1973-06-19

PRIVILEGE


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I would like hon. members to join me in offering our heartiest congratulations to Miss Jocelyne Bourassa of Shawinigan on winning the "La Canadienne" ladies professional golf tournament yesterday in Montreal.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41 (2) I should like to table, in both official languages, the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America on reciprocal fishing privileges in certain areas off our coasts.


APPENDING OF ADDRESS OF MADAM INDIRA GANDHI, PRIME MINISTER OF INDIA, TO TODAY'S &quot;HANSARD&quot;
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the proceedings in this chamber earlier this morning, if the House finds it agreeable I should like to move, seconded by Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale) that the address of the Prime Minister of India, Madam Indira Gandhi, delivered earlier this day before members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with the introductory and related speeches, be appended to this day's Hansard and thus form part of the records of this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table the regulations under the National Energy Board Act with regard to motor gasoline and heating oil, in both official languages.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity.
In view of the increasingly critical economic situation caused by the continuing rise in prices, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That the government study the possibility of increasing the consumers' purchasing power by the distribution of a social dividend or a compensated discount, or other appropriate measures which would encourage production at a fair price, thus making it possible for consumers to take advantage of goods and services, and for the government to better control the country's economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


EFFECT OF INCREASE IN INTEREST RATES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 and I request the unanimous consent of the House.
Considering the need to stabilize the Canadian economy, considering also the interest rate increases of the Bank of Canada and the chartered banks, considering further the inordinate economic conditions thus brought about in the community, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House consider the very essence of our economy and the impact on the Canadian economy of the interest rate increase.

June 19, 1973
Electoral Boundaries, Northwest Territories
the cause of our numerous economic ills that tie up free enterprise, which could be easily corrected between the various constituent elements of the economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask leave of the House to move a motion in order to examine an issue which is undoubtedly of urgent and pressing necessity.
It is related to the increasing concern expressed by farm producers in the areas which have been heavily affected by frequent rainfalls, which is dangerously delaying sowing. Therefore I move, supported by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House examine without delay the possibility of creating a special committee which would look into the causes of the profuse rainfalls which we have had since early May, make the necessary investigation to ascertain whether these are artificially produced, and report as soon as possible.	*


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, the motion can be put only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the hon. member's motion cannot be put.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-198, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Northwest Territories).


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Explain.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to provide, for geographical reasons, for three electoral districts in the Northwest Territories, each of which shall return

one member. In this way the inhabitants of the land of the long day will be better served and represented.


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


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism. Has he decided to discuss with Mr. Ostry his transfer to some other department of government? Has the minister also discussed this with the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister? If so, has any common position been agreed upon as to the destiny of Mr. Ostry?


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Minister of State):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the Leader of the Opposition that I have very good working relations with Mr. Ostry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Are you meditating?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Without entering into the question of the degree of warmth in this relationship, or as to who is right and who is wrong in the particular controversy, I would ask the minister whether he accepts responsibility for a multicultural program administered by officials who are responsible to another minister?


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I am the minister responsible for the implementation of the multicultural policy and I also feel I am satisfied with my relationship with the Secretary of State.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Since it is now clear that the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism has no clear line of authority within the government and has to depend upon officials who report to other ministers to carry out and administer the multicultural program, I would ask the Prime Minister whether he now takes the multiculturalism program seriously enough to provide a direct line of authority to the Minister of State and to authorize him, regardless of the merits of any particular controversy, to have a staff responsible to him to administer the program?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Leader of the Opposition is not suggesting that every time a particular area of concern comes to the attention of the government we have to set up a special department to deal with that concern. We have had this type of arrangement many times in the past and it is a
June 19, 1973

very satisfactory one. This program is under a very responsible minister and, as in other cases, he uses staff which administratively, under statutes of parliament, comes under another minister's authority. But I repeat that there are many examples where this arrangement has worked out, and we are confident that this one will also work out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of State who reports on multiculturalism. Can we be assured that the minister's relationship with the Deputy Undersecretary of State in this matter is such that that gentleman will not be "Ostrysized"?


Stanley Haidasz: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


POSITION OF PRIME MINISTER REGARDING ALLEGED STATEMENTS BY MR. OSTRY TO MINISTER IN CHARGE OF PROGRAM
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. Is it the opinion of the Prime Minister that the conduct of Mr. Ostry in giving a lecture to the minister to whom he is responsible is a correct procedure for a deputy minister acting under a minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in those terms is perhaps difficult to accept from the point of view of the Chair. The hon. member is asking the Prime Minister to express an opinion. Perhaps the question might be asked in another form.


George Harris Hees: I will ask it in a different form. In view of the lecture given by Mr. Ostry to the minister under whom he operates with regard to the multicultural program, is the Prime Minister going to take disciplinary action against this civil servant, or does he agree that this is the way a civil servant should act toward his minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to a supposed document which leaked to the press-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that has to do with internal administrative arrangements between a minister and his officials. I have always taken the position, and I believe it is the correct one, that working documents inside of the administration are something on which I do not make any comment.


George Harris Hees: Does the Prime Minister claim that this document outlining what went on was not an actual document?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of members seeking supplementaries on this subject. We might try to complete the first round of questioning and then I will recognize the hon. member for Rocky Mountain. Perhaps we might be allowed to complete the first round of questioning and then return to the supplementaries on this subject.
Oral Questions


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS PRIME MINISTER'S REPLY TO WESTERN PREMIERS' TELEGRAM CONCERNING ALLEGED STATEMENTS BY MINISTER OF JUSTICE RELATED TO FORTHCOMING CONFERENCE-FEDERAL PROPOSALS
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have some questions for the Prime Minister on another matter. Has the Prime Minister received and studied a telegram from the four western premiers sent to him yesterday in which they expressed concern about some ill considered partisan statements by the Minister of Justice regarding the upcoming western economic conference next month, particularly because, according to their telegram, the Minister of Justice has been given special responsibilities in this area? If so, will the Prime Minister inform the House what reply he made to the four western premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, up until now there has only been an acknowledgement of the telegram. It was drawn to my attention this morning. It is a short telegram and I have of course, read it. I have not read all of the speech to which the telegram apparently refers. As the House knows, I have been busy with an important international visitor all morning. But I have, in the last few minutes, taken note of a few paragraphs toward the end of the speech which have been brought to my attention and, frankly, I cannot see anything really offensive or deleterious to the conduct of the conference.


Mr. Fairweather:: The premiers are wrong, then.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I suggest the hon. member on the opposition is right when he says the premiers are wrong. I would be inclined to agree with him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: A great way to start the conference!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am surprised-


George Harris Hees: Everybody is out of step except the Prime Minister, as usual.


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member for Fundy-Royal should say the premiers are wrong-


Some hon. Members:: You said it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the record will show that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal said the premiers are wrong. I invite hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Lewis: I am not concerned with what the hon. member for Fundy-Royal said or even with the Prime Minister's statement about whether the premiers were wrong or not, or whether the Minister of Justice was or

June 19, 1973
Oral Questions
was not offensive, although I cannot imagine the Minister of Justice being anything else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: What I am concerned about is this. In view of the expressed determination of the four western premiers and, indeed, of all the people of western Canada that the July conference produce concrete results for action, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the federal government is now preparing specific proposals to place before that conference in areas such as regional development, transportation, freight rates and other relevant matters so that the four western premiers will hear from the federal government precisely what it intends to do in those important areas?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Of course, having proposed this conference and having outlined in the Speech from the Throne the areas in which we thought constructive action could be taken by the federal government, in conjunction, in some cases, with the provinces, to solve some of the western problems, we have prepared position papers on all these subjects. It has not yet been determined whether they will be published at a particular date; the general practice is to hold the papers for the conference. However, I understand that the western premiers may wish to publish their papers in advance, in which case we might want to consider doing the same thing.
On the previous subject, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure the House that the telegram from the western premiers did not indicate to me which passages in the speech were considered offensive. If hon. members opposite want to ask specific questions about specific parts of the speech I am prepared to comment, but I repeat that in my view there is nothing more offensive in it than a slight political input such as I have often heard from the western premiers themselves even in commenting on this conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Mr Lewis: In view of the importance the Prime Minister attaches, I am sure sincerely, to the conference next month and the importance it is given in the Speech from the Throne, may I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he supports the Minister of Justice in making statements concerning the approach of the western premiers to the conference, calling it tunnel vision, saying they are building provincial kingdoms and the like? If he does not consider this to be offensive in the sense of being detrimental to the purpose of the conference, I should like him to explain what he would consider to be offensive.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When the western premiers themselves make comments to the press that they are going to gobble me up when I go out there, I do not find that particularly offensive and I do not take the trouble of sending telegrams to them to say that I disagree with offhand comments they might have made. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that if the House wants me to put on record the phrases that have been drawn to my attention-there may be others-I will do so. But I see nothing particularly offensive about a phrase such as, "When Manitoba and British Columbia are still fighting a chicken and egg war it is rather hard to hope for agricultural solutions which are truly western". I

see nothing particularly offensive about that. If the House wants me to read the rest of the speech, I will gladly do so.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace Riv$j):: Mr. Speaker, may I get away from that last indigestible remark of the Prime Minister about being gobbled up and ask him a question on a much higher, non-partisan level. In light of the fact there seems to be a genuine misunderstanding which may or may not have been fostered by the amiable Minister of Justice in his comments about whether or not this conference is to be one of vague generalities and glowing platitudes, as suggested by Premier Schreyer, or whether there is a real need to get down to discussing concrete, specific measures, would the Prime Minister not now revise his and the government's approach to this conference, establish genuine, concrete issues and make sure that there is a common meeting ground between himself and the four western premiers on the issues which have to be discussed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member must have been badly misinformed about this. If he will look back to the Speech from the Throne he will see that we did propose concrete action in very specific areas, and it so happens that these are the areas that are going to form the core of the agenda at the western conference. I myself, in meeting with the western premiers, some alone and some together, have repeatedly made the point that we want solutions from this conference. I stated that we were going into the conference with a very positive outlook, that we hoped it would not be used as a place to raise a multitude of grievances for the sake of raising them and embarrassing the federal government, but that we would concentrate on basic problems which were the essence of the difficulties confronting the west. There has been general agreement between the premiers and myself along these lines. However, that did not prevent some of them from making rather incongruous, partisan remarks about the conference, and I do not object to that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. Again we have a series of supple-mentaries but I think we should complete the first round of questioning before calling on the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville and other members with supplementaries on this second subject. In fairness, I think I should recognize the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscaminque):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but this is not the end of round one, because here is my first supplementary to the first question which has been put by the Leader of the Official Opposition. It had time to cool down somewhat, but I am going to try and warm it up.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question has to do with multiculturalism and is complementary to that put by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
June 19, 1973

This morning, after having heard the Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, talk in excellent English and flawless French, although she is neither French- nor English-speaking, but Indian, and her culture is different from ours, does this government intend to suggest to certain narrow-minded members that they should learn at least both official languages of this country?
[La ter:]


DOCUMENTATION JUSTIFYING CHOICE OF OUTREACH INCORPORATED FOR ADVERTISING PROGRAM
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is in fact supplementary to that series of questions generated by the document which I gather the Prime Minister is now suggesting does not exist. My question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. Would the minister table the documentation provided by the Minister of State for multiculturalism that justified his personal choice of the advertising agency, Outreach Incorporated? If not, would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House whether or not documentation was provided, and what was the nature of that documentation?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think the House is well aware that communications between Treasury Board and government departments are regarded as internal documents for internal use and consequently are not published.


An hon. Member:: And you criticize Bill Davis.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: In so far as the documentation in this particular case is concerned, it was both written and oral.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that answer which is about as informative as we have come to expect. In light of the complaint by Mr. Ostry that the actual submission, whether written or oral, to Treasury Board for the funds for the advertising campaign did not mention the name of any advertising firm, would the President of the Treasury Board explain how an objective and careful analysis of this contract was undertaken?


An hon. Member:: By crystal ball.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I inadvertently described the documentation as both written and oral. I really should have said that the communication was both. The communication was to the board and the discussion regarding the choice of an agency was part of the oral communication.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ADVERTISING PROGRAM-INQUIRY AS TO APPROVAL BY SECRETARY OF STATE OF STATEMENTS BY MR. OSTRY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for multiculturalism. Has the minister been informed that Mr. Ostry consulted with the Secretary of State about the
Oral Questions
memo of February 21, and did the Secretary of State approve of the memo or agree with its substance after it was brought to his attention?


Stanley Haidasz: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no such knowledge.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe on the last supplementary on this subject and then we will move to the second set of supplementary questions beginning with the hon. member for Calgary North.


ADVERTISING PROGRAM-INVOLVEMENT OF CHARLES TEMPLETON IN OUTREACH INCORPORATED
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State responsible for multiculturalism. Following the question asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, I wonder whether the minister can explain to the House what he meant by the term "personal" with respect to the awarding of advertising contracts, which is reputed to have been his statement, and, in particular, is the minister aware that Charles Templeton was a director and 25 per cent shareholder in Outreach Incorporated before the $200,000 advertising contract was awarded to that firm?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Same old bunch!


Mr. Bell:: Davis was a chicken compared with that bunch.


Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I was unaware of the extent of Mr. Templeton's shareholding in Outreach Incorporated.
Some hen. Members: Oh, oh!


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS FORTHCOMING CONFERENCE WITH WESTERN PREMIERS-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT CONCRETE PROPOSALS WILL BE DISCUSSED
Mr. Elden M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in reference to the western conference along the same lines as the question asked by the hon. member for Peace River. In light of the fact that at this stage it would seem that the conference may start in an atmosphere of confusion, animosity and distrust, will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will reply to the telegram-I am aware of its terms-and assure the western premiers specifically that transportation, economic and other development and taxsharing agreements will be discussed in a concrete way rather than in a general way as suggested by the Minister of Justice in Winnipeg?


An hon. Member:: You would like to get in on it.

June 19, 1973
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a separate question and has nothing to do with the telegram that was sent to me. If I were to reply to that question I would not be replying to the premiers' telegram but would be repeating what I have said publicly and privately to the premiers many times.


Gerald William Baldwin: You do not seem to have made much of an impression.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, possibly I can put it this way so we will not get wrapped up in the question of whether it is one or two telegrams. Will the Prime Minister assure the western premiers by letter, telegram or conversation that concrete proposals will be discussed in respect of economic development, transportation and taxsharing agreements specifically rather than in a general way involving platitudes as suggested by the Minister of Justice? That is the cause of the present atmosphere and that is what the premiers want to be assured of.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I understand that "platitudes" was an expression used by one of the premiers, not by the Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will try again, and if I fail it will be obvious that the Prime Minister does not want to answer the question. I ask this question seriously because it is very important to western Canada. Will the Prime Minister reply and assure the western premiers that concrete proposals as to transportation, economic and other development and tax-sharing agreements will be discussed in a concrete way rather than in a general fashion? That is the assurance the western premiers are looking for. Will the Prime Minister assure us now that this will take place?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that was my first answer. This is not what the telegram has to do with. I need not give this assurance to them as I have given it to them many times before, and they know it. The hon. member's question alludes to some second telegram of which I have no knowledge. If he could get a copy of that second telegram which I do not know of now to me, perhaps I could then see if it requires a reply. In any event, I certainly do not have to give that assurance publicly. It has been given before, and I do not know what the hon. member is talking about, quite frankly.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Lot-biniere. I apologize to him, but the Minister of Justice is rising on a question of privilege.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I thought I should at last rise on a question of privilege arising from the constant references to remarks made by me outside the House. I do so partly having in mind the discussion we had not long ago about the wisdom, or the lack of it, of referring to such statements. It is obvious-


An hon. Member:: Get on with it, Otto.


Otto Emil Lang: -that hon. members in referring to my remarks are referring on occasion to press reports of what may or may not have been said. I would be very happy to supply any member with a copy of those remarks.
Yesterday this matter was first raised by the hon. member for Assiniboia who, under the guise of asking for a comment on whether or not something was a statement of policy, quite clearly was referring to material which was not a statement of policy at all but a statement of view and opinion. That is the kind of difficulty one can get into, because not only did the hon. member refer to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What is your question of privilege?


Mr. Horner (Crowfoot):: That is no question of privilege. You weren't misquoted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: What is your question of privilege, Otto?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. Perhaps the hon. minister, who has the floor on a question of privilege, might indicate to the Chair just what the question of privilege is that he is raising.


George Harris Hees: That is what I am asking for.


An hon. Member:: Let's have it.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the basic substance of the question of privilege relates to the fact that hon. members, in referring to a speech made outside the House, may do what they cannot do if the speech is on record in Hansard. They can present as a premise to their questions a distorted version when they do not have the correct version available to them. The hon. member for Assiniboia did that yesterday, and hon. members since then have done so as well. They refer to accusations or suggestions-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Make your speeches somewhere else.


George Harris Hees: That is not privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This refers to a telegram from the premiers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I would again express the hope that the minister would indicate to the Chair as quickly as possible what his question of privilege is as we are running short of time. I think we should not spend too much time-


An hon. Member:: It is not a question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You raised the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 19, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that as much as possible we should not spend the question period on points of orders and questions of privilege.


An hon. Member:: I think Richardson could do it better.


Otto Emil Lang: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and it was for that reason I was as patient as I was in respect of these inquiries yesterday and today. My difficulty as a member sitting here in this place when hon. members opposite ask questions relating to remarks I am supposed to have made is that my very presence here without objecting to these misinterpretations of my remarks could be taken as confirmation of the substance of what it is suggested 1 said. That is essentially the problem, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize that the hon. member for Peace River now rises on a point of order, but I suggest to hon. members that we should try to proceed in a more orderly way. I appreciate the difficulty of the Minister of Justice, but I suggest that if he has a question of privilege relating to a matter raised in the House yesterday he might have given the Chair notice of his intention to raise the matter when the House met at two o'clock. At the same time, if he has a question of privilege related to questions that have been asked in the proceedings taking place at this time, I think it is the duty of the Chair and of all hon. members to hear the minister. If there are points of order afterward we will hear them, and I will take this into account with relation to the time of the question period.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to yesterday in connection with the most recent references by the hon. member for Calgary, and in particular to pages 4838 and 4839 of Hansard as the initiation of the problem. But let me conclude my question of privilege relating to this abuse by references to speeches outside the House by saying that if hon. members will in fact read what I said they will find some very quiet warnings about the problem of the conference if the premiers allow it to bog down-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. I am not sure that the minister has a question of privilege. I suggested to him that if he is referring to what took place during the question period yesterday, normally he should have given notice to the Chair and then the matter could have been dealt with as a question of privilege with perhaps a motion. He might have a point of order this afternoon, but not more than that. The hon. member for Peace River rises on a point of order and he will be heard also.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I must say in response to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member for Peace River. It is now the hon. member for Assiniboia who rises on a question of privilege.
Oral Questions


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, I doubt that the Minister of Justice had a question of privilege on the question I asked yesterday, but arising out of his remarks today I believe there is a question of privilege in terms of my question of yesterday. Certainly the minister did not in any way, shape or form in his question of privilege today deny that he made those remarks and in fact made those remarks possibly after his speech in terms of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. We could spend the whole afternoon debating what a minister or a member has said outside the House of Commons. Hon. members will agree with the Chair, I think, that there is some wisdom to the rule that questions asked about statements made outside the House only lead to difficulty. We have had this instanced a couple of times. I think it would be beneficial in the long run if hon. members would try to recognize the value of this rule and ask these questions only of the Prime Minister, as has clearly been the practice, to determine whether a minister making a statement outside the House was reflecting government policy. Having said that, I will hear the hon. member for Peace River on his point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, the point of order I want to raise is, of course, the one Your Honour has already referred to. If the minister wished to deal with matters that arose yesterday in the House he should have first given Your Honour notice. So far as today is concerned, it was quite plain that what members on this side of the House were dealing with was a telegram sent to the Prime Minister which conveyed to the Prime Minister the interpretation of the four western premiers of what the Minister of Justice had to say. That is the point we made and it could not and should not be the subject of a question of privilege by the Minister of Justice who shamefully abused the rules of the House in this regard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. At this point I think we are now on hon. members' own time. If we run short of time before I call orders of the day in a few minutes hon. members will appreciate they are the ones who are taking the time on a subject which I think ought not to be pursued further. There was an alleged question of privilege and a point of order. I would think no purpose would be served by pursuing the matter further. Is the hon. member for York South rising on a point of order?


David Lewis: I am, Sir. I appreciate your anxiety that the question period continue and that the time not be eaten up by points of order. But I respectfully suggest to Your Honour that when a minister abuses the rules in order ot make statements which are both invalid and unfair you cannot expect other members of the House to sit and take it. The fact is that the Minister of Justice was less than honest with the House. In addition to making a speech in Winnipeg he made comments after the speech and made statements that were shamefully harmful to the possibilities of the western conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
4888

June 19, 1973
Oral Questions


David Lewis: I am not concerned about exactly what he said or the way he phrased it as an ex-dean of a law school. I am concerned-I will take only one minute to complete this-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rises on what is substantially the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River and other hon. members. If I recognize the hon. member for York South I am sure there are a large number of members who may want to rise on the same point of order and discuss back and forth what the minister said and whether or not the comments made in the House were correct. Again I do not think that would achieve anything.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if I may complete my point of order, I simply say the fact is that the Minister of Justice has been given special responsibility for this western conference. That is what concerns hon. members, and it should concern hon. members on all sides of the House that the minister responsible in some respect for organizing that conference should have had the decency to keep his mouth shut.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure how the hon. member can reconcile that statement with a point of order. I suggest to him he had no point of order at all. [Translation]
I now give the floor to the hon. member for Lotbiniere, with my apologies.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the western premiers' conference and the next meeting to be held in July between the Prime Minister and the western premiers, can he tell us whether, at the July meeting, the matter of a feed grain policy will be discussed and especially the reforms the government intends to make to ensure a fair feed grain price policy for eastern producers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, an item has been put on the order paper dealing with agricultural problems in general, and I am convinced that those problems which are of great concern to the members on this side of the House will be discussed when it comes up for debate.


FEED GRAIN-ANNOUNCEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POLICY BEFORE AUGUST 1
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: I wish to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the promise made in the throne speech, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether the government ruling on the feed grain policy will be announced before August 1?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed what we stated in the throne speech and, of course, we shall keep our word.


FEED GRAIN-POSSIBLE RELATION BETWEEN CONFERENCE WITH WESTERN PREMIERS AND DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY
André-Gilles Fortin: I would like to ask a very brief supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether there is any relation between such conference which, if our information is good, is to be held on July 26, and announcement of the feed grain policy on August 1?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The two matters can coincide, but there is no precise relation. We have tried for this conference in the west to find dates suitable to all governments, both federal and western and it is after some inquiries and correspondence that we have settled for these dates.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS CONFERENCE WITH WESTERN PREMIERS-DISCUSSION OF LONGSTANDING GRIEVANCES
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of an answer given by the Prime Minister differentiating between the problems to be discussed at the western economic conference and longstanding grievances, will the Prime Minister give us the assurance that these longstanding grievances, first, are valid and, second, if they are whether there is a desire to have them placed on the agenda so they will be discussed and solutions found jointly by the federal government and the western provincial premiers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I may not have been perfectly clear in making a distinction between the two. I would like to answer the hon. member by saying that what I attempted to put on the record is a discussion I had with the western premiers, indicating that if we were to try to put on the agenda 20, 30 or 40 subjects it was unlikely we would be dealing with them in any depth. I encouraged them to try to arrive at an agenda, in discussion with us, that concentrated on the main areas of grievance, on the main areas that are going to be discussed. This is in fact the arrangement we are working toward in establishing the agenda. I do not believe it is finalized yet in a definite sense, but this is certainly the direction in which we are working. There is no objection to discussing other subjects, but I want to impress on the House that the purpose was to deal in depth and not superficially with the subjects.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that when the James Bay Indians applied for an interlocutory injunction regarding land claims to the Superior Court of Quebec the federal government did not see fit to challenge the jurisdiction of that court or to transfer the matter to the Federal Court, would the minister say why the federal government now feels compelled to attack the jurisdiction of Mr. Justice Morrow in the Northwest Territories in a similar type of proceeding?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, precisely because the matter involved is not at all similar. A claim that may lie against the Crown in right of the province of Quebec quite properly will be placed before a judge of a court in that province. A claim which lies against the Crown in right of the federal government by the law of this parliament is to be placed in the Federal Court.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the minister's predeliction to lecture members, is he aware that his action is being widely interpreted as discrimination by the government against the people and the institutions of the north?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there may be some who would have an interest in giving that view to it, notwithstanding our constant and emphatic statements that it is a simple matter of attempting to have a proper legal proceeding in connection with something which was done in relation to an activity by a person who was a judge of a court but who was acting as a named person. As I said in the House before, this has happened before in Canada. There have been examples of an appeal court challenging the actions of an appellate court judge when he was acting persona designata and, so far as I know, no great resentment or thought about the jurisdiction of the court was involved in that situation.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fundy-Royal on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, why does the government feel constrained to proceed with what is an extraordinary remedy of prohibition before its normal appeal procedures have been exhausted?


