1974-03-21

OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to lay before the House copies of the third annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages for the year ended March 31, 1973.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege prompted by the successive and contradictory statements made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) in the last few weeks. On March 7, he said to the House that he had no intention of reviewing the possible extension of the deadline applicable to the Veterans Land Act and 1 quote his own words:
In the circumstances, adherence to the lending deadline specified in the act will not represent a denial of benefits to any veteran.
A few lines above that, he clearly stated, and I quote:
I am of the opinion, therefore, that veterans sincerely interested in obtaining VLA benefits for the purposes contemplated by the act have had ample time in which to do so. Virtually every veteran-
I skip a bit of his speech and come to the sentence that I read a while ago.
After the non-confidence motion moved by the official opposition, the minister said, as is reported on page 434 of Hansard for March 12, 1974:
For many months now, together with the officials of my department, I have studied very closely the possible implications of such an extension.
And a bit further on, he added:
-I wish to further emphasize that I am quite prepared to take another look at this whole question in light of the plea made today. If, after looking at all the evidence, I can conclude that the deadline should be extended, then I would be prepared to so recommend.
Yesterday, the minister repeated this same statement in committee. Today, following a letter which I wrote to the minister on February 13, 1974, once again about the Veterans Land Act, the minister gave me the same explanations that he had given in his first speech on March 7, when he refused to consider an extension for the application of this act. Moreover, the last paragraph of the letter dated March 20, 1974 that I have received from the minister reads as follows:
I thank you for having written to me since it has given me an opportunity to review with you the various provisions of this act, and particularly to explain to you why the date of March 31, 1974 will-
There is no supposition. He says "will". This is clear enough.
-will put an end to the applications made by veterans eligible for obtaining loans to buy a property.
Mr. Speaker, I protest against such a reply which is completely discriminatory and which contradicts the statements made yesterday and on March 19 by this same minister.
I should like to obtain today from the minister either a statement or a revision of the letter which I received today, stating exactly what he intends to do, in order that he stop playing politics on this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette) raised a question of privilege and submitted to the House that the minister had made statements the hon. member thinks are inconsistent. The Speaker has no other responsibility than determining whether there is a prima facie question of privilege which later on could be submitted to the House in the form of a motion. I cannot conclude that the circumstances described by the hon. member for Charlevoix warrant a debate under Standing Order 17. I call the hon. member's attention to citation 113 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, and I quote:
A question of privilege ought rarely to come up in Parliament. It should be dealt with by a motion giving the House power to impose a reparation or apply a remedy.
The hon. member for Charlevoix may have a grievance against the minister, but I suggest that he could raise the matter during the proceedings, either in the House or in committee, or ask an oral or written question. I repeat that I do not think the rules or practice of the House allow to settle a matter by raising a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Jerome.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
March 21, 1974
Social Security

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages, as is traditional, a number of international agreements recently entered into by Canada. For purely technical reasons involving, for example, the absence of certified copies in both official languages, I am only now in the position also to table a number of agreements which entered into force for Canada some time ago.


CUT FLOWERS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity relating to the signs of spring on this first day of spring, the vernal equinox, to ask the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion:
That the Minister of Agriculture, in consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Finance, undertake a review of the regulations relating to the imposition of seasonal dumping duties against cut flowers from Europe as well as from the United States, so that the flower growers in the garden riding of Esquimalt-Saanich shall be able to continue their commercial operations so as to provide those of us who have to spend part of our lives under the snow in the east with some of the early evidences of spring, such as the daffodils which came from that riding and are available in the lobbies for all hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I shall see whether hon. members want to declare an interest in the motion proposed by the hon. member. I hesitate to put the motion in those terms. I am sure that the hon. member, for many reasons, is counting on the support of hon. members and of the Chair in putting the motion. I will put the motion but I hope that the hon. member, despite his generosity to other hon. members, will not be disappointed if some of his colleagues on one side of the House or the other say no. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of pressing urgency. As several social welfare schemes have flaws leading to much unfairness and as, at least in the province

of Quebec, some people who did not contribute enough to the Quebec Pension Plan cannot receive disability pensions and must beg, on bended knee, for the mere pittance granted them by the social welfare department, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Tetrault):
That this House study the advisability of extending to all disabled persons the right to a disability pension.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent matter.
In view of the present precarious situation of industrial milk producers in Canada and the rise in production costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) explain in detail to the House what procedure will be followed for the payment of subsidies to producers during the next season, in order that Parliament be given the opportunity to discuss and consider extensively the effects of this program on prices to consumers and producers.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the terms of 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 no unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Judd Buchanan (London West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-265, to amend the Canada Elections Act (permanent voters list).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.
March 21, 1974


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, we were all impressed by the brevity of the recent British election which was called, contested and decided within a 20-day period. This was accomplished because Great Britain has a permanent voters list. The purpose of this bill is to establish a similar list in Canada and shorten the election campaign for the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the problems facing maple syrup producers in this season, because of labour shortage and the possibility of recruiting the necessary workers among unemployment insurance benefit recipients.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Compton has given the Chair the notice required under Standing Order 26. Having duly considered the hon. member's proposal for an adjournment of the House, I must regretfully advise him that it would be very difficult for me to set aside, as he suggests, the business scheduled for today for the purpose of considering instead the problem which is the subject of his proposed motion.
The House will recall that, last Tuesday, an adjournment motion under Standing Order 26 was moved, while a notice of a motion under Standing Order 58 had already appeared on the order paper. I concluded then that, when an opposition motion under Standing Order 58(3) has already been moved, only in the most extreme circumstances could such a motion be set aside to give priority to an adjournment motion under Standing Order 26. The same circumstances exist today, since a notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is already on the order paper. I regret therefore that the motion moved by the hon. member under Standing Order 26 cannot be put today.
Oral Questions
[DOT] <1420)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: have a question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the great concern about the confidentiality of the information the government collects from individuals. Has any directive been issued to ministers regarding the confidentiality of the information the government possesses concerning individual Canadians and stored in the government's own computers? Has the Prime Minister issued any particular directive to ministers with regard to preserving the confidentiality of this stored information?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker. I have not issued any particular directive though I have talked about the matter to ministers. The directives are contained in the statutes of parliament and as far as I know every minister observes them with utmost rigour.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: As the Minister of Communications has made the statement that the government has wasted millions of dollars on computers and that he cannot guarantee the confidentiality of the information stored in them, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the views the minister is reported to have expressed represent the position of the government on this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have not seen the report of those views, Mr. Speaker, but as they are reported by the Leader of the Opposition I can say it is not the government position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the Prime Minister has indicated that no special instructions have been issued with regard to a matter which is of very deep concern, and in view of the ease with which it seems to be possible to get this information out of government computers, I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he intends to take any measures to ensure the security of information stored in the government's own computer banks?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know this matter is one of great concern to the Minister of Communications. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition tells us that the minister has been talking about the subject indicates that the minister is, indeed, concerned about it and that he is studying the matter. He has not yet brought to me or to cabinet any specific recommendations, but we are anxiously awaiting his report.


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary must be directed to the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact he has been expressing concern since December of 1972 and in view of the fact that anybody with $1,800 can buy and operate a piece of equipment, manufactured not far from here, with which they can dial a government telephone number and get police intelligence files and income tax returns along

March 21, 1974
Oral Questions
with the deciphering instructions, and since these alarming facts have been known to the government for some time, I should like to know when the government intends to do something about the situation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that I cannot admit the allegations of the hon. member who spoke previously because, in the opinion of all Canadian experts, who have dealt with this matter in an official, report published under the title Privacy and Computers, there is no reason in Canada for alarm or panic as the hon. member seems ready for. As for the measures to be taken at present, this is quite a complex action. I can simply say that the government was certainly not negligent in this matter as it is generally recognized that Canada is more advanced in the formulation of a total security plan concerning computers than most other countries in the world, with one exception.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In view of the fact that on December 7, 1972 a joint statement by the minister and the Minister of Justice of that day indicated very serious concern about security leaks and the whole field of computerized data retrieval leaks and that right then the government was working on several measures to plug these security gaps, what has happened to the task force report and the very specific recommendations that the minister himself said he would be adopting immediately in respect of those matters?


Gérard Pelletier: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple: The work went on. There are 21 groups now working under the direction of a secretariat of the Department of Communications under Dr. Von Naeyer. The activity continues. New measures are taken daily and this work is not a task that can be performed in a few months. Work has started, it is underway and will be finished soon.
As to the legal aspect, the hon. member could ask the Minister of Justice who will introduce a bill covering this matter among others.


POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION TO PERMIT ACCESS BY INDIVIDUALS TO STORED DATA TO CHECK ACCURACY AND TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY
Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that many nations of the world whose government services store information in computer data centres have passed legislation to protect the rights of individuals in terms of this information, would the minister inform the House whether he is going to introduce legislation to allow individuals to see files kept on them in order to determine whether they are accurate, and to protect the confidentiality of that information so

that corporations cannot use it in their own private business interests?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I understand that this is the general intent of a bill that will be brought forward by the Minister of Justice. I suppose the hon. member will have to wait until the bill is tabled to know exactly in what fashion these objectives will be implemented.


ACTION TO PROTECT PRIVACY IN LIGHT OF SHOWING OF COMPUTER PRINT-OUTS BY OTTAWA TELEVISION STATION
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Minister of Communications that we have nothing to be alarmed about, and in view of the fact that last night an Ottawa television station showed over public television copies of confidential computer printouts on unemployment insurance claimants for the Atlantic region, thus illustrating the ease with which information can be taken out of computer data banks, would the Prime Minister take immediate steps to stop this invasion of privacy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I was not aware of this particular television program or of the invasion of privacy which is alleged. I will look into the matter but my reaction is inclined to be the same as the minister's, that I would not panic until I knew more about it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon on a supplementary and then go to the second question. I appreciate that there may be further supple-mentaries later, and we can come back to this question. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon and then the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in view of the television program last night I am afraid I am not lulled by the Prime Minister's assurance that there is nothing to panic about. According to reports by the same television station, pay cheques by the Department of Supply and Services normally issued by computer were delayed for one day by outside interference. In view of that fact, will the Prime Minister now issue a specific order to protect access to government computers when no such protection, obviously, currently exists?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat that I am not aware of this practice and I will look into it. I still do not think I should panic about it. I remember the hon. member alleging a couple of years ago that there were listening devices on telephones and he was not able to substantiate that. I am glad I did not panic at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members opposite jeer, but those who were members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs know full well the inaccuracy of the Prime Minister's remarks. Members of that committee heard evidence by officials of the RCMP that well over 1,000 electronic surveillances were kept on private telephones in this country. I think that the allegation I made has been well substantiated by that evidence and by the passage of a bill outlawing eavesdropping by such electronic devices:


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


OIL AND GAS-INQUIRY AS TO DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS RESPECTING PIPELINES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether discussions are being held between Canadian and United States government officials in respect of the formulation of an agreement covering oil and gas pipelines? Can he tell the House the purpose of these discussions and whether they are to cover existing and future pipelines? What is the general nature of them and what is the objective the government has in mind in taking part?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the general objective is one which has been stated by myself and, I believe, by other ministers, that the possibility of having an agreement or treaty which would protect both countries if they were using privileges acquired on the territory of the other is an interesting one. Beyond the general exploration of the idea, I think I can say there is no specific discussion of measures to implement that at this time. Indeed, it seems to me that the idea would be linked to the acceptance of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline transporting U.S. resources and, as the hon. member knows, this is something which has not come up before the National Energy Board yet.


NATURAL GAS-REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT INSTRUCT ENERGY BOARD TO REVISE EXPORT PERMITS
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Since the consortium which today is applying for permission to build the Mackenzie Valley pipeline on the ground that Canada will have a natural gas deficiency by 1979 is made up largely of the same companies which in 1970 persuaded the government to permit the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet of gas on the ground that we had adequate supplies to meet all our requirements until 1995, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government is prepared to instruct the National Energy Board to review and revise these export permits for natural gas, as it is empowered to do under Section 17 of the National Energy Board Act?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in so far as this is a representation, I am sure it will be heard by the board. In so far as the hon. member is asking for a government directive, I will raise the matter
Oral Questions
with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who will be back in Ottawa later today.


OIL PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-INQUIRY WHETHER UNITED STATES URGING THAT CANADA NOT PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one important supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether, in the discussions which are taking place between Canadian and United States officials regarding an over-all pipeline agreement, U.S. representatives have urged that Canada not proceed with the extension of the oil pipeline to Montreal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to discussions between officials on a particular question. I must confess that if his allegation is correct he is better informed than I am. I do not know and I did not answer that there were specific discussions on this specific pipeline question. I will look into the matter and if the hon. member has some information that I do not have I will ask why that is so.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Following the unfortunate events which happened yesterday to Princess Ann and her husband and since a Senate committee in the United States, by a majority vote, has recently voted in favour of restoring the death penalty, does the government intend to reconsider the death penalty as a deterrent to crime in Canada as suggested in the United States and also to prevent criminal attempts such as the one which occurred yesterday in Great Britain and which could also happen in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member probably knows that I have expressed on behalf of the Canadian people our regrets and our surprise following the criminal attempt made yesterday. However, as for the last part of his question, I must answer negatively that we do not intend to reintroduce that bill in Parliament. The legislation approved by the House is valid for 5 years and till then the government will merely administer it.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister tell us also whether his government intends to introduce in this House other measures to prevent crime in Canada and to protect society rather than criminals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have specific punishments in mind. If he cares to make me those suggestions he is thinking about, I am prepared to give them consideration.

