pipeline or even a road. As well, wildlife will benefit if there is a careful selection of route.

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
This could be done, Mr. Speaker. People used to say that the Hudson Bay Railway would never be built. Macdonald predicted the Hudson Bay Railway when he spoke in Regina in July, 1885. He predicted routes into the north. He said that there would be within very few years a railway to Prince Albert, the most northerly place in the territories at that time. He was right: it came in 1891. He had predicted, as well, the Hudson Bay Railway but that did not come about until Sir Wilfrid Laurier launched it in 1908.
Economically, the effects of a railway would be entirely positive, as I have said. One of the major secondary benefits would be peripheral mineral development, that is, resource development and the creation of jobs. These beneficial effects would be felt in every part of our country. We now know that the north is actually the safety deposit box of those things that through the years will assure us that freedom will survive. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to this proposal. For some reason, the bureaucrats do not want anything like this, and when the bureaucrats do not want anything they throw cold water on it. But the time has come for the government to act and follow policies along lines adopted by the administration I had the honour to lead, which effectively opened up the north for the first time.
There is a tremendous challenge in this area. To the minister I say, if he wants to take his place in the history of our country he must challenge the certainties of bureaucrats who, having determined that what they have in mind is best, refuse to face the greater issue of the future of Canada. I ask him to give consideration to my proposal, because I find more and more that parliament does not have the effect it used to have. The bureaucrats prepare the menu and the minister brings it in and says, "Eat." Amendments are denied; legislation is pushed through, even when there is a majority, by closure. In conclusion I say this to the minister, as I said at the beginning: when he speaks, this great institution lives, because he has that infinite capacity, with the knowledge that he has, of being able to speak in such a way that the House of Commons once more becomes a vital place.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) made reference to the minister, who spoke previously. I am wondering, as a backbencher-


Thomas Miller Bell: The hon. member is not a backbencher.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -if it is in order to make comments about the remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert in the latter part of his speech. The first thing that comes to my mind is that Your Honour rules questions and statements out of order on the ground that they are contrary to the customs and traditions of this House and these traditions must be maintained. This is what we are told. I say to the right hon. member for Prince Albert that sometimes some of his comments fall into that category. Nevertheless, I believe that sometimes we should ignore customs and traditions if we want to introduce changes. How could men have gone to the moon otherwise? I feel that it is important to bring about these changes.

Speaking to the motion, national transportation objectives must be supportive of society's larger goals. They cannot be overly precise, static or absolute in nature and must be conscientiously and continuously reviewed and revised. Such objectives should be expected to change, to acquire different priorities and to require balancing off against other conflicting or competing objectives. This, of course, is no more true of transportation than of other areas of governmental concern and endeavour.
I am happy that the motion speaks of national unity. I believe the loyal opposition should practise what they preach. They certainly did not try to practise that in the last general election. Some hon. members who speak at various clubs and meetings do not encourage national unity by discouraging some of the policies of this House. I wish to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Jean Marchand's-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -experience in DREE will be of great help in the Department of Transport because the problems of regional disparity are closely linked with those of transportation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) will work together on a transportation policy. I know they will do this. The sincerity of the minister has been questioned somewhat. The choice of Mr. Marchand-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -to deal with the Department of Transport was a good one, because this is a subject that he likes and in which he is interested. Mr. Marchand-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -is the best choice to deal with the tens of thousands of workers related directly or indirectly to the Department of Transport. This minister is concerned about everyone in this field, from the air controllers to the pensioned workers of the railways. He has made representations to the railroad pertaining to the request of the railroad pensioners. They are asking for equality with Air Canada pensions. The minister has made these representations because these workers come under his department. As a union man, Mr. Marchand-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -fully sympathizes with the needs of the ordinary workers and the ordinary people. That is why he is head of this department, the department of his choice. While he liked the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, because of what he has done since taking over the portfolio of the Department of Transport I sincerely believe that he likes it and wants to study it thoroughly. He wants to be well informed. He wants to be an authority so that not only can he answer the opposition's questions in this House but also the needs of
March 20, 1973

Canadians throughout this country. That is his purpose and dedication to his ministry.
I compliment the minister for not wanting to answer questions of which he is not sure. Instead, he puts the whole department to task, including myself, by continually having meetings in the morning, afternoon and night. He asks the departmental officials to co-operate with us, continually briefing us and informing us in various aspects of the department. He studies all matters pertaining to his department so he can best serve not only the people of the House of Commons but all Canadians. For that I compliment the minister.


An hon. Member:: Nice speech.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I have not finished. I hope I will be given the same time as some other speakers. Mr. Marc-hand-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -is quite knowledgeable about the whole of Canada, including Quebec. With his Quebec background, as Minister of Transport he can use various transportation facilities from coast to coast to improve national unity in which he has so frequently demonstrated that he is a strong believer. He is convinced of this. Members of this House should follow his example and be sincere with regard to that particular policy. Mr. Mar-chand's-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -whole career as a politician and in private life-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but under the rules when addressing a minister, one should mention his title and not his name.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased you have brought that to my attention. I know that everyone will recognize that the minister I am speaking about is the Minister of Transport. The minister's whole career as a politician and a labour leader indicates that he is well aware of the little people, small farmers, small businessmen and the forgotten people who must rely so heavily upon transportation and for whom costs are so important.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the parliamentary secretary explain how his remarks are apropos this motion?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. That is not a point of order.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Would the parliamentary secretary accept a question now, or at the end of his remarks?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The minister will do all possible to ensure equitable freight rates and other fair policies pertaining to his department. The minister's open-door policy and his willingness to meet groups who wish to
Transportation Policy
make representations will be conducive to a better understanding of transportation problems across our great country. In the next few weeks, for example, the minister will be discussing transportation matters with each of Canada's premiers and with many other groups.
I wish to continue speaking to the motion and what the minister has done. It is all right for the opposition to criticize; that is their role. However, the loyal opposition has an important responsibility to be constructive in their criticism and not just to criticize for the sake of criticism. Since I have been here they have not been constructive; they do not even say what they would do; they do not really know what they want to suggest.
What has the Minister of Transport done? In the few weeks that he has been Minister of Transport he has not only been to Quebec and Ontario but to Calgary, Yellowknife and Inuvik. That shows how sincere he is in his work. Last weekend he opened some new facilities in the west. At that time he spoke of his concern for national unity. He also spoke of the importance of transportation, enabling Canadians to move about, to meet one another, to earn a living and to help in various ways.
What contributions has the minister made to regional equality? As Minister of Transport he will become involved in the same way as he did in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. For example, during his northern trip he emphasized that to make travel easier, the policies which he mentioned must be put into effect. The minister visited Newfoundland. He will be going to Vancouver. He met with the Atlantic premiers. He will be travelling across the country to become better informed.


Mr. Hellyer:: Is he stopping at St. Boniface for gas?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: He has not yet been to St. Boniface, but I extend an invitation to him. The minister has concerned himself about the encouragement of resource development by assisting in the development of airports and authorizing subsidies to transportation companies. I call attention, by way of example, to current plans for the B.C.-Yukon transportation system.
Hon. members will be aware of what my hon. friend said over the weekend in reference to the Northern Transportation Company. It is his intention to study the feasibility of railroads in the north, both as an alternative to pipelines and as a means of encouraging resource development. In addition, he has been active in promoting the greater use of unit trains. By adopting measures aimed at the expansion of port facilities he has contributed to the expansion of domestic and international trade. I draw attention, also, to the studies which are going on with regard to the improvement of our deep water port facilities, the increased use of containers and the greater efficiency of our container ports, already among the best in the world.
Consider what else has been achieved. The Seaway has been improved. The Welland canal bypass is opening this year. Bilateral air agreements have been concluded in Canada's favour. Only last week an agreement with China was announced; Canada is the first country to be granted landing rights in that country. I would remind hon. mem-

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
bers, too, of the decision to grant landing rights in West Germany to Canadian aircraft. All these things should be borne in mind when assessing what the minister has done. I could say a great deal more about his contribution to the improvement of the quality of life both in urban and rural areas. However, I do not have time in which to do so because I have a few more notes from which I intend to quote.
There is another area I should like to mention. It concerns the improvement of man's environment in terms of controlling pollution and preserving natural historic and cultural resources. This was an issue dealt with in a study paper published in 1971 and I quote from it briefly as follows:
Providing for national security and ensuring adequate sources of assistance in the event of national disasters, physical and economic.
The foregoing are in large measure the points at which transportation policy-making begins and to which it must continually refer. They emphasize the need to analyse transportation problems systematically so that their constituent elements can be related to the elements of our objectives and to our broad principles. Determining the implications of these relationships is crucial to the framework for approaching this task.
Patently, it is important that we as a nation identify and articulate our transportation objectives and secure for them a broad degree of public understanding and acceptance. Achieving the necessary degree of acceptance will be no small task, given the large role of the private sector in transportation, the independence of transportation regulatory bodies, the sharing of transportation responsibilities by many levels of government, and the confusing barrage of conflicting information that seers of every description hurl upon an already confused public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Railways have played an important role in the development of Canada and the growth of its urban centres. The increasing need to provide for urban mobility to meet population growth in Canada's urban areas has led, however, to a situation where railway facilities are in many ways a troublesome presence which interferes with urban mobility and safety, occupies valuable sites, presents formidable obstacles to desirable directions and patterns of urban growth, and contributes significantly to the blight of land.
Accordingly, the federal government is presently considering the extension of financial aid toward the solution of railway-highway grade-crossing problems. The whole question has recently been studied in Winnipeg in a project jointly funded by federal, provincial and municipal governments and the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. It is hoped that legislation will soon be introduced which will provide a mechanism to assist in the development of rail relocation or traffic rerouting schemes. A railway grade-crossing fund with annual expenditures of $15 million to $20 million is presently in existence. It is expected that new legislation will appreciably raise the ceiling of such expenditures over the years.
I would now like to quote from a submission made to the government by the Canadian Federation of Mayors

and Municipalities which met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and members of the cabinet yesterday, March 19.1 quote their submission as follows:
A study undertaken by the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities of some 85 transportation plans from some 25 Canadian cities during the last ten years showed that only ten had been completed while others are in some stage of implementation and many have been allowed to die on the drafting boards. In many cases, plans prepared by private consultants could not stand the test of public and political scrutiny. The majority, however, failed because of an inadequate tax base at the municipal level.
There is no greater challenge facing our age than coping with the surging tide and demands of urbanization as reflected in our transportation requirements.
There is need for a full partnership, full co-operation, full involvement and a full understanding of the need to reallocate responsibility and resources in a manner which allows each level of government to carry out its share of the responsibility of making our communities the places of hope, opportunity and progress that we wish them to be.
It is for these reasons that the municipalities of Canada seek the appointment of a municipal representative to the commissioner level of the Canadian Transport Commission.
Mr. Speaker, this is in line with the throne speech and with the meeting between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), the provincial premiers and the Western Economic Conference slated to take place on July 15, 1973. The regulatory field of transportation is never one which is popular with all the people or with all facets of the transportation industry. In this area the challenge has been to establish and to maintain, wherever possible, economically viable and competitive transportation systems. More often than not, however, public subsidies have been and will continue to be required for reasons that range from national unity to the basic needs of our people. While the trend has been, in most competitive fields, toward modernization and centralization, this will not be allowed to progress to the point of services being eliminated or reduced on purely economic grounds.
On the other hand, we must continue to look to the needs of the future. In co-operation with other levels of government, progress is being achieved. Municipal transportation systems are being tested on a practical basis using known technology. At the same time, we are actively involved in research programs which in the future could affect all modes of transportation.
While time does not permit a complete discussion of the complex field of transportation, I can assert that our policies in this field are aimed not only at filling the needs of today but they are also looking toward the needs of tomorrow. None of our programs in the field of transportation will be successful if the people they are to serve do not participate in their development. This is an area where elected representatives at all levels of government should openly express the views of the people they represent. This is what the Minister of Transport is attempting to do: he and his department are studying all aspects of their responsibilities. I assure the House and the Canadian people of the sincerity of the minister. Of all the people capable of doing this job, he is the best.