Otto Emil Lang: The exact point of a writ of prohibition is to test whether the person who is acting as a named person has jurisdiction to hear a matter, and it is rather frustrating to allow him to go ahead and hear it if the main issue will be that he does not have any jurisdiction over the matter at all.
Oral Questions ENERGY


GASOLINE AND HEATING OIL EXPORT REGULATIONS- REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON CRITERIA AND MAXIMUM AMOUNTS PERMITTED
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the regulations he tabled in the House this afternoon. In view of the fact the regulations do not set any guidelines or establish any criteria, can the minister give us the framework within which these regulations will operate? Can the minister also tell us what are the maximum amounts that the National Energy Board will approve for the export of refined petroleum products for the month of June, what are the maximum amounts that are to be permitted throughout the balance of this year, and what are the particular products that are to be restricted and those that are to be free of restriction?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last question, I really think the hon. member is asking me to interpret the regulations to him, but in general terms in addition to crude oil there is motor gasoline, and other gasolines, kerosene, stove oil, diesel fuel, diesel oil, gas oil, distillate heating oil, engine distillates and Nos. 1, 2 and 3 fuel oil. With regard to the terms under which the board will operate, the board is now in the process of determining the necessary surplus for Canadian users by consultation with the industry to find out the supplies available in Canada and expected to be available in the next several months, and in due course I think I will be able to advise the House a little more fully on the exact determination involved here. For the moment at least the board is receiving applications and is dealing with individual ones where, for example, there have been commitments-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister would like to revert to motions. It seems to me that his answer is a little too long.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express the hope that the minister will revert to motions today, or make a statement on motions tomorrow, because it is not possible in the time available to ask the necessary questions to obtain the answers to which I think the country is entitled. The minister says the board is accepting some applications, rejecting others and reducing other amounts requested. What are the criteria that are used in determining which applications will be accepted and which rejected, and what is the basis upon which these permits are being granted?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the basis is the National Energy Board Act and the regulations passed under it. The criteria basically are these: Where someone has had a contract, for example, for a carrier for a shipment already outstanding and is in the process of loading, obviously that should be completed. After that, after we get over the interim situation it will be a question of determining what is the appropriate surplus to have for Canadians. This will depend on demand and what demand will be for the next little while and the supplies. Obvious-
4890

June 19, 1973
Oral Questions
ly this is something that will take some determination. That is why we have an expert board to do it.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the fact that on February 15 the minister said that the National Energy Board would have hearings to establish quotas with respect to the export of petroleum products and as such hearings have not been held and quotas have not been established, when will action be taken to make sure there are fair and equitable quotas in respect of any gasoline that is going to be exported?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the hearings that the board is now projecting for a little later in the year with respect to crude oil exports.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: These were to be early hearings.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Of course, the board has a very heavy administrative load.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE THAT DETERIORATION OF MEDICAL SERVICES WILL NOT BE PERMITTED
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the deteriorating situation in medical services in some areas, as evidenced by several well known doctors, and as the delivery of medical care is being forced into a mediocre position by threats of financial reprisals, can the minister assure the House and the people of Canada that deterioration of medical services will not be permitted?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member and the House that the federal government will see to it that the four basic criteria provided under the Medical Care Act and the Hospital Insurance Act are going to be respected and maintained.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the minister that he had better get busy on this because there is a report before several-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister or to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Keeping in mind discussions taking place currently in the Security Council regarding the Middle East situation and in particular the

occupation of Arab lands, would the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs reiterate the policy of the Canadian government with respect to the acquisition of territories by force?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, if I may be permitted to answer this question, it is the policy of the Canadian government, as has been reiterated on a number of occasions, that Israeli forces should be withdrawn to secure and recognized boundaries.


LATVIA, ESTONIA AND LITHUANIA-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SEEK FROM RUSSIA RIGHT OF SELF-DETERMINATION FOR PEOPLE
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the answer he has just given. If that is the policy of the government with regard to territory taken by force, in light of the communist tyranny suffered for over 30 years by the Baltic republics of Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania will the minister indicate if the government will use the European Security Conference as an opportunity for seeking recognition by the Soviet Union of the right of these peoples to self-determination?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the Canadian government toward the Baltic republics is that we do not recognize de jure the incorporation into the Soviet Union, although of course it exists de facto. At the forthcoming conference in Helsinki, we are not going to agree that those borders have any force in law or that they are changed in any way by the conference itself.


MIDDLE EAST-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON SECURE AND RECOGNIZABLE FRONTIER
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I have a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs in reference to the Middle East situation. Has Canada at any time delineated what in its judgment constitutes a secure and recognizable frontier and, if so, when has it made its position known?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we would have thought that what are secure and recognized boundaries would be those recognized by the parties at issue.


AIR CANADA
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Now that there are reports that the dispute between Air Canada and the machinists has been successfully concluded, can the min-
June 19, 1973

ister tell the House whether discussions are taking place with the aid of his officials in the dispute between Air Canada and the Canadian Airline Employees Association.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was talking with the officials of my department and approaches are going to be made to both sides by mediators in my department to see if they cannot be brought together again in another effort to try to resolve this unfortunate dispute.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary following which the Chair will call orders of the day.


DISPUTE WITH CANADIAN AIRLINE EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION-SUGGESTED ACCEPTANCE OF CONCILIATION BOARD REPORT BY COMPANY
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Transport whether he has discussed with Air Canada the advisability and desirability of Air Canada beginning to discuss the unanimous recommendation made by the conciliation board rather than completely rejecting that recommendation?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this statement is not according to the facts. Both parties in Winnipeg accepted to meet each other on the basis of the unanimous report, but no party has accepted the report as such.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre) moved:: That this House is of the opinion that Canada urgently needs a new national transportation policy, aimed at removing regional inequalities and disparities, and including amongst other things the equalizing of the freight rate structure, the discontinuance of the practice of abandoning railway lines and services, and the greater use of the ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy to move this motion today in view of what has occurred in the last several days, and in view of the scheduled conference between the four western premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who is also in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, has been butting in, and, as I understand, he has unfortunately been given some authority in arranging this meeting. I will get into that matter in a few minutes.
To begin with, I want to repeat what we on this side of the House have said every year for many years, namely that Canada needs a new transportation policy. In fact, we have needed one for decades. Successive Liberal and Tory
Transportation Policy
governments in Ottawa have failed miserably over those same decades to see to it that Canada had a transportation system which was not only efficient but which was integrated and fair in collecting the costs of transportation from Canadian consumers wherever they lived in this country. This new transportation policy must include a principle overriding all others, that transportation is a public utility; that the purpose of our railways, our airlines, our pipelines and our communications systems is to provide fast and efficient service-with emphasis on the word "service"-and that profit must be secondary. Because these transportation systems are essential public services, essential to our well-being as a nation, it therefore logically follows, I submit, that they should be publicly owned and controlled.
Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party, and in the CCF years before, have always advocated that our railway systems, airlines systems, pipelines and telecommunications systems should be publicy owned and treated as public utilities. They are no different in terms of their essential public service; there is no difference between them and our streets, sidewalks, sewer and water systems and the publicly owned telephone systems that we have in western Canada. Because of the very nature of their operations, they should be publicly owned and controlled.
Private profit from essential public services can no longer be allowed to take precedence over the requirements of our country for transportation and communication services. I submit that the profit motive has no place in the operations of the railway, airline or telecommunication systems or pipelines, in the same way as the profit motive has no place in the operations of a sewer and water systems or our streets and sidewalks. Anybody who suggested that there should be a profit motive in the operation of these public services would be laughed out of town I am sure.
That is the basic tenet of what we submit, and have submitted for years, in terms of what should be contained in a new national transportation policy. A national transportation policy must provide for the operation of the services and take into account our geography, climate and scattered population. We need a government in Canada which, in devising a national transportation policy, will remind itself that there are people and places in Canada besides Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, that there are millions of people in those places who are entitled to equal and fair treatment and to good service from our transportation system.
Mr. Speaker, there have been arguments put forward and anger exhibited in this House ever since 1885 about discriminatory freight rates. I will assume for the time being that the motivation of the Prime Minister and the government is very high in arranging a meeting with the four western premiers to discuss the problems of western Canada, one of which will be transportation and, in particular, rail transportation. There is no reason in the world why the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) cannot present concrete proposals to the four western premiers on a revised national transportation policy, and specific proposals on what the government would like to do about freight rates.

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
In a speech I made a couple of months ago in the House I gave examples of what we mean by discrimination in the area of transportation in Canada. I want to cite more examples. It seems to me that we have had a great deal of difficulty in convincing governments, made up of either one of the two major parties, of the difficulties in this area. As well, we must contend with the appalling lack of understanding and knowledge of this matter on the part of people generally in central Canada. The idea that our present rate structure is justified because of the existence of the Panama Canal is surely outmoded and should have been dropped a long time ago. Transportation, surely, must be recognized as a primary instrument for the development of an adequate social and economic infrastructure within the provinces and regions of Canada.
That being the case, surely it is essential for there to be a significant provincial and regional input into the formulation of national transportation policy in Canada. I submit that if the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport were to present to the four western premiers and, later, to the rest of the country specific proposals and ideas for a major revision of our transportation policy, they would receive in return input from these areas. An entire litany of tariffs and freight rates has been recited in this House over the years. I wanted to point out some to the Minister of Transport in detail.
In the present Parliament there have been many discussions concerning the cost of living and, particularly, the costs of food. Well, let me tell the Minister of Transport, through you, Sir, that the revenue under agreed charge rates from any part of Ontario to Vancouver with respect to a 50,000 pound carload of foodstuffs is $1.65 per ton mile. To Regina, it is $2.83 per ton mile and to Saskatoon it is even worse, $2.91 per ton mile, almost double. The freight rate is the same from all Ontario points to Vancouver as it is to Regina, $2.21 per hundredweight. For some reason, it is $2.44 per hundredweight to Saskatoon. Under the eastern rate groups, the rate from Quebec to Vancouver is $1.53 per ton mile, and $2.50 to Regina. Let me mention steel products and wire fencing. I wonder why farmers are not particularly interested in listening to the Prime Minister or to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) who is in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board?


An hon. Member:: And why they did not vote Liberal.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, and why did they not vote Liberal. For wire fencing, the rate from Sydney, Nova Scotia to Vancouver is $1.75 per hundredweight. To Regina it is $2.20. The revenue per ton mile is 95 cents to Vancouver, but $1,77 to Regina, almost double. To Saskatoon, it is $1.88. For angles, beams and channels as well as other steel products, the rate from Contrecoeur, Quebec, to Vancouver is $1.50 per hundredweight, but is $2.23 to Regina and $2.41 to Saskatoon.
One could recite examples of inequalities in freight rates for the whole day and not get through them all. So, here is one specific area that the Prime Minister and Minister of Transport can discuss with the premiers of the four western provinces. They can make specific proposals and come to an accommodation involving the equalization and, if necessary, subsidization of freight rates. This

should involve not only the prairie provinces, but the Maritimes as well, and should deal not only with rail freight rates, but with air transportation costs. They should be concerned not only about the movement of goods, but also about the movement of people.
It should not cost so much to fly from Halifax to Vancouver. We should be able to lower those fares and, if necessary, increase fares slightly for people travelling between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto, the routes where traffic volume is probably 10 or 20 times greater than in other parts of the country. If we increased those fares a little, we could afford to reduce fares for people wishing to travel from Vancouver to their national capital, or from Halifax to Inuvik or anywhere else in this country. I say this because there is discrimination even in the movement of Canadians because of where they happen to live. So long as our transportation system continues to be motivated by the search for profits, we shall continue to find this kind of discrimination affecting both the movement of goods and of people. I was amazed to see a newspaper headline which read, "Lang scolds western governments". In the first place, who asked him; in the second place, who cares?
If the Prime Minister and the government are genuinely concerned about the economic problems of western Canada and, as well, their own political difficulties, they ought to realize that the big billboards the Minister of Justice erected in his riding in the last election campaign showing him whispering in the Prime Minister's ear helped them to lose most of the seats that they had held in western Canada. When are they going to realize that this man who talks about the tunnel vision of the premiers was the author of an outrageous grain stabilization bill. That did not help the Liberals in western Canada. This man was the author, and even today is the stubborn defender, of Operation Lift. Does the Prime Minister still not realize that the Minister of Justice, whom he has put in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, has contributed to western alienation and disenchantment not only with Liberals but, as well, with other matters that we have debated in western Canada for a number of years?
The Minister of Justice talks about the tunnel vision of the four western premiers. Since his vision did not extend beyond the end of his nose when he introduced Operation Lift, he is in no position to throw stones in any direction at anyone. I recall farmers, agriculturalists and members in this chamber, including some in his own party, pleading with him and warning him about the stupidity of Operation Lift. If we have one billion bushels of grain on hand, so what? That is money in the bank. That is an inventory, a pantry for the world. All it would take is an average crop in one year as well as some good sales in that year, and in 15 months we could be out of grain. I would sure like to hear the minister telling us again how good Operation Lift was.


An hon. Member:: Stick to the motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The Minister of Justice will be doing the conference and western Canada a favour if he just withdraws completely from having anything to do with it.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.
June 19, 1973


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Let him follow the recommendation of my leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) and keep his big mouth shut. If the government has a genuine desire to see accomplishments come out of that conference, the last thing they need is any more of stubborn Otto. That conference is not for the welfare and good order of the Liberal Party. If the government has a genuine desire to work at solving the problems of transportation in western Canada, then let me say that the kind of contribution made by the Minister of Justice, who is in charge of the Wheat Board, was not only uncalled for but was a disservice to his cabinet colleagues, if not to the rest of the country.
Our transportation policy must not only take into account our geography and climate and not only have input from the provinces and regions of this country, but it must spell out the transportation requirements of the country as a whole. There must not only be equalized or subsidized freight rates, but rail passenger services must be expanded.
The federal government has a dismal record in the research and development of new, fast and modern rail transportation. Canadian National Railways and United Aircraft have been carrying the ball almost singlehanded-ly in the development of the turbo-train. They are to be congratulated on this. I hope that when it starts operating next week, it will be a magnificent success. The amount of money the government has put into the development of short take-off and landing aircraft is many times greater than any effort made in relation to ground transportation. I do not know why that kind of effort could not have been put into the development of rail transportation, trains to carry hundreds of people, not 14 or 18 as will this fancy aircraft which the minister is prone to brag about.
Our transportation policy must prohibit the abandoning of branch lines, with a few minor exceptions. The moratorium, which ends in 1975, that the government and the Canadian Transport Commission placed on the abandoning of rail lines is not good enough. The people on the prairies can foresee hundreds of miles of tracks being torn up and dozens of communities, which can and should be viable, disappearing. In spite of what the Minister of Justice said on this subject, there are too many communities in the prairie provinces of 1,000, 1,500 or 2,000 people which will be decimated by that kind of policy. That is another specific proposal which the Prime Minister can present to the four western premiers, namely that there will be no abandoning of branch lines, with only a few minor exceptions.
The closing of station agencies is another matter. The Canadian National, following the example of the Canadian Pacific Railway, has been allowed to close agencies on a wholesale basis. I do not question for one moment that some of them should have been closed. In spite of the appearances of provincial governments, municipal governments, Senators and members of parliament before the railway committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, the railroads were allowed to proceed. I challenge the Minister of Transport and the CPR to present revenue figures for all the agencies that have been closed, for example, in the Regina service centre area and compared
Transportation Policy
with that the revenue of those agencies, incoming and outgoing, carload and less than carload, when they were open agencies. I will bet the Minister of Transport a plugged nickel that that information is not available because the CPR found it very convenient not to keep track of that revenue for individual shipping points that are not open agencies. They can flatly say they were uneconomic, no longer needed and the evidence to prove otherwise has carefully been destroyed; in fact, it has not even been provided.
A new national transportation policy must provide for an integration of our transportation services, air with rail and rail with road in areas of short, medium and long haul traffic. I sometimes wonder why we need 10, 20 or 30 flights a day between Ottawa and Montreal, a distance of 120 miles, when the turbo-train or an even faster train would do the job much better between downtown Ottawa and downtown Montreal. We waste capital and make inefficient the operation of our airlines. They waste money, not only by endeavouring to transport that many people for a short distance, but trying to feed them a meal during a 50 minute flight. Surely, there is room to integrate air with ground traffic, rail or bus, on short hauls. In order to relieve congestion on our highways, there is room to integrate the moving of freight by rail on medium and long hauls and by truck on short to medium hauls.
There is a need for a co-ordination of schedules. I can recall the summer before last being on a flight from Ottawa to Winnipeg via Toronto. I arrived in Winnipeg five minutes after a flight left for Regina. I also recall the Canadian Pacific passenger train arriving in Regina 12 minutes after the CN Dayliner left for Saskatoon. This does not require legislation. All that is required is some good sense to co-ordinate our transportation companies and systems.


Mr. Peters:: Yes, but that would make it pay.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) says that would make it pay. It would be terrible if the passenger service were to pay or even reduce its losses. Government policy directives from the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission could very simply solve this situation. There is no reason why the so-called competing airlines in this country cannot have integrated schedules. The Canadian Transport Commission needs to be totally revamped, not only in terms of its members, but in terms of its authority. We must quit using it as a repository for ex-cabinet ministers and ex-railway officials. Even though they are knowledgeable and nice people, it is inconceivable that they have any real understanding or sympathy with the needs of Canadians in terms of transportation, either for their products or for themselves.
I wish to again point out that within a matter of a few days, in spite of representations by ordinary citizens, reeves, mayors of towns, the government of a province, Senators and members of parliament, the railway committee of the Canadian Transport Commission allowed the CNR to proceed with the closing of 70 agencies. All we were doing was trying to salvage even 20 of them. I submit that the CNR and CPR have yet to prove their case for the way they have been closing agencies and the validity of

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
the so-called customer service areas. The Canadian Transport Commission must be more responsive to the wishes expressed by the public, organizations and governments. If the commission is going to continue to be responsive only to the economic needs, the profit and loss statements, of railroads, airlines, steamships and interprovincial trucking companies, they will continue to be looked upon by the Canadian public as something opposed to their interests and, even more serious, opposed to the interests of this country.
We cannot continue to allow the transportation system to operate as though it were still controlled by 19th century railway barons. The lip service which successive federal governments have paid to the publicly-owned sections of our transportation system has been all too apparent year after year. Our national railway, the CNR, is still saddled with a debt it can never discharge. Almost every year the CNR shows operating profits of between $30 million and $50 million but the interest on the company's debt is $15 million to $30 million higher than that. And each year parliament votes tens of millions to pay the interest on a debt which was never the result of the operation of Canadian National. Part of a new transportation policy should be to take over as part of the national debt the remaining $2 billion owed by the CN to the banks, trust companies and some individuals, thus allowing the government, on behalf of the people, to own all the shares in the system. This would help the national railway to operate more efficiently than it has done up to now.
Another step in a constructive transportation policy would be to halt the continual erosion of Air Canada through giving rights to another airline which has never had the interests of the Canadian people at heart. The Canadian Pacific system has never at any time geared its operations to the welfare and good of the nation, but only to its own welfare. The minister has been sitting on a decision about the right to the air route to Milan for months. I bet a nickel he is going to give it to Canadian Pacific. I would be glad to lose that nickel, but I will be surprised if I am not correct. Europe was supposed to be reserved for Air Canada. But all of a sudden, Canadian Pacific got Amsterdam. Then they got Lisbon and Madrid. What do you bet, Mr. Speaker, that they are going to get Milan, too? But when the President of Air Canada suggests that Air Canada should be given much more serious consideration when it comes to rights across the Pacific, we hear a different story. Oh, no. The Canadian Pacific gets the new landing rights in China. I can only believe it is the deliberate policy of the government to prevent Air Canada from being as viable as it should be. This is being accomplished by granting lucrative rights to other companies, particularly to a corporation whose interests are not in the best interests of Canada.
My hon. friends will be dealing with other transportation issues. Most of them involve items which are not new-they are brought up time after time. If the minister wishes to put an end to some of these grievances which have been borne for decades in western Canada he should help the Prime Minister make suitable proposals to the western premiers, for one thing, and, second, he should

make sure the Minister of Justice has nothing whatever to do with the conference.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, first, may I say I welcome the opportunity to speak to this motion proposed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) on behalf of his party. While acknowledging the existence of the many transportation problems to which he referred, and realizing that they are very real, it seems to me that to suggest they can all be solved simply by nationalizing all modes of transportation in the country is a gross over-simplification of the problem.
I welcome this debate because the substance of the motion is similar to that of a motion I proposed on behalf of the Conservative party in the House on March 20. At that time nothing was forthcoming by way of response from the government side. Indeed, very little of substance has been said in reply to criticism which has been advanced since that date. I have a definite suspicion, too, that there will be little of substance delivered here today, though we can, perhaps, expect more open-ended promises and assurances that these matters will be looked into.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is an able fellow, but he continues to be more effective evading questions and playing politics than he is in administering his department. I am sure he must realize that the Department of Transport is vital to the economic and social progress of the country. I shall not spend the rest of my time picking on the minister, other than to say that we on this side are extremely disappointed by the lack of policy in the area of transportation. However, we realize that the Minister of Transport is dedicated to a party which is totally bankrupt of policy in the area of transportation. It is bankrupt because it fails to acknowledge that a problem even exists. He belongs to a party which said before the election campaign that all was well in all parts of Canada, a party which failed to acknowledge that there was a transportation problem in western Canada or in the Atlantic region. How could one expect a policy in these circumstances?
We now find the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Otto) arranging to meet the western premiers in an attempt to find out what is wrong. And even before the conference can get off the ground, this lone ranger from Saskatchewan accuses the premiers of tunnel vision. I say this is another example of intellectual arrogance, the kind of arrogance which led to such a pathetic performance by his party in the last election, in western Canada. It is this same arrogance that has caused the government to fail to recognize the expertise and knowledge which some of its own supporters possessed. I refer particularly to the former member for Edmonton-Strathcona, Dr. Harries, who possessed a wealth of knowledge on the subect of transportation. On December 10, 1969, he put forward a private member's bill, Bill C-170, which zeroed in on the major issues and highlighted the points we are dealing with now. I should like to quote from this bill because it expresses so well what the debate on western transportation is all about. The substance is as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other Act, any person engaged for hire or reward in transport of goods or
June 19, 1973

passengers by motor vehicle or by railway to which the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends, who charges higher tolls or tariffs for the transport of goods or passengers for a lesser distance than for a longer distance on the same line or route, shall be guilty of an indictable offence and liable to pay to the shipper or passenger not less than the greater of ten thousand dollars or the difference between the actual toll or tariff charged and what the toll or tariff would have been if the lowest tariff or toll had been charged over the whole route.
Basically, this is what concerns us, the anomalies in the freight rate structure affecting western Canada which allow goods to be shipped to Vancouver for less than it would cost to ship them to Edmonton or other intermediate points in western Canada. The government disregarded this particular bill and the input that Dr. Harries was very much prepared to contribute, and thus failed to develop a policy, to overcome one of the basic issues that confront us in the West.
I am surprised that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, who has been critical of the lack of government transportation policy over the years, sees fit to keep the government in office notwithstanding the fact that this issue is so very vital and important, particularly to the future of western Canada. The only thing we can be thankful for is the message that was driven home so dramatically last October 30. We now see, superficially at least, the government acknowledging that there is a transportation problem in this country, and as a result we are going to have a western economic conference at which the subject of transportation will be the major issue.
I should like to say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we look forward in hopeful anticipation to something positive and satisfactory emerging from this conference in Calgary in July. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) had better go to Calgary fully armed with some positive proposals, because I do not believe that the western premiers will be satisfied with sitting down with their federal counterparts on a simple fact finding mission or exercise in public relations. Neither had these ministers better go out west simply with the idea of garnering some votes for the Liberal party, because I can assure them that these votes will be hard to find.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. Boniface seeks the floor for the purpose of asking the hon. member for Vegreville a question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Certainly.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member whether he has the full support of his party, and also the other opposition party on that side of the House, since I see only two members from each party present this afternoon.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, that is not a question but an observation and I am surprised that you would allow my hon. friend to taunt me in this way. However, knowing the hon. member as I do I take it as a gesture of
Transportation Policy
good faith, and I can assure him that it is not quantity that counts over on this side but quality.
As I was saying before I was so delightfully interrupted by my hon. friend from St. Boniface, the premier of Alberta, as spokesman on transportation matters, made abundantly clear the position of the west in a speech to the Empire and Canadian Clubs in Toronto on May 7. Significantly, this speech gave rise to questions in the House to the minister regarding what positive proposals or programs the government will be putting forward at that time. I simply want to reiterate the importance of bringing forth a coherent set of proposals so that this question can be fully and exhaustively debated. The premier of Alberta had this to say:
-I want full and complete disclosure by the railroads of all the cost data that they provide the Canadian Transport Commission. I want to know the extent of fixed-as compared to variable-costs.
I want to know the economic benefit of terminals and loading facilities to major centres in Canada. I want to know the relative taxpayer contributions to other transportation facilities-such as airport terminals. In short-full disclosure by the railroads of their cost data. Second, public justification of every major freight rate in terms of cost-benefit for the Canadian public interest-not the railroads' financial interest. The railroads are common carriers. They were established historically to pull Canada together- how? Primarily by building through western Canada. In fact, to really create confederation as we know it today. Are they fulfilling their original purpose in 1973? Most westerners do not think so!
I wonder whether the Minister of Transport can answer that request in the affirmative.
We then had the speech made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) in which he said that then the provincial premiers insist on a "tunnel-vision" approach to a particular problem to try to get quick, surface answers to a problem with deep underlying causes, "we are not going to get ahead". I quote that last statement from the Vancouver Sun for June 16, 1973. With this kind of atmosphere there is going to be a conference of confrontation rather than a conference to find meaningful solutions.
I should also like to know what role the elected federal representatives are going to play at this particular conference. This group should not be totally circumvented, yet the government has been conspicuously silent on the matter. As the elected representatives of the hopes and aspirations of the people in the parliament of Canada, we have acknowledged that there are transportation and economic problems to be dealt with. Although we have spoken out on these issues our words have fallen on deaf ears. We have some knowledge of the situation and have made suggestions.
I believe it is imperative that at least a committee composed of federal members of parliament from western Canada be invited to participate at the conference, at least in the role of observers. There are eight elected members of parliament in the Liberal party from western Canada, 18 elected members of parliament in the New Democratic party and 42 elected members of parliament in the Progressive Conservative party. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, who speaks for the west in the federal parliament of Canada? Certainly, it does not appear that the Liberals do since it is obvious that they do not have the support of the west. It is equally obvious that the other two parties have a controlling majority. This is why I believe the govern-
4896