March 21, 1974
Oral Questions


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the impasse reached between the Bakery Council and the Food Prices Review Board, and in view of the statement made in Toronto today by the Bakery Council that the price of bread will go up next month regardless, what steps does the government now propose to take to prevent any further increase in the price of bread?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have just received a preliminary report, which is, of course, subject to further confirmation, and it is just the opposite of my hon. friend's remarks. I am working actively to confirm this today, and our action will follow in light of confirmed information we get today.


James Aloysius McGrath: By way of a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I might point out that the report issued today by the board indicates that its original findings were justified and that any further increase in the price of bread cannot be justified. That is a report issued today at one o'clock which the minister obviously has not seen. I ask him what action the government proposes to take to prevent any further increase in the price of bread? While I am on my feet may I also ask the minister what action the government proposes to take with regard to the finding of the board in respect of the dairy industry, and what steps it proposes to take to prevent a further increase in the price of milk?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I do have the report of the Food Prices Review Board on bread and obviously I have read it more closely than did my hon. friend. As I said, I have received a preliminary report from the Bakery Council which indicates that its members do not intend to make increases beyond present levels unless they can make a case before the Food Prices Review Board that cost increases are such as to warrant further price increases. As I say, this is a preliminary report subject to further confirmation, and I would be happy to correct it if my information is incorrect. I think I would want to get firm and definite information as soon as possible today before giving further indication of the need for government response in this very important matter. In respect of my hon. friend's other question, the report to which he refers is not a report of the board itself but a publication of a study commissioned by the board. I know we would want to consider it very carefully.


PERIOD COVERED BY DAIRY POLICY-STEPS TO PREVENT INCREASE IN PRICE OF MILK
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has seen the report issued by the Food Prices Review Board on the dairy industry in which it recommends a five-year policy instead of the present one-year policy of the government? If so, does the minister intend to act on it

immediately, and what steps does he intend to take to prevent any further increase in the price of milk in Canada?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member reads the House of Commons reports from day to day to find out what goes on here. I said before that we were working on a dairy policy for ten years, not for five years. All I can say now is that I have read part of this report because it was just submitted today by the group who were asked to do it for the Prices Review Board, and I congratulate them for picking up some of the things I have been saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the uncertainties within the beef industry with regard to the administration of the recently announced beef subsidy program, would the minister agree to have the ministers of agriculture of the various provinces administer this program for the producers in their provinces?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think that the uncertainty is rapidly disappearing. I do not doubt the capabilities of the provincial ministers of agriculture, but to make this a really national plan and to make it work in that way I think it has to be administered by the federal authority.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Would the minister clarify the statement he made that there is a possibility of the return of the surtax? Would he tell us his opinion on this?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in the statement I made concerning the beef industry I said that so far as I was concerned it was important that the producers get a proper return, and that the beef subsidy program we have put into effect does just that. It gives them this return and also maintains a fair price to the consumer. Until it can be proven we are not accomplishing this, we will not change our program.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Having regard to the fact that the young and people over 65 years of age get discount rates on air fares, will the minister give consideration to extending the same privilege to the handicapped who, I am quite sure, need it even more than those in the other two categories?
March 21, 1974


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to discuss this with the air carriers at any time. I think the suggestion has a lot of merit. I am just wondering how we can define "handicapped". I am sure some people will argue that I am handicapped.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Bell:: We mean physical, not mental.


Stan Darling: I am sure the minister is well aware what "handicapped" means. It means physically handicapped, and there are a great many of these people. Many people over 65 who are eligible for discounts are millionaires.



PENSIONS


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Is the government giving consideration to making amendments to the Pension Benefits Standards Act or to introducing any other legislation to provide greater protection for those who are enrolled in private pension plans? May I also ask him if that consideration will extend to the matter of the escalation of pensions paid under private pension plans, which is now permitted by income tax regulations but not yet implemented?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, these are some of the various elements to which we are giving consideration, and I thank the hon. gentleman for calling to the attention of the House that by reason of the new regulations escalation in private pensions can now be registered for income tax purposes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the fact that the minister agrees this is now possible, but will he take steps to provide in the legislation that all private pension plans must escalate their pensions, during the years of retirement, according to the rise in the cost of living?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman's first question was whether this was being considered, and of course it is being considered.



FINANCE


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister explain to the House the reasons why the government's latest bond offer of $550 million, placed on the market on Monday, has fallen flat on its face, requiring the Bank of Canada to take up most of the issue instead of the public and the chartered banks who usually do that buying? Will he also explain why he and his
Oral Questions
department so grossly miscalculated the market in this important instance?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, of course the bond market during the last few weeks softened in the United States and in Canada as a result of the hardening of interest rates in the United States. The issue has received a broad distribution and most of the issue has been sold. I have full confidence that the issue will be completely taken up.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the issue has mostly had to be taken up by the Bank of Canada, the minister's answer has no reality at all. Would he not agree that the real reason this issue did not sell is that the people of Canada have lost confidence in the government?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: No, sir, and not even the speeches of the hon. gentleman shake that confidence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



COMBINES


Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs regarding combines investigations. Last week he made a statement in the House that he would discuss the possibility of an inquiry into the British Columbia cement industry with the Minister of Justice. Has he had that discussion and will there be an open inquiry into the cement industry in British Columbia?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an opportunity to do so yet, but I will be happy to report to the hon. member on the result of this discussion.


John Douglas Reynolds: In view of the fact it has been reported that one small cement company in the Fraser Valley cannot buy cement in the province and has to go to the United States for supplies, will the minister please speed up his discussion with the Minister of Justice so that we can get on with an inquiry into this situation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member to ask his friends to speed up consideration of Bill C-7 so that practices such as refusing to deal can be dealt with by law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 21, 1974

Oral Questions THE MINISTRY
the result of the plebiscite since he believes in plebiscites and going by the wishes of people who vote in plebiscites?



NATURE OF POSSIBLE CHANGES

Mr. Haward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask today about the question I asked the right hon. Prime Minister a few days ago concerning the appointment of ministers.
Did he tell a journalist outside the House that he considered seriously appointing New Democratic Party members as ministers to form a popular liberal socialist coalition government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 told a journalist that the answer I had given in the House should be considered seriously. I remind the hon. member that if he reads Hansard, he will see that I have also offered the Progressive Conservative member for Brome-Missisquoi and other members of the same party who have a liberal mind to join us, thus we could form one party-


Mr. Lang:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the compliment from the hon. member about my interest in taking note of people's views. I take it he is complimenting us on the manner in which we conducted the rapeseed poll.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: No. You have it all wrong.


Otto Emil Lang: I hope in contrast, he does not seriously elevate to the level of a plebiscite the cheap partisan politics being played by the government of Manitoba.


Mr. Hellyer:: Oh, oh, there is the old coalition broken up.


Thomas Miller Bell: Don't forget Tuesday night!



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the government's intention to throw domestic western farm feed grains totally on the open market, does the government intend to modify its policy in view of the expressed request of the majority of farm organizations that the Canadian Wheat Board remain the sole marketing agency for western feed grains and that there be a guaranteed initial price for all feed grains?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the opening statement of the hon. member is not quite accurate and I do not want to seem to be endorsing it. The fact is that a good number of organizations have expressed themselves on both sides of the feed grains question, which is specifically the reason for the period of discussion we initiated with our announcement on August 3. It was significant that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture expressly avoided arriving at a conclusion on the issue because of the known division among farm organizations on the subject. It is our continued objective to ensure that there be equitable pricing and movement of feed grains across the country on a one market basis. We are working toward that program but of course we are taking into consideration all suggestions with regard to specific details of the program so that, as usual, we can introduce a program that best serves the interests of all Canadians.


Elias (Eli) Nesdoly: Since the government of Manitoba is presently conducting a survey or plebiscite to find out if the farmers of Manitoba want all feed grains marketed through the Canadian Wheat Board, will the minister tell the House whether his final decision will be influenced by



ABORTION-PUBLICIZING OF CLINICS IN NEWSPAPERS

Mr. Oza Tetrault (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Justice.
Last year I asked him the following question:
Is the minister aware of advertisements in the press inviting pregnant women to get a legal abortion in Montreal or at low cost in New York clinics? If so, has the minister made any inquiries to determine whether this is contrary to the provisions of the abortion legislation?
The minister had then replied that he was going to look into the matter. Can he tell me if there is any new development in this thorny situation?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is a subject which was discussed among Attorneys General at a meeting last May. The matter is not very free from doubt as the law now stands. If the law as it does stand is to be tested or enforced, that is specifically the responsibility of the provincial Attorneys General who must initiate proceedings under the Criminal Code.



INFORMATION


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary to the Prime Minister with respect to the question raised by the leader of my party. Noting that the task force on privacy and computers, 1972, stated that "A great deal of personal information about Canadians, much of it highly sensitive, is stored beyond Canadian borders and therefore out of reach of Canadian law", and noting the abuses that have been referred to in the House today, would the Prime Minister personally intervene to see whether steps can be taken to
March 21, 1974

return personal and confidential information about Canadians now in the United States, to Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted that the hon. member is catching up with government policy. If he reads the Speech from the Throne he will see that we indicated action precisely in this area.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the acting government House leader. Can he tell the House when he is going to introduce the rather important piece of legislation to which the Prime Minister has called attention?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is not yet ready and therefore it is difficult to indicate a specific date for its introduction, but it will be discussed further.


An hon. Member:: Like the whole throne speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would remind hon. members at this point that there are about four minutes left before the end of the question period and if hon. members want to ask further supplementaries that will take us to the end of the question period.



HOUSING


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. At the same time as the Prime Minister is taking steps to safeguard private and confidential information stored in the United States referring to Canadians, would he undertake to make available to the Canadian public the report on the co-operative colleges prepared by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and other correspondence to and from the government in respect of grants and other allocations from the government which for generations have been considered as public information and which are now being withheld by this government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly look into the matter.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In view of the statements made by the minister in recent days that the railways lose money in hauling wheat, I should like to ask him what source this information comes from in view of the fact no document has ever
Oral Questions
been published by the railways proving that they lose money in hauling wheat?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there are two sources of information, one coming from the department and another coming from the railways. If the hon. gentleman wants me to check more closely I shall be happy to do so.


An hon. Member:: Table it.



MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVALUATION OF MACKENZIE GAS PIPELINE-POSSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL HEARINGS TO THAT BY ENERGY BOARD

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can he tell the House who in his cabinet has been assigned the over-all responsibility for the government's evaluation of the Mackenzie gas pipeline, and has he issued any new and specific directives to that minister as to the manner in which the government will assess this immense project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings was talking so loudly that I could not hear the question.


George Harris Hees: Pay more attention! I was not talking to you.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the right hon. gentleman for his apology. Can the Prime Minister tell the House who in his cabinet has been assigned the over-all responsibility for the government's evaluation of the Mackenzie gas pipeline, and has he issued any new and specific directives to that minister as to the manner in which the government will assess this immense project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there are several ministers implicated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is a good word.


An hon. Member:: Why did you not say "indicted"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -as I indicated earlier in the House. The Minister of the Environment is responsible for his aspect of the question. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who of course would have jurisdiction for the territories, is involved, and of course so is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. They have formed a committee and the spokesman, depending on the particular aspect of the subject, will be one of those three ministers and, if there is any doubt, it will be myself.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister but perhaps he could clarify it a little bit for the benefit of the House and the nation. Does the government feel that the National Energy Board as currently con-

March 21, 1974
Oral Questions
stituted provides an adequate means for evaluating this project, or is the government planning separate hearings by the Department of the Environment, the Department of Finance and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, under the act the National Energy Board has definite powers in the enforcement of certain measures. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, under its responsibility regarding lands in the territories will soon set up a special inquiry board which will be asked to study the economic and social aspects of such a project for northerners as well as environment problems which will arise in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We intend to appoint a judge to undertake an early inquiry.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. The Canadian Radio-Television Commission granted a licence to Edmonton Video Limited to establish a third English language television station, CITV, in Edmonton, Alberta. In view of the fact the commission requires that station KREM, Spokane, Washington, not be distributed by the licensee until one year after the commencement of broadcasting by CITV, do my people have to move to Vancouver, Victoria, Montreal, Oshawa or Hamilton in order to find a choice of television channels? What is the purpose-


Gérard Pelletier: 


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Paproski@: Mr. Speaker, I had not finished. Go ahead.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I was about to say to the hon. member that, whether he is a spiritual guide or temporal guide of his constituents, does not concern me personally. I wish to add that restrictions on cable did not happen only in Edmonton but happened in various other places throughout the country for reasons which have to do with the economic viability of the Canadian stations in the various capitals. I cannot reasonably say any more in the time allowed for an answer in the question period, but that is the basic reason.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that

more and more sentences by our courts include recommendations for psychiatric treatment for those convicted, and in view of the fact that most federal inmates are not getting adequate psychiatric treatment before parole, what measures is the minister now taking to meet this ever-growing crisis?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, we are setting up five regional medical and psychiatric centres across the country. We have already set up three of the five. We hope to start two new ones this year, one in Saskatoon and one in the Maritimes. I might say that we are having difficulty engaging a sufficient number of psychiatrists for the positions we now have available. It is very difficult to get them to work in our service.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Labour, one of imperative and immediate necessity for consideration. As the Great Lakes shipping season will open five days earlier than the normal date, April 1, and as it is imperative that the strike on the part of the Seafarers Union should not be permitted to take place, will the minister say what action he has taken since he gave a general report yesterday and the day before to assure a settlement between the employers, the 17 shipping companies, and the union, because, with wheat piling up, it is important that action be taken and that there be no delay in shipments through the Great Lakes?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the right hon. gentleman before in the House, the government is well aware of the very serious consequences if this strike is not settled. Having said that, I would assure the right hon. gentleman that everything possible is being done in order to resolve this dispute. That includes efforts by our very experienced mediators in my department as well as private contact by myself with the parties.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the right hon. member for a supplementary and then the hon. member for Huron, after which the Chair will have to call orders of the day.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that the minister has given a report to the House, would he say whether he is satisfied with the progress so far made in the negotiations and with the contribution made by his department? Is he reasonably sure that there will not be a strike, as a strike today would mean a K.O. to the western wheat market abroad and to the farmer?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, without intentionally trying to be technical on this matter, I suggest that there is actually a strike on at the moment, although not very many men are involved. I think the

right hon. gentleman is aware of that. As to whether I am satisfied, of course no one is satisfied until the strike is actually resolved. I can only say that I do not believe any alternative action at the moment would be more satisfying either to the government or the House than the course we are presently following. Talking about any type of legislation at this point would, I think, only exacerbate the matter and not bring beneficial results for the western wheat farmer or anybody else.