Thomas Miller Bell: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand there is some agreement we should limit our speeches tonight to 15 minutes. I do not think an order need be made, but everybody can prepare their speeches
March 20, 1973

with that shorter period in mind and Your Honour might see that this arrangement is carried out.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, the subject this evening is transportation. The problem is the lack of leadership. The answer is common sense. The need is for a completely new, imaginative approach to transportation in Canada-in short, an entirely new transportation policy. Transportation is the one area which affects the lives of all Canadians. Basic legislation in this area is a makeshift, patch job over old ideas that were barely adequate when introduced. Successive ministers of transport over the past ten to 12 years have failed miserably to produce leadership or a cohesive on-going plan of action.
Aware that my colleagues will be dealing with specific regional problems, I intend to cover generally some of the areas of concern to those of us in Ontario. No matter where one looks, the lack of future planning is evident. On water, we find harbours that are as antiquated as the pork-barrel method of appointing commissioners to the harbours boards. Not only are the harbours not integrated into the over-all transportation system, but they frequently fail properly to serve the recreational needs of the community of which they are part. With harbours a blight on many waterfronts, the harbours boards perpetuate a style and system even less adequate than the government which created them.
In the air, we have seen the government play power politics with people over airports, and all at the expense of the Canadian taxpayer. We end up with two airports where one was obviously adequate, with none where one is desperately needed and easily provided, with extensions of airports at terrible cost to people and the environment. Obvious planning just a short time ago would have avoided all these problems. It is my personal opinion that a second airport in the Toronto region is absolutely uncalled for, unnecessary and an affront to common sense. I am proud to belong to a party where I can take this stand, knowing I will be listened to and not forced to hew the party line, in this case a Liberal party line-a line of obvious fiscal and environmental insanity.
Airlines are being forced to service areas other than the highest population density areas where the majority of the travelling public originates. Passengers from some areas frequently have to travel the same airspace twice to a destination because of inadequate service. Foul-ups of all kinds are the order of the day, and passenger service is
26087-7J
Transportation Policy
frequently the last requisite of a change in policy. Canadians are still forced to pay more for travel in their own country, on their own government-owned airline, than they do to leave their country on their own or any other airline. These and the new charter regulations make a mockery out of common sense. Already the new advance booking charter rules are being broken. The ABC rules mean "Any Body Can", and they do.
In the private and industrial flying sector, the situation is worse. Millions of dollars are spent annually on searches for lost aircraft. A portion of that money would provide a network of radio beams which would definitely go a long way toward doing away with the basic cause of accidents. I could not agree more with the many private pilots who claim that the cost of the so-called art at the major airports across Canada would easily pay for a good guidance system.
Truck transport is such a complete shemozzle in Canada that it is hard to know where to start. Lack of uniform licensing codes between provinces puts carriers in this field at a distinct disadvantage to trains. Railways buying out trucking lines with taxpayers' money to compete against other trucking firms owned by those same taxpayers seems to me the height of a ridiculous situation. The lack of leadership in this field is appalling.
Railways are the backbone of this country, both literally and figuratively. One might say that the country was formed to build a railroad and the building of the railroad formed the country. The railroads were built under adverse conditions, with equipment and techniques current then but antiquated in light of present day technology. They were built, however, with vigour by ingenious and daring men, and for one reason only-to serve a growing country.
The Liberal party has an interesting record in the area of railroads, one which continues to this day. In the late 1800s, after 18 years in opposition they denounced the fledgling Canadian Pacific Railway as an insane and ruinous defiance of North America's natural transport routes. Let me quote Mr. Donald Creighton, a Canadian historian of excellent repute, when he spoke of Mr. Laurier presenting the transport phase of the new Liberal nationalism.
They flung to the winds their old prudent and parsimonious misgivings about trans-continental railway enterprises; and with a swiftness and completeness acquired through frequent practice, they paid the last of the Conservative national policies-the policy of all-Canadian transport-the supreme compliment of adoption. Against all their grave warnings and gloomy predictions, the Canadian Pacific Railway had proved itself a tremendous success.
And the country grew and Mr. Laurier furthered this newly adopted policy.
-the Prime Minister's control of railway policy was absolute; and his great new railway enterprises moved steadily forward as lavish in execution as they had been grandiose in conception. The supervision of its construction was ostensibly entrusted by Laurier to a special National Trans-continental Railway Commission, composed of commissioners who knew nothing about railways and chaired by an ousted Liberal premier of Quebec-Simon Napoleon Parent, who regarded his appointment as a well-merited opportunity of serving the Liberal party and rewarding its political friends.

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
Continuing to quote Mr. Creighton when he spoke of Mr. Arthur Meighen who for a short while was Prime Minister of Canada:
He had never assumed that the Conservative policies of the nineteenth century were a sufficient answer to the problems of the twentieth. As a principal author of the Canadian National Railways he was strongly committed to state ownership.
Mr. Speaker, while I would love to go on and read much more of this fine book, I will end with this quote:
The Liberals had always preached a highly decentralized Canadian federalism. They had opposed Macdonald's national policies during the nineteenth century; and they had resisted most Conservative attempts to use the power of the state to carry out the characteristic national purposes of the twentieth.
What is the situation now? Carrying forward debts, not of their own making, the CNR has for a number of years been guilty of providing far less than adequate service, abandoning lines, reducing services, and of behaviour not becoming a well run railroad. A single example might be the much discussed passenger service between Barrie and Toronto. Made an election issue in an attempt to defeat the hon. member from York-Simcoe, $100,000 was promised by the Liberal government to test this service and, sure enough, the day after the election the test period began. Approximately a month later it stopped. Despite the fact that it carried almost exactly the proposed estimated daily number of passengers, it was termed a failure.
The charge supposedly paid by the federal government to the Canadian National Railways per coach was about $450 and yet two years earlier, in October, 1969, a private citizen, Mr. John Medcof of Barrie, rented the same coaches from the CN at $150 per coach and made a profit on his trial run. No attempt was made to tie in the experimental service with interconnecting buses or other existing services. This will give you some indication of the sincerity with which this government approaches the need for train commuter service in Ontario.
I must take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to read into the record again a question which the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) asked in the House of Commons on March 9 of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand):
Last June the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications recommended that all rail passenger services which were discontinued on November 1, 1970, in southwestern Ontario be re-established immediately and, second, that a joint study group of federal, provincial, and municipal officials and railway employees be established to determine a minimum rail passenger network at the lowest possible cost. This unanimous recommendation to parliament was signed by 20 members almost nine months ago. When is the minister going to take action on this matter?
The minister, in an equally long answer which said virtually nothing, blamed the fact that we had no railroads on the provincial government of Ontario and the government of metro Toronto. What the hon. member for Bruce wanted, of course, was service in an area where the federal government, if it wants to, can exercise complete control. The intercity passenger transport study, which the minister referred to as the Sobermann report, is an excellent research document and could well be the basis of future services, if it is ever used. One of the conclusions of this report is that in the 1970s-
The greatest benefit would be derived from improvements in the existing modes, such as on-time reliability (and consequent reduc-

tion in waiting time), passenger processing procedures, and rail improvements using existing trackage.
To this I add my own partial list of problems concerning commuter trains: the elimination of decent food service on trains is a cause of much complaint; the lack of adequate baggage handling facilities further discourages the travelling public; the lack of co-ordination of schedules with other services, and even other trains, confuses and further prohibits train travel; and the use of old-fashioned, uncooled, poorly ventilated coaches makes travel distasteful.
Mr. Speaker, may I make it abundantly clear, as I have in other instances of criticism on my part, that I am not condemning the employees of the Canadian National Railways or, for that matter, Air Canada. It is safe to say that I know almost a thousand of these employees personally, coming as I do from Belleville, the Rideau area headquarters of the Canadian National, and I know them to be conscientious, hard working individuals dedicated to their tasks, from the running trades to top management. No, Mr. Speaker, I lay the blame for this dreadful service right at the door of this government, and particularly the Minister of Transport. The Canadian National Railways and Air Canada are operators; they carry out the policy, or lack thereof, to the best of their ability. 'Where this policy is outdated or completely lacking we cannot possibly blame the operators for the deplorable conditions.
The common sense answer to most of the criticism I have levelled comes in the form of a new transportation policy. Just as Mr. Meighen was not prepared to accept the policies of the nineteenth century as being good enough for the twentieth, so the policies of the first half of the twentieth century are not relevant in the last half and, indeed, in this fast-paced world in which we live the policies of the 1960s are not readily acceptable in the 1970s.
In the field of research and development surely this country, which has a wealth of scientific and engineering talent, could develop a transportation system, if not better than, at least equal to the Japan national railways' system which operates trains at 150 m.p.h., or the French national railways' system which holds a rail speed record of 205 m.p.h. Do we really have to wait on a United States-based firm to spend years developing a train like the Turbo which balks at cold weather? Perhaps the U.S. or the Minister of Transport has not realized we have snow here in the winter.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I find it completely inconsistent that with the inadequacies I have pointed out, and with those outlined by my colleagues, we could possibly need an increase in the estimates for this year. I find, however, that the department has asked for an additional $224,303,000 and before these estimates can be passed we have a request for supplementary estimates of $107,308,580. The Canadian public will not long stand for this kind of extravagance. I am confident I speak for most taxpayers when I say that they are prepared to pay for services rendered, but to have budgets increased as these are, and still be presented with the level of service available today, is unpardonable.
Properly operated, the Department of Transport has, in my opinion, far greater potential for the reduction of
March 20,1973