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
ment should call upon the expertise, knowledge and abilities of these elected representatives and allow them to participate at the conference, at least as observers. I ask the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport seriously to consider this proposal; failure to comply with this request can only be interpreted, as far as I am concerned, as an affront to western members of parliament. We known the government has never been in the habit of consulting elected representatives, but on this particular occasion-"particular" in light of the political make-up of the House-if the government fails to confide in the truly elected members of parliament representing western Canada it is simply a manifestation of its genuine lack of sincerity in grappling with problems confronting the west. Transportation is an urgent matter in western Canada and until it is solved it places an undue burden on the economy as a whole.
The motion before the house states that Canada urgently needs a new transportation policy aimed at removing regional inequalities, disparities and so forth. I agree with that statement, Mr. Speaker. But I believe that a national transportation policy must go beyond that. We must develop an effective national transportation policy within the framework of our industrial goals. I believe we must adopt an over-all, co-ordinated approach, and by so doing provide greater opportunities in all regions and promote and preserve national unity. Our transportation policy must apply not only to rail transportation but to all other modes, such as air, marine and surface transportation. I believe our national transportation policy must be utilized as a major tool for economic development in all regions of Canada. Such a policy cannot be developed by the carriers alone. It must be developed by the federal government, it must be supported and it must be effectively administered and co-ordinated by the federal government. A national transportation policy must be embodied in an over-all national policy with goals and objectives that would enhance the development and preservation of the economic and social welfare of all Canadians, regardless of where they live.
Over the past few years, as a result of the government's attempt to overcome regional economic disparities, we have witnessed huge outlays of money under the DREE program. The net effect I believe has been minimized, indeed swallowed, by discriminatory freight rates. In some cases very high freight rates apply to industries locating in some of these depressed areas in respect of the movement of their goods to the marketplace, and I refer here particularly to the western and Atlantic areas. I suggest a rechannelling of funds might be more effective to the development of a national transport network. Perhaps this would have a more stimulating effect on industry in those regionally depressed areas, as they would at least have the advantage of seeing their product move to the marketplace at realistic rates. This would probably also alleviate the risk of the imposition of countervailing measures by some of the countries to which we move our goods.
In short, I believe a re-evaluation of the DREE program should be undertaken to compare the effect those funds would provide if used to improve the transportation network. If this were done we would certainly overcome,

perhaps once and for all, some of the anomalies that exist from one end of the country to the other, and certainly alleviate the pressures in respect of national unity.
It has been said in this House many times, said in the press and said by speakers of all political affiliations that in this country there are inequities, discrepancies and anomalies in the freight rate structure, some of which have been devastatingly discriminatory. I will not go into them in detail because, as I have said before, they are widely known. Just to mention a few, we might consider the movement of goods from east to west at one rate and the movement the other way at a totally different rate. We might consider the differential in the rate on the movement of processed goods from west to east, which is twice the rate on raw products moving the same direction. We see greater charges for shorter distances than for longer distances, a point alluded to by our friend Dr. Harries in his Bill C-170. We also see the absence of freight rate groupings in western Canada, and I could go on.
These issues have been around for many years. They have been the subject of controversial discussion, commissions, studies and hearings, yet we are still entrenched with the underlying philosophy that we in the west are only good for supplying raw materials. To put the matter into perspective, we must look at the current legislation now governing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for allowing me the privilege to continue. I shall do so briefly. I thought we were allotted a little more time. I simply want to say that under the provisions of the National Transportation Act there are three safeguards in respect of which I now cannot go into detail. They have not proved effective in protecting the interests of the shipper. Therefore, I think this whole concept of the Canadian Transport Commission, its role and structure, has to be reviewed and reoriented.
The absence of any effective legislation has created inequities and unfairness in the establishment of freight rates. In terms of dollars and cents, the discriminatory features and the application of our freight rates in the west has cost us something in the order of $20 million annually. We have inter-regional trade deficits of something in the order of $2 billion annually. The loss of jobs as a result of our inability to establish industry in western Canada runs into the thousands.
I simply want to reiterate the very urgent and pressing necessity of coming up with an effective transportation policy which will take into consideration the economic development aspects of all regions in Canada, and reiterate once again that our transportation policy must become a tool for economic development. The structure and role of the Canadian Transportation Commission must be examined and reoriented with that in mind. The public must have greater participation in decisions affecting transportation in this country. If competition is to be a factor in rate-setting devices, Part III of the National Transporta-
June 19, 1973

tion Act must not only be proclaimed, it must be implemented.
We must have a complete and thorough review of freight rate structures as they apply to all regions of Canada. We must examine the principle and the application of agreed charges and non-competitive commodity rates to eliminate the regional discrimination which arises therefrom. We must establish a mechanism that will provide some unity and fairness of rates across the country, based upon the distance travelled. We must remove the anomolies in respect of the cost of moving goods between regions. We must upgrade our rail lines and our roadbeds if we are to haul heavier loads.
We must also consider in very short order major improvements to the ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert. We must broaden the use of these facilities in order to achieve maximum benefit for the agricultural producers of western Canada.
In respect of rail line abandonment, we must realize that rail service is an important and essential aspect of the welfare and preservation of our rural lifestyle. Further, rural rail line abandonment decisions must take into consideration the over-all social effects upon communities as well as economic factors. We must consider amending the criteria of abandonment and discontinuance procedures for lines operating on a non-profit basis. We must also devise a subsidy structure, where necessary, to encourage economic and efficient service, and we must thoroughly and immediately review any abandonment decisions and procedures, considering carefully the impact upon communities and the people affected.
I realize I have abused my privilege, Mr. Speaker, but I simply want to close with this point. It is my belief that in a complex society and economy such as ours, transportation is a major factor, and certainly a significant link in uniting the west and Atlantic provinces with the mainstream of confederation. There are other factors to consider as well, such as capital, technology, people and environment, but none so important now as transportation. Without a sensible and satisfactory transportation policy, the job of broadening the economic base, and thereby the opportunities which arise, would be a formidable task. I want to urge this government to get on with the job.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the House now has before it a motion of special importance as it raises crucial and vital problems concerning our country's economy, in which we can see shocking regional disparities and social inequalities from coast to coast.
The motion reads as follows:
That this House is of the opinion that Canada urgently needs a new national transportation policy, aimed at removing regional inequalities and disparities, and including amongst other things the equalizing of the freight rate structure, the discontinuance of the practice of abandoning railway lines and services, and the greater use of the Ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert.
Mr. Speaker, as one can see this motion is acceptable as it stands since special problems are raised and since the government is being asked to table in this House a truly national transportation policy, a just policy, particularly
Transportation Policy
as regards tariffs, in order to ensure fair and equal treatment in every part of the country.
In the course of my brief remarks, Mr. Speaker, that will certainly lead me to speak of the difference in the cost price of feed grain between eastern and western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, everyone will agree with me that, because of the immensity of our country, if we are to ensure constant progress for our society, we require a national transportation policy that takes account of the country's size. There is no need for me to elaborate on this. I need only remind you of the debates which occurred at the time of confederation, when people dreamed of a railway that would unite Canada. This was one of the sine qua non conditions for the preservation of the country's unity, the unity of the Canadian confederation. Now we see what the result has been.
One special aim of a transportation policy is to minimize communication difficulties. In this respect, private enterprise plays an important part. There are new companies, such as Telesat, for example, a semi-public Crown corporation which is trying to participate, but a great deal of work remains to be done since many regions still lack communications media, which is unacceptable.
For instance, with regard to television, I am thinking of New Brunswick and other areas of Canada.
There is another objective we must pursue, we must not neglect, which goes beyond political aspirations, and that is ensuring equal opportunities to all Canadians, wherever they live.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to feed grains transport policy, we have one law for our friends and another for our foes, and that no one can deny. Eastern producers have to pay almost one dollar more per bushel than their counterparts elsewhere in Canada. There is also a difference between British Columbia and the western provinces, again because of that tariff policy.
Mr. Speaker, that policy is a source of discontent, it divides Canadians; as a result of it, the present national transport policy does not pursue the objective it should have, that of guaranteeing equal opportunities to all Canadians wherever they may be.
Every producer, whether from eastern or from western Canada, whatever he is growing, should have the same requirements, the same responsability and the same rights with respect to commissions, be the Canadian Wheat Board, the Canadian Feed Board or any other commission. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, we contribute to divide the country.
Last week in Drummondville, about 10 Liberal members and one minister-Creditist members were also well represented-took part in a dialogue with spokesmen for the Farm Producers Union which, along with the Milk Producers Federation and other organizations as well as co-operatives and four-mills, represents the "speaking majority" in Quebec as regards that problem. And what did we hear all through the evening? Those people were disatisfied, and rightly so, and not one of the members who were there can say the opposite. Those people were calling for a just treatment; they wanted to have a voice in the Canadian Wheat Board, in the Canadian Feed Board and, since the evil can be traced back to it, they especially
26446-20J

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
called for an equitable transport policy that would enable eastern producers to benefit from western production and western producers to have access to Quebec manufactured products.
Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. members there could not help agreeing to the requests of those people and admitting they were right, since that is the price of national unity, of building this country on sound bases.
Mr. Speaker, there is another aspect I should like to mention. In 1969, the Canadian National Railways made a request covering a large part of the province of Quebec in order to establish the station-center system and to close local stations, to replace station masters by some robot who earns from $25 to $40 a month and can only give parcels, and open or close doors, and to set a Zenith phone system so that the public could have access to information or make reservations.
Mr. Speaker, in 1969 the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) will recall-he was a member of parliament then but was not in charge of that department-that the House passed Bill C-7 to grant an increase in subsidies to Canadian National Railways. At the same time, the CNR submitted a formal request to close those stations and abandon complete lines.
Mr. Speaker, I will quote names of companies to show the impact that situation has created. In Fortierville, for example, in the constituency of Lotbiniere, there is a flour mill; Deschaillons is the home of Montreal Terra Cotta Limited, Commercial Office Furniture, Potvin and Fournier, etc. In Parisville, another small town, there is the Henri Cote co-operative enterprise and many more. The Vital Boucher and Les Machineries agricoles companies are located in Leclercville. All these companies were working towards the same goal as the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, namely the creation of jobs and the maintenance of steady expansion in this region of the country.
Mr. Speaker, all these companies were supplied by means of the railway that passed through there, the famous Parisville line. Then Canadian National Railways petitioned to be allowed to abandon precisely that line. On the one hand you have a department investing money by the millions to create jobs-which is wonderful-and on the other hand you have a Crown corporation, Canadian National, trying to do away with the usual means of transport.
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that these two programs are contradictory. In spite of the entreaties of the authorities of all the municipalities, in spite of the protests of the owners of the small Quebec enterprises involved, Canadian National Railways turned a deaf ear and the railway line was abandoned.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-7, adopted in late November or early December 1969, granted more than $400 million in grants of all kinds to finance the national railroads. Before this act was passed, the railway companies received for transportation, in 1967 for example, $110 million a year in federal grants to compensate them for fares and services operated at a loss.

I know that the Minister of Transport will answer back because he is one of those who say: "We must abandon the services which are unprofitable." I am one of those who say: "The first role of the government is to make transportation available in order to unite the country, even at a loss." Anyway, this Parliament and this government, as the previous ones, have constantly voted millions of dollars to make up for losses incurred by the CNR.
Under the 1967 legislation, those grants were supposed to decrease gradually by $14 million a year beginning in 1968 and be completely removed by 1975. As a result, following the process provided in the legislation, the railway companies had until 1975 to ask permission to abolish all unprofitable services and branch lines while continuing to get subsidies for services which must be maintained in the public interest.
Now, who defines public interest, Mr. Speaker? One would have to go to the Canadian Transport Commission to find out, and there should be someone who speaks French there. No additional financing would be granted through this bill, unless the total amount does not exceed the decreasing amount from year to year, if it were possible. Therefore, that was the situation in which the Canadian National Railways found themselves in 1969. They ask for additional financing on one hand and, on the other hand, for leave to abandon services which supposedly run at a deficit.
Mr. Speaker, this House is now considering a bill which will probably be passed before adjournment, Bill C-164, and when reading it we can find that the Canadian National Railways are asking us again more than $225 million, and authority to borrow an additional amount to pay for deficits of previous years.
It is interesting to note, if one wants to be earnest, that when they want to stop providing services on some lines, the CN authorities spare no efforts to keep very tight accounts and prove that these services are not profitable. We only have to refer to all the reports that the Canadian National Railways presented with their request to justify their application to stop providing services. But when they want to establish a new concept such as the central station plan, these very officials say that profits are secondary and that modernizing services must come first.
This is probably what the minister will tell us as well. In short, the economic argument is used whenever convenient. However, this is taxpayers' money and they are entitled to know how it is used.
In the current situation the lines which served the farmers are abandoned while, on the other hand, subsidies are requested and a bushel of wheat is more costly to an eastern producer than to any other producer in Canada. This is completely unacceptable.
This is why I support the motion presented by the New Democratic party which is aimed at inciting the government to develop a new and truly national transport policy which would take into account the vastness of our country.
In a brief which I submitted to the Canadian Transport Commission on December 16, 1969, I stated and I quote:
The supporters of the Canadian National Railways policy will maintain that it is impossible for the railway companies not to
June 19, 1973

show a deficit if they are not relieved from their obligations to sustain deficit services. Consequently-
-as current transport authorities do,-
-they maintain it is in the INTEREST OF CANADIANS who are paying taxes . . . and who are therefore subsidizing the railway companies not to pay unnecessarily for services which will always be non profitable.
And they go even farther today. While having taxpayers swallow that, primary and important railway lines are abandoned.
On the other hand, you have the status quo policy supporters. They maintain-
-perhaps for political reasons-
-that nothing should be changed in the current policy. However the current policy,-
Mr. Speaker, this policy spells deficits which we have to finance and about which western and eastern Canadians are dissatisfied anyway. Just listen to the speeches made in the House by the hon. members and you will realize this.
Finally, there are the supporters of a policy of the future for the National Railways. They demand better services, a realignment of costs, an adjustment of the National Railways to the needs of Canada's modern society. Personally, I should willingly include myself in this third category-
-with my colleagues,-
-and a great number of-
-our fellow citizens from the province of Quebec.
Apparently, the National Railways have fallen behind the situation. Therefore, our propositions are certainly not extremist.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the present situation cannot go on any longer. Many CNR services would greatly need to be improved, rechecked in order to best serve the economic interests of the underdeveloped regions and thus remove regional disparities, a task which the minister wants so much to be done.
Besides, in that spirit, the federal government has set up-
-we will recall that the Minister of Transport was then at the head of that department -a Regional Economic Expansion Department-
And, Mr. Speaker, should he be recognized later, I would like it if the minister could tell the House if his department was consulted by the Canadian Transport Commission and by the CNR before the abandonment of some railway lines at the time he himself was working out his new policy.
Mr. Speaker, now that I have touched on the points I wanted to emphasize, I would like to move the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the motion be amended by substituting a comma for the period and by adding the following:
"and that this new national transportation policy make special allowance for the differences in the cost price of feed grains between eastern and western Canada so as to ensure a fair price for all Canadian agricultural producers."
-wherever they live.
Mr. Speaker, before resuming my seat, I want to urge the minister to express his views and to reassure the
Transportation Policy
House concerning the establishment of such a policy while taking into account the needs of all Canadians, without distinction.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before I recognize the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) perhaps I could pronounce upon the proposed amendment, and put it before the House. It seems to me to be an expansion upon, but not an abrupt departure from, the original motion presented to us. I have no reason to think it is not in order, unless I see hon. members rise to say it is not in order and then, of course, I would be prepared to hear their argument. Not hearing that, this is the motion proposed by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) moved:
That the motion be amended by substituting a comma for the period and by adding the following:
"and that this new national transportation policy make special allowance for the differences in the cost price of feed grains between eastern and western Canada so as to ensure a fair price for all Canadian agricultural producers."


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the opposition was well advised when it decided to devote its time today to the very important problem of transport in Canada. That is just about the only point on which I agree with hon. members who have spoken so far. As for the other points, I intend to deal with them separately.
To my mind, we say things that are obvious when we speak of the size of this country, of the inacessibility of certains areas, of the remoteness of certain communities, and of the fact that ensuring an equally efficient service to all is possible only to the extent where we endow ourselves with a transport system capable of enabling the people not only to visit each other, not only to travel across the country, but also to transport freight, and of allowing all Canadians to benefit from Canada to a greater extent.
Now, the problem is important to Canada, as it would be to any other country, but more so for Canada because it is sparsely populated; let us not forget that in the United States, where the population exceeds 220 million, building a railroad from New York to Los Angeles would cost no more than building one from Halifax to Vancouver, but for one difference: there are 220 million people to pay for it over there, against our 20 million here. That is a reality we cannot deny or shut our eyes to.
The problem of transports in Canada must therefore be studied from every angle. It is complex, extremely expensive for the people of Canada, and I too would like it to be defined.
I read the resolution of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) which deals with a national policy. That is the very purpose of the resolution; it asks the government to come up with a national transport policy. Hon. members have spoken of everything, except that. Grievances were brought up, such as that dealing

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
with the difference in freight rates between western cities and Vancouver; feed grains were mentioned, but no one dared define a national transport policy.
There is one good reason, Mr. Speaker, that is a national transport policy in Canada could exist only if it is related to regional programs-because each region has particular problems and geography. Some of those areas can be reached only by waterways, others by railways and there is the problem of remote areas. Then, as far as the national transport policy in Canada is concerned, we must talk about regional programs, because the transport issue in western Canada is not the same as the one in the Mari-times; there is a big difference. And we must absolutely consider specific solutions for each region.
Now, what does transport mean? First, it is a service not an industry, even though we can call it an industry with a specific sense. It is a kind of service and we must elaborate our transport policy in order to reach our economic social and national objectives, that is to elaborate our various transport systems in relation to objectives and purposes that we are trying to reach as a national entity.
People do travel, Mr. Speaker. They travel in their community, their region, from one region to the other, throughout the country and abroad. They travel by ship, by aircraft, by train, on the highway; so, all sorts of problems crop up.
Now, the federal government has a wide jurisdiction in the field of transportation; the provinces also have a certain jurisdiction and we must find for every region a policy truly appropriate to its requirements and acceptable to all Canadians because they must be prepared to pay for it.
I heard the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) state that we must not disturb anything in the existing services. After saying that we must review and change everything, he adds in the same breath that we must preserve the status quo, that we must maintain the services.
Obviously, everybody will agree that if it takes 100 miles of tracks to serve a farm somewhere-perhaps I exaggerate-it would probably be better to close it down.
Anyway, that problem does not exist now since all those branch lines have been frozen some years ago; no railroad lines have been abandoned and until 1975, I think, nobody will have to suffer from that in Canada. Obviously, we will probably have the opportunity to discuss what will happen after that.
We are being told about a national railroad and transportation policy and I am not expecting hon. members sitting on the other side of the House to think that the government has done something; it is sure that theoretically and as a rule, it is necessary for it to do nothing. And that is done with much intelligence by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski).


David Orlikow: That's right.


Jean Marchand: Particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who spends his time distorting everybody's words because it amuses him. Anyway, if Canada were represented only by this

kind of persons, I think we would have a very poor Parliament.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, contrarily to what is being said, I have been trying for some time to work with the provinces. A while back someone said that the provinces should be called upon to contribute. That is of course what I have done. The first meeting which I had was with the premiers of the Maritimes to whom I presented concrete proposals, in order to solve certain problems. No one mentioned the fact that grants are being given in the Maritimes, that 30 per cent of the grants are in the field of railway transportation and not only in this area, but also in the trucking field because today we cannot simply give grants to the railways since there is trucking transportation which is becoming more and more important, even in western Canada.
I had figures before my eyes a moment ago and I realize that half the trucks in Canada are in western Canada; in fact, of the 1,500,000 trucks in Canada, 800,000 are in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. In other words, this transportation means is extremely important and we must see how we can use it to reach our national objectives. Now, I have met with the Maritimes premiers; we have talked about freight rates, we have arrived at sound propositions. I have also talked about coasting, that is about the Darling report, in an attempt to see if the premiers would consider positively the repatriation of our ships in order that the coastal transportation could be assured by Canadian ships and crews. We have discussed at length and I am expecting answers to questions that have been raised. I hope that we will soon arrive at a new agreement.
Thus, those who believe that we are not working in conjunction with the provinces are wrong. I asked all the ministers of transport to meet with me in Manitoba, in Brandon I believe, and they thought it preferable to attend the big western opportunities conference before meeting the Minister of Transport. That was their strategy. I do not believe it was a delaying tactic, but simply that they wanted to get a general view of the problem. Thus I was prepared to work with them, and I am still prepared to do so. We did the same thing with British Columbia, Mr. Speaker. We studied the entire transportation system in the north of the province; we also studied the effect of the use of the harbours, particularly in Prince Rupert, and the hon. member for Saint-Boniface (Mr. Guay) will undoubtedly have the opportunity to speak about that. We worked and negotiated for months, and today we are very close to an agreement, since the leaks are starting. But this time they are coming not from the federal government, but from that of British Columbia.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that when one has made such progress, one can disagree with what the department is doing, but I believe that broad general statements that nothing is being done about the railways, that the problem of feed grains is being overlooked, are without foundation. The hon. member for Lotbiniere would be astounded at the number of hours of work we have devoted to finding a solution to this problem and, I have no doubt, it will very soon be solved. That then is-
June 19, 1973


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere rises on a question of privilege.
[ Translation]


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that the government is perhaps, secretly studying the problem of feed grains, but it would also be fitting if the hon. minister and his colleagues were to have the honesty to answer when questions are put to them in the House. Then we would see that they are not afraid to tell us what they are doing, unless they know nothing.
[ English]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That seems to be question upon which debate can take place, but it is hardly a question of privilege.
[ Translation]


Jean Marchand: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. There are all those problems. There is the problem of the various rates pointed out by a member for Calgary, for example, between some western cities and Vancouver and from Vancouver to eastern areas. It is clear that if it costs $2.50 to ship goods to Winnipeg and it only costs $1.50 to send them to Vancouver, it is difficult to explain. I would be rather reluctant to appear before a meeting of westerners to explain such an inconsistent matter which the railways can however explain, there is no doubt about it, because they find an explanation. If the member for Winnipeg would stop playing his discordant tune, it would enable me to complete my remarks.
Anyhow, Mr. Speaker, it is surely difficult. The railway companies explain it quite simply; they consider that they are competing with the maritime transport from Montreal or Halifax, through the Panama canal up to Vancouver. Those companies base their policy on the following reasoning; We absolutely have to compete with the maritime tariff. This is how they explain the situation.
But, I still believe that that argument can never be accepted by the Canadian public because it is a matter that represents, at first sight, an extremely hateful feature, and I intend to discuss the matter with the companies involved in order to remove these anomalies in relation to rates and then to be able to consider the real problems so that we will stop bringing back all transport problems in Canada to anomalies that can be explained historically, but have little reason to be maintained in 1973.
Then, we are told that we are doing nothing in the modern transport area. Mr. Speaker, why say that? As a matter of fact, a great many things are being done. We have the Turbo train that will be put in operation soon. It had a sad experience at the beginning, no doubt, but if we think of all those who devoted themselves to research in this area, they have had some sad experiences of their own, Mr. Speaker. The CNR has had its share with this train. There is the whole development being conducted on the light trains called the LRC-Light and Rapid Car. This is properly a Canadian enterprise that will be very useful.
Transportation Policy
Now, when people compare this type of transportation with the STOL program, of course they are talking about two different things. STOL aircraft, whether the Twin Otter of the THC-7, will certainly serve other purposes than the trains. There are places where small aircraft are more practical than trains travelling 250 miles an hour. Therefore, we must try to organize all this in order to better serve our people.
Consultations have taken place with the Atlantic provinces, the western provinces, British Columbia and, now, I hope that this conference scheduled for late July, again with the western provinces, will give concrete results and settle several of the problems which have been mentioned this afternoon and which certainly do exist.


Mr. Whittaker:: Take the railway out, and perhaps they will take it over.


Jean Marchand: What did the hon. member say, Sir? All right.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal with the problem concerning airports. We did not talk much about it this afternoon as it is a highly politicized issue and each time we want to establish an airport, it stirs up protest and some members, instead of trying to overcome their political partisanship, instead of trying to make some people understand that it is in the interest of the area to build those airports, prefer to barter with their feelings. This may bring them a few votes, but I do not think it serves the interests of the country as a whole.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, in the past it was a blessing when this happened. That is to say that in several areas in Canada getting an airport was a blessing whereas in some others it was a curse. However, I think the government should be strong enough to put up with a certain unpopularity so that a few years from now the larger Canadian centres will not be poorly served by a transportation system which is obviously essential in this country; indeed jets have probably played a greater part in Canadian unity by allowing people to travel, to meet, to get acquainted and also, in most cases-and I hope it will become increasingly true-to appreciate each other highly.
We have established a policy concerning airports; we did not talk much about it, but we have one. Why, for instance, do we intend to build a new runway in Vancouver? It is not to annoy the people there, but rather because Vancouver is the gateway to Canada for the whole Far East and it is absolutely essential that this city be able to serve efficiently its people and all its visitors as well.
Now, let us speak about cargo. Today, cargo is transported not only by rail or by ship, but also by plane.
General statements are made; of course, I shall never vote for this motion. If I had been a member of the New Democratic Party, I would have fought to keep one of my colleagues from introducing a motion which, on the whole, risks destroying the little bit of economic unity which may remain in this country. Mr. Speaker, it states, and I quote: -the equalizing of the freight rate structure-
If they achieve this, the West as well as the Maritimes will be the first victims. This means that Ontario, which is

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
highly industrialized, and Montreal, will be able to compete with the few industries existing out west and in the Maritimes. So, what is this policy? What do they want to do? These are big words: Let us equalize the freight rate structure in Canada. To equalize it would mean that the poor provinces would become poorer and would be unable to get out of their fix. Furthermore, it is basically wrong to have the people believe that all existing regional problems are related to transportation.
I say one thing, Mr. Speaker: even if it cost nothing to transport certain products, industries would not set up in certain areas of the country to manufacture them. It is not true that transportation is invariably and systematically a factor of industrial localization. Such is not the case. So they retort: There exist transportation problems, and if the freight issue is solved, prosperity will come to the maritime provinces or the west. Unfortunately, that is not true. That does not mean that nothing can be done about it.
In the Maritime provinces we have been asked to increase our grants; we are going to do something and we will do it on a selective basis; in other words, industries which do not really need them will not receive any, because that becomes an injustice also. If we subsidize transport for one industry in the Maritimes which competes with another industry in Ontario, and neither of the two is at a disadvantage compared with the other as regards transport, by what right should be subsidize one? By what right should be take public funds to create such a situation? This means that we should endeavour to find areas which are in need, the sectors which can expand within slower growth areas, and give them a hand by setting reasonable rates.
It is said that we have done nothing in the area of transportation. Yet in recent years Canada has spent more than $1 billion for highways, an area which is normally under provincial jurisdiction. In fact, the Trans-Canada Highway alone cost more than $800 million to the country, precisely to join the different regions. Now, we conclude special agreements. The hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), a former premier of Nova Scotia, knows that we negotiate special agreements under the old Atlantic Development Board. Considerable amounts have been spent to give the Maritime provinces an appropriate road network. Since then, we have continued along these lines through the FRED agreements with each province, so much so that these last years we have been spending in the Maritime provinces almost $300 million over and above the money allocated for their stretch of the Trans-Canada Highway.
Thus, it is not true to say that nothing has been done in Canada in the area of transportation. It is one of the serious problems in Canada. It involves tremendous outlays but a considerable effort is being made. Of course the problems of development in the north of British Columbia are not the same as in the Eastern Townships. Agreements are made between the two railways, the British Columbia Railway and the Canadian National, in order to try to develop natural resources of the north of British Columbia. For the province, that is more important now than to enjoy the service of a crack train between two points.