ESTABLISHMENT OF CAMP TO TRAIN ATHLETES FOR OLYMPICS-SUGGESTED USE OF ABANDONED CANADIAN FORCES BASE AT CLINTON, ONTARIO

Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last Saturday night the minister said that athletes training for the 1976 Montreal Olympics may have the use of a national multisport training camp before the year's end. As the Canadian Armed Forces base at Clinton, Ontario, was closed and as the Prime Minister suggested that federal assistance would be considered before any of these bases were closed, and it has not been forthcoming, would the minister consider the establishment of such a multisport training centre for the Montreal Olympics at that location?


Mr. Norman A. Cafik (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the representations made by the hon. member to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and he will respond in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the number of hon. members who were anxiously waiting for the opportunity to ask questions. We have already gone some five minutes beyond the question period in an attempt to recognize two or three additional members. I have tried to note which hon. members have been trying today and yesterday to ask questions, and I will attempt to give them priority tomorrow. I apologize for not having been successful in recognizing them. Orders of the day.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In his reply to me regarding the report of the Food Prices Review Board and statement regarding bread prices, the minister misled the House out of ignorance. Obviously, at that time he was not acquainted with the contents of the report. I assume he is now acquainted with the contents and I expect that the minister would want to rise in his place and correct the record.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend should indicate in what particular instance he thinks I have given the House inaccurate information.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps there might be consultation between the minister and the hon. member. That might be the easier way to resolve the difficulty which seems to have arisen out of the questions and answers earlier in the question period.
Oral Questions


Mr. Neale (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On March 15, I directed a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, as the minister was not in the House that day. The parliamentary secretary assured me that I would receive the answer to my question on last Monday. As I was not in the House on Monday, I wonder whether the minister has had a chance to look at the question and has the answer ready for me.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire. I do not know to which question the hon. member is referring.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from the fact that throughout yesterday's question period I attempted to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Having failed in that, I spoke to the minister after the question period and, to my surprise, found that Mr. Perry, who had been commissioned to examine accident and safety conditions in the Devco mines, had after nine days, I think he said, given it up as a lost cause. He is now available in the capacity of adviser. If Mr. Perry needed assistance, I would ask the minister why he did not contact the mine examiners who are under the minister's jurisdiction and the shot firers who are responsible for safety in the mines for the assistance he apparently needed. Will the minister report to the House on Mr. Perry's failure to do so?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member has referred to his private conversation with me, I believe he would agree that I told him I would look into the matter and he indicated he would be kind enough to put it in writing. He has not done so; I have not received anything in writing. I indicated to him at that time that I would be pleased to look into the matter and he seemed to be satisfied with this procedure.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When the minister requested that this matter be put in writing, I informed him that I had been three weeks without a secretary. It does no good to call the pool. I told him I would explain the situation to him, which I did. I told him that because I was without a secretary it was difficult to correspond, and I had other obligations with which I could not comply. I asked him why Mr. Perry quit after nine days without even contacting the examiners who are responsible for safety, and I asked him if he would report to the House as to the reasons for this happening. He did not do so.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Perry, and I believe the hon. member and others in the opposition would want it no other way, wanted to be unfettered in the way in which he proceeded with the investigation so that no charges would be made about his being under governmental control. It is completely within the ambit of his authority-


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


John Carr Munro: -and the hon. member's question-

March 21, 1974
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rose on a point of order and he rose on a question of privilege. To my mind there was neither a point of order nor a question of privilege. After the expiry of the question period, the hon. member asked a question. He claims the floor again on a question of privilege. I will, of course, hear him.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege on behalf of examiners in Cape Breton who are under the minister's jurisdiction. The minister made an accusation against members of his own department. He said that Mr. Perry did not want to be restricted. Is he to be restricted if he is contacting men under the minister's jurisdiction working on the question of mine safety?


Mr. Speaker:: I again suggest to the hon. member and the minister that this matter might be pursued some other way. It should not be discussed or debated under the guise of a question of privilege. The Chair has called orders of the day. I apologize to the House. Apparently we are still on points of order.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask the government House leader the Thursday question about business of the House. We all know that the next four days, including today, are designed for the completion of the allotted days. Can the government House leader give us an idea of priority items after that so we can be thinking about them?


Mr. MacEachen:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Wednesday next we will deal with the competition bill. This will be followed by CNR financing, export development and fisheries development. I ask the hon. member to now tell us his subjects for the next four days so that we can be thinking about them.


Thomas Miller Bell: We will have lots of surprises.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The open negotiations among House leaders a few minutes ago had to do with a possible change in time limits with respect to the speeches in today's debate. I think Your Honour will find there is agreement among the four parties to modify Standing Order 58(13) for today in these terms: The mover of the motion to have 30 minutes, the principal speaker for the government to have 30 minutes, the first speaker for the Progressive Conservatives to have 20 minutes and the first speaker for the Social Credit to have 20 minutes. Everyone else is to have 15 minutes and there are to be no extensions. I think Your Honour will find that is agreed to by all parties.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is agreed and so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. David Lewis (York South) moved:: That in the opinion of this House all forms of national transportation should be integrated as a public utility to serve Canada's transportation needs instead of being governed by considerations of competition and profit so that Parliament can deal effectively with freight rate discrimination, rail line abandonment, insufficient railway equipment, inadequate rail passenger service, and urban and northern transportation;
This House is further of the opinion that to this end the Canadian Pacific Railway, including its subsidiaries, should be brought under public ownership and that both national systems should be under full public control;
And, further, in order to meet the present emergency in the movement of grain and other products, this House is of the opinion that the Government should consider the immediate appointment of a transport controller with full authority to allocate and control railway rolling stock.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) must be the envy of his colleagues in the cabinet. Who else among them could have risen in the House and outside the House to say that the national transportation policy is disastrous and, indeed, that there is no national transportation policy and be praised for it by editorial writers and commentators? That is why I say I imagine he is the envy of his colleagues. They could not get away with that. It was because of the minister's charm and transparent honesty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I do not begrudge the minister the praise which he has received. He at least had the courage to admit to the people of Canada that the present transportation policy in this country is a failure. However, I want to emphasize that in my view the people of Canada ought not to be beguiled by this honest and frank confession by the minister. The people of Canada have to remember that it was a Liberal government in 1966 and 1967 which proposed this policy which the minister now finds to be a failure. Indeed, this minister was a member of the government at that time. I cannot imagine otherwise than that the policy presented by the Hon. Mr. Pickersgill to the House at that time was one that was carefully studied and discussed by the whole cabinet in view of the importance of transportation to Canada. This minister, like other members of the then government, and most of them are still on the treasury benches, must have subscribed to the principles of the act presented at that time.
The people of Canada must also remember and not be beguiled by the minister's frankness, desirable and admi-
March 21, 1974

rable though it may be, that the policy has been administered by a Liberal government since it was introduced. For the past five or six years it has been administered by this government. Finally, they must remember that this minister has been minister of the department for about a year and a half. While it is refreshing and encouraging to find the minister admit the failure of the national transportation policy-encouraging because it at least indicates that a really serious look is being taken at that policy in view of the minister's admission-I just want to say that it is impossible for me and the people of Canada to wash the Liberal government since 1967 clear of any responsibility, (a) for the policy which was a disaster and, (b) for the disastrous implementation of that policy since 1967.
I put this motion on the order paper because the minister informed the House and the country that the full policy is now being discussed within his department. That makes me uneasy. As far as I know, he is surrounded by a good many of the same people who were responsible for the policy introduced in 1966-67. I only hope they have seen the same light the minister has seen, have the same illumination he has evidenced and the same conversion that he has talked about. I hope the discussion inside his department will not be the kind of frustrating effort that I am worried about because, I repeat, many of the same people will be doing it.
Because of that it seemed necessary that this House of Commons discuss this very important subject at the earliest opportunity. Not that we will be able to solve it. My colleagues and I do not claim to have the in-depth knowledge that is necessary to solve every part of this very vexing and complex problem. However, it will give us an opportunity to discuss the general principles which ought to underline a national transportation policy.
I did not have the pleasure of hearing the minister's speech on March 7. However, as I read it, the Minister of Transport suggested there had been no objection to the principle of the bill which forms the basis for the present national transportation policy. I looked up Hansard because I had vague memories about objections voiced by my then leader, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), and by myself as a matter of fact. I should like to read from the statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on September 2, 1966, as recorded at page 8044 of Hansard just so that the minister knows there were some people in this House who were very strongly opposed to the basic principles that underlay the bill they were putting through and which is now the law of Canada. The hon. member said:
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe that free enterprise and the competitive system of transportation can give Canada an adequate transportation policy at a price we can afford. There may be countries where they can afford to have all sorts of free enterprise and competition; different forms of transportation and different companies competing with each other, duplicating services. However, in a country of 20 million people where, as I said before, we are more dependent than probably any country in the world on getting our goods to market over long distances at competitive prices, where we spend more per capita on transportation than probably any other country in the world, I do not think we can afford the luxury of having a free enterprise, competitive transportation policy.
National Transportation Policy Those are the words of my colleague, the leader of this party on that day. Toward the end of his speech at page 8046 he said these words which seem to me to be relevant:
I am convinced that this government or the government that succeeds it will find that in a few years this transport commission, because of its lack of power and authority, will not be able to solve the problem. If the house does not at this time give that commission some power and put some teeth into the bill, then some subsequent parliament will be compelled to do so, after we have lost valuable years and very large sums of money.
Mr. Speaker, if ever I heard a prophetic statement, in view of the minister's admission of failure, that certainly was one. On January 27, 1967 I participated in the debate on third reading of the bill and said things along similar lines. It was the New Democratic Party which at that time, when the bill was first introduced in Parliament and thrust on the people of Canada, said that a transportation policy based on competition, profit and on the principles of free enterprise would fail. Both my colleague and I emphasized in the speeches, to which I referred that the result of that policy would be great hardships on the prairies, on northern Ontario, on northern Quebec, on the northern part of Canada and on the Atlantic provinces and that it would interfere with the development of secondary industry in all these underdeveloped parts of Canada. We saw that not because we were more intelligent or brighter than other people but because we were not prisoners of the free enterprise fetish that controls the Liberal and Conservative Parties. Because of that we were able to see the consequences of the kind of policy that the Hon. Mr. Pickersgill introduced in this House and pushed through this House. Later, when the policy became law, he was able to leave us and take up the chairmanship of the commission. Ever since Mr. Pickersgill became Chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission Canada has suffered without end in the transportation field.
In the time available I want to indicate some general lines which ought to guide us in the development of a transportation policy. I do not expect, although I hope, all my suggestions on behalf of my party will be accepted by all members of this House, but in my view they are basic to any really relevant and effective national transportation policy.
First, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to members of the House and to the minister that we must pass laws, take action and have policies that will make transportation a public utility. A transportation policy for Canada must not be controlled by the principles of profit and by the alleged principles of competition in this society. That does not mean that the transportation system has to lose money. There is no reason for that. The transportation systems have always made money. It does mean, however, that the transportation system in Canada must serve the needs, both national and regional, of the people of this country, sometimes without regard to profit and never governed by the profit motive so far as service is concerned.
I shall have something to say about the Canadian Pacific a little later, but let me deal very briefly with a number of the problems with which the minister is now faced. There is a constant fight against the Crowsnest Pass rates, particularly by the CPR. As I Informed the House in my speech of January 27, 1967 I had occasion over a number of years to act on behalf of some railway unions on a number
734