regional disparity in the country than the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or any other gerrymandering program developed by this government. The key words are "properly operated". The Trudeau government has not to date demonstrated any ability or inclination to bring this department, or any other for that matter, into the present, never mind the future. My colleagues, under the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), are prepared to use the daring, imagination and initiative, inherently part of our party over the years, to bring about the changes required.
I see I have taken 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say a few words on the subject of transportation, the issue having been brought before the House on the motion that we need an over-all, integrated national transportation policy. The mover of the motion points out that immediately upon this being found, it will solve the vital Canadian issues of unity, regional equality, the encouragement of resource development, the increase of international and domestic trade and the betterment of the urban and rural quality of life. This is an amazing proposition. Obviously, the search must be on in a very thorough way to find this tremendous national policy which would produce all these fantastic results.
The motion comes forward, in other words, in response to the fact that, in more precise words, the mover thinks there are improvements which could be made to our transportation policy. I do not suppose anyone would deny that. No matter who comes forward with a national transportation policy, there would be those who would suggest improvements to it.
Indeed, in this large country, with its low population, we are very dependent upon a national transportation system. It should not be assumed that some magic theory will suddenly produce a policy which will solve all our problems and create these great good things which the mover of the motion, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), has decided would happen if a magic transportation policy were discovered. It is, of course, much easier to point to a specific problems, anomalies and difficulties than it is to establish cures which in fact not only deal with the problem but avoid creating new difficulties and new anomalies. That, of course, is an issue which is before us and will be before us for a long time.
It is rather ironic that a man from western Canada should move this motion at a time when the government, in the Speech from the Throne, has indicated a fundamental awareness of the need to examine transportation issues, to discuss these with the provincial governments and to produce results which will indeed further economic development in those areas of the country where that is the pressing need. It is, I suppose, fairly typical of these opposition motions and attacks that they usually come exactly in the area where a great deal of thinking and activity is gping on and where, indeed, they suspect we are likely to be moving toward new solutions and they want to appear to have been pressing for the improvements. That, of course, is nothing new and is not something we should be surprised about or should indeed argue against. That is
Transportation Policy
the role of an opposition. The question is whether it is being performed well or not very well.
The matter of a national transportation policy includes some pretty major questions about what we are doing and how we are doing it. There is also the rather important question of who will pay for what is done. No one should think that simple bookkeeping would change the fundamentals of that. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) seems to think that if we transferred the debts of the CNR from one account to another, that would bring about great gains. I think members should realize that the nature of the accounts, expenditures and the profit and income position, is understood and known. No simple transfer will make any difference at all.
The call for a new national transportation policy reminds one, as the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) has been reminded, of other national policies, particularly the national policy of Macdonald, which have had a part to play in the development of this country. Of course, the problems in respect of that national policy have created some anomalies and inequities such as in the tariff which the Tories built and maintained-which must be overcome by a new dynamic policy-which resulted from that structural development. Not only do we have the Speech from the Throne, but we have what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said when he was in the west, to the effect that he would be seeking a new national policy which would meet the aspirations of western Canada.
Many of us know, when we seek solutions to meet the aspirations of western Canada, they will be the same solutions which will meet the aspirations of other regions of the country, the Maritimes and eastern regions as well as the west. Solutions are the same for them because the transportation problem, the development problem and the population problem are often the same. Then we have hon. members saying that we need improvements. They point to things being done or which will no doubt be done in the next six months or a year and use those as examples. But they have not yet pointed out any co-ordinated and integrated national policy they would suggest be put in place, because when they have to come to specifics it is not that simple a job.
We have some examples of our progress in improving handling in the transportation system and the movement of products. Members opposite frequently have forgotten what has been done. I think, for instance, of the movement of grain in this country. Only a few weeks ago hon. members opposite stood up and asked when we would create a system of control or co-ordination for the movement of grain. They do not seem to realize that with the introduction of the block system in Winnipeg, and the co-operation which resulted from its operation and the introduction of a co-ordinator at the terminal at both ends for the movement of grain, we have in fact put in place an organized, efficient system for handling the movement of this extremely important product.
The only really difficult problems which hon. members can cite against the progress which has been made, against the performance of the handling of grain, comes when circumstances occur over which no one can have any or easy control. Among those which no one can control are weather conditions such as we had last year.

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
These unusual weather conditions impeded the movement of grain. Those over which one has control only with difficulty include the weapon of the strike, the industrial dispute which leads to a stoppage of work. This is not easy for anyone to solve, as we have seen in jurisdiction after jurisdiction, provincial and federal, in this country. Governments, whether they be Conservative and fail for months to manage to handle an elevator strike, or NDP, as in Saskatchewan, and have one of the worst years in the history of that province in terms of labour disputes, find it impossible to face up to the difficult problem of overcoming the decision of employees and of employers to disagree about how they will settle their arrangements between themselves.
These are examples which members opposite can cite as a temporary problem or failure of the system. But when these do not occur, the system works amazingly well; it works superbly. The system is capable of setting new records. It has allowed the handling of grain at a record level of millions of bushels beyond that forecast as possible with the same system only a short time before. That is a performance which is important and worth remembering.
We have, of course, in the area of the movement of grain the old and traditional friend, the Crowsnest pass rates. The Crowsnest rates have meant that the mover of grain has not been subject to a charge higher than that which existed in 1896, and he is not to this day. There are many people in western Canada who think this is a tremendous benefit to the west. The fact is, of course, that it has not worked out quite that way, because the cost of moving the product must be borne whether it is in freight rates or in some other form. In the system we face now there is the possibility of losses on products moved under those statutory rates being recovered from the rates which are charged on other products in the competitive area. Others very close to those who benefit from the statutory rates often bear the burden of the loss on those rates in the manner of recovery of the costs.
This is a fact which we should bear in mind and should not run away from when looking at the over-all question of how we can make more sensible our rate structure and the way in which it affects the development of the country. No one from the west could possibly ignore the anomalies which exist. Because of competitive conditions which may exist at the west coast or at some similar long distance point from the originating point, rates may be lower than those which are charged on the Prairies for the delivery of goods at an intermediate point.
The costing people can make a case for the fact that if you did not have lower rates, you would not move the goods and that the total cost on shorter hauls would in fact be higher. But it is at that point that we as a government clearly have to examine the question. These are the sort of questions which we are and will be examining as we look at what should be done and can be done to encourage development in regions such as western Canada where so much growth is possible and desirable for the good of the country as a whole.

When hon. members worry about the rail system's ability to move grain, they should take note of the fact that it has done an amazingly good job of placing at the required point the grain that is needed for sale by the Canadian Wheat Board. There have been new records every year. The selling and exporting of more grain than has been grown for two years in a row, and this in an orderly fashion, leads our buyers to have more confidence in our system than they have in that of some of our competitors.
The complaints which have existed about our system have paled into insignificance compared with the kind of problems which are being faced even in the United States, where there is lack of co-ordination and lack of knowledge of the amounts of grain which may be moved at any given point in time. They have had difficulties in organizing their system and in trying to get the grain to the port where the buyer wants it. They have had ten times more ships waiting compared with our worst periods, and this without weather problems but as a result of the difference in the nature of the systems.
We try to make sure that our system will carry the grain that ought to be carried. I should say to hon. members that there are some who still seem to think that our view that changes are needed in the handling system is somehow a criticism of its capacity to handle the grain at present. That criticism really misses the point. Capacity is one element, and there are some of us who believe, as I do, that we should have the capacity to move into export even more grain than we have moved in the two previous record years. But it is not the capacity of the system that is of major concern, because that can be added to by some minor modifications in the system. It is not the capacity of the system which is causing the examination of it and raising the question of change; it is the cost of the system.
I say time and time again to people in the prairie region interested in the grain industry that we should look at the money available to them as a total of what they will get for the goods they sell, plus what the treasury may make available for national policy reasons, and out of that sum anything that goes for cost will be their loss. If the cost is higher than necessary, then obviously we have a significant problem.
This is where I come to the interesting comments of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre who thinks that the simple procedure in regard to the grain handling system is to do nothing for five years, to have a five-year delay in the removal of branch lines, without regard to the fact that this is a matter of cost, and it is not just a cost to the rail system but a cost to the elevator system which is served by it which also is significantly higher than it need be if the grain is moved through fewer houses.
We have said repeatedly that in our view these facts relating to cost should be made clearly available to producers-we have been doing a great deal to ensure that this will happen-and the producers should have a chance to choose whether they receive the lower-cost system, with the changes which are required to bring it about, or whether they are willing to pay for the higher-cost system thus avoiding the adjustments which are involved.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but the time allotted to him, unless it is
March 20, 1973

extended by unanimity of the House, has expired under the order passed earlier.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recently assured western Canada that it is the intention of his government to lend a more attentive ear to problems voiced by western Canadians. He maintained that the difficulties confronting western Canada concerned him and his government as much as did those of any other region of Canada. However, as one who feels he has some understanding of the situation in western Canada, I doubt the government's sincerity, and so do the people. Our scepticism can be attributed to numerous instances in the past where a succession of Liberal governments have failed to honour their commitments to the west. "Credibility" is the word. History has made it hard for us to be very optimistic.
No other single issue in recent years has damaged the government's credibility in Winnipeg and Manitoba as much as the transfer of the Air Canada overhaul base from Winnipeg to Dorval. This House is quite familiar with the circumstances, both past and present, surrounding the transfer. However, let me once again briefly acquaint the Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) with the history of the transfer and some of the repercussions which have followed because of it.
To most Air Canada employees who were transferred from Winnipeg to Dorval, the year 1948 is synonymous with the appointment of G. R. McGregor as TCA president. In that year rumours started that the airline was moving out of Manitoba. McGregor, who was born and raised in Montreal, was instrumental in moving the headquarters' staff to Montreal. Over the years he achieved, as the records show, the relocation of most of the TCA operations that were originally started in Winnipeg. While the moves were actually taking place, Mr. McGregor and C. D. Howe, then the minister of transport, denied there was any transfer in progress. For example, in July, 1948, Mr. Howe said that 95 per cent of TCA would remain in Winnipeg. In July, 1949, Mr. McGregor stated:
TCA's long association with Winnipeg has been a very happy one, and will continue ... in Winnipeg.
He also said:
The cost of moving it would be tremendous and TCA would be moving from an area in which it can hire good mechanical help in an apparently abundant supply, to an area where that supply, both as quality and quantity, is not comparable.
This was the case, and still is. When TCA was established in 1937, Winnipeg was chosen as the overhaul centre by a group of unbiased American experts who based their choice on all the pertinent factors, that is, dry climate, clear flying weather, land values, construction costs, taxation, etc. Presumably, these experts had no axe to grind and were solely interested in locating in the most logical area of Canada. This they did. When the facilities were transferred outright in 1969, the base was an extremely efficient and well administered operation with the capacity to handle jet age aircraft and technology.
Transportation Policy
At any rate, the 1950s saw repeated denials by government officials of a wholesale transfer. Nevertheless, the transfer continued. For example, in 1951 the major portion of the engineer's department and a number of radio technicians were moved. The year 1952 saw the communications laboratory moved to Dorval. In March of 1963, Mr. Pearson stated that it was in the national interest that Winnipeg should be an air centre and TCA operations and services should continue to this end. Mr. Pearson also stated: "The proper location of TCA's facilities and services will be determined in a manner which is fair and equitable to the city of Winnipeg." In December of that year, Manitoba was assured by Mr. Pearson: " ... it is the policy of the government to do everything possible to maintain employment at the TCA base in Winnipeg, and if possible to increase it."
In a letter dated May 23, 1968, to Premier Weir of Manitoba, the Prime Minister wrote: "You may be assured that the present government will honour the commitment made by my predecessor, the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson, and that we will, in addition, vigorously search out alternatives aimed at maintaining a viable aircraft support industry in Manitoba." These were merely a few of the promises made to the people of Winnipeg, employees of Air Canada and the aerospace industry in Manitoba. In the end, the Air Canada overhaul operation in Winnipeg was phased out. CAE Aircraft, a division of Northwest Industries of Edmonton, acquired the base and was assured of federal government assistance in establishing itself as a viable substitute for Air Canada in Winnipeg. The firm, however, has been beset with financial difficulties.
Skilled personnel have had to leave Manitoba and seek employment elsewhere. Former Air Canada employees who chose to stay in Winnipeg rather than move to Dorval have finally had to relocate there. Where is the federal government now? What about the promises to maintain a viable aircraft industry in the province? This is what I mean by the term "credibility" that I mentioned earlier. The federal government has none in Manitoba. There is only a credibility gap. The government has failed miserably thus far in honouring its promises.
Rather than cite a surfeit of other promises and agreements in which federal government officials assured us that the future of Air Canada in Winnipeg was secure, I would like to dwell on a vitally important factor which often has been overlooked in this entire fiasco. This is the human factor. For several months I have been studying the events and circumstances surrounding the transfer of this overhaul base to Dorval. I have received great quantities of mail from individuals who were transferred from Winnipeg to Dorval. I have travelled there and talked with the employees, and plan to do so soon again. From all of this I have learned of the tremendous costs being incurred by the operation at Dorval. It is neither efficient nor economical.
But beyond all this is the effect of such a move upon the Air Canada employee, upon the individual's well-being. Worker morale at Dorval is low. Many employees resent having been forced to move because of lack of employment in Winnipeg. They blame the government. Social