We should not forget that transportation is changing rapidly. People used to think-and they still do in some circles-that the more we build big planes, the greater the pollution and that it will be necessary to have longer and longer runways. Not so. Actually, the most recent aircraft like the DC-10 or the Lockheed 1011 require shorter runways than DC-8 type aircraft, make less noise and, eventually, will produce less pollution.
Then, we must change a little our concepts and that is why it is so important to develop the STOL program which will enable some communities to be linked together, and which can bring about, at the same time, a substantial industrial growth in this country.
This is why we are trying to introduce innovations in this field. Some people suggest that we have not the least improved in the area of air transportation. But it is not so. As a matter of fact, we have had talks with Germany in order to extend Canadian airline routes. We have discussed with Italy, China and this is why, if the hon. member wants to know, we have assigned the China route to CP Air. And now we are developing a general policy which we hope will establish for quite some time limits within which each of our two carriers will have to expand.
And I hardly think I should stand for lectures on the way we should treat Air Canada, which has never been so badly treated as by an individual whose name is Doug Fisher, whom the hon. member from a riding in Calgary knows quite well. This reporter wrote the most revolting article about Air Canada, and about the so-called French combine within the Department of Transport, which would have attempted to undermine Air Canada to the advantage of other companies. Well, we are perfectly aware that that person is able to have control over 16 members of parliament who have expressed their opinion in this House. I suggest that this is discrimination and that it does much more harm to Air Canada than anything else.
At any rate, Mr. Speaker, we must develop our maritime policy, that we have stated. We try to have the biggest possible merchant fleet in Canada and to make it economically viable. We already have some elements of it on the Great Lakes; if we can have the Darling report approved, this would mean that coastal transportation will be done by Canadian ships and crews. If we can reserve the whole navigation of the Great North to Canadian crews and ships, we shall do it. And this will be extremely important, not only for transportation purposes, but for the prosperity of our shipyards across Canada.
It must not be said that we have not established a policy; we have. Rather they are programs that mesh together and are strongly regionalized. It cannot be otherwise, Mr. Speaker, because instead of serving the country well we would serve it badly.
Mr. Speaker, our transportation system in Canada is based on two principles: first, the principle of competition between various means of transportation and, then, an organization which is called the Canadian Transport Commission and which is empowered to regulate. Why has the CTC been established? In order to prevent public exploitation in regions where there is no competition. Where there is competition, the principle of the 1967 law applies and competition must determine the prices. I did not draft that

law on my own; it was adopted by the House and I cannot recall that our friends from the opposition rose against this basic principle which is part and parcel of the law. Thus, the CTC enacts regulations when there is no competition and where competition exists, the regular rivalry prevails between transportation means.
Now where grants are provided, as in the maritime provinces and eastern Quebec, we have to do as much for the trucking industry-and rightly so.
As to the changes to be made, we should know what it will cost the Canadian people. I do not mind; people may say: It does not cost anything to travel across Canada. However, we know that it is going to cost something; taxes will have to be imposed so that a company unable to remain self-sufficient with its rates may keep operating.
As a whole, Mr. Speaker, we certainly have not solved everything and we certainly will not solve everything. I hope that at the coming conference of the western premiers, we shall remove those irritants that were explained in this House. I hope they will find an interesting system for the transportation of feed grain and that the next time a day is devoted to the transportation problem, we shall really deal with a transportation policy, with its importance, because people do not always react the way we would like, since they are free.
Some people may say: Let us use trains rather than automobiles. Everybody will agree. However, it always concerns somebody else, not themselves. They drive their car, and trains are not used or rapidly become non profitable. That is true.
On the other hand, other people will say; Instead of travelling by air between Montreal and Ottawa, why not go by train? Under what principle would the government prevent any one from flying to Montreal if that is what he wants? It is clear. If ever we establish a rapid transportation system between urban centres like Ottawa and Montreal featuring crack trains as I saw in Munich, Germany, at Krauss-Maffei's that will be some improvement. This means that it is possible that within a few years trains will be travelling safely at 200 or 250 miles an hour. If this is possible our transport philosophy will be completely modified because surely people will more willingly travel by train than crowd our airports.
In Munich I have been able to see the problems caused by airports and modern transport. It took me less than six hours to fly from Montreal to Paris and one hour and a half from the Paris Airport to Paris because the highway was so bottled-up.
We also are faced with this kind of problem in the Metro-Toronto area. Extremely serious transportation problems exist and we try to solve them in co-operation with the provincial government. It is another example where we co-operate with the provincial government to solve this problem which is prevailing in our main urban centers. What can I do about it? Everybody cannot live in Toronto! We must find high-speed transportation means.
Besides we want to do the same thing in Vancouver with the co-operation of the British Columbia government.
From the main critics I have heard until now I recall abnormalities in the freight transportation rates and we agree that we should try to eliminate them. Some regions
Transporta tion Policy
are more underprivileged than others; we are going to correct that in co-operation with the provinces, with the people faced with the transportation problems so that it becomes easy to live in this country precisely because travelling distances will have been reduced through the implementation of rational transportation both for people and for goods.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister will permit a question.


Jean Marchand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister elaborated on the fact the government has policies in all areas. The minister stated all these policies are up to date. In view of this, why are we experiencing a delay in awarding the landing rights in Milan, particularly in view of the fact that Alitalia has increased its flights from four flights weekly to one daily and the fact they are booked solid from June 15 to August? Is that consistent with the national interest of Canadian carriers?


Jean Marchand: I have already answered that question several times. We are trying to define a national policy and, at the same time, we shall decide what is to be done about Milan. The hon. member for Vegreville wants Canadian Pacific to go to Milan and the hon. member who spoke a while ago for the New Democratic Party wants Air Canada to go to Milan. We shall try to find a satisfactory solution.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I should like to ask the minister whether he and his officials, in consultation with air and rail carriers, have looked into the possibility of equalizing passenger fares generally, as well as freight rates.


Jean Marchand: If the hon. member wishes to discuss that matter he will have to define what he means by the equalization of fares and rates. The way I understand it, it is nonsense in Canada. While I was listening to him I hoped for one moment he was going to say exactly what he had in mind. Does he mean people should pay the same rate everywhere in Canada, or that rates should be determined according to distance? Exactly what does he have in mind? I cannot answer the question until I know exactly what he means.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister's time has expired. Before I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North, perhaps I could carry out the duty of the Chair according to standing order 40 by informing the House of the questions to be raised at the time of the adjournment.

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges)-External Affairs-South Africa-Reason Commonwealth tariff preference not withdrawn by Canada; the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather)-Agriculture-shipment of horses to Europe for slaughter-request for action to eliminate; the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard)-Health-Steps to counteract increase in cigarette smoking.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Benjamin:
That this House is of the opinion that Canada urgently needs a new national transportation policy aimed at removing regional inequalities and disparities and including, amongst other things, the equalizing of the freight rate structure, the discontinuance of the practice of abandoning railway lines and services, and the greater use of the ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I was a little surprised that the minister should have taken umbrage so readily at my few mild interjections during his speech. He made some uncomplimentary remarks about the kind of member of parliament I am. I simply say to him that I am more than willing to have the people of my constituency and of his constituency, or the people anywhere in Canada, compare my views before I came to parliament with the views I have expressed since, and to compare, on the other hand, the views the minister used to express when he was a militant labour leader, with the kind of apologies for the status quo he has made consistently since he became a minister.


Jean Marchand: That is not true at all.


David Orlikow: The minister says that is not true. But on an appropriate occasion I will prove from the evidence that it is.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister can't take it, so he leaves the House.


David Orlikow: He can't take it, so he leaves the House. But the fact that at the conference to be held between the four western premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) next month one of the main items on the agenda will be the whole question of transportation and transportation costs is surely evidence that the people of western Canada, regardless of party, are vitally concerned and upset about what they consider to be the unfair way in which transportation policies presently operate to the

detriment of the people who live in the four prairie provinces. An efficient transportation system at fair rates is essential if the have-not parts of Canada, which include not only the prairie region but northern Ontario, northern Quebec and the Maritimes, are to be able to use the full potential of the natural products they possess and of the manpower available to them. If the areas I have mentioned have been unable to use their full potential, if their unemployment rates are far higher than the national average, it is to a large extent because the transportation policies pursued in this country have failed to meet the needs of those areas.
The geography of western Canada, part of which I represent, places restraints on the Prairies which are unfair to that region and which a.e not felt by other regions of the country. These restraints can only be overcome through the development of a national transportation policy which actively promotes the development of the have-not areas. I say that the prairie provinces are tired of simply being producers of raw materials, producers of wheat, poultry, paper,potash, oil and natural gas. The prairie provinces want to develop secondary industry so as to give to those who were born and who grew up in those areas the same opportunity to find jobs at good wages as is now available to people in the Toronto-Hamilton area or in the metropolitan area of Montreal. They are tired of seeing the transportation system of this country focused in such a way as to bring new jobs to areas which already have the most jobs. They want a transportation system and regulations which will permit optimum industrial and resource development in western Canada and in the Maritimes.
The philosophy presently embodied in the National Transportation Act relies almost exclusively on carrier competition to control transportation costs. This policy works to the detriment of economic development in the west. It should be co-ordinated with regional development strategy to ensure equality of opportunity. I am glad to hear that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) intends to speak in this debate. I know he has lots of nerve. Indeed, some people would say he has lots of gall.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Not only nerve, but common sense.


David Orlikow: I want to hear him defend the present policy. Let us see who has the common sense. Hundreds of millions of dollars were paid out by people in all parts of Canada for the development of the St. Lawrence Seaway. I think this was a good move. The opening of the Seaway led to a reduction in freight rates, mainly to Quebec and Ontario. It permitted grain ships to move all the way to Thunder Bay; it permitted ore to be carried to Hamilton without having to be trans-shipped into smaller vessels. As I say, rates in Ontario and Quebec were brought down, to a large extent because of the millions which were invested in the Seaway by the people of Canada.
Manitoba, which I, and the hon. member for St. Boniface happen to represent, has a port, the Port of Churchill. It could do far more than serve the province of Manitoba. It is, in fact, a gateway to Europe for all the prairie provinces. Support for the development of the port of Churchill is given by all people of western Canada, regardless
June 19, 1973

of political affiliation. There is no harsher critic of present federal government policies, including policies of transportation, than the present leader of the Liberal party in Manitoba. He has talked more like a separatist than any other politician in the past 25 years. The Minister ot Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) can shake his head, but the record is there. His statements have been reported very extensively in the Winnipeg Free Press, so the minister can check what I say to see whether it is correct.
Let us look at what is happening at Churchill. First of all, with its inadequate facilities the port is not being used to capacity, despite the fact that the rate of shipping grain from Churchill to Europe is substantially less than the rate for shipping grain to Europe via the Great Lakes. The minister says he wants some facts, not theories, so let me give him some examples. Grain shipped from Canada via the port of Churchill to Belgium, Holland and Germany costs $4.58 per long ton; shipped via the Great Lakes it costs $8.28 per long ton. Grain shipped from Canada via Churchill to the United Kingdom costs $7.43 per long ton; via the Great Lakes it costs $10.45 per long ton, a difference of $3.02 per long ton, or almost 50 per cent more than the cost via Churchill. In spite of this, what do we have in terms of helping to develop Churchill from the federal government, from the Department of Transport, from the CNR, from the Wheat Board? Nothing at all.
Let us compare some other rates on goods shipped from Churchill. Electrical machinery shipped to Winnipeg via Churchill costs $64; via Montreal it will cost $80.20. The distance from Churchill to Winnipeg is 978 miles; the distance from Montreal to Winnipeg is 1,354 miles, almost half the distance again. Yet the two rates are almost comparable. The cost of shipping steel sheets and plates from Churchill to Winnipeg, a distance of 978 miles, is $57.60; from Montreal, a distance of 1,354 miles, the cost is less, $52.80. If you applied the Montreal rate to shipments to Winnipeg from Churchill, the rate would be $38.14 instead of the present $57.60. In other words, the rate would be $19.46 cheaper, and it means that the Montreal rate should be $14.66 less than the present rate from Montreal.
Let us examine the shipping rates on automobiles to Regina. The cost of shipping an automobile weighing 2,000 pounds from Churchill to Regina, a distance of 844 miles, is $126. The cost of shipping the same automobile from Montreal to Regina, a distance of 1,711 miles and almost twice as far, is $82.20. I hope that the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) is listening, because I should like him to explain these discrepancies and to tell the people of western Canada how these rates can be considered in any way fair. It costs $43.80 more to ship a 2,000 pound car from Churchill to Regina than it does from Montreal, even though the distance from Churchill to Regina is 867 miles less.
The minister has asked for some concrete illustrations of what should be done in terms of explaining and defending this motion. First of all, I suggest to the minister that the port facilities in Churchill can and should be improved. I suggest to the minister that if icebreakers can be used to keep the port facilities of Montreal open for
Transportation Policy
most of the year, icebreakers can equally be used to extend the season at Churchill for another two months. I suggest to the minister that if, as the premiers of western Canada have argued for years, insurance rates on cargo shipped through Churchill are too high, the government of Canada should co-operate with the provinces and set up a government insurance plan which would reduce the rates of insurance on shipments through Churchill. These are things which can be done for the port of Churchill.
Western Canada suffers because, as I said earlier, there is no real competition in the west in the transportation field. The situation has been aggravated because the railway companies, both the CPR and the CNR, began some years ago buying up trucking companies which used to be the only competitors to the railway companies. It was bad enough that they bought up the trucking companies, but to a very large extent, having bought them up, they closed them down. This was done by arranging that goods formerly shipped by truck should now be sent piggy-back on the railways. I do not question that many products can be sent piggy-back on the railways more cheaply than shipping them via trucking companies. But what happens when individual trucking companies which used to compete with the railways are bought out and driven out of business? We in western Canada know what happens because we are used to it. When there is no more competition both the CNR and the CPR really stick western Canadians, because there is no other way for western Canadian consumers or producers to ship their commodities.
Similarly, the way in which the railways set up rates as between long and short haul freight shipments completely discriminates against western Canada, and I am assuming against the maritime provinces too, though as a western member I have more information about the situation in western Canada. Let me give the House a couple of illustrations, Mr. Speaker. To ship iron and steel products from Toronto to Vancouver you pay $1.68 per 100 pounds. To ship the same 100 pounds of iron and steel products from Toronto to Saskatoon, which according to my geography is just about half the distance, you pay not $1.68 per 100 pounds but $2.47 per 100 pounds. I would love to have the hon. member for St. Boniface justify that.
Let me take another product used in the iron and steel industry, skelp. To ship 100 pounds of skelp from Hamilton to Vancouver, you pay $1.35 per 100 pounds. To ship the same 100 pounds of skelp from Hamilton to Edmonton, a distance substantially shorter than from Hamilton to Vancouver, you pay $2.11 per 100 pounds. There you have another example of why western Candians, regardless of party, are unhappy with the present transportation policy.
For a moment let me try to sum up by suggesting to the minister, who said we had not really explained what we mean by a national transportation policy, that we believe a national transportation policy must be related to an efficient and adequate transportation system that makes the best use of all available forms of transportation; railroads, ships, airlines, buses and pipelines. All these are essential to the economic and social well-being and growth of Canada. All these should be studied with a view to integration in order that they may be used to the best

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
advantage. In this way competition, which now acts unevenly in various parts of Canada and between smaller and larger users of transportation facilities, would be equalized. A national policy demands that all regions of Canada must develop to their maximum potential, and a national transportation act should have that as its fundamental purpose.
Let me conclude with one suggestion to the present minister, who was the minister responsible for the greatest expansion and expenditure under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. We have spent hundreds of millions of dollars put up by the Canadian taxpayers to bring industry to have-not areas. To a large extent, we have brought them through a helter-skelter policy based on a principle that escapes me and other members. We have brought industry to areas where, under the present system, they cannot pay transportation costs and, as a result, will not in the foreseeable future be viable operations.
Let me make this suggestion to the minister, and I do so after thorough discussion with one of the best economists in this country. The best thing we could do would be to wipe out the whole program of grants under regional economic expansion, as well as under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We are now giving tens of millions of dollars to new industry in have-not areas. The money saved could be directed toward offsetting the cost of transportation so that industry in areas long distances from the markets could produce and deliver products as cheaply as they are now produced in Toronto, Hamilton and Montreal. If that were the main purpose of our national transportation policy, instead of helping those who need help the least, as we are now doing, the people in western Canada would not be as dissatisfied, justifiably so, with the present national transportation policy and the present government.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the motion before this House touches upon a matter of tremendous importance to western Canada, and it is largely for that reason I want to say a few words about it today. The very foundations of this country, and the very introduction to it in a firm way of western Canada, were closely associated with certain transportation policies being developed with a view to the nature of the country and the nature of the relationship which would exist between the new areas, the new territories and the earlier settled part of the country. From that day to this the issue of transportation has been very high on the list of any westerner talking about problems from a national point of view, and problems which particularly trouble the western region of the country and about which westerners feel unhappy.
The traditional way of approaching this subject by politicians has certainly been to catalogue specific grievances and to examine specific rates and compare them, and not to go much deeper than that into the nature of the transportation system, its cost and the logic or philosophy behind such a system. Too often, partly because the governments in power have not been doing an adequate job of facing up to western needs in relation to the transportation system, opposition members of parliament have taken the loud route in point to problems and difficulties, usual-

ly reciting them in long lists without bothering to pay attention to the fact that the solutions to some of their problems would only increase other problems to which they are pointing.
I do not complain about that activity in the sense that it is not expected of opposition, but it is a fact that governments from the earlier establishment of national policy to this day have not adequately been able to develop a form or variation of transportation policy which seems satisfactory to the west. It has always been the view of the westerner that the government was attempting to run with or maintain a particular policy, and opposition members were pointing this out. Perhaps that explains why, historically, me prairie provinces in particular have traditionally oeeii so heavily represented in tin. opposition, no matter which government was in power, rather than on the government side of the House.
The significant thing is that this government at this time is determined to come to grips with this problem honestly and squarely. That is the real significance of the western economic opportunities conference, both in relation to transportation, which must loom large on the scene, and in relation to certain other specific items on the conference agenda such as economic development, industrial development and the nature of our agricultural life in the west.
These other items are important and, indeed, transportation is only important as it relates to the people who live in the west, the products that may be produced or found in the west, the way in which they may be moved and the way in which this may provide jobs. Transportation does not exist for itself alone, but for the people and the products it can carry and serve. That is the important thing for us to bear in mind as we approach this major question of developing a national policy for the west. We must bear in mind that a transportation policy is not just for transportation but for industry and economic development, for agriculture and processing development and for the kind of life the people of the west want and think they ought to be able to have within this great country of Canada, and of which they want to share a full part.
The simple listing of problems often ignores the realities behind the existing situation. A railroad expert can explain why, on occasion, longer haul rates may be lower than shorter haul rates. He can explain why the longer conveying would be lost all together to the railroad if it were not at a lower rate. He could explain that the higher rate is needed where it can be obtained in order to cover whatever basic costs are said must be borne by the railroads. Of course, that is a fundamental principle for national decision; that is, what proportion of the total cost ought to be borne in respect of freight and people, and what proportion ought to be borne by the treasury of this country instead of by freight and people.
This is a fundamental question and one which has been examined exhaustively by royal commissions with a cer-iain conclusion and certain direction in them. The Mac-Pherson Commission looked at this problem, that if you have a situation where freight is being carried at below total cost, then there is a good argument for other freight
June 19, 1973

not to bear that cost but for it to be borne by the treasury generally. Of course, in connection with branch lines and grain moving over the branch lines, we now feel the fruits of that policy in the form of large sums of money being paid the railways to cover what would otherwise be losses on that grain, thus avoiding the charging of higher rates to other classes ot freight moving on tne railways. That really is one ot tne fundamental problems I believe m the competitive control policy which the MacPherson Royal Commission seemed to think was so desirable and reasonable. The problem was that, over the years, if any product was not bearing its full share of the total cost of the rail operation, then the railways looked to the other products which they were carrying, whether people or freight, to attempt if possible to obtain an offset against the losses on that product. That is a very important decision that is made by the railways, and one which must be reviewed and examined by a government as a part of the review of our national policy.
What we really need is a constant examination of the relationship between freight rates, between freight rates on grain and freight rates on meat, to see what happens when you have this discrepancy in the way those rates are approached, or between freight rates on unprocessed materials and freight rates on processed materials, in the light of whatever our national policy may be in relation to where those materials ought to be processed and what ought to be encouraged in this country. That is the procedure we are following. We are following it not with another royal commission but with an intensive examination with our own resources and on the facts which are certainly available to us. This is the approach which we thought had to be taken with regard to branch lines and the grain movement. Opposition members simply rise and say, do not abandon the branch lines. They look at two years of studies which we have and they make very little comment on them, perhaps because we have not treated them as proposals upon which we wanted to stand without full consultation with producers. We wanted to examine the problem and lay the facts of this particular part of rail operations before the people.
What I think we cannot afford is unnecessary expenditures which do not serve a useful purpose, whether they are borne by the payer of the freight or by the treasury generally. That does not make sense and that is why we must look critically at these things. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) talks about stopping abandonment of branch lines. He knows full well that an Order in Council has stopped any significant exercise in that regard, and that furthermore, essentially branch lines have not been abandoned as a result of whatever procedure exists in the Canadian Transportation Commission for hearings in that regard. What has been happening has been that in some cases the very users of the lines have been abandoning them. People have been moving from rail to truck to move most of their products, and in some cases grain companies themselves have been leaving a rail line to consolidate their operations somewhere else. The users have been abandoning the branch lines, but the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre would have them all remain forever as a monument no doubt for the payment of treasury money to the rail system for some reason I do not understand.
Transportation Policy
I say to the hon. member most seriously that when he takes that stand of defending to the last every branch line and wants some expenditure on them, however wasteful that may be, he is doing a disservice to the cause of finding a logical and legitimate national transportation policy. Of course we know, and we have said so repeatedly, that the implications of any change in that regard upon the people affected by it is an important part of the determination of what action should be taken. We started studies on the community impact of any change which might be made, even though this is logically and largely a part of the function of the provincial government involved in the area. We have involved them in our discussions in order that they be fully associated with any decisions which are taken.
Hon. members are fond of saying simply, let us make use of the Port of Churchill. They ignore the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board record in relation to the Port of Churchill is outstanding. In recent years, record movements of grain, two years of top movements, have gone through the Port of Churchill as a result of the facilities which are there. Hon. members say, let us use the facilities more. There is no suggestion that we should make a cost analysis or determine whether an extra $10 million spent there on new facilities is in fact more or less useful than a $10 million facility erected, say, at Robert's Bank or, an additional facility in Prince Rupert or in some other location.
Those, however, are the hard questions which a responsible government must ask. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, a member of the New Democratic Party which had a government in Saskatchewan for a number of years at different times and in Manitoba at the moment, does not ask what those governments do to encourage the flow of freight through Churchill. Why is it that the freight going through Churchill is, in fact, in the order of 90 per cent or 95 per cent grain, Wheat Board initiated, and not initiated in any way by the provincial government to encourage the use of the port. The fact is that we have been examining this port very closely and we have been its best supporter.
In this reasoned situation, we must recognize the shortness of the length of the season at that port under certain circumstances and must judge expenditures of money in that light. Hon. members say we should use the port more. In the last negotiations with the Russians the Wheat Board received a firm commitment from them to make use of the port of Churchill for the first time in order to move some grain. As a result I have a letter here from Mr. Willis Richford, President of the Hudson Bay Route Association. He says:
Dear Mr. Lang:
On behalf of myself and the Hudson Bay Route Association I would like to convey congratulations to you, and to your officials involved, concerning the recently announced sale of grains to Russia, and especially for the announcement that some of it will move through Churchill. We hope that this return of Russian to Churchill is but the first of yearly visits to that port.
To that I say, amen. It expresses indeed our view of the usefulness of this port and how we ought to try to make use of it to the full. But, of course, we must look at costs. Hon. members say we should make more use of Prince Rupert. Of course, they do not point to the fact that the