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
of occasions. Every time I was in that situation I heard the CPR at that time, through the man who is now president of the CPR, Mr. Ian Sinclair, tell the board and the unions how the CPR was losing money through loading and carrying grain. They used to calculate it into tens of millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars over the years. I remember saying that if they were telling the truth then the CNR and the CPR ought really to be bankrupt instead of being very effective organizations, particularly the Canadian Pacific. The objection to the Crowsnest Pass rates and the calculations they make always are based on comparing the cents per ton mile that they get for carrying grain with the cents per ton mile that they get for carrying those commodities for which they charge much higher rates. That is a pretty false way to tell us they are losing money. That is why I do not accept the statement of the railways, repeated the other day by the minister, that the railways lose money carrying grain.
Sure, they do not make as much money carrying grain as carrying other commodities, but it is their duty to Canada to carry this grain at the Crowsnest Pass rates. Furthermore, when I study the history of the CPR in this country and transportation generally-I have not bothered to look up the details but I have a vivid memory of them-I find that when the agreement for the Crowsnest Pass rates was made with the railways the CPR received additional millions of dollars and additional millions of acres of land as a quid pro quo which enabled this outfit to become one of the largest economic empires in this country. But they forget what they got from the people of Canada and object to the Crowsnest Pass rates. If any one gives in to the CPR on this issue we will have betrayed not only the interests of the farmers in the west but also the interests of all the people of Canada.
The policy which Mr. Pickersgill shoved through parliament in 1967 gave the railways the possibility of entering upon a plan for wholesale rail abandonment. The consequences were disastrous for many communities. Of course, the railways could prove that certain routes, certain bits of line in various parts of Canada were, in themselves, unprofitable. In a country the size of Canada where only 22 million of us are scattered across an entire continent, a relatively smaller population being in the northern regions, of course there are railways lines which are unprofitable and which always will be unprofitable. But that should not be the only reason for permitting a course which not only takes away an essential service from people who deserve it but which has sounded the death knell for many communities.
I honestly sympathize with the minister because of the situation in which he now finds himself. He has to come before parliament, as well as tell the nation on radio and television, to say that there is not enough rolling stock to move all the grain and carry all the other bulk commodities, particularly from the west and from the north, which need to be delivered. And why? Because the railways have decided they can make more money in other ways than by purchasing hopper cars or whatever other cars are needed to serve the Canadian economy. Sir, the railways of this country were created by the people of this country and

they ought, by law, be made to provide adequate rolling stock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Everybody in this House is aware of the anomalies and discrimination which exists in the freight rate structure. I shall not take any of the relatively short time available to me by citing examples. I am sure that other members of my party, and other members of the House, will do so. But everybody knows how much cheaper it is to ship steers to central Canada than it is to ship processed meat. Everybody knows how much cheaper it is to ship rapeseed rather than rapeseed oil, how much cheaper it is to transport unprocessed raw materials from the north than it is to transport processed goods. This freight rate policy on the part of the railways means they have added another almost insuperable obstacle to the development of secondary industry in precisely those parts of Canada which require it most.
All these difficulties which the minister faces result, as he correctly states, from the fact that competition has never been possible as a basis for national transportation policy. Indeed, profit-making is immoral when applied to national transportation policy in a country such as Canada where transportation, just as much as energy, is the lifeblood of the economy. So my first point is this: we must consider the introduction of a policy which regards transportation as a public utility concerned not with alleged competition but concerned with costs and expenses and with profit only in the sense that it should make enough money to enable it to purchase new equipment and buildings, keep the track in repair, carry out necessary renovations, and so on. All these things cannot be done unless a surplus is earned by the transportation system and no one is suggesting that this should not be a consideration. But the profit objective must be an overall objective for the entire system, not something related to one particular part of the line or to a particular commodity at the expense of the interests of the people of Canada.
We ought not to tolerate a system which denies people a reasonable passenger service. I do not travel by train very often nowadays, but on occasions I do so. I have travelled both on Canadian Pacific and on Canadian National. Neither one is better than the other. The CP is just as bad as the CN and the CN is just as good as the CP. Each is doing everything it can to discourage travellers. If passengers wish to eat on the train in some parts of the country they get a stale sandwich, almost unpalatable and certainly indigestible. The whole atmosphere of the railway cars as well as the service provided is aimed at deliberately discouraging the use of the facilities. What are the railways for? We are making a very grave mistake, it seems to me, because as the minister has indicated, either in one of his answers in this chamber or in a statement made outside the House, developments are presently taking place affecting air travel and other forms of air transport which might well result in rail transportation becoming a great deal more desirable than it has been in the last few years.
I cannot end this part of my comments without expressing my horror at the number of accidents which have occurred on the railways. I expect one of my hon. friends will be dealing with this subject later, if he catches your
March 21, 1974

eye, Mr. Speaker. The CTC has produced a report on this subject. There is no doubt in my mind that one of the reasons for these accidents, and probably the main reason, is the failure of the railways to take proper care of the tracks. This is another way of showing a profit, another way of making money. In this case it is done at the expense of the welfare of Canadians and, sometimes, at the expense of lives.
The second point which the government should keep steadily in mind when considering a national transportation policy is that there must be an integrated national system. We can no longer talk about rail separately, or air transport separately, and so on. There must be an integrated system under which duplication is limited as far as possible, one which recognizes that the so-called competition is a sham. Who is competing with whom? The CN, as well as CP, now controls not only a railway but an air line, shipping, and trucking enterprises. The CP is already in the pipeline business and I gather from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) that the CN is also going into pipelines. They are into every form of transport in this country. So who are they competing with, except themselves?


Mr. Peters:: And when necessary, they join hands.


David Lewis: Yes. When necessary, they join hands. They agree on rates in many cases. It is meaningless to talk about competition. When one considers the present national transportation policy based on the false concept of profit-making, we realise, to use the words of Pierre Berton, that the national dream has, in this country, become a national nightmare, particularly for the Minister of Transport. And I sympathize with him, though I wish that he and his colleagues who preceded him had shown the wisdom to draw attention a great many years ago to the disastrous effects of the course upon which the government embarked in 1967.
It is in this context we propose that Canadian Pacific Limited be brought under public ownership. When I say this, I am talking not only about the rail operation, I am talking about the whole shebang-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: -the entire economic empire which they built as a result of Canadian grants. Everybody knows the history, and if they don't, they should. Everybody knows about the millions of dollars, the hundreds of millions in grants and subsidies which the Canadian people have given the CP, the millions of acres of land. As a result of these gifts from the Canadian people, CPR not only owns an airline, a shipping line, a trucking line and a telecommunications network, but a large complex in Trail and in other parts of British Columbia, Cominco, the Pine Point mine in the Northwest Territories, other properties all over the country through another subsidiary, and an oil company. Despite the earnings and the profits that these subsidiaries make, every time CPR is questioned about its railway, it says, "You cannot look at profits that we make anywhere else but only at the profits we make from the railway". My answer to Canadian Pacific is that they are making money out of other subsidiaries because the
National Transportation Policy Canadian people enabled them to build a railway, and those profits belong to the people of Canada.
I urge that we bring the CPR under public ownership. I say this not for doctrinaire reasons-though I will doubtless be accused of that-but because of my conviction that it is impossible to develop an integrated national transportation policy and let CPR remain in private hands. If CPR remains a private corporation concerned with making more and more profit, then it will continue in the future, as in the past, to sabotage-I do not use that word lightly but quite deliberately-every attempt to achieve a national transportation policy that seeks to serve the interests of Canada and not the profits of the CPR.
Fourth, I suggest that the government or an agency of the government, whether the CTC or some other body, must have the power to oversee and control investments of transportation companies so as to make sure they get sufficient rolling stock, take sufficient care of their roadbeds, and do all the other things that are necessary to maintain a decent and adequate transportation system.
Fifth, I urge that the government, or an agency of the government, must have real control over freight rates that serve national and regional interests and assist, rather than obstruct, the development of secondary industries in the parts of Canada that require them so badly.
Finally, I urge that the government should appoint immediately a freight controller, not only to meet the immediate emergency in regard to the movement of grain and other bulk commodities, but on a permanent basis to make sure that the railways provide the necessary rolling stock to meet the requirements of our import and export trade and needs of the Canadian people, rather than serve the interests of the CPR, or even the CNR.
There is no doubt that no other country in the world is so dependent on transportation as Canada. This is why we built the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is why we took over bankrupt railways and formed the Canadian National Railways. We realized the importance of a transportation system for the future wellbeing of Canada. The only policy that will serve the interest of Canadians for generations to come is an integrated policy that places all the major transportation systems under public ownership and control, a policy that is governed by those interests, not only national but also regional, that the Canadian people require to be met and fulfilled.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that I am not in an easy position, even if the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) made a long statement at first, that I believe to be a very honest one, saying that he agrees with the criticisms I made, but has grave doubts about whether I can follow up on them or revise them.
If I had not made these criticisms, I would obviously be accused of not having made them and of neglecting my duty. Anyway, I think that the rule of the game in Parliament as in court is that you should not try to prove yourself to the witnesses of your opponent. However, I do not hold this against him, because I find that I am not in
736

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
complete disagreement with any of the ideas contained in the resolution of the New Democratic Party.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, I find some of these ideas too general. As a matter of fact, the hon. member left himself an opening in his statement, and I believe that he was right to do so. He does not wish to make political gestures which would only be doctrinary and which would refer, if I may say so, to a somewhat outmoded form of intervention by the state.
Indeed, I have heard the same thing said by the British Columbia, the Manitoba and the Saskatchewan premiers. All three make this distinction at all times and I think that they are right. I do not blame them at all.
Of course, we agree on most criticisms. I have made an overall criticism, not to get the attention of the reporters, but to stir up enough attention that those problems might be solved. As we know, some problems are not solved unless the public is mobilized enough to force those in my trade to study them seriously. Otherwise, they are never solved.
And so, I did not do so to attract attention, nor to get into the limelight, Mr. Speaker, but because I think the problem is serious. In my speech, in this House or outside, I did not make a complete analysis of the transport system in Canada. Of course, some things are working very well in the field of transportation. Everything need not be demolished and built up again from scratch. Clearly, when one wants to go from Montreal, or Toronto, to Vancouver the service is excellent. Trains on certain lines are operating quite nicely.
Usually, they operate well when the corporations make profits and on this point I agree with the New Democratic Party. As soon as they incur losses, they are inclined to neglect train repairs, for example, so that means of transport becomes unfit. People are disgusted and do not dare use it.
However, when we consider how subsidies are granted, we realize that we pay, if I am right, some $100 million a year to the railway companies to maintain passenger trains. However, the corporations are not entitled to use one cent of those $100 million to get new equipment. That amount is solely used to cover what are called operating deficits.
Evidently, they are not interested in reinvesting. The cars, the rails are deteriorating and as stated recently, there are even some bridges which fall down and are not rebuilt.
We are therefore in a situation where passenger trains, which are more and more essential to this country, cannot be of any service to the population. Obviously I am accused and we are accused collectively of not thinking since 1967 about redrafting this law. It includes many extremely simple principles and I believe that this has helped solve many problems.
But this left us with large problems on our hands, in other words we thought, and there I do not exclude or excuse myself as indeed the first time in the House, that through competition, between railways, trucks and boats, we would get a near perfect system, which unfortunately

did not happen because in certain areas there is no competition.
You will make your speech in a few minutes, but I am referring to one aspect. Maybe I will agree with you that in certain cases we have not used the powers we have under the law to correct what should have been corrected. In any event, we have a series of problems and all I want to say is that I am not just making a speech after which, having admitted before this House that we have problems, I should just say goodbye. I am being very honest. I think we have already started to solve some of these problems. We have already started negotiations with the western provinces on certain freight rates, and I think we are going to have some concrete results. Maybe we are not going to agree on the conclusions. Okay, that will be part of the political battle which is normal in a country like ours, but at least we are going to have the facts.
The provinces asked for certain cost disclosures and they are going to get them. The committee to study those cost disclosures has already started to work and we hope it will be successful. We have included branch lines, and that is something we think is very positive. The problem now is in respect of what we are going to do when the lines will no longer be frozen. This is a good question, but do not ask it because I am not in a position to answer it at this moment.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Can we have an answer before the next election?


Jean Marchand: We will see, but if we do go
for an election we will do like all political parties, and like you are trying to do. The only difference between us is that we are a little more skilful, but that is a matter of opinion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You are skilful in politics but you are not doing anything for the people.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will then try to give my speech a style which is somewhat higher than the heaviness attributed by others to bring it down. In any case, I wish to speak of transportation problems. There was also the development of the north. To my mind, the department has some very interesting accomplishments to its credit. I refer here to airports and highways. We are undertaking a study to determine the possibility of building a railroad to serve the Northwest Territories. Substantial efforts have therefore been made. There has been progress in the field of winter navigation.
If we compare, which is perhaps a normal and a very tempting thing to do for a government in power, if we compare our system with that of other countries, the United States, France, Germany or Italy, I am sure that we have to conclude that ours is the best. However, the best system is not the same as a perfect system nor is it a system that cannot be improved upon. It is indeed possible to improve it considerably.
March 21, 1974

We are making efforts in the area of freight rates. I think that considerable efforts have been made in the area of northern development. In the area of civil aviation, we are also making concerted efforts to obtain the share of the market we are entitled to. These are facts, Mr. Speaker, and this is why I should not like anybody, including myself, to give the impression that everything that has been done up to now has been useless, that this was a case of misdirection and that all civil servants were wrong at the same time. This is not true. A mistake was made, and I agree with hon. members of the New Democratic Party when they say it was wrong to believe that the profit principle and competition would settle all problems. Well, there are large areas in our country where it will never be profitable for a railway, bus or truck company to operate and make money. It will never go there. This is the very principle on which private enterprise is based, and I do not see anyone in this House, not even among the NDP members, who would accept to open a highway or establish a bus service in the great north if he had to absorb a one or two million deficit every year.
The structure of our system does not allow it but, as a country, we must serve the people living in these areas, and it is there the system proves its inefficiency, that is the nature of our whole country has not been taken into account. However, I must mention that serious efforts have been made, that we have the parts of a system that works extremely well. The problem before us now is to correct the defects. Of course our friends in the New Democratic Party remid us of nationalization. And some find it a panacea to nationalize CP, non only CP, but all it subsidiaries, which means a great deal of people. I think that the CP company has 47 subsidiaries, if I am well informed, and it administers hundreds of millions of dollars.
Some may suggest that these subsidiaries were born from things given to them by the Canadian people. This is a public and political debate that would be extremely interesting to have one of these days, and maybe our views do not differ greatly on this matter. However, should CP now be brought under public ownership? I would rather see a policy and national objectives set up first in order that we may know exactly where we are going, and see if that is necessary. Personnally, I am not interested in bringing CP under public ownership. Mr. Speaker, if hon. members want to know how many companies are involved in the field of transportation in Canada, I have figures here-21,000 in the trucking industry and 48 in the rail transport industry because CN and CP are not the only ones operating a railway. BCR was also brought under public ownership in British Columbia but several companies do not come under the jurisdiction of the federal government. There are 694 air carriers. With respect to gas pipelining 175 companies are involved in that field. I admit quite frankly that before stomaching all that, Mr. Speaker, I would much rather see an adequate policy set up because if we had to deal with all that tomorrow morning I really wonder how we could manage to do it. I think we would not be the only government to react that way and if our hon. friends opposite were on this side of the House they would think it over twice before passing such a general resolution although I do not object to it in principle. It seems basic to me for a country like ours to
National Transportation Policy have control mechanisms and if at some point private enterprise is not doing what it should we should have the means available to us to make it act as it should which is often something we do not have.