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
commentator Vance Packard points out in his book "A Nation of Strangers" that North Americans who are forced to move often encounter psychological problems which are more acute than people realize. Packard says that people who have no roots in the area to which they move often become isolated and indifferent to community problems, while being obsessed with their own difficulties. In studying aerospace communities, Packard discovered that their ever-changing populations are often beset by everything from infidelity to alcoholism. This book is an exhaustive study which attempts to alert people to the hazards of mobility. The problems Packard discusses obviously exist in many communities, and from what I know of the Dorval situation I would not be surprised to discover there pronounced difficulties of this nature.
It is time the government took heed of the situation. As Manitoba's representative in the cabinet, the Minister of National Defence must press for action. The people of Manitoba can no longer depend on the Prime Minister and his promises. It also appears that we can no longer cjepend upon the hon. member for Winnipeg South, either. Was it not he who said that the transfer was "one of the worst decisions made in Canadian history"? It was also he who said: "No one endorses more strongly than I do the concept of decentralization of industrial activity." Yet the minister is content to acquiesce while the government of which he is part does nothing to act upon its promises to the city of Winnipeg and to the aerospace industry in Manitoba. Instead, the government tries to bribe the people of Manitoba with token gestures announced by a Minister of National Defence whose credibility rating is quickly declining.
The Minister of National Defence has refused to inspect the Dorval situation, and to my knowledge-


An hon. Member:: What about the Mint?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Oh, it will be staffed by people from Quebec. To my knowledge, he has also declined offers from Air Canada employees for a tour of the facilities at Dorval. I hope I am wrong in that statement. Earlier I spoke of credibility. To keep his credibility, the Minister of National Defence must press immediately for generous government assistance to establish a productive aerospace industry in Manitoba. If such measures are not forthcoming, then he should resign from the cabinet so as to demonstrate his sincerity in articulating the western position federally and to save any credibility he might have left with regard to this entire issue.


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, if there is one subject which has dominated Canadian parliaments ever since this country was put together, it must be the subject of transportation. If there is one thing this country is dependent upon, it is of course transportation. For that reason it has always been dominant in the speeches of parliamentarians and of people outside politics.
Transportation is the vital link which holds, or tries to hold, this country together. Successive governments have attempted to deal with it in order to come up with a policy that will satisfy all aspects of Canada. Of course, Mr. Speaker, this country being the kind of country it is, there

has never been a policy which has satisfied all parts of it; and listening to this debate and hearing hon. members from all sides, I must say I have not heard any policy tonight which will satisfy all parts of the country.
In particular, the speech given by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) who led off the debate was lacking in any ideas as to changes that might take place. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) was a little more constructive in that he had something to offer, even though he was going to settle the problem by nationalizing it all, thereby sweeping it under the rug, and taxing the Canadian people to provide services that are not necessarily economic, sensible or reasonable.
I come from an area of Canada which I call on the outer fringes. By that I mean it is not an area near or attached directly to any of the metropolitan centres of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Consequently, the problem that the people in my region face is very similar to that faced by those represented by the hon. member for Vegreville and by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, in that our areas have declining population vis-a-vis the metropolitan centres.
The argument, of course, is over whether or not this decline in population, this change in our economic fortunes has been caused by economic policies, by tariff policies, by transportation policies, or whatever. But the point, surely, is that in a dynamic country such as Canada, which is basically still a developing country, there cannot be any policy that is static, that is stable, to deal with a problem which is continually evolving. In other words, anybody who comes to the House of Commons and says, "I have the answer for now and forever" is making the assumption that the country is never going to change, and that of course is ridiculous.
What all this means is that any policies we propose and legislate, we must be prepared to overthrow in a few years as the country develops in ways which are unbeknownst to us. In an area such as northwestern Ontario, its problems are compounded by the fact that the federal government, looking at the over-all statistics as to how Canada operates, regards my area as part of the wealthiest province of all. When you want to talk about a problem that is of legitimate concern to the people of northwestern Ontario, the federal government says, "You must go to the government of Ontario because it has the power and, more important, the money that is necessary for dealing with the problem." In addition, of course, most of the province's population is not distributed around the northwest but is to be found in the golden horseshoe area, in and around Toronto. This means that our transportation problems are never considered as serious as those of eastern Ontario, simply because the population is not in our area. The population is in and around Toronto, not in the north. Consequently, Mr. Speaker, although we have a pretty good idea of what our transportation problems are, we can never find any way of obtaining substantial redress.
Let me indicate some of the frustrations the people of my area have experienced in the fields of national and provincial transportation policies. It seems to us that
March 20, 1973

those policies, hand in hand, discriminate against those who are isolated from the metropolitan centres. Whether this discrimination is deliberate or accidental, I cannot say. Nevertheless, it does happen, probably naturally, because both governments are inclined to pay more attention to the larger centres of population than to the more sparsely settled areas.
The size of the problem was brought home to me when the government announced in the Speech from the Throne that there would be a conference of western provinces to discuss transportation problems. By definition, Mr. Speaker, that eliminated the province of Ontario and eliminated my region which on most issues has more in common with the west than with the province of Ontario.


Mr. Alexander:: Are you criticizing your own leader?


John Mercer Reid: Northwestern Ontario is the great land bridge between the Prairies and eastern centres such as Hamilton. Our problem is that transportation systems seem to be designed to pass through, around and over our area but not to stop there and participate in the growth of the area. This is frustrating because even though the area from which I come is in the centre of Canada, very little happens there. Whether this is because of transportation circumstances, the nature of the climate or the resources with which we deal, I do not know. However, our birth rate is high.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I was tempted to reply to the hon. member, but I will not.


John Mercer Reid: So we face a number of problems in dealing with transportation systems. Part of our problem is that often the needs of our area do not fit into the national pattern or even into the existing provincial pattern. Let me give Your Honour a brief example. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre berated TransAir for obtaining a franchise to run between Winnipeg and Toronto. The route goes from Winnipeg to Dryden, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Toronto and back. This franchise was granted so that Trans Air could serve northwestern Ontario adequately. Another service was to operate from Winnipeg to Thunder Bay and to Toronto. The idea was that this service would subsidize jet service to northwestern Ontario and throughout northern Manitoba.
Since there are no subsidies available for tertiary carriers of this nature, the Canadian Transport Commission provided those runs to permit TransAir to upgrade its equipment. When they first began their service throughout northwestern Ontario, they used DC3s. The route went from Winnipeg to Kenora, Dryden, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie along with another service that used a jet for servicing Winnipeg, Thunder Bay and Toronto. For awhile this was a perfectly acceptable solution. Then the traffic grew so much on the former route that Trans Air replaced the aircraft used with those of greater capacity; more traffic was generated from my section of northwestern Ontario than had been anticipated. Unfortunately, the increase in traffic encouraged Trans Air to put a jet on that service, which eliminated the town of Kenora from the direct service it had enjoyed. The existing service was replaced by one utilizing YS-11A aircraft. That
Transportation Policy
service has since degenerated and a twin-engine Otter aircraft is used.
Although the general transportation system of the area has been improved because of the jet service, made possible by providing Trans Air with a route with which to subsidize the former route, in towns like Kenora there has been a substantial deterioration of service resulting from the improved equipment which Trans Air is using. This, it strikes me, is one of the problems which all such small communities need to face.
As diesels have been introduced, and jet aircraft, the improved equipment can only operate effectively over longer distances, which means that communities lying in between must suffer a deterioration of service which can only be described as substantial. One has only to look at the way in which the railways now treat areas in between major centres. No longer do they have agents in these small communities and no longer do they maintain telegraph service there. Instead, they maintain service centres, which means that one must get in touch with the railway by long distance telephone to reach the appropriate office in one of the larger centres. Nothing except substantially diminishing service is available to the people of these small communities. For example, no longer is it possible at Dryden or Kenora for freight to be dropped off at the station. If a shipment is coming from Toronto, it must go to Winnipeg and be shipped back.


An hon. Member:: What are you going to do about it?


John Mercer Reid: It must come back almost 200 miles.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There is the same problem in Hamilton. The question is, what will the minister do?


John Mercer Reid: In talking about transportation we must ask, who is to pay? The difficulty we face is that the railways, airlines and other modes of transportation improve in efficiency, they do not improve the efficiency of service to smaller centres. Rather, they improve the efficiency of service to larger centres. This has put tremendous pressure on smaller communities which need to be served. Whether this has happened as a result of deliberate action on the part of those involved in the transportation system, or whether it is natural evolution of the kind which has taken place on the world market is a question open to debate and it is a point with which I do not intend to deal. What we are talking about is the provision of service to small communities. In any discussion of this nature concerning transportation, we must determine what is a fair and adequate rate structure, then determine who is to bear the extra cost, and then who must bear the cost of the subsidy.
I recall when I was a member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that we discussed the elimination of the "Dominion" train which at that time travelled across Canada. We met with both CPR and CNR officials. One statement attributed to the president of the CPR, at that time Mr. Sinclair, was to the effect that even if the "Dominion" train were operating at 100 per cent capacity, and even if a row of seats were to be put on top of the train, open to the elements, enough revenue would still not be generated to pay the expenses. We heard the same story from the CNR. At that time Canadian National
2422

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
was attempting to attract more passenger traffic. The point is, however, that the CPR has deliberately attempted to scuttle its passenger service and has not maintained equipment at a proper level. It is not providing sufficient service.


An hon. Member:: Neither is the CNR.


John Mercer Reid: You cannot get a reservation even if you try.


An hon. Member:: The same applies to the CNR.


John Mercer Reid: Let me deal with the CPR. Recently a group of students from Kenora travelled east on an educational tour. Did they travel by CPR? Not on your life, Mr. Speaker. They couldn't afford it. They took the CNR. It seems to me that in the circumstances, since the Canadian government has adopted the formula whereby it picks up 50 per cent of the operating loss on passenger service on both CNR and CPR, the formula is not properly structured. It should be revised to provide that the government would pick up 80 per cent, but only after it had penalized the railways for not filling passenger cars to capacity. In other words, I am suggesting that the obligation should be-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him under the order of the House made earlier has expired.