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
number of bushels of grain going through Prince Rupert moved from under 12 million bushels in 1970-71 to 14 million bushels in 1971-72, and with the additional facilities put in place for this year, the amount is already
26,600,000	bushels. It may go as high as 30 million bushels in the course of the year. Hon. members perhaps do not know that Prince Rupert, and the people in that area, recognize the efforts which have been made to use the elevator and, in the process of making record sales, to use it in record proportion. I have a letter here from Mr. W. J. Scott, the Chairman of the Port Development Commission of the city of Prince Rupert. It reads:
Dear Mr. Lang:
It has been most gratifying the past few months to see the increased use being made of the local Canadian government elevator. We realize that this is the result of the efforts of yourself, and the many other officials responsible for grain movement and are most appreciative.
The large volume of grain being handled here demonstrates and confirms the capacity and efficiency of the local plant, and we hope that it will continue to be used to the same degree.
Mr. Speaker, the plain fact is that we have been able to more volumes of grain that no one thought of before. By planning ahead now, we are looking at the development of a policy for the west which can make a positive contribution to the future of the west for years to come.
There has been some discussion about whether we will have positive proposals. The facts are that this government has launched an intensive effort to determine the nature of the problems and possible solutions of western problems in the short and in the long-run. That means we will not be happy if we stop with patching particular problems to which the finger has been pointed over the years. I, as a western member of the government, and my colleagues will not be content unless we in fact continue the work we are now doing in solving specific problems, solving some of them indeed in the very short run. But I will not be content unless we develop the kind of approach and philosophy to the needs of western Canada which will affect and influence national policy on many fronts during many years to come.
That is what I had occasion to say a few days ago in Winnipeg and it has been the subject of certain comment since then. Mr. Speaker, I have since had occasion to see a newspaper headline and, as a result, I understand why the provincial premiers are a little sensitive. It was a headline which implied that I was scolding the western premiers. I do not think that was really the gist of my speech. What I was really doing was indicating to them that the western opportunities conference could bog down if a short-term view or a petty partisan, political view were taken of it; that that had to be seriously avoided, and that this was an opportunity such as the west had never had in terms of modern development of national policy for it.
The comments I made before making that speech-the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) was wrong, as usual, because so far as I can recall I did not talk to any members of the press after the speech, but only before it- were to the effect that I was optimistic. I admit that I sounded the warning because I thought it important that we avoid political pot-shotting and I was optimistic that

this view would be taken by the western premiers. Notwithstanding that, I think it a little strange that the word "scolding" was used. However, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to scold a premier from time to time. It seems strange that there are no rules or limits at all on what a western premier may say about me or one of my colleagues in this House, but they show a certain sensitivity if some comment is made by me against them.
I am grateful, and I am sure my colleagues are, for the advice that hon. members tendered today and yesterday both to my colleagues and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). They have tried; they have shown their great earnestness. They wanted the government to know what a liability I am in this connection and how well the government will perform if something different is done to me, or with me, or for me. I am sure they are earnest in their efforts to have the government in a strong position. I know that is their motivation and I, for one, appreciate it.
Over the years I have become quite used to being one of the several lone rangers of the House in this area. But this is a moment when I am deeply proud to be a western member of this government, a government which-and hon. members cannot challenge it-has shown determination at last, after years of neglect, to do something that is basic to the national policy of this country as it relates to western Canada. A Conservative opposite says, "Right." Of course, the point is that while his party was last in power, with a western prime minister and a solid phalanx of western members from the Prairies, they did nothing of a fundamental nature for the west. What they did, Mr. Speaker, was to offer the very kind of petty palliatives that I was warning about a few moments ago.
Let us not talk in terms of solving western policy problems by building a post office in Podunk. When the Conservative government was in power, not only did it take total pride in building a post office in Podunk but its members took special pride in it since they said it really showed a western Tory heart, because Podunk didn't even need a post office. That is not the role that this government seeks.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope hon. members will not see it as a hopeless political admission if I say that I do not expect all the problems that relate to the development of a national policy for western Canada will be solved by July 26. But I firmly believe this is the first time a government has taken hold of the problem with real determination to do something about it. I expect western Canada to understand that and to work together with us to see that new development of a national policy comes about.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, over the past several months the government has firmly committed itself to a policy of industrial decentralization within Canada. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) have both talked at great length on the need to develop secondary industry in the west adjacent to the region's great resource and energy base. Certainly these are admirable intentions and it is hoped that the government will actively pursue policies designed to promote industrial development in western Canada. The upcoming conference on western economic opportunity will demonstrate
June 19, 1973

just how sincere is the government in its intention to alleviate one of the most important problems confronting the western provinces.
One industry in Manitoba which could use a great deal of government promotion and assistance is the aerospace industry. Since the departure of the Air Canada overhaul base from Winnipeg to Dorval in 1969, the Manitoba aviation industry has floundered as successive Liberal governments have failed to honour their commitments to that industry. Air Canada's successor at the Winnipeg base, CAE Aircraft, has been beset with difficulties ever since it took over the operation. Lack of work has resulted in tremendous financial losses, and the company currently employs but a mere handful of people. Government contracts or assistance have not been forthcoming and as a result the aerospace industry in Manitoba is slowly dying. However, the industry's demise really began with the transfer of the overhaul facility to Dorval.
The transfer of the overhaul base to Dorval was probably one of the worst decisions ever made by a Liberal government-and there have been many bad decisions. The move destroyed what was once a viable industry in Manitoba and is partially responsible for making Air Canada an even more inefficient airline than ever before. In the interest of industrial decentralization, increased efficiency and safety, the government should take the necessary steps to move portions of the overhaul base back to Winnipeg. The facilities are still there, and there is a definite desire among the employees transferred to Dorval to move back to Winnipeg.
The problems at Dorval are monumental, and if practices there are an indication of the manner in which Air Canada is being administered then it is time for a complete investigation of that corporation. The recent strike and the numerous walkouts by Air Canada employees in recent years suggest that such a full scale investigation might be necessary. There are many contentious issues still be to resolved between Air Canada and the unions, and such as inquiry might pinpoint the reasons for the many continuing problems. For example, the use of strike breakers by Air Canada to perform the work functions of striking employees in the Winnipeg finance branch does little to enhance labour-management relations. In any case, an investigation into the happenings at Dorval is certainly warranted.
I have written to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) several times outlining why such an investigation is needed. I have also raised the matter in committee. The minister refuses to act. And while Air Canada officials have invited me to Dorval to inspect premises I have inspected twice before, they appear reluctant to investigate the malpractices which I have called to their attention. Should the minister undertake to examine the Dorval situation I am sure he would arrive at conclusions similar to those I am about to discuss.
Mr. J. R. Baldwin, the current president of Air Canada, said that the transfer was made in the interests of increased efficiency, economy and operating effectiveness. I assert, however, that Air Canada in Dorval is neither economically more viable nor more operationally efficient
Transportation Policy
than it was in Winnipeg. In fact, the opposite is true. I base my comments upon both my own investigation and information afforded me by employees. More specific details in relation to the charges I am about to make can only be provided by the employees themselves. Obviously, this would require a situation whereby they could be assured of immunity, but I can guarantee that several persons, many of whom have retired early because of the situation at Dorval, would be only too happy to appear before any investigative body studying the situation.
Air Canada at Dorval is highly overstaffed in some departments and grossly understaffed in others. In some areas this lack of staff results in failure to comply with MOT regulations. This fact has serious implications in relation to safety on Air Canada planes. It has also been brought to my attention that certain safety regulations in the avionics overhaul shop in Dorval do not comply with MOT regulations. The specifications laid down relative to quality audits are ignored, and there is no inspector in the shop.
I am also told that outdated systems which are responsible for much inefficiency are in widespread use. Employee morale is low at Dorval, especially among the 234 drafted Manitobans. As well, performance levels of both equipment and personnel is so poor as to stagger the imagination. Furthermore, there is little research activity being undertaken by Air Canada at Dorval. Basic training for employees is non-existent and many are unaware of MOT standards, requirements or even general procedures.
Tremendous and unnecessary costs are being accrued by Air Canada at Dorval. For example, a plethora of useless publications are printed and distributed every week. Each publication has its own staff, materials and distribution costs to pay. Officials at Dorval have told me that there is no real effort made by administrators to obtain MOT required manuals which are necessary to familiarize employees with particular subjects. I have also been informed that rejected equipment, particularly worn out tires, are being used on certain aircraft. One has to wonder what kind of safety regulations are being adhered to when this is allowed to occur.
As I mentioned earlier, these are but a few of the problems. Meanwhile, the facilities in Winnipeg remain for the most part unused. By moving portions of the air maintenance base back to Winnipeg the government would not only be demonstrating its sincerity with regard to its policy of industrial decentralization, but would be acting to partially remedy a dangerous situation. It is imperative that the Minister of Transport give his utmost consideration to the facts I have just mentioned.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comparison between the two cabinet ministers who participated in the debate this afternoon. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has obviously become a linguistic psychotic with a phobia in that field, rather than being an expert in transportation. I was interested in his reference to Doug Fisher. Although I am unaware of the article to which he referred, I have known Mr. Fisher for a number of years. When he was in this House he was considered to be an expert on transportation and was offered a number of jobs in the labour management field and in the administration field by both our

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
national transportation systems. I think it is doubtful, Mr. Speaker, that the present minister will be in this ministry long enough to learn half of what Mr. Fisher has forgotten about transportation.
I had hoped that the Minister of Transport would be open to suggestion for the development of a national transportation system. This is very important to all parts of Canada and not only northern Ontario. But it is so important there that the Premier of Ontario, like his colleagues in western Canada, has decided that the federal government is failing its responsibility, particularly in regard to rail transportation. It has been decided that the province of Ontario must do something about equalizing costs in various parts of the country, and that government recently announced that it will cut freight rates in northern Ontario by 18 per cent. The premier said this reduction would be made on a number of selected commodities and that it was not intended to continue the program long followed by North American railways of restricting any advantages in this field to raw materials. In an article in the Globe and Mail the premier is quoted as saying:
-the 30-day period would also be used for consultation with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways on rates in areas where mutual action will be necessary. There has been no prior consultation with CPR or CNR, one of the premier's aides said.
The government will reduce freight rates to and from northern Ontario in two ways. First, by slashing ONR rates, thereby lowering the over-all rate for a shipment into or out of the north which connects with the CPR or CNR.
Second, by cutting the rates charged by Star Transfer, the ONR's trucking arm. Star Transfer connects directly with Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, for a long time the province of Ontario has been concerned with the problems of northern Ontario and its inability to set rates for freight coming in there, these being set in the main by the Canadian National Railways operating out of Toronto. I was interested in the most recent report of the Canadian Transport Commission which is a regulatory body. With reference to passenger service on the Toronto-North Bay-Kapuskasing line a loss of $1,315,113 was indicated, the amount of the certified loss was $1,186,521, and the payment by the federal government to the CNR was $949,217.
On numerous occasions, Mr. Speaker, the Ontario government has offered to buy that line and a few years ago was willing to pay $2 million for it, so I presume it would not be unreasonable to offer $10 million now for the line from Toronto to North Bay. Every citizen in Canada is paying a million dollars a year for passenger service, and if the CNR thinks it is such a liability it could sell that particular line to the Ontario Northland Railway. It could be operated into Toronto, and I am sure it would make a profit.
Why do so few people travel by train, Mr. Speaker? A short while ago my wife booked a bedroom from Toronto to New Liskeard, You get on the train in Toronto in the evening, and get off at New Liskeard at four o'clock in the morning. My wife bought the thing.


An hon. Member:: The whole thing?


William Arnold Peters: When I say she bought it, I means she paid so much for it for one night. These old cars were bought from the American railways for $2,000. She paid $28 for the use of that berth from Toronto to New Liskeard. You could go to pretty nearly any hotel in Toronto and sleep all night in comfortable surroundings for less than $28, which is what she paid for her accommodation in an old car which was thrown away by the American railway, not one or two years ago but 14 or 15 years ago. We picked up all the old junk from the American railways. So we are not running a passenger service to meet the needs of the people. If you are travelling the 400 miles to Toronto, there is no point in driving; it is more advantageous to go by train. You get on the train at night, sleep on the train, arrive at your destination, do your business in the day, get back on the train, sleep all night, and get off in the morning. That is how people used to do it. They do not necessarily do it any longer.
Also, consider the mail situation. At one time, if a letter was posed in Toronto at about four o'clock in the afternoon, it was in your mail-box in New Liskeard at eight o'clock the next morning. Now it takes five days, if you are lucky. Occasionally I am surprised when mail arrives in one day. Sometimes, however, it takes three weeks, and on occasion I have received mail that has arrived more than 30 days after posting. That is how long it has taken to go 375 miles. So we are not running trains for people; we are running trains for the railways. The Ontario government, in making its concession, should not be thwarted because Canadian National Railways say there is to be an increase of 6 per cent increase on certain categories of freight going to northern Ontario.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who is responsible for the Wheat Board, just finished speaking. He was very upset because some newspapers had reported his arrogance. The premiers of western Canada are aware of his arrogance and they resent his making the statements attributed to him. If the government hopes to solve the transportation problem in western Canada in the same way as we hope to solve it in northern Ontario, there must be co-operation among all forms of transportation. Arrogance is not good enough.
What did the minister say in his speech? He was kind enough to make a copy of the speech available to us. Among other things, in western Canada the old Crowsnest rate structure may come under review. If the Crowsnest rate structure in western Canada comes under review, the only thing that can happen is that the rate will go down. It runs as high as 24 cents in one area of Saskatchewan, and goes down as one travels to the terminals either on the west coast or at the head of the lakes. The minister suggests it may come under review. What he is really telling people is this, "You had better agree to the proposal I am going to make or we will eliminate the Crowsnest pass rate which has been sacrosanct for many years."
When you consider a national transportation policy, no element can be taken by itself. The Minister of Transport today talked about STOL aircraft. I heard some nonsense from Air Canada the other day, when I was at Earlton, about that airline dropping its regional service. It will go as far as Earlton at least, I take it, and allow Norontair to take over. But that is another story. Norontair is an airline
June 19, 1973

established by the provincial government to operate in northern Ontario with three Beaver aircraft.
Obviously, short take-off and landing facilities will be provided in a number of communities, but we have lost our national carrier. This, of course, has happened in other areas. Our transportation system was considered a few years ago and it was decided that there would be regional carriers and Nordair, not Norontair, would serve this northern area. What did Nordair do? Nordair obtained permission to fly between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. It has the lucrative end of the market and does not need to worry about supplying feeder line service.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget Hamilton.


William Arnold Peters: Also, TransAir has moved from western Canada, Winnipeg, to Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie and Toronto. Of course, it wants to fly to Toronto without any intermediate stops. At the same time, we really do need a regional air service.
It is time we sat down and discussed this whole area. We should not just deal with present rates. The Minister of Transport, if he lives to be a thousand, will never be smart enough to understand how all these rates were developed. Such an exercise, in any event, would be futile and probably impossible. There are literally thousands of rates which affect various commodities, and they vary with area, zone and all kinds of conditions. We should get rid of those rates and set a number of standard rates that would be effective on either a regional or a national basis. They should be related, as the minister suggested, to the cost of moving a passenger or of moving goods. We should relate these rates to the cost of the operation of the transportation facility.
If we were to do that and relate these rates to the other services involved, we would find that transportation in this country would need to be on a national basis. The system must be integrated; we must unite all the major forms of transportation. Certainly there is no justification for two major airlines and the various regional carriers. There is no justification for two national railways and no justification, obviously, for all the PCV licences and the trucking concerns that are attached to the other forms of transportation in this nation.
There should be an integrated transportation system. The matter of transportation is the major problem in northern Ontario, as has been said at every conference held by every government, every municipality and every agency that has considered the problem. I am sure there is an identical problem in the Manumes and, judging by what members from western Canada say, there is a similar problem in western Canada. It is one that we ought to face.
When we decided that the Canadian Transport Commission, and not parliament, should be given power to control and regulate in this field, we erred; we were wrong. It is not possible to give a regulatory body the authority to create an integrated transportation system for this nation. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, that question should be brought back to parliament and parliament should again consider an integrated national transportation policy that will serve the needs of this nation to the advantage of all Canadians.
Transportation Policy


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. 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.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, before the six o'clock recess, I was indicating that Canada needs a transportation policy that fully integrates all forms of transportation. The Canadian Transport Commission which was established to regulate the various forms of transportation has been a total failure in developing any kind of integrated service. It is my guess that neither this government nor the official opposition will be able to develop the type of transportation facilities necessary for this country within the next 50 years.
Most Canadians will agree that the railways should remain an integral part of our transportation system. They will also agree that Canadian National and Canadian Pacific must be united to rationalize the rail transportation system across this country. It is stupid to have a half empty train travelling half a mile behind another half empty train and the government paying a subsidy for those lines.
It may be necessary for the provinces to operate some form of rail transportation system. For this reason, I will make the offer, on behalf of the Ontario government, to buy the line from North Bay to Toronto. I am sure the Ontario minister of communications would agree to a $10 million payment, and if necessary he would probably double that figure. We are now paying $1 million a year for passenger service lines. This fact should encourage the minister to project his policies for at least ten years and allow the sale of that particular line so that northern Ontario can be united with southern Ontario.
Unless this government considers an integrated transportation policy there are a number of things it will not be able to do. It will be necessary to determine the most economic, efficient and effective type of service for all segments of Canada, including rail, air and ground transportation. Canada is 20, 30 or more years behind in providing rapid transit service. Japan has a train which can travel at 300 miles an hour with relative safety.


An hon. Member:: Two hundred.


William Arnold Peters: My friend says it is 200 miles an hour. It is interesting to note that during World World II, New York Central operated the Silver Bullet through part of Canada at an average speed of 90 miles an hour. That was more than 30 years ago. If the New York Central could do that at that time, I do not think I am too far out in my guess of 300 miles an hour for the train in Japan. Such a service would advantageously affect our airport development and urban centres. In a film on television the other night it was pointed out that our urban development is on a five-year basis. Scientists in this field stated that urban transportation systems should be considered for 50 or 100-year

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
periods. In the municipal field we are really operating on a five-year program.
The federal government must take a very serious look at the total transportation situation. They must relate one service to another. As my colleagues have pointed out, there is no point having a STOL aircraft service between Ottawa and Montreal and having to spend more time getting to and from the airports here and in Ste Scholas-tique or Dorval than it takes a train to travel from downtown Ottawa to downtown Montreal even with the inefficiencies of CPR and CNR.
There is also the matter of economics. We reached the peak of inefficiency in this country when we put pollution controls on automobiles. In an ideal situation this will cut out 50 per cent of the pollution. However, it has doubled the gasoline consumption. There is no efficiency whatsoever. We would be better off driving a 1965 automobile, with no pollution controls, than a 1973 model with pollution controls. With a 50 per cent reduction in pollution, over a three-year period the exhaust pollution emitted would be exactly the same.
I do not fault the transport commission in this regard. They have failed in many other fields, but I do not think this is their responsibility. It is the responsibility of members of parliament and of governments. I hope the minister will prove me wrong, but I believe an NDP government will have to come to power in Ottawa before we see a satisfactory, over-all transportation policy in operation across this country covering movement by air, ground and water to serve the needs of all and equalize opportunity for all Canadians.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the applause will be as warm at the end of my remarks.
It is worth noting how little interest this debate seems to raise on the motion moved by the New Democratic Party, particularly the opposition parties. Obviously, when one hears as many pessimistic and negative expressions of opinion, it is difficult to raise much interest in this Chamber.
Mr. Speaker, the opposition motion now before us gives me the opportunity to speak once again on a subject matter that is most important for the area I represent in this House, namely the matter of transport. If I may, I shall make some remarks on the condition of transport in general in the Atlantic area, or in Eastern Canada if you wish.
The tenor of the motion under study, which aims at -greater use of the Ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert, -provides us with an opportunity to make some observations on the proposed development of deep-water ports in the Riviere-du-Loup region, which is so dear to the heart of my colleague from Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata (Mr. Gendron).
The problem of transportation, particularly with regard to rates and grants, is a most complex one. To attempt to solve the problem by developing a new national transpor-

tation policy, as the text of today's motion says, will not necessarily lead us-to borrow the words of the distinguished Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Gandhi, who honoured us with her visit today-to a real solution, namely one which will not lead to other problems caused in turn by the adoption of temporary solutions.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) made reference in his speech to a policy for the equalization of transportation rates, against which he warned us, particularly of the danger to the Atlantic provinces inherent in this formula. The formula in question is one which would discourage new manufacturing industries from setting up business here, and the same applies to western Canada, since the formula will simply help large manufacturing companies in central Canada to penetrate these markets, and not to establish themselves there, as is hoped for.
It may be, as the New Democratic Part claims, that Canada needs to change its national transportation policy. I will not deny this altogether, for I am not an expert, and moreover I do not believe that there are any real experts in this field, any more than in any other field of political or economic activity in this country.
We must also yield to the facts and admit that the political party of the proposer of this motion must also, from time to time, revise its proposals for solutions and take into account the rapid and constant change which is characteristic of the transportation sector. It is obviously a constantly evolving field and if there is an aspect of the question which must hold our attention further, it is precisely the current vitality of the transportation industry and the concern with which Canadian companies seize all opportunities to turn them to account for the great benefit of Canada in general.
In spite of all that, there remain specific regions and activity sectors which do not evolve as fast as the demand in the transportation service sector, where, as it happens in the Atlantic region in particular, the transportation industry has not quite reached the service quality that the citizens of that area are entitled to ask for.
Mr. Speaker, the citizens of the "Republic of Madawas-ka"-which by the way is celebrating this year the centenary of its designation as a provincial county-are in a particularly good position to take bearings. In Madawaska, and more particularly in my city of Edmundston, we are practically on that frontier which separates the Atlantic region from what is commonly called central Canada and in which I include Quebec and Ontario, and of course our attention is especially attracted towards central Canada because we are more aware of its presence. Yet, because of our political situation we also belong to the Atlantic region; we are from the Maritimes in Madawaska. So it often happens that conflicts regarding the transportation policy arise and are discussed here.
But we, in Madawaska, believe that people from the Maritimes moan too much over their fate, and that they should more often make constructive, permanent and acceptable proposals to the federal government in Ottawa.
If the federal government sometimes has difficulty in understanding or in accepting the position of the Atlantic region's spokesmen, it is because they have not always
June 19, 1973

come to the federal government with the broadness of mind required or with concrete and practical solutions.
I have still fresh in mind, Mr. Speaker, the unfortunately negative and depressing talks of the New Brunswick premier when he came last week before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to express the position of his government regarding the federal legislation for the screening of foreign investments in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Another Progressive Conservative.


Eymard G. Corbin: It was evidently another Progressive Conservative, but this was also moaning, Mr. Speaker. It was the tone of the same old refrain which is heard in the Atlantic region since the beginning of Confederation: We have nothing, we want everything, but we do not accept your solution. When-


Thomas Miller Bell: It was the truth.
[ Translation]


Eymard G. Corbin: If the hon. member for Saint John-Lancas-ter (Mr. Bell) wants to speak, let him in turn rise to make a speech. By the way, I noticed that he was present last week when the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs met; neither he nor his three colleagues opened their mouths to direct questions to the premier of New Brunswick. Are we to infer that they automatically condone the negative and backward position of the premier of New Brunswick? Yes, Mr. Speaker.
A provincial premiei may speak on behalf of my hon. friend's party, but when he suggests that he is speaking on behalf of all the citizens of a province, he should refrain from adopting extreme positions which, to quote his words, can be summarized as follows: The best policy is not to have any.
Mr. Speaker, such a position is utterly unacceptable. Such a stand is unacceptable to New Brunswickers and I need not give any details. The New Brunswick premier represents a certain majority, but he does not represent all the citizens of that province; I contend that I also speak for a sector of New Brunswick, a progressive sector, a sector that wants us to tackle in a realistic way the problems that face us.
It seems to me that when the day comes when provincial government leaders will stop making politics at the expense of the federal government in the hope of getting a momentary election benefit, and that the accredited spokesmen will also be willing to accept the compromise in the federative system, then, Mr. Speaker, the Atlantic area will progress more rapidly than it has done up to now.
I am one of those who never hesitated to criticize certain national transportation companies when it had to be done, but I always tried at the same time to present some kind of solution. Today, one must recognize the lead of the Canadian National Railways over many competitors as regards to rapid container transportation for instance. The result of all that is a blooming activity in the port of Saint-Jean-the port of the colleague opposite who just
Transportation Policy
interrupted me-and all that endeavour is done with the constructive co-operation of the federal government. That is surely something to be proud of.
But in the field of passenger transportation, I must share at times the opinion of my opponents, for that is the grievance of many members in this House.
I stated at the outset that I would comment on the proposed construction of a deep-water port in the Riviere-du-Loup area. I might surprise some members if I confirmed today that north-western New Brunswick and even north-eastern Maine support the Gros-Cacouna project and yet, such is the case. The "Madawaska Republic", Mr. Speaker, 80 miles south of Riviere-du-Loup, has supported the promoters of that project from the early 50's, because we believe this project would bring beneficial results not only for the people of the Lower St. Lawrence, but also for northwestern New Brunswick and northern Maine.
I think it is important that tne Quebec government and the federal government immediately agree to complete the work undertaken at Gros-Cacouna several years ago, at a cost of several million dollars.
The member for the constituency next to mine, my good friend, the member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata has always earnestly advocated supported the Gros-Cacouna project and from the beginning, well-meaning citizens of the "Madawaska Republic" have joined their efforts to his and again today, the member for Madawaska-Victoria gives his entire support to the member for Riviere-du-Loup-Temiscouata and to his likeable neighbours in the Lower St. Lawrence.
Some might say that Madawaska should stay out of this. Madawaska is in New Brunswick, while Gros-Cacouna is in Quebec. Let us say that there is a provincial boundary between the two. But historically, we are closer to Riviere-du-Loup than to St. John or Halifax. It is a fact! And perhaps our natural vocation is to follow the St. John River to the port of the same name. But we have been protaging in Riviere-du-Loup for quite some time.
The port of Gros-Cacouna does not take any thing from St. John, Halifax or Canso. We have been doing that portage for two centuries and we will keep going to Riviere-du-Loup as long as it will be profitable for us to do so.
Some hon. members would like to blame the pollution of the St. Lawrence River on Riviere-du-Loup, a pollution which is flowing down from the Great Lakes through Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. This pollution is now blamed on Riviere-du-Loup. For ecological and environmental reasons, they want to prevent the supertankers from calling at Gros-Cacouna.
Those are false accusations and I want to denounce them.
A year ago the Stockholm Convention on human environment recognized the principle that under-developed countries should not be deprived of the legitimate development of their resources solely for environmental considerations. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find this document before rising tonight, but I am quoting from it generally. We should retain especially of this principle that the developed and polluted nations cannot slow down the development of under-developed nations on the basis

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
of such considerations. It seems to me that this parallel applies exactly to Canada. It is time that the developped regions give a break to the underdevelopped ones. It is time to give Eastern Quebec and Northern New Brunswick the opportunity to develop, and Gros-Cacouna is a valid argument in favour of this development.
Mr. Speaker, I referred, at the beginning of my speech, to the whimpering that is heard regularly in the Atlantic region, concerning all matters connected with transportation. In spite of all this, some real progress is being achieved and some improvements can be noticed at times. Most recently, on April 9, the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) have met with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces. They have agreed on several points and it is useful to repeat them tonight. For instance, they have agreed to grant more assistance to the movement of manufactured and farm products of the Atlantic region toward the markets of Central Canada. And since them, Mr. Speaker, representatives of the federal and provincial governments have worked together to establish the basic rules of such a program and, to solve a few administrative problems, it has been decided that it is of utmost importance to consult the Atlantic area carriers before going further.
I am told that the provincial governments are now altogether prepared to issue in the regional papers a notice to indicate what those basic rules should be and to ask the carriers of the area to make their views known as to the commodities they would like to see included in that program. After those consultations, officers of both levels of government will prepare a list, as complete as possible, of the commodities and then recommend the amount of the supplementary grant, and I too, Mr. Speaker, want to emphasize, as did the Minister of Transport this afternoon, the fact that it is a supplementary grant which applies over and above the existing grant of 30 per cent which is already given in all the Atlantic area up to Quebec City.
Why then should anyone say, that this government has done nothing or is doing nothing to bring about solutions to ever increasing problems.
Then, it will also be recommended, in order not to distort the function of land transportation within the whole pattern, that this increased financing should also be granted to the trucking industry.
In view of the fact that there seems to be a waste of funds in the implementation of the present financing program for regional transportation, that there is abuse in this area or that financing is granted in those cases where they are not really necessary, and in the hope of making this financing more efficient, officials are also preparing recommendations in that direction.
During this meeting of federal ministers and the premiers of the Atlantic region, the importance of establishing a physical distribution service has also been recognized. That is the name that was given to it. This service will be carrying on a study involving small shippers in the area. It will provide advice relating, for instance, to inventory control, packing, storing, as well as to the choice of the means of transportation.