David Lewis: That has been the case with CP for years.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this is not generally known, but I know that I am not considered as a close friend of CP for several reasons and I do not intend to kill myself for that company. I am not here for that. As long as I am Minister of Transport the only thing that can be expected from me is that I will try to correct what is wrong in our system, to see to it that we have adequate passenger trains and freight rates which permit our economy to grow-


Steve Eugene Paproski: We want Mackasey.


Jean Marchand: They never know why they lose elections. It is just because they behave that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: Those are our major objectives. We now have the problem of the lack of railway equipment and cars. It is always the same situation. The government says to the railway companies: Listen, you must be motivated by profit, your grants will be reduced; you had better try to compete with trucking and so everything will be for the best in the best of worlds. But when those companies consider they are making no money by investing in cars they do not build any. To me the problem is as follows: Should we chance buying equipment which next year, for instance, will not be used because the year will not be as good as we thought, or should we have a situation where we would have an extraordinary year but where we will not be able to haul our merchandise for lack of the required equipment? Decisions must be taken. Who takes them? Private companies, of course. Naturally we could ask CN to build cars but CP can see no reasons to build cars unless the level of our economy becomes higher than they forecast or than we forecast.
Mr. Speaker, we are also at grips with the whole problem of urban transportation. As I said once, I do not know where, everybody believed a few years ago that rail transportation was obsolete and that air and road transportation were the modes of transport of the future. Billions of dollars were invested in highway and airport systems. Today, all urbanized modern societies realize more and more that they made a mistake, and that they should never have abandoned railways as a means to link our urban centres. For instance, it is possible today to have a train that runs at 200 miles an hour. I am sure that you will travel by train between Ottawa and Quebec City and that it will be faster than by plane or by any other means of transportation. Therefore, we must re-assess our traditional concept. We are not the only ones who made this mistake. All European countries did the same. There used to be streetcars in the cities. Today people think that it might be better to have streetcars, less pollution and fewer cars parked along the streets.

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
That is the policy that the federal government must develop. We must do it, not on our own, but with the co-operation of provinces and municipalities. Recently, Mr. Speaker, I accepted in this House the suggestion that a controller be appointed, somebody who might report to us on how railway cars are allocated in Canada. I prefer this idea to the suggestion that somebody be appointed to decide, because I wonder to whom this person would report. Would he report to a politician, to the Minister of Transport, who would decide?
We could say to the CNR that it has enough cars in British Columbia and that it should send the cars to the east. Surely, we can solve the problem within the structure. However, we should know what it is so that if there is something wrong in the system we can use this information and all the facilities of the government to correct what must be corrected. But, I am not sure the best formula would be to give this power to a controller. As a matter of fact, the only exception I take to the resolution is the reference to the general nationalization of the CPR and its subsidiaries. I do not take this position merely because it is a matter of principle with me but because I do not believe it would be useful to do that. I do not know. If some people believe that the CPR has stolen from us and that it owes money to the Canadian society, let us settle that with the CPR and tell it that this money belongs to the government of Canada and not to the CPR. But let us not mix that with a national transportation policy because I think the two are quite different.
But if it should be necessary to nationalize the CPR in order to have a really integrated system, if it should be silly to have two railbeds following the same path and the CPR should not want to correct that situation or wish to sell their property at such prices that they become prohibitive when they know they got it practically free, then we can use the instruments we have and I would have no objection to nationalization. So I think this is the situation. I do not say no immediately. I just say that the first thing we have to elaborate is a new policy, a corrected or improved policy, to determine national objectives and after that see by what weapons we can really attain those objectives. Whatever some people may think I have no vested interest anywhere. If the party to which I belong should have a vested interest to the point that it would not be acting in the interest of the public just because some of them were linked a little too tight, well at that time you know I think I am free enough to say just what I think about the whole business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean Marchand: But up until now, I think what we have been doing has been proper. We have been trying to develop the north. We have been spending a great deal of money in opening up the northern part of British Columbia. I hope we will be successful. We are trying to see if we can build some railway cars, including hopper cars. We are making a real effort in that direction. We are trying to correct the situation in the west and the situation in the maritimes. We are trying to see, in co-

operation with the province of Ontario, for example, if it is possible to have good commuter trains like those, for instance, between Richmond and Toronto and Barrie and Toronto.
We have a similar proposal in respect of Montreal and probably will receive proposals in respect of Winnipeg and Vancouver. This is what we are trying to do. We are trying to find new ideas so that the needs of the people will be met, not only their needs but also their expectations. I am reminded of something, and I see one of my colleagues here who is interested in that. Many years ago the CPR decided to abandon the small train from Montreal to the north country. In French there is a song about this, "Le petit train du Nord". Perhaps from an economic point of view it was a very expensive link to the north. However, the highway is so crowded that the people no longer can move and they ask why the train is not reinstated or why they cannot have a fast train to Montreal. I would be ready to do the same thing any place there is congestion because we know in this country of ours we have too many cars in the city which are causing pollution. One of the solutions is trains, and this is what we are going to do. Mr. Speaker, I think I have exhausted my 30 minutes. I thank you very much. So far as the rest is concerned, I will say it on television.


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has put on another virtuoso performance in the course of his speech, but I feel we are still somewhat in the dark in respect of what he intends to do. It is a tribute to his extraordinary personal qualities, as the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) said, that he makes the sort of disclosures he does with frankness and honesty as he did on March 7 in this House and today. Nonetheless the implications of what he said, though well received, are staggering and disturbing to all Canadians.
The current Speech from the Throne indicates that the government has attached great importance to transportation as related to regional development. Now, it is apparent that not only are we without the capacity and capability to solve many of the urgent problems relating to transportation, but we are also left with the very foundations of our regional development policies in jeopardy. I was surprised that the leader of the NDP did not touch on this point.
It is said very unequivocally in the Speech from the Throne that:
Transportation in particular is a key factor in regional development.
Canadians are now told the unpleasant truth that two of the very high priority items necessary for the country's economic progress are in jeopardy. I say in all sincerity, Mr. Speaker, that if the government is at all capable of embarrassment it must indeed be very embarrassed today. I challenge members to name policies of greater importance to our national economic well-being and progress than those which are necessary in these two vital areas of transport and regional development. And yet, by the admission of one of the key ministers in the government, we are given the hard facts of life as to how deficient we are in these vital policy areas.
March 21, 1974

Our national transportation problems hold back our economic development in all parts of the nation. They are impeding our capacity to move commodities. They are injuring our trade relations with other nations. They are hurting our economy in so many ways that it would take hours to detail the damage done by the government's lack of policies. I am sure all of us remember that not long ago, when we were debating the so-called energy crisis, it was pointed out, and seemed to be tacitly accepted by the government, that we did not necessarily have an energy crisis, but that if there was an energy crisis at that time it was related to transportation because we did not have the capacity to move fuel from areas of surplus to areas in need. It was not that we did not have the fuel, it was that we lacked the capacity to move it.
I am sure the Minister of Transport must have realized at that point, and perhaps for the first time, just how much work had to be done to solve our transportation difficulties. I may say that I am very happy that the minister at this point does not agree with the NDP that we should exclude the private sector from transportation. If the NDP could say with any justification to the House that those Crown corporations which we have in the transportation field are manifestly superior to those which remain in the private sector, that they are cheaper and more efficient, then I suggest with some logic that they could put forward this type of motion for debate today. As I say, I am happy that the minister does not agree that this is a proper policy for him to consider, although of course he has left the door somewhat open.
I bring to the attention of the minister, as the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has done in the past, and presumably will again in the future, that motor transport is one of the policy areas in which the government has been most deficient. As a suggestion from this party, Mr. Speaker, I urge the minister to consider, in conjunction with the provinces because as he pointed out the provinces are, of course, necessary partners, some sort of practical policy to establish an interprovincial trucking board, or to establish reciprocal arrangements, so that the barriers and the impediments confronting Canada's motor transport industry can be removed. This must be one of the key factors in considering a transportation policy for the nation.
It is nearly impossible to pick a particular aspect of transportation that is not in difficulty, whether it be labour relations, administrative efficiency, or policy goals. Our national Crown transportation agencies and companies are in trouble. The minister himself is certainly well liked, well respected, and well qualified in labour relations and trade union affairs. I can think of few people in this House, if any, who are better qualified in this respect, and he should be especially qualified to cope with and solve the problems that exist in this particular aspect of transportation. I am speaking of labour-management difficulties, and I am thinking in particular of Air Canada.
But if one can believe what the minister is saying-I am sure we all want to do that-what he is saying publicly, what he is saying on the radio, and is reported in the press as saying, that unless he can get better co-operation and control he will resign, then surely it must be because he is not getting the proper type of co-operation from his cabi-
National Transportation Policy net colleagues in expediting the kind of decisive legislative and administrative changes needed to cope with the very complex difficulties he has to face.
Certainly nothing has changed since his predecessor said two years ago, I believe it was on March 20, 1972:
I propose to bring before the House in the next session three important pieces of legislation on which work is proceeding at the present time. The first of those is a bill designed to reconstitute Air Canada as a separate Crown corporation, thus divorcing it, as it were, from the CNR. I will also introduce a Canadian National Railways revision act and a companion piece of legislation covering amendments to the Railway Act. Hon. members will know how involved and far-reaching these changes are; they have been asking for them for the last two or three years. These changes have entailed a great deal of work, which is still proceeding. I believe, however, that these bills are essential and I will bring them forward as soon as they are ready.
Obviously, those bills were not ready before the House was dissolved and an election took place. However, the real point is that the country has been under the administration of a Liberal government for about ten years. The minister is no recent recruit, such as I am. He has been here for a good many of those years. He has been associated with the cabinet, and with affairs of state on a high level. While it is very admirable that he has been so honest and frank with us, nonetheless it is a great indictment against the administration that now we are faced with the revelations recently made to us concerning our present transport policies and how they affect the economy of the country.
While the minister is undoubtedly correct in seeking the co-operation of the unions in an attempt to overcome the lack of efficiency in our transportation systems, I think he should be more concerned with management. I submit that it is here that many of the problems have arisen. In my opinion management has been derelict in adapting to technological changes, and has shown great deficiencies in labour and public relations, as well as a lamentable lack of foresight in adapting to changing economic conditions. Certainly the minister, as I have said, is uniquely equipped to deal with labour relations and he has competent colleagues to assist him, such as the former minister of manpower and immigration and the former minister of labour, the latter having an enviable record in such matters.
I would strongly urge the minister to study seriously the question of encouraging discussions between labour and management, under the auspices of the Department of Labour, with the idea in mind of having the labour contracts for our two major railway systems expire at different times. I realize there are reasons why this might not be acceptable, but on the other hand it could help avoid nationwide paralysis in times of labour disputes, paralysis which because of its magnitude hinders normal labour-management relations and causes parliament to step in, perhaps not always when it is in the best interests of the workers. This type of arrangement is normal in other industries such as the automotive industry, where one big company sets the trend for the others. As I say, I realize there may be objections. Perhaps some labour people think this is not a good idea, but I urge the minister, as part of his on-going policy re-assessment, to consider it.
It would also be a good idea, and I make this suggestion to the minister at the same time although it should more properly be discussed in connection with marine transport