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I confess that I was somewhat disappointed in the opening remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) this afternoon when he, in true Pavlovian fashion, executed that old knee jerk reaction as he repeated once again the old refrain about the failure of public ownership in his province of Saskatchewan-failure due, alas, to that wicked NDP government. But he did recover somewhat, I thought, as he went on to castigate the failure of the present government to enunciate any kind of intelligible transportation policy.
Things picked up for the government, however, when the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) rose to speak. His eulogistic phrases for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) dropped like the gentle rain from heaven and I listened with rapt attention until he spoke so glowingly of the minister's Herculean efforts in the area of railroad pensions. At that point I shut off my speaker because I realized that the gentle rain had made him all wet. I am not going to attack the Minister of Transport. If anything, I would commiserate with him for he, poor soul, has inherited several generations of bungling from successive Tory and Liberal governments who would not know a transportation policy from a Prince Albert radish, whatever that is.
Canadian transportation policy started with John A. Macdonald who united this country with a band of steel, as the historians put it. Also, at the same time we gave away half of this country to the CPR, an act which gave that company an advantage which it has never yielded: it still owns a great part of Canada, one way or another. In the days of R. B. Bennett and Mackenzie King, the Canadian railway situation was pretty desperate. The

public investment in the CNR and CPR, not counting the CNR debts to the government on which no interest was paid, amounted to $2,200,000,000. Railway transportation was such a mess that CNR president Sir Henry Thornton suggested a royal commission to attack the whole problem. The commission was struck, and like most Tory and Grit commissions it achieved nothing but more expense to the taxpayer. Is anyone surprised?
At the time there was a suggestion that the two railways be merged under public ownership, but the commission opposed that idea. So did the other place. In fact, a group of Montreal bankers, throwing up their hands in shocked horror, made a counter proposal that the CPR take over the CNR in the interests of private entrepreneurship. But, fortunately, the Canadian people would have none of it since the majority believed in public ownership. Various other measures were suggested and some tried, but nothing worked, and by 1937 the Canadian people were paying interest charges on a debt of $3 billion, a debt which became a millstone around the necks of the Canadian people.
In 1973 we still have a national railway and a private railway, with the private company still skimming off the goodies and the national railway running a poor second. The Canadian people have long since accepted the principle of public ownership of railways. All that remains, Mr. Speaker, is to persuade the representatives of the people that it is in the best interests of Canada to take over the CPR and to develop one unified transportation system whose main function would be to provide fast, safe and efficient service for the people of Canada.
This brings me to the next matter that I wish to speak of in connection with railways. I would like to speak of the inequities that plague the men and women who work for our own national railway system, the CNR. When referring to the CPR, just multiply by two. One would think that since the CNR is wholly-owned by the people of Canada, it would be concerned to provide much needed jobs at a time when unemployment is one of the social problems of greatest concern to its owners, the Canadian public. In actual fact, according to the information I have, the CNR is busily engaged in reducing the size of its work force on the west coast, is showing a lamentable lack of interest in providing necessary safety precautions in the Fraser canyon, and is doing its best to compete with the CPR in providing the worst possible pension scheme.
Hardly a day goes by that I and my colleagues do not receive letters and phone calls from disgruntled railroad employees. The present work-to-rule situation is only symptomatic of poor working conditions that have accumulated over the years to the point at which major concessions will have to be made to head off widespread disruption of essential rail services. In British Columbia, one of the chief complaints is that CNR yardmen in the greater Vancouver terminal are being forced to reduce switch crews from three men to two men. This reduction is all perfectly legal since the workingmen found themselves in a position of having to sign an agreement or else go to arbitration. Since the box score for arbitration has been nine to one for the employers, there did not seem much point in opposing the arbitration. Already 13 crews have been reduced and 25 more are scheduled to be
March 20, 1973

reduced in the next 11 months. Crews have been reduced in Edmonton as well. And this at a time when the entire nation is concerned about unemployment.
I am a shareholder in the CNR in the same sense that every Canadian citizen is a shareholder. It disturbs me to hear that the CNR is reducing crews at the risk of reducing safety, that longer and longer trains are being coupled, that niggardly pensions are reluctantly granted, all in the name of productivity. Railroad engineers are deeply concerned about hazardous conditions in the Fraser canyon. They speak of the absence of ditch lights and slide fences that have not been reset for a considerable time. They tell of an engineer stuck in a snowslide for just short of 38 hours with no food and no apparent attempt to get it to him, and of another engineer on snow plow duty for over 23 hours without rest or eating facilities.
All of this, Mr. Speaker, is intended to reinforce the point that in the formulation of a national transportation policy, in the operation of a publicly-owned railroad, the prime factors to be considered should be safety and service-safety not only for the men who have got to make their living railroading, but also for the public which depends on these facilities.
The reputation of our railroads for poor treatment of its employees is shameful. The hon. member for Prince Albert has already made reference to the poor morale on our national railway. I will not dwell on the pension aspect at this time because this is a subject that has been brought up in this chamber time and time again and will continue to be brought up until a decent pension allowance is made to men who have given their lives in the service of the people of Canada. I would hope that in the negotiations now under way there will be better treatment of railway employees, because whether we are speaking of an army or an army of workers they will not be effective unless consideration is given to the important question of morale.
Related to the topic of rail transport is the proposal by Premier Barrett to utilize existing railroading trackage for the transport of oil from Alaska through the Yukon and British Columbia and by pipeline to Seattle. On the face of it, his proposal seems eminently sensible. All that would be needed in terms of railroad construction would be a relatively short extension of the Alaska railroad to connect with the B.C. railroad at Lower Post.
Setting aside the economic implications for the moment, one salient point emerges, namely, that this route is the most acceptable one from a "people standpoint". The transport of oil by tanker off the shores of British Columbia has met with continuous opposition from people on both sides of the border and will continue to meet with opposition. How anyone can seriously defend such a route escapes me. When we realize that 70 per cent of the earth's surface consists of ocean, and when we reflect on the disturbing trend to build larger and larger tankers-we are threatened with tankers approaching
500,000	tons in size-we must surely realize that we are ultimately faced with the problem of oceans being incapable of sustaining marine life.
Transportation Policy
Pipelines such as the proposed Mackenzie valley pipeline threaten to create similar environmental havoc and such proposals are being opposed almost as strenuously as the use of tankers. We hear reports that the people of the north will simply not allow the pipeline to be built; that they will blow it up if necessary. I have never heard any objection expressed to the transportation of oil by railroad. In fact, the concept seems to satisfy people generally as an alternative choice to both sea transport and to pipeline transport. The difficulty seems to be that the decision-makers think in economic terms mainly, while the people most affected think in terms of the effect on their surroundings, on the quality of life in Canada's future.
I do not pretend to be an expert on the transportation of oil or on the building of railways, and for this I make no apology. We all have our areas of competency. Mine lay in the teaching field. Some hon. members on my right are experts on points of order that are not points of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nels Edwin Nelson: But what interests me in this question of alternative oil routes is the reaction of the government, as expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to the proposal of Mr. Barrett. When the plan first became public, the Prime Minister did not indicate approval; the Prime Minister did not indicate disapproval of the plan, but he did manage to indicate by an enthusiastic lack of enthusiasm a completely negative approach to the plan even before details of it were known to members of the House.
I would not for a moment suggest without further study, that this plan is preferable to others, but I do suggest most strenuously that it should be given extremely serious consideration by the government and by all members of the House, as should any plan to transport oil by rail rather than by pipeline through permafrost, or by ship through our oceans. We are not concerned here solely with the economic feasibility of an oil route. We should not be concerned with political gamesmanship.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Heavens, no!


Nels Edwin Nelson: We should not descend to consideration of whether the reigning provincial oil route critic has been included in negotiations or not. We should be concerned mainly with the welfare of future generations and the environment in which we will live. It is this principle that should govern consideration of a national transportation policy, whether of people, goods or oil.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member from a rural riding in the maritime provinces and I trust the House will bear with me if I seem to typify some of the opinions held in that area. In a rural riding we have greater distances to travel than perhaps other Canadians in order to get to various facilities. We have greater distances to ship our goods. One might well assume that in those circumstances the greater distances involved would result in cheaper transportation rates per mile for the carriage of our goods and
26087-8)

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
for the carriage of our people. Instead of having a cheaper mileage rate of such transportation, we in fact pay a higher rate. Instead of getting a break on rates we are, in a sense, kicked by them. It actually costs more per mile to ship goods in the maritime provinces than it does in the wealthier parts of Canada. In fact, it costs 50 per cent more, Mr. Speaker, to travel on the railroad in Nova Scotia than it does to travel between Montreal and Toronto. I am sure you will agree that that is not the way to remove disparities among provinces.
Rural Canada, Mr. Speaker, is a frontier. It begs to be developed. Atlantic Canada is largely rural, and it begs to be developed. Railways were originally considered an instrument of development in this country but they have defaulted in that function. British Columbia Rail, or B.C. Rail as it is called, is an instrument of development in British Columbia and it is performing a fantastic operation there. Go-go transit in Ontario is another illustration of how development can be put into effect by the railways.
Now even the province of New Brunswick is getting into the act with a scheme which I suppose will be called N.B. Rail. They are going to take over the railroad in order to help develop that province. But the fact that these several provinces are getting into the railroad business is indicative of the bankruptcy of the policy of the government which has been in power for so many years in Canada. It is indicative of the bankruptcy of policy to the extent that transportation in this country, which is supposed to be a national responsibility, is being taken over by the provinces.
I was encouraged by the announcement of the minister on December 18 that a northwest transportation plan was being considered. I hope it comes to fruition. But I would earnestly recommend to the minister that he consider not only that great frontier of northern Canada for development by means of better rail transportation, but also the frontier which is epitomized by the Atlantic provinces, a frontier which has yet to be developed. It is an area which should certainly share in the development which will one day be Canada. I express the hope that greater federal and provincial co-operation, as was envisaged in the announcement of the minister in December, can become a reality in the rest of Canada and that such a spirit of development can be applied with regard to Nova Scotia.
Not only should the theory of development be applied in the case of railways, Mr. Speaker; it should also be applied with regard to ferry services. Ferry services are a problem very close to the hearts of those in western Nova Scotia whom I represent. What is the history of the ferry service in western Nova Scotia? It is evidence of the typical lack of concern which has been shown by federal authorities for transportation in that area. We do have two Canadian ferries running across the Bay of Fundy, one of which is owned by the CPR and has, thank goodness, been upgraded in the past few years and provides a fairly efficient service, albeit at a little more expense than the local people feel should be necessary if industry is to be encouraged in the area. However, I am not going to dwell on that ferry. I want to mention in some detail the ferry which runs between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour. That ferry, the Bluenose is now 17 years old. It was built at a

time when trucks were a good deal shorter and when trains were a good deal longer. It was built to accommodate traffic of the 1950s and it is no longer adequate to accommodate the traffic of the 1970s.
According to a report appearing in our provincial daily on January 24, senior officials of the Department of Transport, senior officials of the CNR and senior officials of the provincial government were to meet to discuss the possible replacement of that ferry. That news report indicated that the provincial officials expected that after the meeting they would have some concrete answers in approximately two weeks. Well, that was some six weeks ago now and there has been no answer. Although I have diligently sought information from the department in the meantime, I have not been able to ascertain what the future holds in store for this ferry. The only answer I have been able to get is that perhaps a survey will be undertaken.
May I remind the minister, who was not in his present portfolio a few years ago, that in 1967-68 a competent firm, A. D. Margison and Associates, did a study in depth of the type of vessel that ought to be used on that service from the point of view of potential traffic. I suggest it would take only a very short time to update that study and to design the type of ferry that is necessary. In addition, one factor that Margison did not get any input on in their study is that a couple of foreign ferries are plying the waters between Yarmouth and the New England shore. One of them has been operating for a couple of years with very great success, and I suggest a lesson is to be learned from the success of that operation. It is most regrettable that Canadian entrepreneurs or the Canadian government did not have sufficient fortitude to place a vessel on that service long before it became necessary for the traffic to be taken up by a foreign owner.
I have been speaking of the necessity of transportation development and I now want to say a word about industry in the maritime provinces and particularly in my area. I represent an area which is largely a small business area. Very few of these businesses are able to grow into big businesses in the terms we think of big businesses in central Canada. You may ask Mr. Speaker, why that is. Why is it that living standards and incomes in our area tend to be lower than they are in other areas of Canada? Why is it that our successful businesses fail to grow into big businesses? Is it because we are less intelligent as a people than Upper Canadians? Enough maritimers have left their mark on Canadian universities to refute that idea. Are we less ambitious than Upper Canadians? Enough maritimers have achieved success in business in Upper Canada to refute that suggestion. Are we less in tune with the flow of events than Upper Canadians, or are we less shrewd? The Maritimes has produced more prime ministers and perhaps more ministers of finance than any other area in Canada, which I suggest refutes that argument.
So why is it, Mr. Speaker, that we appear to be a little backward? Why is it that even in the cradle of confederation itself the structures of this country are questioned? I suggest to you that, more than any other reason, the answer simply is: transportation. What does it do to us?
March 20, 1973