This is, Mr. Speaker, a useful and concrete action, and I thank the minister for providing me with this information. I have no doubt that this action will benefit the Atlantic region. Of course, we might have, if necessary, to change this formula as well as existing ones, in order to make them always more efficient.
A new national transportation policy is not necessary at all, Mr. Speaker. We must change present methods as necessity arises. The people from the Maritimes are said to have some difficulties to adjust to change. This is not quite so in my riding, but I realize that it is a fact in other parts of the Atlantic region. So these people will have to make a special effort to adjust to the rules which have been or will be agreed upon very shortly by the premiers of the Atlantic provinces, with the cooperation of the hon. Minister of Transport and the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed, since we are discussing transport, to allude ever so briefly to the horse. For a long time, the horse was our best mode of transport. I mention this because, recently, a horse by the name of "Secretariat" won the triple crown in the United States, and a young man from my riding, from my own town, Mr. Ron Turcotte, rode him to three brilliant victories. I am sure my colleagues in this House, regardless of their political affiliation, will want to join me in expressing to Ron Turcotte, his father, mother, brothers, sisters and children, the admiration we feel for his feat.
[ English]


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, while I am in sympathy with the motion before us today, I should have liked it expressed in much stronger terms than a simple suggestion that this House is of the opinion that Canada needs a new national transportation policy. Speaking as a westerner, I should like to express our view as we approach the western economic conference to be held later this summer, specifically in the area of transportation and freight rates. Without doubt, this problem has become the number one issue in western Canada, not simply from the point of view of general interest in the area but because the transportation policy of the present government is militating against the economic development of our area. It militates against that which this government has gone on record as favouring as indicated by its programs of regional economic expansion.
Today we have a transportation policy which is structured for the advantage of those heavily populated areas we generally refer to as the industrial belt. Rising freight rates in western Canada are seriously curtailing economic growth, particularly in areas remote from the manufacturing centres in eastern Canada.
Since 1967 the railway companies have not been required to seek approval of a regulatory body before freight rate increases are imposed. We have had a number of increases since that time. The railways do not have to justify contemplated rate increases to a regulatory body. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) indicated to the railways recently that any contemplated increase would be looked at very critically, particularly in western Canada. This is about the only type of control left, and one wonders how long it will last.
June 19, 1973

I submit very clearly that a national transportation policy must be considered from other than a simple transportation point of view. It must be considered as a factor in the economic development of depressed areas. It must be considered in relation to virtual monopolies in some areas which have resulted from transportation structures, lack of proper rail facilities and problems of distance. Certain areas in western Canada have not been able to develop secondary manufacturing industries because of these monopolies, and as a result have not been able to maintain jobs.
We must develop a policy which will allow the development of a diversified economic base, something which western Canadians would dearly love. Since the time immemorial western Canada has been a supplier of raw materials for eastern Canadian industry. We are now struggling in western Canada in a very determined manner to develop secondary manufacturing and processing industries which will allow us to diversify, thus avoiding further exploitation of our raw materials and agricultural products.
One factor that automatically militates against this development is geographic location; that is to say, distance from existing markets in the more heavily populated areas of Canada. I would suggest the single factor which works against development and diversification in the west is not simply distance. Distance can be overcome, and has been with modern technology. Today we are seeing that freight rates are stacked against us and represent the major obstacle to development and diversification. We are aware of the discrepancy in freight rates, and we do not want more promises; we want change and action. We expect action from this government, particularly in light of the forthcoming western economic conference. We require action that will clearly show we are moving toward a national transportation policy
Those of us who live on the Prairies know it costs less to ship canned goods from Toronto to Vancouver tnan it does from Toronto to Regina. This is a fact of life. But what better area is there than the heartland of western Canada for the development of a secondary, processing industry related specifically to agricultural products?
An Ron. Member: What about northern Ontario?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Northern Ontario is another matter. If we are to develop processing industries directly geared to our agricultural base, how can we do so when our biggest single cost is transportation and when there seems to be very little hope of any change?
Let me give another example. When we haul steel from Hamilton to Vancouver, often destined for the export markets of the Pacific rim, the freight cost per 100 pounds is $1.35. To ship the same amount of steel from Hamilton to Edmonton costs $2.11. Surely this fact militates against what our regional economic expansion programs have tried to do for the development of secondary industry in areas of economic depression and slow growth.
If a monopoly situation exists, I submit that the rail companies have clearly shown us on the Prairies that they will take advantage of the prairie buyer because he is
Transportation Policy
locked into the transportation system. In return, the rail companies automatically say that while we are dealing with Vancouver we must be aware of the Panama Canal and ocean shipping. I suggest that is hardly an automatic answer for those of us who live in the prairie area.
This whole matter of rail rates or freight rates would be more easily accepted if we knew that the rail companies were self-sufficient, that they were on a competitive basis in a free enterprise system and were simply trying to make a profit on the basis of competition. We know, however, that this is not the case. The rail companies have received subsidies. We know that Canadian National Railways is a publicly-owned facility, and therefore as a public facility it should be geared to the betterment of specific areas of Canada. In addition, there should be a national policy of rail transportation which would be national from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific coast of Canada, and not only in those areas where we must be competitive. And I ask, competitive with whom?
This government has spent a great deal of money on regional economic expansion. I shall not go into that matter. A consciousness has developed that secondary or processing industry must develop in areas such as the Maritimes and the Prairies. Grants have been made. Yet what are the facts? Is this really a policy which makes sense, in view of the freight rates which militate against such development? The prairie region is generally known as an agricultural area. In recent years the growing of rapeseed has become a large part of our agricultural base. Let us look at this specialty crop to see how it is handled in Canada today. I have already stated that DREE is specifically interested in this development. One can ship 100 pounds of unprocessed rapeseed from Alberta to Montreal for 81 cents. If it is processed into oil or meal, then the cost of shipping the same amount the same distance is $1.22.
On top of that, DREE makes grants for the establishment of processing industry. Where does DREE make these grants? In eastern Canada. I ask, Mr. Speaker, where should you establish such a plant? Obviously, in the agricultural area which could sustain such a plant and would provide much employment, rather than in the industrial heartland which has already a heavy industrial base.
Therefore, I submit that a national transportation policy is necessary if the policies of the government specifically related to economic expansion are to have a long-term, lasting effect. One simply cannot expect to have transportation in isolation, and economic development in isolation: they are both part of the same parcel.
In this House in the past week we have heard much about airport construction, particularly at Pickering. We have heard about impact studies being conducted, studies which were to look very carefully into the effects of the proposed airport on the surrounding area. What happens when we look at rail line abandonment? Rail lines are just as important to the rural areas of Canada as the proposed airports and airlines are to the industrial heartland.
If rail lines are to be abandoned, what happens? Public hearings are held. People may attend these hearings. Anyone who wishes to speak in relation to rail line abandonment may do so. He may speak about the local situa-

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
tion and the severe effect the rail line abandonment will have on a specific area. He might not have too many facts, but he has the knowledge of a person who has lived in the area and who-knows the situation. However, the rail line executives appear at the hearing with briefs, studies and what-have-you, and by the time they are through one might ask what the point was in having a hearing. One might as well forget it.
As a consequence, it is the rail lines which almost dictate what will happen irrespective of local needs or local input. I suggest that the local people are simply being undercut by the experts. I would ask the experts to take another look at the situation. The farmer in the area knows what the effect will be. He knows that he must now take his grain 10 or 15 miles to the country elevator, and he knows what the effect will be if he must transport it 40 miles. He does not need a study to prove to him what the effect will be.
If rail line abandonment is to be considered-and apparently its consideration is continual-then I suggest impact studies must be considered by the Minister of Transport in order to determine the effect of rail line abandonment on small communities. We should approach such studies, not necessarily from the standpoint of the cost relative to transportation but, rather, from the point of view of whether rail line abandonment is in direct conflict with the economic development of a particular region.
I should like to submit another position relative to this matter. On June 4 and 5 the Hudson Bay Route Association held its annual meeting in connection with the port of Churchill. Churchill is a port to which for many years only lip service has been given in respect of its importance. It is an ocean port which could serve a large part of the prairie region. It could be a real port if the government would give more than lip service to it and would develop it. Only then can it become the port the prairie region needs.
For example, why must a Yorkton builder ship prefabricated homes to Regina, eventually to Montreal and then around the east coast to Churchill, when it would cost much less to place these homes on a train at Yorkton and ship them 700 miles to Churchill? That is hardly a national rail policy. What do we see for the port of Churchill? Very clearly, improvements are needed at the port of Churchill. An infusion of money is required not only at one time but over a period of years so that the port of Churchill could be developed to the extent that it could serve at least the northern part of the Canadian prairies.
Recognition is also needed by the National Harbours Board that the port of Churchill is important. It is necessary that the National Harbours Board place it on the same priority footing as other ports on either coast of Canada. The people of western Canada have a legitimate grievance. We see pressure applied to the present government for feed-freight assistance to eastern livestock producers. Surely adjustments should come in this area. Mr. Speaker, just as adjustments go to the east, so also must we gain a new awareness of the very real grievances in western Canada.

To date, what have we received? We have received no assurances that adjustments will be made to remove freight rate disparities which affect western development. We were given assurances today by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that if we insist, these grievances could be put on the agenda of the western economic conference, but at no time did he specifically say he would be going to that conference to solve these problems in conjunction with the four western premiers. He says, "Oh, yes, we will discuss them; but solutions are another question."
I think the time has come for solutions and not simply for talk. For example, how could the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), speaking recently in Regina and discussing the western economic conference, argue that you cannot prop up one sector of the economy indefinitely at the expense of the rest of the country? How could the Minister of Finance even allude to the fact that the rest of Canada has been propping up the economy of the west, considering present freight rates and the national transportation policy? Such an argument just staggers the imagination. With that type of attitude we will not solve our problems.
For a long time, Mr. Speaker, we in the west have been buying manufactured goods from eastern Canada. We intend to continue to do so. But we want the same assurances, the same protection for western jobs, and a national transportation policy that will protect our interests in the same way as it protects eastern interests and jobs. In our opinion, a new national transportation policy is not only essential but vital to our economic growth. I personally am not, and almost all the people in western Canada are not interested in western alienation. We do not want to feed that horse. We do not want special status. We want equal status, and we will demand equal status on every front where we have a legitimate grievance.
We want the same attention paid to the port of Churchill as is paid to other ports. We want railway executives to give full information on policy respecting the establishment of freight rates. We want them to disclose cost data relative to the use of specific railway areas. We want a closer awareness and an examination of the freight rate policy of the government, specifically as it relates to western Canadian agriculture and to the development of a western economic base.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate that this government has a transportation policy which is continually being adapted to ensure that it is responsive to the needs of the people and of the industry of the country. It is not a national transportation policy as such, but rather it embraces the local, regional, national and international demands of the various social and economic pressures required of its services.
Our transportation systems are flexible in that wherever possible they should be developed on a compatible as well as competitive basis. But while relatively new modes of transportation are being developed, rail and water continue to be the carriers of the bulk of our industrial products, and road and air are the predominant carriers of people. However, in our large urban areas it has become
June 19, 1973

increasingly obvious that the federal government has a major role to play in giving the cities back to the people. This was one of the main reasons bemnd the government's Winnipeg rail study and its intention to present legislation which is designed to increase federal contributions for the removal of railway level crossings.
Being from Manitoba, I have a keen interest in the future of the port of Churchill. I feel that the government is doing much to enhance its economic viability. For example, last April when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) announced the recent sale of wheat and barley to the Soviet Union, he also announced that for the first time the port of Churchill will handle some of the grain shipments to the Soviet Union. The present six-week port of Churchill's shipping season allows it to handle about 22 million bushels, which is the maximum.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It should be twice that.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If it should be twice that, then you should encourage your governments in the prairie provinces to put their money where their mouths are, and instead of spending $10,000 on publicity they should encourage industry to use the port. That is why it is lagging. We are not getting provincial co-operation to make use of that port.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that the parliamentary secretary, who has the floor, according to the rules has a right to be heard and I think we should all listen to him.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In addition, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has directed that further studies be carried out on the future of the port. Present plans include the rebuilding of the wharf and a dredging program designed to allow vessels with deeper draughts access to the port. This is not lip service; these are facts.
The government's local transportation policy is also well reflected in its assistance to the construction of community remote airports. In 1965 the policy was revised to remove the then existing $100,000 ceiling. There was a $1 million limit to the annual funds that were available for these purposes. By January 1, 1972, it became evident that this policy required updating to meet the increasing demands of communities across Canada. A new policy was introduced, increasing the total budget available to $3 million for that year, which enabled the ministry to take care of a backlog of applications. The budget is now $2 million annually. Since the ministry's program of assistance to airport construction and development was begun in 1957-58, up to and including our commitments for the current fiscal year a total of more than $15 million has been spent or is earmarked for expenditure. Of that amount the western provinces have benefited to the extent of nearly $7 million.
In the fiscal year 1972-73, after the new policy of increased assistance came into effect, a total of just under $3 million was committed for 40 projects, of which more than half went for 25 community airport projects in the western provinces. In the current fiscal year we have approved more that $1,800,000 for 24 projects, of which
Transportation. Policy
more than $1 million is earmarked for 15 airports in western Canada. That is not lip service.
The hon. member's motion also singles out Prince Rupert as a port that should be utilized to a greater degree. I am sure he will be pleased to hear that the government is in full accord with that aspect of it. In the spring of 1972 Prince Rupert became a National Harbours Board port. It is a large harbour, free of ice, and about 500 miles closer to the Orient than any other western port, which in itself illustrates the vital role it can play in the economy of western Canada.
The port of Prince Rupert will be developed not only in a manner which will be compatible with other west coast ports but in a manner which will be compatible with other modes of transportation. With this objective in mind we are working very closely with the British Columbia government. We now have agreement in principle on a joint transportation development program for northern British Columbia. The official position of the government of British Columbia is that it welcomes the new framework of federal-provincial co-operation and is particularly responsive to this set of new initiatives undertaken with the federal Department of Transport.
The joint program embraces railway, port and highway development. An extensive construction plan for a rail system jointly financed by the federal government and the British Columbia government is envisaged. The two governments agree that a comprehensive joint program for port development in Prince Rupert, including the location, size, type and timing, general cargo and bulk commodity terminal facilities and port authority or port commission operating arrangements will be required as soon as possible.
Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the Minister of Transport spoke about the regulatory function which is carried out by the Canadian Transport Commission. Since I believe this organization is quite often unjustly maligned, I should like to speak for a moment about its history, its responsibilities and some of its present-day activities. The Canadian Transport Commission was established in 1967 by the National Transportation Act. The act itself was meant to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada. Section 3 of the National Transportation Act defines the national transportation policy and states thatan economic, efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to protect the interests of the users of transportation and to maintain the economic well-being and growth of Canada.
This implies research, economic studies, constant adjustments due to changing conditions, and regulations designed to protect users of transportation. Numerous studies have been conducted by the economic, research and analytical units of the CTC to deal with subjects pertaining to all modes of transport-rail, air, water, commodity pipelines and extraprovincial motor vehicle transport. In 1972, for instance, there were studies on air services in the Strait of Bell Isle; three cases involving Arctic air service were the subject of hearings and a general review of air service in northwestern Quebec was carried

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
out. These are all areas of growth where transportation plays an important role.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Who wrote your speech?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Not your researchers; they are not capable.
Also in the field of air transport, the commission has recently revised its air carrier regulations and introduced new charter regulations because of changing requirements. Such regulations, because of international implications, are under constant review. To protect the public interest the commission makes thorough investigations before issuing licences to air carriers and has an extensive inspection program.
Activities of the commission with respect to rail operations and railway safety have increased considerably since the commission was created in 1967. In the public interest, the railways have been directed to continue operating a number of uneconomic passenger train services and branch lines, in which case they received subsidies. Two major decisions taken by the railway transport committee in this regard dealt with continuance of the Montreal-Toronto-Vancouver services and the Montreal-maritimes operations. The rationalization of these uneconomic services is under study.
An order in council was passed in 1967-which many members on the other side forget-to guarantee until January 1, 1975, the operation of 6,274 miles of branch lines in the prairie provinces. During the guarantee period the railways are prohibited from applying for abandonment. Since 1967 the commission has issued decisions on 61 applications for passenger train discontinuance. Only in 11 cases was discontinuance approved. No discontinuance has taken place without public hearings in the area affected. Thus far the railway transport committee has concentrated its efforts on the analysis of passenger train services, and only a few minor branch line abandonments have been approved to date.
Railway safety is given special attention by the commission. All accidents are investigated and inquiries are held in major cases to establish the cause of the accident and help prevent future accidents of the same nature. In addition, a special task force has been formed to study the movement of dangerous commodities. An advisory committee on railway safety, which includes representatives from the railways and the Canadian Railway Labour Association, has also been established.
At this juncture I should also like to point out that of all the railways operating in Canada and the United States, in 1971-which are the latest statistics available-the Canadian Pacific Railway ranked first and Canadian National Railways ranked fourth as having the fewest accidents.
In the field of domestic water transport, substantial subsidies have been granted to help ferry services throughout Canada. With regard to international maritime activities, advances in shipping together with related port facilities to serve the new generation of ships have sparked new interest in the economic and commercial bases on which shipping services are offered.

The extraprovincial motor vehicle transport committee has given aid to carriers under the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act. In 1972, close to $2 million was paid to truckers transporting goods from the Maritimes to markets in central and western Canada, and $8 million went to carriers operating within the Atlantic region. So the trucking business is also being subsidized. In addition, a major survey of the surface transportation system in Newfoundland has been undertaken, including operations of Newfoundland ferry and steamship services, transportation to Magdalen Islands and other policy recommendations.
The Canadian Transport Commission is stepping up its activities in all fields of transportation in order to discharge its mandate as set out in the National Transportation Act. In short, Mr. Speaker, I think the Canadian Transport Commission is doing an admirable job on a national and regional basis to ensure that the Canadian public and the industrial base of our country is served with a transportation system which is responsive, but at the same time subsidized only where a demonstrable need is evident.
Mr. Speaker, before concluding my remarks I think it is necessary for me to comment on the remarks which were made this afternoon about the aerospace industry in Winnipeg and Air Canada's overhaul facilities in Montreal. In so far as Winnipeg is concerned, there is no evidence which indicates that the viability of its aerospace industry is in question. On the contrary, the recent awarding of Air Canada contracts in Winnipeg, coupled with the aggressive sales programs, indicate that this Winnipeg industry is on the upswing. We are not even talking now about what we have given to save the aerospace industry and also BOAC. This is something which I hope the opposition will give us a chance to speak on at a later date.
With respect to allegations made about Air Canada's overhaul base, the corporation is confident that this facility is one of the most modern, best equipped and best staffed in the world with the best employees it can have. Below standard parts are not used. I will repeat that: below standard parts are not used-[DOT]


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -and the morale is quite high.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I will prove my statement.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You will have your chance to get up and talk any time you want to, but I have the floor right now. During debate today it was mentioned on a few occasions that this government has not accomplished any significant gains in the field of transportation. Although time does not permit me to cover all the recent accomplishments, perhaps a few reminders will serve to cover this point. First, marine contingency pollution funds are now established and we have trained clean-up personnel from coast to coast and in the north. Second, bilateral air agreements have been concluded with China and Germany, and discussions are now under way to update our agreement with the United States. Third, automobile safety standards are being regulated on a basis more stringent than ever before. Fourth, discussions on trans-
June 19, 1973

portation were initiated with the Atlantic premiers covering such areas as rail, trucking and the Darling report.
Fifth, marine navigation has been improved in the west, north, the Great Lakes and the east. Sixth, let us not forget grain hopper cars for the west. Seventh, the Welland canal bypass. Eighth, of course it was this government which stimulated the western economic opportunities conference which will parallel our arrangements with the Atlantic provinces.
I might say that while the Conservatives were in power in 1962 they had many members from western Canada and never at any time did they try to implement a transportation policy, or any policy, anywhere else or in western Canada. The only thing they ever built in western Canada was a post office in Winnipeg and one in the far north of Saskatchewan somewhere, and they are still talking about it.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget the $5 million spent at Churchill.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I have always been appalled, and particular today, with the lack of in-depth research that members of this House have demonstrated recently in discussing the vital and complex subject of transportation. I am disappointed with hon. members opposite, not only for what they have brought forward but also for their poor attendance in the House this afternoon. When I questioned the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), I meant every word of it. I hoped that the leaders of the various parties would be interested in what hon. members opposite were trying to bring to our attention today. It is not a subject which can be treated lightly.
In future I hope this matter will be given the in-depth discussion it deserves; in other words, not just a bland discussion but a discussion which is constructive and designed to help the country, not the political aspirations of parties who do not have this question as their prime objective. Having said this, I hope hon. members will go back to their researchers and do a better job in future than they have done in the past.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see that a number of hon. members wish to ask questions. I will recognize the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) for a question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would answer a question because, hopefully, his answer might deal with some of our common problems. Would the parliamentary secretary care to indicate what positive steps are being taken to destroy the type of freight rate structure which is presently militating against processing and manufacturing industry development in the prairie region?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: First, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) had been in the House this afternoon when the Minister of Transport spoke, he would not need to ask that question because he would know the answer. I might say, while answering his question, that I look forward to the western economic confer-
Transportation Policy
ence, from which he will also receive the appropriate answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) rising on a point of order?


Mr. MacLean:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member cast a reflection on his colleagues in this House for their alleged poor attendance this afternoon. May I point out that there were at least four committees sitting this afternoon while the House was sitting. These committees were well attended by opposition members.


The Deputy Speaker:: That is the first legitimate question of privilege I have heard raised in a long time.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in this debate because I think that a voice from the hills or mountains of British Columbia should be allowed to speak for that great disadvantaged area of Canada, the interior of B.C. which is serviced by the CNR and CPR. That is an area from which these companies have been allowed to, or have attempted to extract whatever the traffic would bear.
The B.C. government is the owner of a railway with which it services a large part of the interior of B.C. I am sure it has proved beyond a shadow of doubt that it has done a great service to the people. It has proved, as well, that it is possible to run a railway in an efficient manner and provide good service, without large amounts of subsidy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Howard:: Did you hear that, Joe? Pay attention.