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
policies, to press on with establishing separate Crown corporations to manage the ferry services operating between our mainland and the maritime provinces. They, too, are affected when an incident arises where our national railway system and the CPR go out on strike. This is something that the minister should take under advisement, and I hope he will.
As far as direction from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is concerned, with respect, Mr. Speaker, I doubt if he could run a church bazaar. I do not think he is a practical type of person and I doubt whether the Minister of Transport will get very much assistance or direction from him. Surely, that is not the case with the minister himself and some of his colleagues, however. I think he will agree that at this time we do not want to exclude the private sector from this nation's transportation systems. I am not surprised to see the NDP indicate this sort of action in this motion. It is consistent with the principles of socialism and while we in the Progressive Conservative Party cannot agree with them, still, we would like to be able to respect the sincerity of our friends to the left.
Many Canadians know how difficult it is to believe in the current New Democratic Party philosophy because even their own followers realize that they are not sincere and have lost credibility as an opposition party without having the intestinal fortitude, on the other hand, to form an open coalition with those on the treasury benches. It must be, to put it in Biblical phraseology "sharper than a serpent's tooth" for the leader of the New Democratic Party to read in the Vancouver Sun of March 2 that one of the candidates nominated by the federal NDP, Ken Nova-kowski has dropped his candidacy because, as reported in the article:
The federal party caucus has compromised too much, . ..
They've backed some pretty wish-washy legislation ...
The principles of the NDP are more important than gaining or losing a few seats.
They have some principles, apparently, in the eyes of their supporters outside this House but their credibility in this chamber has diminished. It is interesting for us in the official opposition to watch and listen to what my friends on the left say about transportation, and other things as well. They may explain and rationalize all they like. They want the credit for anything constructive this parliament has done, but they accept none of the blame or criticism.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party, a prominent lawyer, has come up with a new legal or parliamentary concept-it could be termed "responsibility without guilt". He castigates the government for its many failures in transportation and other fields but the only time he sounds sincere is when he attacks the official opposition. His logic must be, "the government is not doing anything so let's attack the opposition and blame it on them". He does not include himself in this particular category of an opposition member, obviously.
Mr. Speaker, we in the Progressive Conservative Party realize that the problems of transportation are immense, but much can be done by determined effort and some sort of pragmatic, down to earth approach; doing something that needs to be done. I believe that the majority of

members of this House sympathize with the minister when he says that he does not appear to have enough authority to make the type of managerial and policy decisions that he seems to think are now necessary.
We advocate the immediate reassessment of the current goals and managerial policies of Air Canada. We feel that the object should be to ensure that these Crown corporations are devoting sufficient energy to their principal role of providing efficient transportation of goods and people in this country and that they cease participating in activities which are only incidental to this role. There is a great need that the primary role of transportation in this country be filled, and these agencies should be devoting their energies to this end.
I should like to make a suggestion to this House, although it is not primarily related to what I have already said. As far as the safety aspects of transportation are concerned, I believe that the minister should give careful consideration to making public the findings of accident investigations carried out by the CTC, by his ministry and other investigative bodies. The secrecy that presently exists is consistent with the attitude that I find so aggravating so far as the management of our Crown corporation is concerned.
It is obvious that the Minister of Transport is not able to exert sufficient control over the Crown corporation and private sectors in transportation. Certainly, as hon. members from all parties have pointed out, there is a basis for authority to be exercised under the National Transportation Act and, as pointed out by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) yesterday, under the Railway Act. If the minister is sincere in wanting still more authority to deal with these problems, I am sure he would get it speedily if he were to bring forward some concrete measure that would demonstrate his desire to take effective action.
The fact that members have been so reluctant to pass the CNR financing bill, is related to the attitude of which I have just spoken. This particular bill, now known as Bill C-5, previously known as C-164 and before that C-4, has a ridiculous and almost farcical history. It is an indictment of the way these Crown corporations are managed. If you look at the history of this matter, it is easy to see why members of parliament get their backs up about the way the government handled this aspect of the financing of Crown corporations. Little wonder the government is having difficulty getting that particular bill passed.
The executive officers of Air Canada and the CNR will not divulge how much their many vice-presidents are being paid or what their specific responsibilities and duties are. Although I was promised at the last committee hearings by Air Canada that they would let me know how much rent they paid last year, I still have not received the information. The whole financing setup of CNR and Air Canada should be changed, and I put that suggestion forward to the government through you, Mr. Speaker.
In effect, we now have a period covering the CNR and Air Canada financing from January 1, 1971 to June 30, 1974. The very fact that this is possible demonstrates how little control this parliament has over this aspect of Crown corporations. It is obvious that the financial affairs of CNR and Air Canada are not really in the hands of the
March 21, 1974

elected representatives any more. I say to my friends on my left, why nationalize all Canada's transportation if the government cannot control our present Crown transportation agency?


An hon. Member:: That does not make Crown corporations bad; that makes the government bad.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That may well be.
I should like to deal with marine policies now, Mr. Speaker, which are of particular interest to me, coming as I do from eastern Canada. It is well known that these are vital to Canada. We have one of the longest coastlines of any country in the world and a great deal of interest has been expressed in reviving a Canadian shipping fleet. This nation should share in the transportation of its export and imports. About one-third of our imports and about 40 per cent of our exports are moved by water. Canadian vessels, chiefly in the Great Lakes fleet, carry about one quarter of our water borne imports. The remainder is carried in foreign flag vessels. That is not a healthy condition. Canadian dollars-$133 million in 1969, for example - were drained away to pay freight charges to those vessels. Much of that money could be kept at home if a Canadian ocean fleet were available to carry our exports and imports.
At the beginning of the 1970's Canada had begun to conclude long-term contracts for large-scale export sales of products such as iron ore, coal and wheat. The prediction is that exports of this type will grow steadily throughout the 1980's. Many will go to the Orient. There is no reason at all why Canadian flag vessels should not carry these exports.
We, in this party, believe that we should definitely concentrate on establishing a viable Canadian merchant fleet. We should also upgrade the Canadian Coastguard service, to provide more comprehensive and efficient environmental and fisheries surveillance and protection. That definitely is needed. I also urge the minister, and I hope he will consider my suggestion worthwhile, to establish an Arctic fleet capable of providing economic transportation to northern Canada and establishing more firmly Canadian sovereignty in northern waters. I also suggest that the minister should pay more attention to the needs of the Ports of Churchill and Prince Rupert, because of their potential for reducing costs to western Canadian shippers.
I see that you are about to say my time has expired, Mr. Speaker. May I close by suggesting this to the minister. If he will bring forward constructive legislative changes which are essential for any reassessment of this country's transportation policy, 1 am sure he will be able to count not only on our support but on the support of the majority of the members of this House.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the hon. member of the Creditiste Party who was to speak just now for allowing me to participate ahead of him. I have a train to meet and I appreciate his co-operation and hope to reciprocate one day.
For the moment I want to talk about two subjects. Neither is controversial and both fall within the ambit of
National Transportation Policy government responsibility rather than of private industry. Both the situations, to which I am about to refer can be rectified. I do not intend to talk at great length, because I know that some people have talked on one subject for years and will talk on it again. I am glad to see the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas) in the House as he, too, is interested in the question of pensions of retired railway workers.
I do not pretend to be an expert on the subject of pensions. There is an organization or association which is now looking after the pension problem. It calls itself the Senior Council of Canadian National Pensioners Association. It is headed by a close friend of mine from my community, Dick Wooraker. He gives nearly all his spare time, working virtually without pay in the cause of retired workers.
Several private members bills have been presented on the subject. The one which has intrigued me most is Bill C-139, proposed by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) which, if passed, would go a long way towards rectifying the problem of retired workers. The hon. member might be fortunate in having his bill adopted in private members hour, because it involves nothing more than a change in the regulations.
The group in which I am particularly interested and of which the hon. member for Moncton is aware is a group known as ICR workers who draw their pensions from what is known as the provident fund, that being a fund set up by Parliament away back. Some said it was a wonderful plan. I remember that when my dad died at the age of 56 he was receiving $58 a month pension after 41 years of continuous service, including service in the war years. I always remember the last cheque arriving a few days after he died and our having to send it back. The plan provided nothing for the survivors, for the wives and children. Only a few thousand workers are involved. The union must bear some of the blame for what has happened, because it showed very little interest in that particular group which, for one reason or another, was left with little in the way of pension. That is, when the workers reached age 65, they had little in the way of pension.
I want to talk about other subjects, as well. Let me say that the provident fund was set up by an act of Parliament. It is true that, in 1935, the people involved in that plan were given the opportunity to join the CNR plan. In those days many people were unemployed and those who were not did not have the money to join the CNR plan, the result being that only 110 out of 3,000 elected to transfer to the CNR plan. On the second opportunity in 1941 only 86 transferred to the CNR plan. As of January, 50 employees still worked for the railway and belonged to the old ICR provident fund plan. I understand that about 2,000 pensioners right now are drawing money from the fund.
As a result of attrition, which is the polite way of saying what happens to people over 65, about 2,000 people were left in the plan in 1972. As I say, another 50-odd are to retire. I wonder if we could not, on humanitarian grounds, without needing to worry about putting up a few miserable dollars, transfer these 2,000 people to the CNR plan and treat them as if they had always belonged to it? Could we not treat them in the way that all workers will eventu-
742

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
ally be treated who retire from the CNR? These people have been the neglected people of this country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I must confess that I have forgotten to mention the subject before, but I am happy to see the hon. member for Moncton present. I know he is concerned about this, as he and other members of the House have talked about it privately on many occasions. I hope they take up the cudgels on behalf of those people who draw benefits from the provident fund.
My other point, and I am trying to stay within the 15-minute limit, concerns transportation, particularly transportation by water in this country. A situation has been developing in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec, which in time I suspect will affect Saint John and Halifax. For years, as those who know anything about longshoremen will tell you, men who worked on the waterfront did casual work which needed strength and little else. In the old days when a ship came in the employers went out to hire men to unload that ship. A battle of wits developed. Workers wanted to stretch out the only work that might be available that week for as long as possible, and ship owners wanted cargoes to be unloaded as quickly as possible. You ran into the strange circumstance on the waterfront of workers impeding productivity and employers engaging in a degree of corruption in order to speed up production.
The situation has improved as a result of the work of the National Harbours Board. Many of the corrupt practices of the past have been virtually eliminated in the trade, in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. Good collective agreements have been entered into, under which virtually every impedence to productivity on the waterfront has been eliminated. In return for the elimination of restrictive practices, the employers, in the collective agreement, have agreed to guarantee the workers 37 weeks of work per year at 40 hours per week. We talk about unemployment insurance; but what is it? It is a plan of which employers have taken advantage. The workers have assumed what should be the social, moral and legal obligation of employers, namely, improving the conditions of workers, by providing income for workers all year round instead of for three, four or five months of the year. We generally forget that the UIC helps employers as well as employees. The ones who cry most about it are the biggest users of the funds, the employers in the construction industry, and yet unemployment insurance benefits subsidize their payroll.
In these three ports we have employers who brought in a modified guaranteed annual income. They said to the workers, the longshoremen, eliminate the restrictive practices in the existing collective agreement, the size of the gang, give us complete flexibility and in return we promise you work for 40 hours a week for 37 weeks over the life of the contract, that is the normal period in the ports because of ice.
What has happened has been that, as a result of this better collective agreement, we have a tremendous increase in productivity in these ports. Add to this

increased productivity in these ports, increased mechanization of what is known as break-bulk cargo; add to that the tremendous growth in the containerized field or technological change, as was mentioned by the very eloquent member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). When you put those ingredients together, you have a situation in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec which results in greater volume with substantially less people to the point that management, some months ago, bought up, if I may use that expression, 550 men. In other words, 550 men were fired or laid off in return for a certain amount of money. Despite that, there is still a surplus of men available on the waterfront.
When that collective agreement comes to an end at the end of this year, unless something drastic is done, it is very obvious what is going to happen. Management is going to refuse to continue the feature of a guaranteed annual income for the duration of the new contract. They are going to try and reduce the work force by between 500 and 1,000 men. It is quite natural that the longshoremen will want to revert to their old practices, if only to protect the only job they are trained for or capable of doing.
What has management done to alleviate the present dilemma? Management bought up these men at $12,000 each. This is being paid for by a royalty assessed on the goods coming into the port. That is fair enough. The money is to be borrowed from the bank. If it is to be repaid in a very short period of time over the life of the present collective agreement, it is obvious that the royalty has to be fairly substantial since the money involved is fairly substantial. If this is done, the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec will no longer be competitive with New York and other ports.
X am not a member of the cabinet. One or two of the cabinet members present are not paying too much attention anyway. If they were, they would appreciate one thing. That is, all that is needed to make the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec competitive with New York, Saint John, Halifax, Boston or any other port around the world, is in place, productivity, containerization, and mechanization. Incidentally, buying hopper cars for private industry is never a problem. Why then is it a problem for the government to act as a guarantor and nothing more in order that the needed bank loan can be amortized over 10 or 20 years. The employers are capable of paying the money back over any period, but in order to pay it over the life of a contract, the royalty must be of such dimension that the port would no longer be competitive. This problem has been unsettled for six or seven months. Nobody really knows where they are going.
You can say what you like about the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), but he is a humanitarian. He understands the most important thing is people. I am encouraged that he is there. If anyone can solve the problem, he can. The minister understands human relations. He understands that productivity is based not only on machinery, but on the willingness of people to accept it. What he needs is the support of the rest of the cabinet-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -in order that he can introduce a concept that I do not think is Eutopian. Simply as a result of

technological change and the tremendous importance these ports play in the general prosperity of the province, we are only asking and the Merchant Carriers Association is only suggesting that the government act as a guarantor, perhaps through the National Harbours Board, so the ports can remain productive and free of labour unrest. That seems to be common sense. In fact, I could justify it if the government picked up the tab for the elimination of these particular workers for no other reason than that productivity and technological change have caught up with them. We did it for the textile and shoe industries.
We have seen what happened with the railways. It has come to the point where 250,000 jobs have been reduced to
120,000	jobs and 120,000 passive men. Some people think they are strike happy. They think the railway unions wield unnecessary power. I suggest those people take a look at Judge Hall's arbitration report which is just an honest opinion of an honest individual. They will see his arbitration cost both railways tremendously more than a collective agreement arrived at between two parties would ever have cost the CNR and CPR. This fact indicates that in all our collective bargaining over the past 15 years the strong parties were the companies, not the unions.
I am just making a case for the cabinet to turn around and help the Minister of Transport solve what can be a very difficult problem. This gentleman understands human relations and industrial relations. You cannot divorce that from reality. You cannot make this country as it should be, capital intensive, and introduce technological change without resistance from the worker if it means the worker is to be shoved out on the street without a care.
Technological change in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec in the form of containerization and mechanization means a reduction of 1,000 jobs over the next few years. The companies are prepared to buy up these men so they can take $10,000 or $12,000 and start a new life in some other field. They could buy a cab, a home or a business. The Merchant Carriers Association is prepared to pay for it. All they need is the government's guarantee in order that the port will not be put at a competitive disadvantage to the extent you can unload a container and bring it in by Amtrac to Montreal from New York cheaper than you can bring it into Montreal by waterpower today.
You cannot divorce the two. We need a humanitarian in transport. If this country in the next 50 years is to be kept together it will take perhaps more than culture; it will need a wise transportation policy. I make this plea to my former colleagues to accept the wisdom of the Minister of Transport and do the right thing. Give him the authority to authorize some branch of his department to act as a guarantor of a normal business venture.
National Transportation Policy