What does it do to the small businessman in my constituency? I can give the House some hint. If anybody in my constituency wants to go into the canning business, it will cost him at least two cents more per can to get his products on the shelves of stores owing to the cost of transportation of his cans.
Let me take another example, the fruit business. It cost about $1 per case to get apples to the major markets of Canada, which is enough to wipe out all the profit that is possible, and then some. Potatoes, apples, processed fruits and vegetables, fish products all face that same high tariff; I suggest it cannot be described as anything else. Transportation costs constitute a tariff on our goods entering the great Canadian market.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), who is only just getting adjusted to his new portfolio, and very enthusiastically according to his parliamentary secretary, has a great opportunity in his present position to remove a great deal of the disparity in transportation costs in Canada. He has the benefit of his experience gained with DREE in his previous portfolio and he must know the difficulty of attempting to get industry to locate in the maritime provinces, in the west, in eastern Quebec, even in parts of Ontario, largely because of transportation costs. The experience that this minister has derived from DREE, coupled with his new knowledge and enthusiasm in regard to transportation matters, can serve the government in good stead if he will formulate a transportation policy that will assist in solving, rather than perpetuating, the disparities that exist between the have and the have-not regions of this country.
Hon. members may say of the transportation difficulties in the Maritimes, "Ah ha, but you have the advantage in regard to export markets; you do not have to send your products to central Canada". But even here the transportation policies of the major companies play tricks on you. It costs more to send a containerload of apples from Kentville, in the Annapolis valley, to Europe than it does from Hamilton, Ontario. Similarly, it costs more to ship grain from Saskatchewan to Nova Scotia than it does to ship it from Saskatchewan to northern Europe. In those circumstances it is very difficult indeed for the people in our area to compete effectively.
We have a misconception about transportation facilities in Canada, and indeed in North America. We take the approach that transportation facilities should be profitmaking enterprises. Why is this so? After all, we do not believe that the streets in our cities should make a profit; these are a necessary part of infrastructure, a necessary means of commerce. We do not believe that our highways should make a profit, even though there are substantial licensing fees, gas taxes, and so on. So why is it that in North America transportation facilities, which are vital in binding the country together and in enabling people in one area to compete effectively with people in another area, should be required to show a profit?
I suggest it is high time that this House and the government recognized that the Canadian transportation system, particularly the railways, is not and should not be thought of as a profit making endeavour only, or even primarily. The primary purpose of railways in Canada is that which was conceived in 1867 by Sir John A. Macdonald and the
Transportation Policy
Fathers of Confederation: the railways are an instrument of development. They should be an instrument of unity, an instrument to remove regional disparities in Canada.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, while other industries in this country show really aggressive approaches, in my opinion the railroads are very, very backward. Situated as I am in mid-Canada, in the area of Thunder Bay, one of Canada's largest harbours, a harbour that on a monthly basis when it is open carries the greatest tonnage of any harbour in Canada-


An hon. Member:: Is this your maiden speech?


Paul Edmund McRae: The same speech, and the same railroads too. Situated in the middle of this country, I see the role of the railroads as linking one part of the country with the other part. Yet I see a railroad system that is very weak and unaggressive, one that does not take opportunities when opportunities come along. In many ways the two railroads of this country do not want to run a railroad. I mention their approach to the provision of passenger service as an example. In my area recently 22 operators and other workers were laid off by the Canadian Pacific Railway.
So-called service centres have now been established in most of the places along the route, but they are a disgrace if the one that we found in the old city of Port Arthur is anything to go by, with plaster hanging off the ceiling, and so on. Because the agencies are no longer there, the service falls off and people are not able to buy tickets at the station. A sign on the door tells them to get their ticket at a travel agency. A year or two from now, Mr. Speaker, the CPR will come back to the public asking for larger subsidies because they are losing money, and it is because of the kind of non-aggressive approach that they are taking now.
Where were the railways when the issue of the Pickering airport first arose? Did they present a ground alternative; did they propose rapid ground transportation? No, they were not to be seen. Last week the Premier of British Columbia introduced the idea of a railroad alternative to the Mackenzie valley pipeline. At about the same time I was speaking in the committee on Indian affairs and northern development about the same kind of matter, only I was speaking of a rail pipeline along the east side of the Rockies.
A group working at Queen's University, called the Canadian Institute of Guided Ground Transport, has made some studies on this approach. They suggested that a railroad is a viable alternative to this particular pipeline. The difficulty with the pipeline is that it requires that the oil carried be heated to 150 degrees to 180 degrees in order to move in the Arctic, and therefore a pipeline cannot safely be burried in the ground because it would melt the permafrost.
This group at Quenn's University was lightly funded by the government and given some meagre support by the CNR and other groups. It maintains that 20 trains can move the same amount of oil per day as a 48-inch pipeline, that is, two million barrels. It is commonly accepted today

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
that the pipeline route would cost $5.3 billion. A railroad, on the other hand, could be built for about $2.5 billion, according to this study. The operating cost for the pipeline, including amortization of the $5.3 billion at roughly 8 per cent, would amount to $425 million per year. It is estimated that the operating cost of the railroad would be in the neighbourhood of $400 million per year-it would be higher except for the saving in the amortization cost.
This group has indicated several advantages of the railroad. The first is that the railroad is expandable. Their figures are based on a two-track system and they maintain that a one-track system would carry the 20 trains a day. Secondly, the railroad could carry liquefied gas, minerals, etc., as well as oil. Thirdly, the railroad could go both ways, taking people and goods in both directions. And fourthly, the railroad would employ more people on an annual basis: 4800 is the figure used in the study. Another factor which must be considered, if these figures are correct, is the lower investment which of course could have some meaning in the long-term relative to our monetary position with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I bring up three points to show that the railroads are not aggressive. First, the passenger service which is deteriorating; second, the failure to look at fast ground transportation; third, the failure of the railroads to take a stand and do something about the Mackenzie valley pipeline alternative. The figures that were given at the committee the other night would seem to indicate that the amount of money spent on the Mackenzie valley pipeline study was in the neighbourhood of $40 million and the amount spent on the railroad study was a paltry $80,000. Something has to be done, Mr. Speaker, and the government can help by putting more money into this suggested alternative. However, the railroads in this country must take a stronger position, become more responsive to the needs of the modern Canadian community and develop a far more aggressive stance to problems of the future.


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate that I should make my maiden speech in the House of Commons on this particular subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: This is a matter which affects the quality of life of all Canadians, particularly those of us who live in rural Canada. It is an honour to have the opportunity to speak tonight in support of the argument made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) earlier today, who was so very kind in welcoming me to this House at the beginning of the session. The right hon. gentleman was born in my constituency, and the problems of transportation which he outlined today continue to plague it. It is also appropriate that I should speak on transportation tonight because my predecessor, Mr. Marvin Howe, was in the forefront of the fight to maintain decent train service for my part of the country. Canadians throughout the country are indebted to him for his service in this House, and I am aware that I have very big shoes to fill.
It was with a great deal of joy that I listened to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. 
Guay) this afternoon when he was eulogizing the minister, discussing the fine job he had done and pointing out how fortunate we are and how good it is of the minister not to answer our questions in the House and not to make definitive statements of policy. He held the minister up for fine praise, Mr. Speaker. Considering the number of ex-Liberal backbenchers we see around here now in various positions, I am wondering whether the parliamentary secretary is trying out for a job as head of public relations in the minister's department. The only reservation I would have to casting him in that role is that in the next government it will not be members on the other side who are being appointed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should deal briefly with the history of the problem in southwestern Ontario. On October 1, 1970, there was a decision referred to by Southam News Service as "the land mark decision". The Canadian Transport Commission allowed the discontinuation of railway passenger service on 400 miles of track in southwestern Ontario, involving six train lines. The decision followed extensive public hearings held in Owen Sound and Guelph at which more than 70 people presented briefs. Included among these were federal and provincial members of parliament and representatives of municipal councils.
With us tonight, Mr. Speaker, we have the reeve of Elora. Either he or his representative made recommendations at that hearing. There were representatives of other public groups and private individuals who were concerned about this matter. There were representatives from councils for the province of Ontario and from a number of other provinces. Without exception, every brief presented at these hearings, except for the briefs of the railway companies, were in opposition to the discontinuance of those railway lines.
Nevertheless, the Canadian Transport Commission ruled, setting a precedent, that these lines could be allowed to be discontinued. On April 6, 1971, my predecessor, Mr. Howe, moved a motion to the effect that the Commons committee on transport and communications hold public hearings in the affected areas of southwestern Ontario. This motion was passed by the committee despite the fact that the Liberals on the committee, with the exception of the hon. member for London, voted to block the hearings taking place. Hearings were held late last spring in southwestern Ontario, at several centres. There were 55 briefs presented and 68 witnesses heard. I should like to read briefly the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Therefore your committee recommends that all rail passenger services which were discontinued on November 1, 1970, should be re-established immediately and a moratorium should be placed on all pending passenger train discontinuance applications in Canada, until the study referred to hereafter is completed, as recommended in many briefs and particularly in that brief presented by the government of the province of Ontario.
Beyond that, it recommends that immediately a tri-level study be undertaken to discuss the totality of the problem in Canada to make sure that proper service is provided
March 20,1973