George H. Whittaker: Those to my left are trying to take credit for this, but it was undertaken by a government that was in power long before the one they support. That was the government that supported independence and free enterprise. I do not know whether the present government will carry this on. I only hope that the people in power now will be able to do as good a job.
We must, in our marketing of B.C. fruits in the Okanagan, ship an average of 34 cars of fruit per day, six days a week for ten months of the year. Negotiations with the railways in regard to freight rates were long, tedious and frustrating before we had highways for trucks. Let us not forget that the B.C. fruit industry has no close markets, so this is really an export deal out of the valley. Vancouver, the closest large market, is 300 miles away by road and takes only about 15 per cent of the apple crop.
Before the Hope-Princeton highway opened up a truck route to Vancouver and the Rogers pass opened up a truck route to the prairie provinces we had many trials and tribulations in freight rate negotiations. I have seen carloads of apples sent to Winnipeg, unloaded, put in storage then reloaded at a later date and sent to a destination in Florida. A rebate was given with respect to the total, over-all freight rate. It was much cheaper to haul over the American railways than the Canadian railways.
We used such gimmicks as trucking fruit across the border, loading it on American carriers, hauling by them
4920

June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy
to a border point just below Winnipeg, unloading on to trucks again and hauling it up to Winnipeg by truck again, all at a lower cost than shipping directly by Canadian rail. We did this before we received any recognition and a better freight rate. Now that trucking has become an established fact, the big rail companies have effectively also become the big truck carriers, to the point that one wonders if we have any real competition today. We had to use such gimmicks in order to get an effective rail rate. This is what we had to do in that area. I do not think that was fair. I think our predicament should have been recognized and we should not have had to do that sort of thing.
In the past few years there has been a constant shortage of rail cars to haul fruit. The fruit growers get more agitated about this when they find, at Japanese orange time, that although they are suffering from a greater shortage there is no shortage of cars to haul Japanese oranges which are in direct competition with them. The latest development in the changeover from reefer cars to mechanical cars has meant that most of the CNR-built cars are not big enough to take the minimum tariff weight of 46,000 pounds as determined by the Trans-Continental Fruit Bureau whose headquarters are in Chicago and of which the CNR is a member. The CNR also wants to specify routings via the Niagara frontier, or eastern gateways. I suppose this is good business on their part, and their service is good up to these points of entry. However, the service on the American carrier or connecting lines is lousy. These lines have attempted this route and are requesting routings through Chicago where the service is excellent.
British Columbia fruit growers are in the business of producing apples for sale. Their best returns come from the grades of apples they sell to the United States. This adds to the balance of trade and exports for Canada-a balance, incidentally, which is very heavily weighted in foodstuffs coming into Canada from the United States. I certainly do not believe it is wrong to expect Canadian transportation companies, especially the government-owned CNR, to co-operate in these endeavours.
The lumber industry of British Columbia has for some months been faced with a shortage of cars to haul their products for export. Two or three weeks ago I was fortunate to be able to sit in at a meeting of the Canadian lumber industry. They had a panel on transportation. I was amazed to hear representatives from the CNR and CPR tell these people how lucky they were. They pointed out that they were operating their business to make a profit. It appeared to me that they did not care whether the lumber industry had cars to export their products or not. It is necessary to have extra cars if we are to have a balance of trade and efficiently move our produce and products. The transportation companies have an obligation to these people, but they seemingly do not think they have to be a part of what we do in Canada.
The situation in the lumber industry is similar to that of the fruit industry. They just have not been able to get the proper types of cars. They are trying to tell the people to rent these cars. In order to do so they would have to go to an American carrier. They would like these people to rent them, use them for their products and use the Canadian

rail system. This is not the type of thing that should happen in this country. We should be supplying the proper cars. After all, we own the railway. We should at least provide the facilities for the movement of our produce and products. All of the industry, especially in the interior of British Columbia, is having transportation problems where this philosophy prevails of getting all that the traffic will bear. This applies to goods coming in as well as goods being shipped out.
I recently received a letter from one of my constituents. He informed me that the cost of shipping pianos into the Okanagan had increased by 100 per cent. Checking up on this, I find it was an easy "out" for the railways; they had just changed their rate structure and there was nothing people could do about it.
I should like to say a few words about air traffic. The railroads have gradually been forgetting how to transport people. They made the service worse and worse until the people moved away from them, and now all we have is air traffic. One of the areas in my riding, Grand Forks, designated a site for industrial development. There has been nothing done to improve facilities for air traffic. The city council of Grand Forks has provided an excellent park for industrial expansion, at reasonable cost. The people there are able and ready to work, the climate is excellent and the district is ideally situated as a place where people can enjoy a good quality of life. The airport is well situated to serve the whole of the south central, interior region. However, the job is only half done and too many airplanes have to fly over the airport in the fall and winter months because of low weather ceilings.
This could easily be avoided through the installation of a proper beacon system, and action should be taken immediately in my opinion. In the heat of summer, some planes have to fly over because the runways are too short. Land suitable for extension is there, and this should be used. We designate an area as one for industrial expansion but we do not provide the transport facilities necessary to make it work.
I should like to put on record some interesting figures in connection with Kelowna airport. The population in the area it serves increased at a rate of 6M* per cent between 1966 and 1971, while the total population growth of British Columbia amounted to 3.2 per cent in the same period. In Canada as a whole it was 1 Vi per cent. Airport use increased by 360 per cent between 1966 and 1972, from 26,726 passengers in 1966 to 108,000 in 1972. By 1981 it is expected that the annual rate of movement by air will be 250,000. This illustrates the need for larger aircraft in order to provide increased capacity with economy. Therefore, the runway must be extended. This should be done as soon as possible before the growth pattern around the airport becomes such that people will resist an extension.
An instrument landing system is a necessity in order to reduce the inconvenience caused by cancelled flights and to provide added safety for operations carried on within existing limits. There is great potential for air freight generated by products of the Okanagan, especially fresh fruits.
June 19, 1973

I was surprised to hear the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) refer to Air Canada this afternoon as a sacred cow. I quite often travel across Canada by Air Canada. About a month ago I was interviewed in the airport at Vancouver by a lady who asked what I thought of the two airlines, Air Canada and CP Air. In all instances I favoured Air Canada, but having heard the Minister of Transport say this afternoon that Air Canada is now a sacred cow and that I must not say anything about it, I am obliged to say I cannot buy this philosophy. It is a public carrier. It is one we can talk about, whether the minister likes it or not. It is one we have to talk about, whether he likes it or not. It belongs to us.


An hon. Member:: Talk about him.


George H. Whittaker: To talk about him would mean another speech.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is no sacred cow.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: You are, Stanley, after yesterday.


George H. Whittaker: Neither is the minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says the Minister of Transport is not a sacred cow. I agree with what he says. I also say that Air Canada is not a sacred cow. Air Canada will have to take me home on many occasions.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What shape are you in?


George H. Whittaker: The member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) asks what shape I am in. When I get on that airplane I shall be in as good shape as he is. I always hope I shall be in better shape. He can talk a lot. He does not have to go very far in Canada to get home, but it takes me many hours to get home, and probably three airplanes.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That is why I am in good shape; I don't have to go so far.


George H. Whittaker: The Minister of Transport said this afternoon that he listens to the opposition but that they have no policy to offer to change things. He should realize that it is up to the government to set policy. All we are saying is that there is a decided lack of policy. When is the government going to bring in a solid, concrete policy in relation to transportation? They are dealing with this problem in the same manner as all the other problems. They think that if they talk long enough and bid for time, the problem will go away. How about some action for a change?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not wish to take up undue time, but a statement was made today by the parliamentary secretary which I believe ought not to go unchallenged. I believe all hon. members are aware of the onerous burden laid on us, and appreciate that absence from the House is not necessarily due to an hon. member wishing to be absent from the chamber. This afternoon I was attending a committee hearing, and I was tied up with other matters. I do not think aspersions of the kind made by the parliamentary secretary should be permitted.
Transportation Policy


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: These remarks never help. I do not think it does the House any good when members reflect on the presence or absence of hon. members. I recognize the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard).


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, at the commencement of his remarks the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker) made reference to the British Columbia Railway, as it is now known, and applauded the concept of that railway and what was taking place and had taken place with respect to it. Some of us from British Columbia who happen to sit in the general area to the left of the hon. member applauded his remark. In response, he exhibited his true feelings on that question and started to make reference to our applause, presumably involving the former Social Credit government. I simply want to tell the hon. gentleman through you, Sir, that our applause was for the statement he made and for our forefathers in that province, dating back to a time before the hon. member moved to British Columbia from Alberta, who had the presence of mind to commence a railway of that kind. And we stand by that.
Later in his remarks the hon. member made some reference to the shortage of boxcars for the carrying of lumber in British Columbia. We all know that such a shortage exists. I want to point out that here again, through Premier Dave Barrett, British Columbia is carrying on the tradition by having faith in the province. We were running short of boxcars because the government over there refused to take steps to get cars back from the United States. British Columbia has now arranged with a company to build boxcars so that we can have them for our lumber industry. This is a tradition which is being carried on, because even more today that in the past the government of British Columbia has faith in the people.
I was also very pleased to listen to the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) just a few moments ago embrace with open arms the port of Churchill. By contrast, I could not help but remember that just a few days ago he did everything he possibly could in the committee on transport and communications to obstruct the attempt to find out about the port of Churchill. He wanted to get the in-depth information he talked about. We wanted to get the study which the government conducted into the port of Churchill. No way, said the hon. member for St. Boniface.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) has no doubt a facility to slant things, and he has shown it in the remarks he has just made referring to my attendance in the committee. He is certainly far from telling the truth, and I object strongly to his remarks.


Frank Howard: June 19, 1973
Transportation Policy


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Speeches should be directed to the Chair, perhaps for the purpose of enlightening the Chair. They should be made to the Chair, in any event.


Frank Howard: I apologize to Your Honour. That is a slip I do not usually make. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for St. Boniface about Prince Rupert. I really appreciate the attention he gave to that port. I was delighted to hear him refer to the fact that we in Prince Rupert are 500 miles closer to the Orient than is Vancouver, and to hear all the other things he said about the possibilities and potential of Prince Rupert. However, I recall that same speech being reproduced in the Prince Rupert News when Mackenzie King was there in 1919.
May I also say that the attention that has been paid to the port of Prince Rupert was not the result of any deliberate act on the part of the federal government but was a response to long years of hard work by the people of the city of Prince Rupert, the port development commission, and others including my predecessor, the late Ted Apple-whaite, a member of this chamber before I got here. He did much to gain respect for this particular port, and no credit for this is due either to this government or to the hon. member for St. Boniface. However, I am glad to hear that he now recognizes that this port does exist.
With respect to his comments about the development of the railways in the north and the relationship that exists between the Canadian National Railway and the B.C. Railway, this came about as a result of the direct, conscious, deliberate initiative that was taken by the current government of British Columbia. May I say thank you, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the government and to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) for replying to this initiative which has been taken by our provincial government in B.C., which after all is how these things come about.
May I say a few words with respect to the western economic conference which is to take place in July in Calgary. One of the subject matters of this conference will undoubtedly be transportation. According to comments made by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Transport and other cabinet ministers, this is a grand move on the part of this government; it has now recognized the situation in the west and has prompted and promoted this western economic conference. Let me tell the government, Mr. Speaker, that this initiative did not come from them; the initiative came from October 30 last. All that this government is doing is responding to that initiative taken by the people of the west who have been neglected too long. This is simply a belated, long overdue recognition of the disenchantment of westerners for years with activities centred here in Ottawa and controlled in eastern Canada.
I would not say this had it not been that my hon. friend from Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) is prompting me from the wings. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who also purports to be a westerner, almost blew the conference with his intemperate remarks the other day, but I was glad to see during the question period today, although he tried his best to wriggle out of it, that be finally admitted his error.

Let me say something about transportation as it affects northern B.C. Transportation is crucial to our survival and our development. Without it the whole area will stagnate. It is crucial to our communications. It is vital to the decision whether or not northern British Columbia will develop further and become a viable part of the nation.
We are involved with three forms of transportation, rail, air and water. In different parts of northern B.C. there are different involvements, none greater or lesser than the others, depending on the area affected. As I said earlier, the development of rail transportation in that area as a co-operative concept between the federal and provincial governments has been brought into focus by the initiatives taken by Bob Williams, the B.C. minister of lands, Premier Barrett, and others of that calibre, and as talks continue we are very hopeful of a favourable outcome. Fortunately the Minister of Justice is not involved, at least as far as I know, in these discussions.
I have had discussions about the matter with the Minister of Transport and our discussions have been warm, friendly and considerate. I have also had discussions with the people in the government of British Columbia, and as I say we are hopeful that something really worth while will emerge from these discussions as a result of a co-operative spirit which heretofore has not existed.
I do not want to be partisan about this, but unfortunately there is a political taint so far as Prince Rupert is concerned inasmuch as the Liberal government follows the line that northern resources should be shipped out of northern ports. I for one reject that concept. The purpose of transportation should not be to milk the country dry of its natural resources and ship them out to some other land or country for processing; surely the purpose of developing a port is to have it serve as a two-way street. We should try to develop the port of Prince Rupert so we can ship out finished products manufactured in British Columbia, thus providing the people of the province with employment centred around the resources of the area.
I should like to speak for a moment or two about air transportation, with which we are vitally concerned. How many airstrips exist in the area that I represent in northern B.C.? I do not know. I have not counted them, but there must be 50 or 60. These are largely small gravel strips which serve relatively small communities. In other words, they are the type of airstrips that would be eligible for a grant from, I believe it is the local airport development fund administered by the Department of Transport to assist in grading and paving small airstrips and the construction of administrative buildings.
In the fund this year there is $2 million, an insignificant, piddling amount of money for the work that remains to be done. This money is doled out, to start with, by a very stingy minister. Last year the department had a different minister and $3 million was allocated to the fund in the estimates, but of course last year was an election year. In any event, as I have said, $2 million is not a very significant amount.
Recently a presentation was made to the minister by three municipalities which combined together, Port St. James, Vanderhoof and Burns Lake. These communities made a very worth-while presentation to the minister outlining the need for development assistance for the
June 19, 1973

three airports in those communities. They asked for the sum of $625,000 as a contribution toward the development of those airports.
Do you know how much $625,000 is, Mr. Speaker? To me it is a lot of money. I see you are shaking your head, and doubtless it is a lot of money to you and to people in the Maritimes. If I were to stack that amount of money on my desk I would not know how much room it would take up. I know how much $3,000 is; it buys me a car, and that figure does have some meaning. But one thing I do know is that $625,000 is only one five-hundredth of 1 per cent of the total amount of money the minister has in his hands for airport development. And I did not get Statistics Canada to work that figure out for me, either. Yet we can get none of this money, or relatively little. That impinges upon the potential development of that area.
Fort St. James is a relatively small community in the frontier area of northern British Columbia. It was the place that the late Grant McConachie, who founded Canadian Pacific Airlines, lived in, operated out of and flew out of. It was the community in which Russ Baker, founder of Pacific Western Airlines, lived in and flew out of in the early days. That is the area which is the jumping off spot for air travel for great distances northward.
Vanderhoof is 50 or 60 miles away. There was an airport built there during World War II and it served a good purpose at that time. As far as the federal government is concerned, it has had relatively little purpose since then. That airport at Vanderhoof has been maintained for the last 25 or 30 years by the village and municipality of Vanderhoof.


Mr. Whelan:: What about the one at Smithers?


Frank Howard: Certainly there is one at Smithers, but what I am talking about now to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) through you Mr. Speaker, is a presentation made by the three municipalities at the eastern end of the riding. I am trying to tie them together as one approach to this matter. Let me read briefly from this brief as follows:
-the village of Vanderhoof was able to keep pace with airport needs only by going considerably beyond the requirements of the lease agreement. In recent years the main runway has been kept open each winter, the apron and runway have been gravelled, markers have been rebuilt, the radio building has been renovated to provide a waiting area for passengers and visitors, and a new power line was constructed.
The cost of all this was borne entirely by the village and municipality of Vanderhoof. They received no help from this $2 million fund. I give full credit to the mayor of Vanderhoof, Everett Stevens, who was the Conservative candidate in Skeena during the last federal election and will be again whenever the next election takes place. He has done a tremendous job in trying to push the needs of that area before the federal government and I wish him continued success in his activities in that regard.
The Burns Lake airport also serves an area with some
7,000	or 8,000 people. The airport has had some recent improvements. From January 1 of this year to the end of April, 400 airline tickets were sold to people in the Burns
Transportation Policy
Lake area to travel on aircraft that stop at the airstrip at Burns Lake. These are the things that have happened, and these are the things which have largely been ignored.
When it comes to water transportation, the coastal area is served primarily by Northland Shipping. It receives a subvention from the water transport committee of the Canadian Transport Commission. I do not know the reason, but the Canadian Transport Commission is currently undertaking an investigation of Northland Shipping and that subvention or subsidy. I hope it is for the purpose of making clear the need for water transportation along the north coast of British Columbia, and not for the purpose of finding ways and means of driving Northland Shipping or any other shipping company out of business. I hope this is not a political question.
I am sorry I cannot give any accolades to the Canadian Transport Commission, as other hon. members, including the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay), have done. I think that organization is a monstrosity. It was conceived by a gentleman who used to be in this House and wanted to find a haven for himself-Jack Pickersgill. It was not conceived for the purpose of trying to develop-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the 20 minutes allotted to him have expired. He can continue, however, with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Howard: There are only a few minutes left, Mr. Speaker, and if anyone had said no it would probably have been myself; but I was silent for a change. I had pretty well reached the end of my remarks. I was saying, in respect of the Canadian Transport Commission and its various committees, that it seems their primary function has been to serve their bureaucratic intentions and propensities rather than the people they are supposed to serve. Very unfortunately, this is the outgrowth and development of that type of bureaucracy which is aloof and immune almost from parliamentary inquiry, and aloof and immune almost from ministerial authority or question. It is just an agency governed by itself, circumscribed by its own concepts. We can find dozens of instances where the needs of people in all parts of this land, in terms of transportation by air, water, rail or truck have been stifled because of lack of action, response, consideration and concern by the Canadian Transport Commission.
You bet we need a transportation policy in this nation, Mr. Speaker. The first step we can take toward obtaining such a national transportation policy, if the government is reluctant, is to dismember and disband the Canadian Transport Commission and start from scratch, and I am sure we could do a damn sight better job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I do not see another member seeking the floor, so shall I call it ten o'clock?

June 19, 1973
Adjournment Debate


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact time is short I shall be swift in my few remarks. Earlier today, on the question of transportation and the western economic conference to be held in Calgary in July, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) got to his feet on a question of privilege. It was soon seen that he had no question of privilege at all. As a matter of fact, the general tone of his remarks in the city of Winnipeg make it very clear that the only people who might have a question of privilege are the people of western Canada. The kind of remarks he made about the four western premiers, and the attack and the approach of the Minister of Justice, will never allow the western economic conference to get off the ground in the way it should in terms of dealing with serious matters in a manner that will assist in solving the economic problems of western Canada.
Let us hope that any further move by the federal government in respect of the western economic conference will be in a judicious and serious manner in order that a responsible attack can be made on western Canadian problems. I have in mind the rail abandonments that are proposed in western Canada, and specifically the abandonment of over 605 miles of track in the riding of Assiniboia. This will affect 5,000 farmers and many small communities which have attempted to do their very best to keep alive. This is the kind of thing that must be tackled at the western economic conference, and we can do without the kind of rubbish uttered last week by the Minister of Justice in the city of Winnipeg.
Mr. Speaker, I will call it ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being 10 o'clock p.m., it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 58 (11) to inform the House that proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, at page 4256 of Hansard 1 am reported as having asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question in respect of this subject matter as follows:
In view of the fact South Africa has been expelled from the Commonwealth of Nations for some time now, would the Prime Minister tell the House why no plans were ever formulated by his government to withdraw Commonwealth preferential tariff treatment from that country?
The Prime Minister's answer was less than satisfactory, hence my representations tonight. The Canadian govern-
IThe Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
ment some time ago in its publication "Foreign Policy for Canadians" was outspoken in its condemnation of the character of the white regime in South Africa, stating that the Portuguese territories are essentially a manifestation of an outdated colonialism, that South Africa is possessed by the cancer of apartheid, and that southwest Africa and Rhodesia have elements of both.
In support of this, in 1964 the Canadian government refused the sale of paramilitary trucks by the Ford Motor Company of Canada to South Africa. In 1968 and 1969 Canada supported strong resolutions at the United Nations condemning continued Portuguese rule over its African colonies and supporting the right of the people of Angola and Mozambique to independence and self-determination. Canada voted against the continued authority of South Africa over Namibia, formerly southwest Africa, and committed itself to mandatory economic sanctions against Rhodesia.
In further support of this policy, in June, 1970, the Government of Canada agreed to ensure that Polymer, at that time a Crown corporation, divest itself of equity holdings in a South African company. However, this apparently Liberal trend in our African policy has not been sustained. Lately we have shied away from giving moral support to independent African countries which have been decrying the policies of the oppressive white regime.
In direct contrast to this, the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) gave open support to the principle of dialogue with South Africa, a principle which since has lost almost totally its initial rather hesitant backing from a few black African countries. Further to this, we have also continued to extend to the Republic of South Africa the Commonwealth preference tariff agreement, although South Africa left the Commonwealth in 1961.
The conclusion is unavoidable that the Canadian government in recent years has reversed its position in regard to South Africa. The reason for a softening government position toward racial oppressive regimes in South Africa is not easily discernible. Certainly nothing has happened in South Africa itself to warrant this reduced sensitivity toward the emerging independent nations on that continent. Indeed, had the Canadian government been more responsive to the growing awareness among private individuals and organizations in Canada of the developing crisis in South Africa, it clearly would have treated more seriously and responsively our foreign policy toward that area.
Instead, Ottawa has chosen to adopt a more cautious approach to the problem, a response that clearly favoured what the government perceived to be Canada's business interest. The government may also have been misled by a poorly done, ill-informed analysis of the situation in South Africa and thus was prompted in its policies by faulty observation and poor interpretation of African concerns.
Could it be argued that the considerable post-war expansion of foreign investment has contributed to a liberalization of racist policies in South Africa? Has this economic growth helped to narrow the economic gap between white and black conditions in South Africa? Has
June 19, 1973

it contributed to dramatically improved living standards of the black citizen? Can it be argued that foreign investment and economic growth has led to an undermining of apartheid. The only answer is an emphatic no. By giving Commonwealth preferential tariff treatment to this country we are prolonging the day when apartheid, the scourge of the civilized world, will be nothing but a faint memory in the minds of all the peoples of the world.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe is forgetting a major fact in the discussion of our trade relations: namely that the latter's purpose is not to strengthen or approve the political regimes with which we have trade relations.
If that were the case, I can assure the House that our trade relations would change very often. If, for example, Canada were to condemn dictatorship or any other nondemocratic system, it would have trade relations with much fewer countries than at present.
The other point I would like to stress, is that South Africa was never expelled from the Commonwealth; it of course withdrew. But a more important fact is that the Commonwealth has never been asked to abandon the preferential tariff which this country has with the other members of the Commonwealth, unlike Rhodesia, for example, with whom Canada broke off all relations, in order to respect the resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that Canada is preparing for a thorough review of all these tariff agreements in the near future, by means of, among other things, the new round of GATT negotiations.
Finally, I would remind the hon. member that Canada has agreed to establish in the near future, preferential tariffs for the developing countries.
That is in the main, Mr. Speaker, my reply to the well-founded question put by the hon. member. I would like to remind him one last time that the question of preferential tariffs has worked in the past, and continues to do so, in favour of the Canadian economy.


AGRICULTURE-SHIPMENT OF HORSES TO EUROPE FOR . SLAUGHTER-REQUEST FOR ACTION TO ELIMINATE
Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago during the question period in this chamber I raised a subject which I consider to represent a disgrace to Canada, that is, the cruel shipment of horses from this country overseas to Europe, for slaughter there and to be consumed as horsemeat. I asked on that occasion:
Having in mind the fact that the cruel trade involving the shipment of Canadian horses by sea for slaughter in Europe has started again in the face of strong representations against it by all the humane societies in Canada, will the minister look into this situation with a view to stopping this unfortunate situation?
The minister replied that he had asked his department to carry out a study, that he had received some reports, and he added some other words about the regulations covering the horses prior to their shipment. I was not
Adjournment Debate
satisfied with that reply, and neither are the people in the humane societies in Canada. All across this country there is a great deal of concern about this situation.
In the few minutes permitted to me during this period I can do no better than quote from a letter which the minister's office received, and of which I have a copy, from Mr. Tom Hughes who is general manager of the Ontario Humane Society and also vice-president of the Animal Welfare Federation of Canada. He wrote this letter following the exchange between the minister and myself and in it he said:
Dear Mr. Whelan,
I have just received a copy of Hansard in which you were reported replying to a question from Mr. Mather concerning the export of live horses to Europe. In view of the nature of your reply to Mr. Mather I felt I should write to you.
Your department has consistently stated that it is the policy of the government that horses will only be exported to Europe for "work or breeding." This requirement is totally ignored by the European importers and even ridiculed. We have reliable proof from observers, who we arranged to meet the horses in Europe, that horses are being sent straight to the Paris slaughterhouses.
In your reply to Mr. Mather you stated that the horses "must be preconditioned, their age must be known and it must be known whether or not they are pregnant before they are loaded on the ship". I can only say with great respect, I am quite convinced that your department does not have this information.
Preconditioning can only mean that the animal is kept for some period of time at some location in Canada and brought into good condition in the normal way before being shipped. This is simply not the case. Horses are coming into Montreal and Saint John from various points in the United States and Canada without any attempt being made to precondition them. Our inspectors are watching these animals go through Ontario. The dealers are well known to us and we observe the horses from time to time both on route on the roads or in the sales barns.
I should interject at this point, Mr. Speaker: it is not in Mr. Hughes' letter, but I know this is his information as well, that the United States does not permit the shipment of horses overseas for slaughter in the quantities involved here. They do not permit the shipment of horses for slaughter overseas. The letter continues:
Another matter which is of great concern to the society-
That is the Ontario Humane Society.
-is that the veterinary inspection, which is being established in Montreal both by representatives of the health of animals branch and the veterinarians employed by the Canadian SPCA, are now apparently being avoided by shipping the horses through Saint John, New Brunswick. Only a few days ago the Holstein Express left for Europe with 400 horses aboard. I am quite sure that these horses were not given the veterinary inspection they would have received in Montreal.
Apart from the conditions on board ship, there is the unnecessary strain and stress to which these horses are subjected on the long journey across the United States and Canada, there is the strain and stress involved in the repeated loadings and unloadings, there is the stress to which they are subjected in the transportation across to Europe and finally there is the undeniable fact that they may not be slaughtered humanely in the European slaughterhouses. We recognize that the Government of Canada has no control over conditions in Europe so therefore, with the best will in the world, there is nothing the Canadian government can do to protect the horses from this abuse. The only solution is to abolish the export of live horses for slaughter and to avoid the farcical suggestion that all the horses are going for "work"-
A tragic suggestion, Mr. Speaker.