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: 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 Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott)-Health-Presence of DES in United States cattle imported into Canada; the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth)-Energy-Reason Imperial Oil allowed to drill for oil and gas in Beaufort Sea before completion of environmental studies.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Lewis:
That in the opinion of this House all forms of national transportation should be integrated as a public utility to serve Canada's transportation needs instead of being governed by considerations of competition and profit so that Parliament can deal effectively with freight rate discrimination, rail line abandonment, insufficient railway equipment, inadequate rail passenger service, and urban and northern transportation;
This House is further of the opinion that to this end the Canadian Pacific Railway, including its subsidiaries, should be brought under public ownership and that both national systems should be under full public control;
And, further, in order to meet the present emergency in the movement of grain and other products, this House is of the opinion that the Government should consider the immediate appointment of a transport controller with full authority to allocate and control railway rolling stock.
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, on January 4 of this year, in this House, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I asked for the unanimous consent of the House so that ways would be found to reduce the number of railway accidents across Canada, especially derailments. I even proposed the appointment of a royal commission on the administration of railways and on the means to be taken to remedy the consequences of this deplorable deterioration of this service of prime necessity and national interest.
As usual, my motion under Standing Order 43 did not receive the unanimous consent of the House. I notice with pleasure today that a full day has been reserved for the study of the desired improvement in railway management.
In my constituency, at Mont-Joli, a Canadian National employee in charge of checking the trains retired last
27398-48S

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
December. He was not replaced. By the way, I would like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that I sent him a request about this and that I have not yet received an answer in my office. I asked him to be good enough to appoint an immediate replacement for this supervisor who had retired.
Afterwards, 24 cars left the rails at Routhierville, approximately 70 miles from Mont-Joli.
Another time, a freight car crashed into the Mont-Joli station partly demolishing it in a tragic and funny way. Mr. Speaker, it should not be forgotten that the Mont-Joli station is especially busy since Price Brothers operate a sawmill six miles from Mont-Joli and ship all their lumber by CN railway. It greatly increases the activity in the Mont-Joli railway yard.
As I said, the Price Company uses that railway yard so that the railway traffic controller plays a vital role and cannot vanish with impunity. In early March, there was another funny and costly accident which could also have been tragic. Seven or eight passenger cars ran off the line near Luceville between Mont-Joli and Rimouski. That time, the engine as well as eight cars completely left the tracks. Luckily, there was no loss of life, but I think that some people were injured. It should be noted that 15 minutes before the derailment of the east-bound train another passenger train had just gone by.
I should like to make a suggestion to the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) about the supervision of railway tracks. I would suggest that after the passage of every train, the track be inspected in order that such accidents may be prevented. This would provide employment, since people complain about the high rate of unemployment today. At the same time, it would prevent costly accidents like those that have already happened.
Early in March, another funny and costly accident happened, as I mentioned earlier, when a car lost its shipment of $27,000 between Toronto and Winnipeg. This shipment consisted of 5 cent coins which were sown over a land unsuitable for cultivating silver or nickel.
I agree that those are trivial incidents compared with the big businesses that handle billions of dollars right across Canada, one of the wealthiest and most capitalistic countries in the world.
I think we should congratulate the opposition party that took the initiative of calling the attention of the government to our railroads which have long been the pride of Canadians, financiers, administrators and employees. One wonders now whether that reputation is not about to wane.
As I cannot trust my impressions alone in forming an opinion, I get my information wherever I can, but always from the most reliable sources. For instance, early in January, a CP report published in Le Droit of Ottawa mentioned that it is the CTC that asks the companies to reduce the speed of the trains, to limit their loads and better inspect the rails, and this all year round.
They try everywhere to reduce the number of employees, thus increasing unemployment and encouraging lower quality services. There is nothing to laugh

about, Mr. Speaker, when we look at all the derailments which have occurred since 1970. Referring to statistics for 1959, I find that 40 derailments occurred that year, 69 in 1969 and 132 in 1972, accounting for an average increase of 90 per cent in those three years.
That makes me suggest that railways are in a very bad shape. I was listening earlier to the minister expressing his intention to improve that situation.
In the past, as I remember, the ballast under the rails rested on slag and accidents were fairly infrequent because the tracks were very well maintained. There were four mem assigned to the maintenance of each seven mile section. Inspections took place daily and often after the passage of various passenger or freight trains.
Today it is thought wise to extend sections to 18 or 20 miles, I think, and two employees and one foreman look after and maintain the tracks.
With regards to the inspection of railways, I wish to inform the minister that, it is rather funny to say, the employees and the inspectors of the tracks now travel often by car on the highway. They drive around and claim that they did inspect the tracks.
Also, I would bring the attention of the minister to the fact it is often said by public servants that there are more chiefs than Indians, and to my mind such is the situation prevailing now in the CN. There are too many civil servants and not enough employees to maintain and accelerate the development of railways.
I do not know if the minister is aware of this, but there are civil servants in the railways companies who enjoy all sorts of privileges, including the use of a company car, credit cards, paid expenses and often a bottle of scotch, up to a maximum of $50 a month.
When they need to replace a window at the Rimouski station, they must send for a worker from Campbellton to do the necessary work.
There is so much merchandise, pieces of rail and sleepers along the way between Halifax and Vancouver that, if an inventory were made, the amount would be enough to pay the salaries of all employees for a year.
Therefore, the CN is certainly poorly administered. There are too many civil servants, too many unjustified expenses and an enormous waste of money.
If we compare the derailments that took place during the same period for CP and CN trains, we find that for 1969 to 1971 CPR had 52 derailments and 80 in 1972. When compared with 132 for the CP, one must admit that a private company certainly takes more care of its rolling stock and railway tracks than a publicly owned company such as the CN.
I called for a royal inquiry on the quality of railroad transportation on October 24, 1973 in a speech I delivered in this House. Members of the New Democratic Party go faster and recommend definite measures, such as, for instance, public ownership of the CP and integration of the whole railroad transportation system into a single government controlled utility.
March 21, 1974

That is what I call coming quickly to extreme and definite solutions before reconsidering the whole problem and comparing the efficiency of both systems, namely a national enterprise on one hand and a private enterprise on the other. Therefore, we should analyse all comparative results of both companies, namely the CNR, a government controlled company, and the CPR, a privately owned company.
That is the main point to be clearled up. Despite its profits that are distributed among its shareholders, one often wonders whether the private enterprise is not even more efficient, more profitable and less expensive than a public enterprise. A serious royal inquiry might enable us to determine more precisely the deficiencies of the present administrations and to take remedial action as required without disturbing anything in the existing financial and administrative structures.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, to know how to distinguish between casual and localised deficiencies of administration that may be corrected right away, and basic and structural deficiencies that would demand a major overhaul and a complete change in organisations. Under current circumstances, what is the best decision to take? Should we take a drastic decision prior to a royal inquiry or should we conduct a royal inquiry prior to taking a decision fitting the circumstances?
I do not think this question will be settled today but I commend the NDP party for drawing the attention of the government and of this House on a major question which deserves our best attention and efforts if we want to maintain our railways prestige and current reputation which are recognized throughout the world as most efficient in such a great country whose needs and temperatures are so varied.
Today is not the day to deal with the many circumstances connected with the administration of our railways but the whole financial system of the CN and CP needs an in-depth study. In both cases, we are speaking of financing in terms of billions and in both cases an interest rate differential of 3, 5 and 10 per cent has considerable effects on administration costs both for the state company and the private company.
And the whole question of interest rates, in the field of railways as in other areas, is a matter under the supreme authority of the government of Canada under the British North America Act. It is not because of the dividends paid to CN stockholders that administration is too costly but because of the interests paid on its debt in the form of bonds and, in this connection, the CPR and CNR are both suffering from exorbitant interest rates on billions of eternal debts which are renewed automatically every 20, 30 or 40 years at higher interest rates. The same applies to the bonds issued by the government of Canada.
Perhaps you noticed again that last Monday all our major newspapers mentioned that the government of Canada is floating a $550 million issue at 6'/2 and 8 per cent, of which $350 million will be used to redeem a maturing issue which was marketed at 5 per cent. Is it known that without any further effort on their part, Canadian and foreign millionnaires will receive some $15,000 or $30,000 more per million in the future, that is a total of $65,000, $70,000 or $80,000 instead of $50,000 during
National Transportation Policy several years more, and that finally, the government, unable to pay for its debts, will have to renew its loans at still higher rates? Is that known? Was that thought of? Are these mere trifles? Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The CN should go through a good inventory so that measures can be taken to ensure the best decisions are made to meet more satisfactorily the needs and hopes of all Canadians.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by my leader, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), contains a fundamental part of the New Democratic Party's policy on transportation. I am sorry that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has had to leave, but I hope that his parliamentary secretary will hear my words and take them back to him, and that they will persuade him to accept the points made by my leader as well as the points I have to make.
This issue has been raised two or three times in every session of parliament in the past almost six years that I have been here. The same problem has confronted us in almost every one of these debates; it is with us now, and it will continue to be with us unless we make some fundamental changes in transportation policy and in how we operate our transportation systems.
Transportation is fundamental to the social and economic life of Canada. It is so essential to our national wellbeing that it falls naturally into the category of being a utility. The priority of any utility, of course, must be the provision of service. The principle of service must replace that of competition and must supersede that of profitmaking. As my leader said, this is not necessarily socialist dogma, though socialist thinkers originated the idea. It has been accepted by governments and parties of all political stripes that anything that is an essential public service is best operated as a utility that is publicly owned and operated.
Society, after many decades of bitter experience, has learned that competition and private profit have no place-and I repeat, no place-in developing and operating an essential public service. Society has brought into being many kinds of services under public ownership, such as our streets, sidewalks, highways, sewer and water systems, city transit systems, and in much of Canada our telephone and electrical systems. Major national modes of transportation remain under a mix of private and public ownership, the prime objective of both of which, I regret to say, is competition and profitmaking.
The present national transportation policy and the legislation of 1967 enshrine withim them the principle of competition, which does not allow for or require the meeting of the transportation needs of the people or the economy. Neither do they recognize transportation as a vehicle to foster regional economic development. For too long our transportation systems have discriminated against people and places because of our geography. Those same systems were also party to the prevention of economic development in Atlantic and western Canada.
The New Democratic Party believes that these major modes of transportation must be placed under public democratic ownership and made to function for the real social and economic use of this country. By making our

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
major transportation systems a public utility, so-called competition is then automatically ruled out, as has been the case over the years with other kinds of utilities. That is the first essential of a national transportation policy which will bring about a real national transportation system, namely that it is a publicly owned, operated and controlled utility.
To be more specific, the New Democratic Party believes, and a New Democratic Party government would undertake to implement, the following. I shall go through my list of points for as long as my time will permit.
First, to emphasize what my leader had to say on this point, and again I hope what I have to say will persuade my hon. friends in other parties, we would bring into public ownership the Canadian Pacific system, now called Canadian Pacific Limited. This would include the subsidiary companies over which Canadian Pacific has ownership or control and which are felt necessary either to the wellbeing of a national transportation system or other national interests, with the full proviso that no employee shall suffer from the transfer to public ownership. For example, in addition to CP Rail right of way, trackage, buildings, rolling stock, etc., all lands and mineral rights still held would be returned to the people of Canada. I might say that while the figure of 25 million acres is the one recalled by the public and members here, they should know that all land grants to the Canadian Pacific system since 1881 from national, provincial and municipal governments total 43,962,546 acres. These lands and the mineral rights must be returned to the people of Canada.
The taking into public ownership would include CP Air as that is an essential public utility of transportation. It is foolish to have competing airlines. It would be as foolish to have competing subway systems or sewage and water systems. Competition has no place in a national public utility. Something that is a natural monopoly should not be the subject of competition.
CP Oil and Gas and Pan-Canadian Petroleums, both Canadian Pacific subsidiaries, should, in the national interest rather than just transportation interests, be taken over. I believe they would be marvellous addition to a real national petroleum corporation, and, as the government is proposing legislation in that area, this would be a good beginning.
CP hotels are essential and a proper adjunct to a publicly owned and held national transportation system. CP Telecommunications should also be publicly owned since, for the purpose of market sharing and the elimination of competition, this area is already jointly operated with Canadian National and they have divided up the country between them, so that all that remains to be done is the transfer of ownership. CP trucks and ships again represent a necessary part of a national transportation utility system. CP ships could provide the beginning of a real Canadian merchant marine.
My next point is that the Canadian National Railway system must be relieved of the burden of debt that has been continually compounded since its inception as a way of bailing out bankrupt private railways. One of the methods I suggest of doing this is by having full disclosure in

respect of those who hold the remaining private debt of the CNR and transferring that private debt, which I believe amounts to something in the neighbourhood of $1.8 billion, to the public accounts of Canada, and in this way the people of Canada would finally become the sole shareholders of their railway.
In addition, our national transportation policy would requires the elimination of freight and passenger rate inequities through equalization or subsidization or a combination of both. There should be a moratorium on rail line abandonments with an assurance that the railways maintain adequate standards of facilities and services, as well as maintaining sufficient rolling stock and locomotive power.
In addition, the NDP advocates the restoration of certain services already eliminated. May I say to all of those who think that all we should do is take over the railway right of way and road leeds, this would be an economic disaster, since both railways have allowed a major portion of their trackage and roadbeds to deteriorate to such an extent it would require the expenditure of several hundreds of millions of dollars to bring them back up to proper standards, and the taxpayers of Canada would again have to pay for the mistakes of previous transportation policies and the deliberate mistakes, at least in my mind, of our railway systems.
My next point is that by direct assistance or in conjunction with the provinces we should develop a publicly owned, provincial and regional air carrier system which would be integrated and operated in conjunction with our national air transportation system. We should have provision for substantial expansion of air services, routes and facilities at subsidized fares and rates in the northern territories and probably in the northern parts of some of our provinces.
My next point is that our policy would provide that a rate-setting structure, developed under a public utility approach, would be based on the cost of shipment rather than on the value of the commodity shipped. An NDP federal government, acting in concert with provinces and territories, would assume direct responsibility for all matters of transportation rate setting and related activities rather than allowing federal regulatory bodies to assume wide discretionary powers in this area. In order to reflect regional concerns in the operating of a public transportation utility there should be direct regional representation on regulatory bodies responsible for transportation policies, and the provinces would be fully involved in the setting of trucking rates across the country.
My next point is that the Port of Churchill must be developed as a major supply depot for the north and, along with Prince Rupert, be expanded to handle larger quantities of western agricultural and finished products. In other words, an NDP government would develop these into major seaports.
The next point I have here is that we would provide for greater participation and input by transportation employees regarding their pensions, working conditions and safety procedures. Beyond that, we would give them more direct participation in the operating of the railroad or the airline because they know how to run the transportation systems by which they are now employed.
March 21, 1974