for all Canadians. That was a committee dominated by the Liberal party. It had a Liberal majority; it had a Liberal chairman and a Liberal co-chairman. The report of the committee came in. It was presented to the government. The government has refused to act on it since that time.
In reply to questions in respect of this service, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has adamantly refused to do anything until he has had consultations with the government of the province of Ontario, despite the fact that the federal government has sole responsibility for passenger services in this country, and despite the fact that the province of Ontario is on record on two occasions, before the Canadian Transport Commission and also before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, as favouring the immediate reinstatement of these railway services.
The minister referred, in supporting his case, to what he erroneously called the Soberland report, which was a study commissioned by the CTC and carried out by Dr. Soberman, on commuter rail services for metropolitan Toronto. The minister seems to feel that nothing could be done in respect of acceptance or rejection of this report until such time as he spoke to the province of Ontario regarding these rail services which are commuter services around Toronto.
This has absolutely nothing to do with the problem of discontinuance of service on those six rail lines in Ontario. If the minister had done his homework, he would be aware of this. The delay is unconscionable. The government knew it had a majority on the committee. Government members supported the report as well as our members. All the local representatives, the local members of parliament, the local members of the provincial parliament who were present, the members of citizens' groups and the members of local municipalities who spoke, were in support of the reinstatement of this service. There is no question about it. There is nothing to study before the minister brings back the service. We need action on this right now.
Today we were asked by members on the other side to be constructive in our criticism. They felt that perhaps we had not been constructive. I say my constructive criticism is that if they seriously want to improve the rail service, they could get to work and accept the report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. I can promise hon. members opposite that if the government refuses to act, a progressive Conservative government will get those trains moving again.
Let me speak briefly about the question of whether the railways have attempted in good faith to provide adequate service for the people of southwestern Ontario. I think one newspaper article from the London Free Press of Saturday January 5, 1973, illustrates very well the sort of service they have been providing. It goes like this:
Like most three-year-old boys, Teddy Evans of London loves trains.
So, on Nov. 17, his mother, Mrs. Edward R. (Donna) Evans of 52 Wellesley Cres., took him for his first train ride.
It wasn't exactly the kind of ride Mrs. Evans was expecting.
They boarded a Canadian National Railways train in London for Toronto where they were to meet Mr. Evans. She and her son
Transportation Policy
ended up in the baggage car with about 30 other passengers because the regular coaches were filled.
They had to sit on suitcases in the dimly-lit rough car amid baggage and other freight.
Mrs. Evans and some other passengers were startled when a body in a casket was put into the baggage car at Brantford.
"When they put the corpse on, that was a bit much," Mrs. Evans said.
The only window was in the door. It was "very dark and not meant for people to travel on," she said.
"CN didn't even apologize for putting the passengers in the baggage car," Mrs. Evans said.
"The conductor made a joke about it. He said "it's not everyone who can ride in the baggage car". The woman said: "What really bugged me was a newspaper article saying that train service is adequate but there aren't enough people to ride the trains."
Mrs. Evans said it was the first time she had travelled in a baggage car, and "I hope it's the last time."
Her son, Teddy, enjoyed the ride because it was his first time on a train, Mrs. Evans said.
"He was kind of upset because he couldn't see out."
The reporter was unable to get a comment from the passenger riding in the casket. Mr. Speaker, I can deal briefly with the CTC. The CTC asks whether uneconomic lines should be allowed to continue. This is how they define it:
To include such considerations as the cost of alternative modes of transportation as determinants of "uneconomic" would raise the possibility that highly unprofitable lines could be designated "economic" and therefore ineligible for subisdy only because alternative transportation is either unavailable or more costly. Such a result would be contrary to the national transportation policy-
I was interested to read, also, a quotation from the words of the Minister of Transport when he was president of the Confederation of National Trade Unions in 1961. He said that a transportation policy is closely tied to economic planning, and as such must be linked to the common good and not to the profitability of private enterprise. I hope he continues to think along those lines and gives us some action on this particular situation.
Surely, when the CTC makes these decisions it should take into consideration the cost of pollution in respect of driving people off the trains and into private automobiles, the rights of senior citizens and the rights of people who do not drive, the cost of alternative transportation which must be provided by the provinces, and the effect, most importantly, upon the development of the small communities of rural Canada which count upon decent transportation for their health.
Mr. Speaker, this government has shown a concern for the problems of regional disparity. I am asking tonight that it indicate that it is also concerned about rural Canadians in Ontario. A decent system of transportation is the right of all Canadians. The government could act tonight, show it has good faith and that it respects that right of all citizens in Canada to have the quality of life which they deserve.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that this discussion has taken place. I am pleased, also that the Conservative party, particularly the last speaker, has indicated that it would make transportation work. When we speak of transportation we usually speak of railways. That is what the hon. member was speaking of. If it is to wprk, obviously some members of the Conser-

March 20, 1973
Transportation Policy
vative Party are of the opinion that we must renationalize the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, because there does not appear to be any other way in which we will get any action on the problem.
The hon. member did not mention that among our studies there are studies which have been done in other areas. We find in northern Ontario also that the Canadian Transport Commission has failed to provide an alternative to subsidy, and we find in the mid-Canada passenger train service that $10 million has been authorized to allow the companies to operate at a loss. Under the policy of the Canadian Transport Commission the railways are subsidized to the tune of 80 per cent. The railways immediately took most of their passenger lines, placed them in an uneconomical position and then asked the government to subsidize them.
The Russians, when they came to Canada on a number of occasions with committees of parliamentarians, indicated that they thought what we were developing better than anyone else was our transportation system. That is high praise, coming from people from a country which can put a Sputnik into space, travel around the moon and land on the moon. They can look at the Canadian transportation facilities and call them good. Obviously, we in this country have created a Canadian Transport Commission which is like the Senate and, like the Senate, I am prepared to abolish it now or at any other time.
We have retired Mr. Pickersgill so he can write his memoirs. I am surprised that with the facilities he had at the CTC he did not write those memoirs while he was the commissioner. Obviously, he did not. Now we have appointed Mr. Benson, a former minister of this government. I thought he would be there for a while, in as ineffective a position as was Mr. Pickersgill, because if I remember correctly Mr. Pickersgill had a certain facility, if nothing else, and a certain versatility of mind which enabled him to solve the machinations of Canadian National Railways and Canadian Pacific Railway when he set his mind to it. I was surprised to hear that Mr. Benson is thinking of retiring.
Obviously, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is waiting for a call to that place, as was made evident in the eulogy he delivered to his minister. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) must have been embarrassed on a number of occasions in the House, but I think it is safe to say he was embarrassed today and I feel sorry for anyone who has to take that kind of praise while he is still among the living, or certainly in an active position. Obviously, the minister will not be able to live up to the eulogy and for that reason I feel sorry for him.
Some suggestions have been made today, but I think most of them hinge on whether or not the government really wants to improve transportation in Canada. We have a facility which in my opinion can be modernized and made fit for the twentieth century. At present we are operating with broken down equipment, we are operating a major grain trade with cars which the government had to buy and then lend to the railway. I was interested to hear the prairie representative of the Liberal party trying to justify his relationship to the grain trade. He told us

that the government will offer a two-price system, one to the people who will accept the big elevators and hopper cars and the other to the other segment of the industry if they do not take advantage of his suggestions.
The whole industry is archaic. Railway transportation in Canada should not be archaic. Transportation by rail is surely the most efficient way of moving many of our basic commodities in this country. You cannot move them under a horse and buggy railroad system, yet that is the kind of system under which we operate. The prairie minister also mentioned that we cannot get rid of the debt of the CNR. Does he not realize that one cannot operate a national railway efficiently if there is a debt on that railway which has existed from the day it was started? We have done nothing since then but pay interest on that debt.
Surely he can see in that situation the same kind of burden as we have when we go to war. We now have a war to develop a transportation facility in this country that will be efficient. If that is so, surely we can add that debt to the rest of the national debt and allow the railway to operate without it. We should look at the tariff structure of the CNR and take away from the CPR that gravy train which they have had for so long at the expense of the Canadian people. If this minister wants to do nothing else, he can make some decision about what we are going to do with the debt of the CNR. Even if he does nothing else, he will have done something for transportation facilities in this country.
It is my opinion, and I think the opinion of many people-certainly one of the last speakers on the Liberal benches indicated that he had done some thinking about rail transportation into the high Arctic, both the east and west regions of the Arctic-that transportation by railway will have a role to play in the north. I agree with my colleague who said that we must be a bunch of idiots to spend the amount of money we are spending on STOL aircraft so that we can fly passengers from Ottawa to Montreal. The ground transportation facility that we have takes twice as long as the flight by air. It seems to me that unless you want to go for a ride, which you can do by going to any private airfield and paying five bucks for which they will take you up for a little look around, there is much better transportation by rail. This minister had better take a look at it, because if he does not I am afraid the Conservatives will not either.
However, I am also concerned that one of these days the Canadian public will take a look at this situation and will tell this government to supply that kind of transportation at a cost which they can pay. They will tell them to get rid of many of the problems which we are facing today in transportation. I suggest that one of the first things we should do is to take back the responsibility which parliament has for the national transportation policy of this nation, to take it away from the new Senate we have created, cease the political appointments that are made to that retirement body and again operate from this House a transportation policy for this nation and find solutions to some of our problems.
This is a very important motion. I think the Conservatives should be given credit for having stolen it from some of my colleagues, I am told, and also for at least bringing
March 20,1973

it forth because it is by far the best motion they have brought forth for some time. I think it would be profitable for the government to consider it and to do something about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that under Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion are now completed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank hon. members for giving me a hand, but I hope they do not feel they have to stay because I see here the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Breau) who comes from New Brunswick and I know I shall get a very good hearing.
On March 12 I asked a question of the minister with respect to the shipbuilding subsidy program which runs out on March 31. I asked whether in view of the new planned oil refineries in the east the minister would give consideration to an extension of the shipbuilding subsidy beyond that date. The minister gave a reply that was thought to be optimistic. I am not trying to crowd in on the credit, if there is going to be an extension, but I want to put one or two facts on the record about this subsidy.
There is an interesting history to aid to shipbuilding in our country. It has been an ad hoc type of assistance throughout the years. It started in 1947, in the post-World War II period when the Canadian Maritime Commission was set up. As its major responsibility it had the development of a merchant marine and of a shipbuilding and ship repair industry commensurate with Canadian needs. As everyone knows, this move was not very successful.
In 1949, the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act was passed. This provided a fast write-off for owners of ships built in Canada and it had a reasonable amount of success. Then in 1964 the Canada Shipping Act was amended, and hon. members know some of the results of that. It did bring a few vessels under Canadian registration. In 1970 we had the shipbuilding temporary assistance program called STAP. It was brought in by the former minister and it has been reasonably successful. For example, the shipbuilding yard in Saint John, in which I am particularly interested, was able to obtain an order for three 30,000-ton tankers for export, which even though they are now of foreign country registration are being used on our east coast. This was quite profitable in
Adjournment Debate
terms of employment and enabled the yard to finish ahead in business. The subsidy was 17 per cent. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I should call it assistance rather than a subsidy. As I say it was 17 per cent, with a graduated downward formula.
The significant thing is that there has been a delay in the announcement of this program, and shipyards like to make their plans ahead of time. As I understand it, the international situation is still ripe for orders. The Canadian shipyards are well geared for work. They are reasonably efficient and they could fill some international orders. The companies, and the Shipbuilding and Ship Repairing Association, met with the minister and were given reason for some optimism. They are now asking for 20 per cent assistance on this occasion and they feel that the present is the proper time to make the move. The shipbuilding industry has not levelled off. It is on the downgrade since completing previous orders. Assistance given now would enable the shipyards to plan for the future, to keep up the different trades and it would also provide a future both for domestic and export orders.
I see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is in the chamber, and I know he will be optimistic in his response. I hope he will take this chance to say that the government is really behind the industry for the first time in many years. The previous minister did make some moves and I gave him credit at the time. I know that the new minister is looking for opportunities such as this to help restore his tarnished image with respect to the auto pact.
This is an opportunity for the government to indicate that it is going to do something about an industry that is very important to us in the maritime provinces from an employment standpoint. I know the parliamentary secretary is going to create optimism about this matter. He is almost going to say that it will be acceptable. I hope he will go for the 20 per cent, really be enthusiastic and help his minister by giving us confidence for the future of this industry.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to answer my hon. friend for Saint John-Lancaster (Mr. Bell). I hope that I will not let him down. I am happy to see that he supports the Shipbuilding Temporary Assistance Program. It is a very good program, brought about, as he says, by a Liberal government.
He talked about the auto pact; I should like to assure him that, like the auto pact, STAP has been successful, even more successful in relative terms. As a matter of fact, it has helped in the export of ships from Canada to the order of $274 million. This represents 24 ships which have been built in several shipyards. I should mention that these ships are built in shipyards mainly in regions that need growth and employment, such as Sorel, Lauzon, Saint John and Halifax. We think it has been a very successful program. It has helped shipyards to modernize their facilities. It has helped them to become aware of export opportunities and to become competent from the marketing point of view. We think this will be good for the future.