June 19, 1973
Adjournment Debate -abolish the export for work as well.
The horses, if they are to be killed for horse meat purposes, should be killed in Canada. The letter ends:
We urge you to intervene in this matter and take the appropriate action.
This concludes the letter from Mr. Hughes. I can only say that I agree with it entirely, and with the humane movement in Canada which urges that the Canadian government take steps to end what is a disgrace to our country and which is not permitted by the United States.
[ Translation]


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture shares the concern of the hon. member with regard to the humane treatment of animals. In the last few years, the Department of Agriculture has done much to reduce to a minimum the possibilities of cruelty to horses shipped by sea to Europe. In the fall of 1970, steps were taken, under the act on the shipping of animals, to suspend shipments during the winter months. The shipping season now extends from April 1 to October 31. A few trial shipments were allowed with preliminary inspection and the presence of a department veterinarian. As a result of those experiments, health standards were incorporated into the regulation on the shipment of live animals. In short, those standards require a 7 to 10 day pre-conditioning period around the port of loading, that the horses be less than 11 years old, in good condition and free from sickness, and that the mares not be in a state of advanced pregnancy, and that a veterinarian accompany any shipment of more than 25 horses.
The hon. member might be interested in a few statistics resulting from the application of those standards. On August 17, 1971, 540 horses were shipped, and none died. On September 20, 1971, 510 horses were shipped, and none died. On November 3, 1971, 800 horses were shipped, and none died. On May 2, 1972, 293 horses were shipped and five died. On May 5, 1972, 416 horses were shipped, and three died. On June 18, 1972, 220 horses were shipped and two died. On August 19, 1972, 317 horses were shipped, and one had to be put away. On September 29, 1972, 326 horses were shipped, and two died, one having to be put away. On April 27, 1973, 150 were shipped, and one died, the cause of death not being attributable to the voyage. In short, Mr. Speaker, the mortality rate has been 0.4 p. 100 since the implementation of the preventive measures, whereas it had been 7.3 p. 100 before the summer of 1971.


HEALTH-STEPS TO COUNTERACT INCREASE IN CIGARETTE SMOKING
Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I am rising this evening to speak on the subject of cigarette consumption. I asked my question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and his answer was not satisfactory, probably because he did not have the necessary time. I am particularly concerned by the increase in the consumption of cigarettes; it has increased by about 5 per cent. At the same time, we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars of the taxpayers'

money to prevent this increase. The question obviously is: Are we doing the job that we tried to do some years ago?
I first became interested in this problem and aware of it over 20 years ago, in about 1948. Doctor Walter Ochsner, one of the greatest chest surgeons of his time and a great cancer expert who used to work in New Orleans, had a dictum. If you had a cough, had a shadow, and had smoked cigarettes for 20 years, you were suffering from cancer unless you could prove differently. I think that dictum holds true today. This is a serious matter.
The minister said that he would investigate the age groups involved in the consumption of cigarettes. He wanted to know in which group the increase was taking place and whether young people were becoming increasingly addicted to smoking. To date we have not heard any answer on this matter. True, the direct threat of the minister's predecessor did have some effect in that cigarette manufacturers stopped advertising on radio and television and also put warning signs and words in all their newspaper advertising. Despite all this, advertising is on the increase. In last Monday's Gazette, as hon. members may recall, there was a report of a lady complaining about her teenage children seeing advertising. In the Canadian Weekend magazine there were five pages of cigarette advertising.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Shame.


Philip Bernard Rynard: It appears that the present minister will not carry on, or will not support the thrust of the proposed legislation that was not passed when his predecessor was responsible for that portfolio. That the situation is very serious no one will deny. There are probably seven million cigarette smokers in Canada. One asks, what value has the taxpayer received for the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent in the anti-smoking campaign? What value have we received for that money, and how many people have been deterred from smoking?
Cancer of the lung is one of the fastest increasing cancers of the present day. Over 4,000 people annually die from it. Once it is established it is very hard to cure. Statistically, three-quarters of those cases are associated with cigarette smoking. Coronary artery disease and arteriosclerosis occur much more frequently in those who smoke cigarettes. Emphysema becomes much worse with smoking. Invariably, the smoking of cigarettes is a prime cause in chronic bronchitis. I could go on listing these diseases. Smoking also detrimentally affects anyone with Berger's disease, and so on. All these diseases and many others are caused or aggravated in many cases by cigarettes. The findings in this respect are well substantiated. I will put this passage on the record:
Premature deaths and disabling illnesses caused by cigarette smoking have now reached epidemic proportions and present the most challenging of all opportunities for preventive medicine in this country.
That is a report of the Royal College of Physicians of Britain. I wish to put another quotation on the record as follows:
Cigarette smoking is the most important cause of chronic obstructive broncho-pulmonary disease in the United States. Ciga-
June 19, 1973

rette smoking increases the risk of dying from pulmonary emphysema and chronic bronchitis.
Cigarette smoking is a significant risk factor contributing to the development of coronary heart disease, including fatal coronary heart disease and its most severe expression, sudden and unexpected death.
Cigarette smoking is the main cause of lung cancer in men. Cigarette smoking is a cause of lung cancer in women but accounts for a smaller proportion of the cases than in men.
This quotation is from "The Health Consequences of Smoking", a report of the Surgeon General of the United States public health service, 1971. This proves the case, if it needs any proof or reminder. What is the record here? Instead of practising preventive medicine we are treating the sick. We are looking after people after they have the disease. We are locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen. We are increasing our health costs tremendously instead of preventing them. I suspect this is the reason the Minister of National Health and Welfare wanted to give provincial governments all the money they could get from taxing tobacco and alcohol.
He would turn the federal taxes over in toto if he could just walk out of this shared-cost program with the provinces. That was a great mistake. The provinces were already starting to cut back on services. He must get out before it gets worse. He, like Pontius Pilate, wanted to wash his hands-or did the minister feel guilty about this tax coming from sources that were causing so much misery?
The problem is what to do about this situation. The minister, if I interpret him correctly, believes in education. If that is it, and that is preventive medicine, let's get going on it. Would the minister state how much has been spent of the moneys allotted to research? How much money have the cigarette companies funded into finding a safe cigarette? How much money does the Department of Agriculture spend in subsidizing the tobacco interests?
Finally, how can we substantially reduce the respiratory and cardiovascular diseases that cause not only death but chronic illness and add tremendously to our cost of health care which is threatening to cause a cut in medical services? That is the problem. It will not rest until positive action is taken.


Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Health and Welfare is indeed concerned about
Adjournment Debate
the hazards of cigarette smoking, knowing as it does that two of the major diseases related to smoking, heart attack and lung cancer, are now the first and second causes of death for men aged 45 to 64. In addition, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths not only for men but for both sexes combined. Death rates are, of course, only the tip of the iceberg of these health problems and the department is concerned about attacking the problem from a number of angles, given the statistics which would indicate a levelling off of smoking among teenage boys but an increase among teenage girls.
In its continuing efforts to assist smokers to discontinue smoking, the department is experimenting with a new computerized technique entitled Health Hazard Appraisal, which, in providing motivational information about other risks to health besides smoking, encourages training sessions for those wishing to learn how to operate smoking withdrawal clinics.
New techniques of reaching young people are being experimented with, including the involvement of youth themselves in teaching about smoking and health, and consideration is being given to another youth conference on smoking and health, as well as our on-going production of educational materials, television spot announcements, films, posters, leaflets, teachers' guides, and so on.
In recognition of the continuation of smoking by many persons because of addiction, the department is co-operating with the Department of Agriculture in a program of research into less hazardous tobacco products. A laboratory is being built and equipped on the tobacco research station at Delhi, Ontario, as announced by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on January 22, 1973. In addition, studies are being carried out at the University of Waterloo on the chemical and physical characterization of cigarette smoke.
Finally, the department is encouraging the progressive reduction of tar and nicotine levels in brands of cigarettes for sale in Canada. On February 21 of this year the Minister of National Health and Welfare published the tar and nicotine levels of the more widely available brands, and while encouraging the manufacturers to help bring these figures to public attention by stating them on cigarette packages, cartons and vending machines reiterated the department's position that it is safer not to smoke at all.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.28 p.m.
4928

June 19, 1973


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
The Prime Minister was welcomed by the Right Honourable P. E. Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, and thanked by the Honourable Muriel McQueen Fergusson, Speaker of the Senate.
Hon. Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons):: On behalf of senators and members of the House of Commons I call upon the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of Canada to introduce the Right Honourable the Prime Minister of India.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Prime Minister of India, Madam Speaker of the Senate, Mister Speaker of the House of Commons, members of the Parliament of Canada.
On behalf of the people of Canada, and of their representatives from both Houses of Parliament, I bid you, Madam Prime Minister, a cordial welcome.
You, Madam, are not the first leader of your country to honour this institution with your presence, nor is this the first occasion that you have been introduced to the Parliament of Canada. Nevertheless your appearance in this place today does represent a "first" of a kind because the Prime Minister of India who preceded you here was that distinguished international statesman, your father, the late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. In this chamber today are several parliamentarians who were present on that earlier occasion.

During the years since Prime Minister Nehru stood here, Canadian parliamentarians have seized many opportunities, both collectively and individually, to express their interest in India. An outstanding example is to be found in the career of a former speaker of this chamber who later represented Canada as High Commissioner to India before returning to this country to occupy his present high office of Governor General of Canada, ably seconded by his wife who is with us today. Another example is found in the friendship which has developed between the present Speakers of the House of Commons and the Lok Sabha. These gentlemen have visited and conferred with one another on several occasions in our two capitals.
Gathered in tnis chamber today to listen to your address, Madam Prime Minister, are men and women from every region of our widespread country. Their presence in this institution, and their activities here, are guided by the same great traditions of parliamentary practice familiar to you as an Indian parliamentarian. Those traditions and those practices we regard, as do you, as a priceless heritage and as an incomparable guarantee of democratic freedoms. They are among the many invisible bonds that link us
together as fellow members of that unique and immensely valuable association, the Commonwealth.
We share with you as well an appreciation of the problems that confront societies as diverse in their interests and their geographic roots as are those of Canada and India. We are aware, as are you, of the need to fulfill the expectations of peoples rightly demanding recognition of individual dignity and public well-being.
[ English]
Your visit to Canada comes a quarter of a century following India's political maturity as an independent nation state, but several thousand years following India's maturity as a rich and creative civilization. It is partly in gratitude for the immense legacy of art, of wisdom, of philosophy, which we in the west have received from your ageless nation, that Canadians have offered developmental assistance to the modern India. And we share your pride that India's long-recognized role as a major political participant in the international community will soon be matched by an equally important role as a major economic participant.
In our talks these past two days, Madam, we have been able to identify several areas in which the Indian-Canadi-an relationship, always a friendly one, has developed and matured. We now share an opportunity to engage our two countries in a new and equally beneficial pattern but one which is based not so much on aid as on trade, not so much on technical advice as on the exchange of experience. In this respect I regard your visit here as marking a milestone in the history of Indian-Canadian relations which is as important as that marked by the visit of Prime Minister Nehru in 1949. In his address here, Mr. Nehru said that Asia was renascent, that having gained political freedom, India faced the task of harnessing for human betterment her will, her natural resources, and her human material.
India's successes in doing so, and your personal contribution to those successes, Madam, not only prove the accuracy of that forecast but give to Canadians occasion to congratulate you on these accomplishments.
We welcome you, Madam Prime Minister, to this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons):: I now call on the Prime Minister of India, Madam Gandhi.
Madam Indira Gandhi (Prime Minister of India): Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Hon-
June 19, 1973

ourable Members: It is no ordinary privilege to address the chosen representatives of a great nation. I stand before you in this august chamber in the knowledge that this gesture is not personal to me but an expression of the friendship that Canada has for India. I bring to you the greetings of my colleagues in government and Parliament, and the good wishes of the people of India.
[ Translation]
I can recall my first visit here, more than twenty-five year ago, when a similar honour was paid to my father. It was on that occasion that I had the good fortune to make the acquaintance of several of Canada's eminent leaders.
I am indeed pleased to have met the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and you, Mr. Speaker. We regret the absence of another distinguished Canadian, Mr. Lester Pearson, whom the people of India held in high esteem.

When my father addressed this Parliament, India had only recently become independent and was a dominion in the Commonwealth. It had, however, already decided to become a republic. A formula had to be devised to enable a republic to remain within the Commonwealth. This posed a difficult constitutional predicament, in the resolution of which Canada played a decisive role. A remedy was found which at that time my father described as "an outstanding example of the peaceful solution of a difficult problem and a solution which is a real one because it does not lead to other problems". Partly because of the formula then devised, the Commonwealth has grown and includes a large number of countries with different political systems and forms of government. The Commonwealth has survived crises which sometimes threatened to break it up. In international affairs, there is always room for dialogue and the Commonwealth provides a forum.

I have visited Canada on more than one occasion. It is always a refreshing experience. Among you one feels something of the pioneering spirit, of the joy of enterprise and adventure. Yours is a vast country which looks towards both Europe and Asia, and which is made up of various ethnic groups whose origins lie mainly in the old cultures and civilizations of Europe. And then, there is also a small number of people from my own country. Thus, there exists a rich mosaic of peoples, each with its own particular genius, merged into one nation which, since the second world war, has impressed the world with its great vitality. A nation is not defined by its size but by the vitality and the creative power of its citizens. The Canadian people is endowed, to a very high degree, with such qualities. Your greatest success, if I may say so, is not the high economic level you have attained, but the fact that the international community views Canada as a nation of friends, working for international peace and harmony. Canadians have a broad and open-minded view of the world and of life. They have fought for peace and justice for all humanity. They have made every effort, both as individuals and through international organizations, to help those less fortunate than themselves. Canadians have no colonial past to regret nor any of the obligations of a "great power" to hinder them in their activities as human beings, in the fullest sense of the word.

Nations which consist of diverse elements are compelled by history to value the art of compromise and of accommodating different viewpoints in a larger perspective. In the building of the Canadian nation, you have discovered, as have we in India through our long history, that diversity not only enriches but can strengthen. India has people belonging to every conceivable faith. The vast majority are Hindu, but after Indonesia and Bangladesh we have the largest Muslim population-61 million. While Buddhism finds the majority of its devotees outside the land of its birth, there is a substantial number of Buddhists. Tradition claims that Thomas the Apostle visited South India, and St. Francis Xavier's body still reposes in Goa. Thus Christianity came to India long ago and our Christian community of more than 13 million is an honoured one. India gave refuge to Zoroastrians fleeing from Iran and we still have the largest number. This diversity gives new validity to our historical outlook of tolerance, and freedom for all to practice their faith and to enjoy equality of opportunity. Mankind will endure when the world appreciates the logic of diversity.
Beneath the stagnant apathy which enveloped the India of the colonial period flowed the living waters of her ageless spirit. It is this which produced two remarkable generations of men and women who led our national renaissance and achieved political liberation.
They learned from the West, from its sciences no less than its politics of liberty and equality. They looked deep into our past, determined to keep the essentials while removing the encrustations of inert social customs. Above all, they yearned to cleanse India of poverty and social divisions and to kindle a new awakening of man. I hope I am speaking for the majority of our people when I say that we do not seek imitative affluence and power but an opportunity to once again make our contribution to the world.
There has been a consistency in the Indian approach. Our struggle for independence was unique and found inspiration from our traditions. To free one-seventh of mankind from political subjugation was in itself an enormous undertaking. But to do it non-violently was also of significance to human history. An unarmed person needs greater faith than an armed one. Our strength lay in our belief in the rightness of our cause-we knew our fight was without precedent, something of benefit not to us alone but to all peoples of the world. The long years of our struggle for independence were grim indeed, but looking back they were as nothing to the challenges and difficulties of the task of reconstruction and of modernizing an ancient country, with the peoples' consent and participation. Indian philosophy had always stood for freedom of thought and laid stress on the free development of individual personality. Free debate was practised in ancient times in the Panchayat, one of the earliest political institutions in India, which has now been revived in the shape of village councils.
In India, three major revolutions are taking place simultaneously-the industrial, the political and the humanist. Living in the second half of the twentieth century, we
26446-22\

have to undertake welfare investment without the prior accumulation of capital through sweated labour. The questions we ask ourselves are whether we cannot have growth without exploitation, and strength that is not based upon violence?
The world seems to admire results regardless of the means and the consequences, pushing aside questions of value. We are acutely conscious of the rising impatience of our people. We realize that if our system fails to meet their reasonable aspirations they may opt for other methods. Yet we do believe that our chosen path will deliver the economic goods and also bring maturity to our people. Democracy, which to us means an enlargement of the area of choice and the socialization of opportunity, invigorates as it evolves.
We do not doubt the answer. Our confidence in our capacity to lessen poverty and bring into being a society of equals through democratic means is unshaken. We are blamed for our inability to generate a higher rate of growth, the entire Indian experiment is criticized and we are advised to be tougher. The postponement of some demands might indeed have enabled us to move faster, but this could only be at the cost of social justice and would therefore lead to social tension. Also, we cannot agree that a higher rate of growth is reason enough to dispense with free elections and independent parliamentary and judicial institutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Madam Gandhi: Through our plans of development, in 20 years we have been able to double our grain production to more than 100 million tons. We have also laid firm foundations of modern industry, with emphasis on steel, machine tools, chemicals and electronics. We, who imported everything from sewing needles to locomotives, can make our own power generators and aeroplanes and even export machinery and consultancy service. The decline of the death rate has led to an increase in population but as levels of living improve and education spreads, the people are becoming conscious, though far less so than we would wish, of the need to limit their families. Education has expanded at all levels. The number of school-going children has risen from 23 million to 26 million. In higher education, the increase is not only of numbers; we have given attention to technological training and research which is the foundation of self-reliance.
Right now we are passing through a most trying period. To the expected strains of growth was added the burden of a war and the care of ten million refugees. The failure of the rains for a third successive year in many parts of western Indian has aggravated our problems. There have been many droughts in India's long history. Now, for the first time, people are not left to fend for themselves and the government has taken upon itself the full responsibility for giving succour. Reports from India should be seen in this perspective. We have given work, wages, food and even drinking water to millions of people. At the beginning of this month, extra employment was provided to nine million people through 137,000 relief projects. That we have been able to tide over the crisis with only marginal
imports is a testimony to the internal vitality of our economy.
A nation can achieve economic or political liberation only through its own endeavour and sacrifice. Our development is based primarily on our own savings and labour. But the problem of poverty is a world-wide one, demanding international action. We have welcomed and received co-operation from other nations for our developmental plans. I should like to express the gratitude of our people for Canada's help. It was concrete and imaginative, and without expectation of political advantage.
Not all countries have been so understanding. Their attempts to derive some political leverage have, not unnaturally, led to impatience with aid on the part of many developing nations. Donors also are becoming aid-weary. The Indian people are resolved to achieve self-reliance. This does not mean diminution of economic give-and-take, but that economic relations between one nation and another should be on the basis of equality. We shall continue to look for technological assistance to bridge the gaps in the structure of our basic industries and our know-how of new technologies. Our efforts could be more effective if the advanced countries adopted more enlightened trade policies. When it comes to trade, many of the strongest nations behave as though they need protection from the weak. A new outlook which will not condemn developing nations to permanent disadvantage is essential.
Canada and India provide examples of how countries with differing backgrounds can work together for common goals. In many parts of the world we have co-operated on international issues such as colonialism and racial discrimination, and on major economic problems such as international trade and commerce. In Korea, our two countries played a major role in defusing an extremely dangerous situation. We have participated together in peacekeeping missions in many risky situations and areas, for example, Gaza and Indo-China.
A country's foreign policy is dictated by its historical conditioning and its assessment of national interests. In keeping with our tradition of non-violence and our belief that mankind is one family, we have subscribed to the concept of peaceful co-existence. The world is large enough to hold countries with different civilizations and political ideologies. Anyhow, we cannot choose our neighbours nor move to another planet! So we are glad that the powerful have ceased to mock us for our naivete and have moved away from the doctrinal rigidities of post-war bipolarity. We welcome the detente in Europe and are glad that China has at last been given its legitimate place in the United Nations.
But can we be certain that the new and more realistic relations between the great powers do in fact indicate a more stable world order? Or are they yet another attempt to reinforce the old concept of balance of power? High-level exchanges and discussions between great powers are good, but we hope that they will not lead to decisions which affect other nations, big or small, without full consideration of their legitimate interests. We must be vigilant against big-power arrangements for the creation of new
June 19, 1973

spheres of influence. In our own area and with our neighbours we favour a bilateral approach for resolving issues.
We should and do welcome the relaxation of tensions. But we think that the only non-proliferation of nuclear arms which is compatible with real peace is total disarmament. Such disarmament calls for far greater courage and conviction than is now in evidence. We cannot ignore the acceleration of military preparations. The arming of small nations by big powers, which was once in pursuit of cold war compulsions, continues in the name of maintaining regional balances. It is a fallacy to believe that the induction of arms from outside could promote stability, for this invariably encourages those militaristic elements who have little use for democratic and peaceful solutions. This is why we protest against continued arms aid to countries in our neighbourhood and regard it with grave concern.
The only safeguard against big power hegemony is for the smaller nations to stand together and help one another on as wide a scale as possible. Countries like Canada and India which have no territorial ambitions, no economic empires to protect and no ideologies to export, can take a less self-regarding and more farseeing view of international affairs.

Once again, I thank you for the honour you have paid me. We have, in India, a deep feeling of sympathy, I might even say, of affection for Canada. The Canadian constitution and Canadian parliamentary usage have given us a valuable insight into the true spirit of democracy. I hope the brotherly feelings that exist between our two countries and our two Parliaments will only grow in the future. We will extend a warm welcome indeed to the Canadian parliamentary delegation that will do us the pleasure of visiting India in the near future. I trust that my own visit here will help, ever so modestly, to strengthen our co-operation in the service of causes that are dear to our two countries. [English]
I end with a verse from the Atharva Veda:
Let there be no fear from friend, no fear from foe;
no fear from the known, no fear from what lies before us unknown;
Let there be no fear for us from night, no fear from day; Let all the quarters be my friends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons):: I now call on Madam Speaker Fergusson.


Hon. Muriel  McQueen Fergusson@Speaker of the Senate: Madam Prime Minister, Mr. Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, Your Excellencies, Members of the Senate, Members of the House of Commons, Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Senate of Canada I welcome the opportunity and the honour to thank our most distinguished guest.
Madam Prime Minister, your address this morning was both inspiring and thought-provoking and gave us a great deal of information we did not have before. This really did not surprise us because we know you to be a woman of character and unusual determination, a person who has proved she can stand alone and face whatever comes her way.
Your visit has served to remind us that India is one of the largest composite countries in the world, constituting as it does some 500 million people of many faiths, many languages and many races. As I believe you have often said, India is an old country, a new country, a fast developing country, a country where many centuries are telescoped into one.
The world has produced many wonderful people, people who have accomplished much and won great prominence, but very few of them have possessed the integrity, the wisdom, the sense of dedication to the service of their country and the determination to pursue these objectives to a conclusion as you, our honoured guest, have shown.
We are conscious of the fact that you wield greater power than any other woman in recent history and we are confident that you, as your illustrious father did, will use this power to improve the lot of your people and strengthen the bonds of friendship throughout the world.

Madam Prime Minister, we trust your visit to Canada will draw our two countries even closer.

Someone has said:
The role of women in a community is a most important one and no nation can afford to ignore it. Women are as vital to a nation's progress as its minerals, its rivers and its agriculture. Harnessed and properly controlled but treated with respect they present a great and powerful force which can be used for the benefit and progress of the nation.
I am in full accord with the first part of this quotation. I also believe that women can be a great and powerful force for the benefit and progress of a nation, as Mrs. Gandhi has proved, but I have some reservations, as I am sure Madam Prime Minister has, about the need for women to be "harnessed" and "controlled".
When you return home, Madam Prime Minister, my colleagues ask you to convey to the members of your government their most sincere good wishes. For yourself, we wish you well in carrying on what many people consider the most onerous and burdensome task in the world today, that of responsible leadership of a great country.
We wish you to know that as the daughter of Prime Minister Nehru, with whom you visited Canada in October, 1949, when he spoke to a joint meeting of our Parliament, you have a very special place in Canadian hearts, and we thank you for coming.


Hon. Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons):: May I be allowed to add a few words only to the eloquent remarks the hon. Senator Fergusson has just made. I speak for each and everyone of my colleagues in the House of Commons when I say to you, Madam, that it is both a pleasure and an honour for us to have you here this morning. Madam Prime Minister, the message of friendship you have conveyed to us on behalf of your Parliament and your people has been heard by each of my colleagues with understanding and sympathy. From the bottom of my heart, Madam, and on behalf of all hon. members of this House, I thank you most sincerely.

June 19, 1973

It is our hope, Madam Prime Minister, that upon your return home you will convey the assurance of our friendship to our parliamentary colleagues of Lok Sabha with whom over the years we have had particularly close ties. The combination of the Commonwealth and the parliamentary system has produced that most honourable fraternity, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which both India and Canada are dedicated members. Nowhere has the association been supported more loyally than in India, and this is due, I am sure, to the personal support and encouragement of the country's Prime Minister. I might add that no one individual has given more to the association itself than the friend of so many Canadian
parliamentarians, the Hon. G. S. Dhillon, Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Mr. Speaker Dhillon has left with those of us who have visited India the most indelible memories of personal kindness and parliamentary comradeship.
Madam Prime Minister, we thank you again for your address to this joint meeting of the Canadian Senate and House of Commons. We wish you well in all your undertakings on behalf of your great people and in the promotion of peace and good will throughout the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons):: The meeting is now adjourned.

Wednesday, June 20, 1973