March 20, 1973
Adjournment Debate
The hon. member has mentioned that the shipbuilding industry is concerned. We agree, and I hope that the government will deal expeditiously with this question because of that concern. As the hon. member knows, the date for application for assistance is March 31. The delivery date is October 31, 1975, which means that the shipbuilding industry can apply before March 31. I agree that we need a response, but there is no urgency because they have applied. They have made plans and will have work with respect to all the applications made before March 31, 1973.
I agree with the hon. member that it is a good program. There is no way that we can cut him down, because he promised this in his campaign and we are so happy to see that in his campaign he talked about good Liberal things. That is how he came to be elected so easily. We will try to continue that, Mr. Speaker.


PORTS-CHURCHILL-ACTION TO ACHIEVE GREATER UTILIZATION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I see the parliamentary secretary is present and willing to give a positive response to my question tonight regarding greater utilization of the port of Churchill. I first asked on January 11 whether the government was to utilize further the port of Churchill and the minister at that time said in essence that he was studying the proposition. A couple of weeks later I asked the question again and the minister again said that he was studying the proposition. I think that has been the answer of ministers for the last 10, 20 or 30 years on the question of the utilization of the port of Churchill which is so important to us in western Canada.
We in the west have for long said that we have been discriminated against in many ways, basically because of the transport system and the freight rate structure in our country. One of the deals made when western Canada came into confederation was that we would supply the eastern industrial market with a cheap source of raw materials and that these would be the source of finished, manufactured goods which would come from eastern Canada. As a result, today in the west we find that there is still a great deal of unfairness in the freight rate structure, inasmuch as it is more expensive to ship a product from western Canada to the east than from eastern Canada to the west. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we were to better utilize the port of Churchill we could perhaps equalize some of the unfairness that exists in transportation systems that affect western Canadians. I believe that the port should be utilized much more than it is today.
Consider the city of Yorkton, from which I come. There is a plant there which builds houses. They ship these prefabricated houses to within 200 miles of the port of Churchill, which may mean that they send them 700, 800 or 900 miles from the city of Yorkton. But they do not ship the houses to Churchill by rail and put them on a barge. Instead, they ship them to Montreal, put them on a boat, take them down the St. Lawrence Seaway, around by Newfoundland and through Hudson Bay to their destination which is only a few hundred miles from the port of Churchill. I am told it is about four or five times as far as it would be if they were to ship these prefabricated-homes

from Yorkton to the port of Churchill and by barge to the destination, whether it is Rankin Inlet or Hudson Bay.
Why do they ship them that way when it is four or five times longer? It is for a simple reason. They do not have the facilities to handle prefabricated homes at the port of Churchill. They do not have any barges. In fact, they carry the prefabricated homes from the port of Churchill to the Indian or Eskimo settlements at Hudson Bay. That points out how stupid our transportation facilities are regarding the port of Churchill, and why the government must stop studying and start acting in order to build needed facilities at the port. There should be worthwhile facilities so that we in western Canada have the inland seaport we deserve.
The provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are putting pressure on the federal government to act. Last summer there was a study by the premiers of those two provinces. They have now formed a group called the Port of Churchill Board to put pressure on the federal government and other powers that be. The port is closer to Europe, in terms of shipping our grain, by 1,100 miles than if we ship our grain through the Great Lakes, through Montreal and on to Europe. It is about 1,100 miles shorter than going down the St. Lawrence Seaway. I am told that for the farmer this would mean 10 cents to 16 cents a bushel that he would save on his wheat if it were shipped through the port of Churchill, but is not being done in significant volume today.
In 1944, about three million bushels of grain were shipped through the port of Churchill. In 1972, only 25 million bushels of grain were shipped through the port of Churchill, despite the fact we have the technology available that could improve the port at this time. I am told that this year only about half as much grain will be shipped through that port as there was in 1972.1 suggest it is time for action to improve the port.
I want to make one more point. The Hudson Bay Route Association has made many splendid recommendations over the years about this port. I think it should be commended for some of the work it has been done in drawing public attention to the reasons why we should increase the facilities there. I wish to read some of the recommendations they made in a letter they sent out in January 1973. They say that some of the following must be done:
1.	Deepening of the harbour next to the wharf
2.	Deepening of the "turn-around" basin
3.	Grain galleries to be lengthened and modernized to suit the larger grain vessels now using the port.
4.	More grain storage is needed
5.	More import-export storage needed
6.	Lengthening of the shipping season
7.	Competitive marine insurance rates for entire season
8.	Realistic railway rates comparable on a mileage basis with other lines
The next point is important:
9.	An all-weather highway from the prairies to Churchill.
10.	A concerted effort by all three provincial governments for more trade.
March 20, 1973

I think that outlines the reasons why we must put more federal money into that port. We must stop talking and start acting right now.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I first wish to congratulate the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) on the very good presentation he has made tonight. I believe that what he said pertaining to the port of Churchill and the importance thereof is certainly true. I agree with him.
We have been most interested in the possible future development of the port of Churchill. The National Harbours Board will soon be submitting an economic study on the future of the port of Churchill to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). After reviewing this study, it is expected the government will be in a position around mid-April to state whether it is practical to take any action with respect to further port development in the area.


BILINGUALISM-PILOT PROJECT TO TEACHING FRENCH IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL AREA-TEACHING OF ENGLISH IN FRENCH-SPEAKING SCHOOLS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments about the announcement made last March 16 concerning the encouragement extended to the teaching of the second language in the schools of the Ottawa area, which provide $2 million for that purpose. As that assistance is so important, it certainly will be welcome in the area.
I would like to make some comments on that subject. First, I will say that if Canada is to remain or become bilingual, we must maintain in each province representatives of both official languages so that the two elements of bilingualism always be present in all provinces in Canada.
However, in the provinces where the French-speaking people are in minority, bilingualism will be in jeopardy if they can no longer develop fully in the French language and culture or if, because of difficulties or apathy, they decide to join the English-speaking majority.
All efforts made by the federal government will be of little use if we cannot maintain in all provinces a strong, lively, and dynamic French-speaking group which would lead the way and make a place for itself under the sun thanks to all sorts of provincial and public institutions designed to promote and encourage the French culture.
Without an official structure, without bilingualism or even French-speaking unilingualism in each Canadian province, the amounts provided by the federal government for promoting bilingualism could not stop the tide of English-speaking unilingualism.
The French-speaking people living outside Quebec are responsible for the success or the failure of bilingualism programs established by federal government in each Canadian province, and naturally I exclude the province of Quebec.
Those efforts towards the establishment of bilingualism, Francophones have made them since our country was founded, but under present circumstances, the fran-
Adjoumment Debate
cophone minority can no longer oppose single-handed the anglophone giant of unilingualism. They must be given specific and efficient help if they are to continue living and fulfilling themselves in French
The $300 million federal assistance program which is to run over a five-year period must first encourage teaching of the second language, which is French in mostly anglophone provinces and English in Quebec. Secondly, provinces are to be encouraged to maintain an educational system for minorities.
This is a very worthwhile program and if I had the figures-which unfortunately I have not-showing how this money has been spent by the provinces, I might feel easier to express my views.
According to my information, the province of Ontario would have received $14 million last year under this program. Five million dollars were to be spent for teaching the second language and $9 million for the francophone minorities.
On Friday last, the minister announced another grant of $2 million for the national capital area, which is an increase of 40 per cent. I rejoice at the federal government supporting the teaching of French to the English-speaking, especially since it subsidizes that teaching through an experimental program. But the French-speaking minorities have needs that would also benefit from similar programs, even if those minorities must do it by way of an experimental program.
May I mention certain education fields which are in need. For the Francophones who form a minority, there should be first of all a French school. And I recall that from 1955 to 1967 the federal government thought that the magic solution to the unemployment problem was partially in technical education, and justly so. Now, that same federal government did not hesitate to earmark millions of dollars in grants for building composite schools with technical departments.
If in 1973 the federal government feels bilingualism is important, should it not stimulate provinces by granting them subventions for the purpose of creating homogeneous French schools?
Federal grants for the teaching of the second language should be paid out with no ceilings, that is over and above the basic budget. Part of the federal government grants for bilingualism could remain in provincial treasuries for the preparation of manuals and teaching aids, the development of programs, etc. I have in mind audio-visual systems, for instance. Without a concentrated effort at provincial and federal levels, such teaching aids can never be obtained from regional school boards, which are often in a minority situation.
Mr. Speaker, I could discuss experimental programs within the framework of which relatively small grants could encourage francophone teachers to write French school manuals for our minorities. None of the provinces where there are now minorities are able to interest publishers in bringing out such manuals, because of the limited quantities involved.
Federalism could bring about a synthesis of the requirements of Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick for school manuals and audio-visual equipment. It is just a

March 20, 1973
Adjournment Debate
matter of regrouping the urgent needs of several minorities on a national basis. The federal government is carrying out experiments in the linguistic field and I agree with that, but I would agree even more if the government also launched a pilot program of assistance in the preparation and publication of school manuals and also in the production and distribution of French-language audio-visual teaching aids.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, one of the foremost principles that the Secretary of State Department is proud to uphold and defend, and one to which I wholeheartedly subscribe, is the learning of a second language in provincial education.
Within the framework of the policy we have announced, which serves the aims of the bilingualism that we wish to foster and to spread, the Secretary of State Department announced a few days ago that it had signed an agreement with the government of Ontario, allowing for a supplementary budget for the teaching of French as a second language. If we wish bilingualism to win respect, it is only fitting, in my opinion, that the national capital should be a prime example. I believe my colleague, the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Gauthier), acknowledges that our English-Canadian friends do not have the opportunity to learn French as they would wish, and it is for the
Secretary of State to allocate supplementary funds for this purpose.
I should add that the Secretary of State Department has announced, through the minister, that it is prepared to further a project of similar proportions in Quebec, if the Quebec authorities should request this.
The question that my hon. friend has raised is, as he himself said, first and foremost a provincial one, since the Constitution lays down that the teaching of the first language, English in the case of Ontario, comes under provincial jurisdiction, and I am sure it is able to assume its responsibilities.
I should like to remind my hon. friend that this is a pilot project, which will no doubt lead to the development of new techniques that may help solve the problem he has raised.
I shall end my remarks by saying that the policy of the Secretary of State Department also provides for encouragement to minorities in the form of subsidies; my hon. friend is well aware that the Franco-Ontarions benefit from these advantages, and will continue to do so in future. It seems to me that, as a member of Parliament, my friend is eminently qualified to understand that the Secretary of State Department, through the minister, has a very open mind on the problems he has raised, and that we mean to pull together to try and solve them, at the same time enabling bilingualism to fulfil its true role throughout Canada.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:26 p.m.

Wednesday. March 21, 1973