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) spoke out partially against the idea of public ownership in this field. I have only to remind him and all other members that with the exception of Canada and the United States, the governments of pretty well every other country in the world, of all political affiliations and persuasion, democratic and dictatorial, have transportation systems which are publicly owned and operated. We can learn some lessons from these countries, and I think of nations in western Europe, Japan, Australia, the Soviet Union and Scandinavian countries, all of which gave up a long time ago the idea of transportation being a place for competition or profit making.
I want to submit, as sincerely as I can, that there are some areas of human endeavour in which those two principles, which are adhered to by those who claim to believe so strongly in the so-called free enterprise system, have no legitimate place, and where competition in fact prevents such an endeavour from functioning properly. Even the Minister of Transport now admits that competition in transportation in Canada does not work.
With a publicly owned national transportation system, with all major modes of transportation included, we could have the efficient and integrated transportation of goods, services and people at the least possible cost, without discriminating against Canadians because of where they happen to live, meeting the transportation needs of any given part of the country, and meeting the transportation requirements of the producers of any given goods whether they be agricultural or manufactured products. It would allow for a much more equitable division and distribution of Canada's processing, manufacturing and distribution industries. Most of all I believe it would help to do as much or more for national unity than anything else.
One issue which has divided Canadians for decades has been the kind of transportation and communication systems we have had. This has caused us to quarrel among one another since the 1880's. This is still the case. The bitterness and division, I submit, would be substantially reduced if this and succeeding parliaments would move to bring about a publicly-owned and operated national transportation utility in the best interests of Canadians and the country.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the motion before us I am sure no one will disagree about the problems referred to in this motion connected with the transportation system. I think there is agreement that there must be more integration in respect of certain forms of transportation and that some immediate action must be taken to speed up the movement of grain and other important commodities across this land. I believe also there would be general agreement to the appointment of a railway transportation controller or coordinator immediately. However, I believe the agreement ends there.
We have before us a simplistic socialist policy, based on the philosophy, that civil servants can provide an effective and efficient transportation system better than the private sector. That I suggest is rather naive. It is the major thrust of the NDP solution, but that is the kind of unadulterated
National Transportation Policy socialistic rhetoric in which they engage. I was interested to note that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) indicated some qualified support for the proposals advanced by the NDP. I am not surprised, given the cosy relationship that exists between the NDP and the Liberals. I would suspect the government could very well be directed on that course. Judging from statements made by the minister outside the House, this particular course may be undertaken sooner than later. There has been a great deal of cross fertilization between the two groups.
One thing my NDP friends forget is the fact that there are two major nationalized transportation companies in this country which do absolutely no better and in many cases worse than those involved in the private sector. If nationalized transportation is the most desirable thing, the CN should be a model of railway transportation services in this country. I ask hon. members opposite and their colleagues to the left if, for example, the CN does any better than the CPR in the movement of grain, in the movement of lumber or in the movement of fruits and vegetables, either east or west, or does the CNR maintain its trackage and its equipment in a more desirable fashion than the CPR. The answer to that is no. The NDP know this very well and yet they say we should nationalize everything. This does not add up. The point I wish to make very emphatically-and here I point out that the CNR is as guilty as the CPR-is that the railways have failed to fulfil their mandate to the Canadian people.
The mandate of the railways is to provide an efficient and effective service of rail, freight and passenger transportation for the Canadian people. Furthermore, this government has failed to hold the railways to this mandate. The government does have power to do this. I intend to point this out later in my remarks. Let us look at the operations of the CNR. Year in and year out the government-owned corporation is heavily subsidized at the expense of the taxpayers. Rather than have a model of an advanced futuristic rail system, we have an antiquated system that has failed to recognize and develop new technology. It has failed to upgrade and maintain its equipment. It has failed to maintain its trackage in a safe and efficient condition. It has failed to meet the challenge of the twentieth century in respect of rail transportation requirements.
What has it engaged in? My hon. friend from Central Nova pointed this out. It has engaged in some exotic collateral ventures such as building towers, establishing shopping centres, and engaging in other real estate ventures such as luxury hotels. Only the CN can lose money in the operation of the hotels. It has even been involved in consulting agencies. I want to reiterate that the government must tell the railway to honour their commitment to the Canadian people and do the job for which they were given the mandate.
I believe the prominence of the railroads must be restored. They are a vital asset of this country. They must be upgraded, conserved and fully utilized. But the Liberals, and this particular government as well as previous Liberal governments, have allowed the railways to merrily go on their way. This has cost the taxpayers a great deal of money. The CNR now has a debt of $1.8 billion with notes bearing 5 per cent interest. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
private corporation can borrow money at that rate of interest. Still the CNR loses $25 million a year. And this is a company which has assets totalling $4 billion. The hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) can squawk all he wants. He will certainly have an opportunity to speak later and I will listen to him, although I have listened for many years and never heard him say anything constructive.
Let us not forget-and this is for the benefit of my NDP friends-that back in 1952 the government wrote off half of the CNR debt of $1.5 billion and further reduced it by $120 million later on. That is the fabulous success story of the CNR. I do not think we have to blame its failure on competition but rather on mismanagement and government misdirection.
What is the CNR's major competition? Of course, it is the trucking industry. The CNR was losing money long before the trucking industry was established and long before the National Transportation Act was in effect, so I suggest the argument proposed by the NDP has absolutely no validity. Using their argument we could say we would be better off with one political party rather than four. We are down to three now. I do not want this to be taken as a vendetta against the employees working for the CNR because there are many faithful, hard-working citizens of the country employed by the CNR. However, I do have some criticism of the management and above all the concept of nationalized enterprises.
What about the trucking industry? I want to reiterate that so far as I am concerned, in my humble opinion the principle of competition is not all that bad in fostering an effective transportation network. Certainly there have to be trade-offs when considering competition and the necessary economies of scale, but on the whole I suggest it has been a reasonable and realistic goal. However, the government has failed to implement the provisions of the National Transportation Act to carry out the basic principle of that legislation, namely, competition. It has failed to take the necessary initiatives. I blame provincial governments as well, including my own province of Alberta, for failing to reach any sort of uniform agreement so far as reciprocal arrangements and a uniform code of regulations are concerned so that the trucking industry could operate throughout this country unimpaired and uninhibited. If the provinces cannot reach some agreement, the federal government should take stern action to bring about an agreement that will allow motor vehicle transport to operate effectively across the country. At one time the federal government had that power, but the Liberals gave it away back in 1954.
Just look at the melange of weight restrictions that the motor trucker is faced with across the country. For example, look at weight limits for a tandem tractor-trailer combination. In Manitoba we have a GVW of 80,000 pounds, in Saskatchewan it is 74,000 pounds, in Alberta
72,000	pounds, in British Columbia 82,000 pounds and in both Ontario and Quebec it is 82,000 pounds. The western provinces seem to be the ones that are squawking the loudest about the removal of freight rate anomalies. Perhaps they should be the ones to take the initiative in building up their road systems, in conjunction with the
[Mr. Mazankowski.l
federal government if necessary, so that a uniform weight code can be established.
Another matter which is greatly bothering the trucking industry at present is the status of the railway freight rate freeze. In short, this has cast a very gloomy shadow upon the trucking industry. We all know that freezing railway freight rates automatically freezes the trucking industry's freight rates because the two forms of transportation compete with each other. Yet we have the government granting something like $41 million to the railways to compensate them for the losses they incurred as a result of the freeze, while nothing goes to the trucking industry. In the miscellaneous estimates committee today we were not even given an opportunity to ask for an explanation of that situation. Mr. Speaker, we have three major railroads operating in Canada today. We have the CNR, the CPR, and the "railroading" job that is done by the miscellaneous estimates committee.
The government does absolutely nothing for the truckers. The trucking industry may very well be wrecked if something is not done soon. As I say, if you freeze railway freight rates you automatically freeze trucking rates. The trucking industry is not immune from inflationary pressures. Diesel fuel has risen by six cents a gallon since July last, and I understand it is due to increase in the order of 8 cents during the next month or so. Salaries to employees have increased by 15 per cent. The cost of tires has increased by 15 per cent to 20 per cent, and parts by 20 per cent to 25 per cent-if they can be obtained. How is this industry going to survive? Is the way it is being treated fair? I say it is discriminatory.
Let me warn the minister and his socialist friends that truckers have been instrumental in holding down freight rates in Canada. Moreover, they have been instrumental in making railways toe the line in maintaining decent services where competition exists. As a matter of fact, the Minister of Transport alluded to this at the western economic opportunities conference in Calgary when he said that competition between the railways and the truckers, as was envisaged by the National Transportation Act, has been of great benefit to the people at large. I agree with that. I only hope he will give equal treatment to both sectors of the transportation industry. As a matter of fact, he himself said we must recognize the importance of equal treatment for all modes of transportation. I would ask the minister to live up to that undertaking, because if the trucking industry disappears or is greatly diluted we all know what the railways do when they do not have competition: they simply charge what the traffic will bear. I suggest to the minister, in all fairness and on behalf of the truckers, that if he is going to subsidize the railways he must give equal treatment to the truckers.
I have mentioned the record of the CNR as a Crown corporation. I could also refer to Air Canada and its move into collateral ventures. Air Canada is part of the same family as the CNR and therefore has the same lofty ideals. My colleague from Central Nova touched on those. We are getting into a situation where these Crown corporations are engaging in far too many other activities rather than fulfilling the mandates which they were given. This is why we propose to separate the operations of these two Crown corporations and appoint different boards of direc-
March 21, 1974

tors which would make them answerable and responsible to parliament for meeting their particular obligations. We firmly believe that under the present system, corporations such as Air Canada and the CNR do not answer effectively to parliament. We have lost parliamentary control.
We have had relatively poor performance from Air Canada, particularly in the areas of service and profit, notwithstanding the fact that it has had basically a captive market, low interest on its debt, an excellent route structure, the highest load factor in the industry and behind it the nationalistic pride and sentiment which make Canadians travel by Air Canada. In short, it does a poor job when compared with other trunk carriers on the North American continent which do not have these built-in advantages. This Crown corporation to which we have taken strong objection basically has become a haven for political friends of the government, immune from the shareholders, immune from the close scrutiny of parliament and engaged in the pleasant task of empire building. We all know what happened in Air Canada with respect to labour relations.


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


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the motion moved by the leader of the NDP because it gives me an opportunity to deal with a subject that it is very much in the minds of Canadians, including those in my constituency. I shall deal mainly with that part of the motion which reads:
-as a public utility to serve Canada's transportation needs instead of being governed by considerations of competition and profit-

This is just the occasion I had been waiting for to reassess in fact the purpose the Canadian railways had assigned themselves. The original purpose and the philosophy that prevailed when the railways were built were to forge a link between all Canadians from all parts of Canada. It was somewhat like the spirit that prevailed at the time the CBC, Canada's national network, was developed-a venture or a project that could not be expected to record a profit in the foreseeable years and that the state alone could provide that service to which all Canadians were entitled. Railways belong to that type of service, Mr. Speaker. That service should be available to all Canadians. As the years went by, Mr. Speaker, I believe the purpose for which the national railways were built was lost in that under the banner of effective administration we are more interested in profits and in showing interesting figures to shareholders than in serving the purpose that the railways had first undertaken to achieve.
If one looks at the circumstances in which railways were built, and we were reminded a while ago that no less than 43,920,000 acres of Canadian land were given to the two main railways companies, one realizes, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose in building those two railways was really to provide communications between all Canadians, somewhat, as I said a while ago, like the spirit that prevailed when the CBC was established. That philosophy is waning because of that passion for administrative efficiency that calls for showing profits.
National Transportation Policy
I believe the time has come and this motion is the opportunity we need to reexamine perhaps the real purpose of the railway companies.
We must consider the enormous costs of transportation at the present time, when 36 per cent of the mileage travelled by the public in urban centres such as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Hamilton and Quebec City, is done by automobile. Actually, while the cost of transportation by car continues to increase and that this mode of transportation is very costly for governments, we do not have at our disposal the figures concerning the costs of maintenance and construction of roads in the province of Quebec.
As a simple example, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that, recently, either last October or November, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) announced the participation of the Canadian government in the development of autoroute No. 13 which will join Mirabel Airport to Dorval Airport. Thus, for a road of 13 linear miles, the cost is estimated at $130 million, or $10 million per linear mile.
I wonder whether the Canadian economy can afford such a fabulous luxury at $10 million a mile. I would recall the huge amounts which have been invested at the beginning of the 20th century for building tracks such as those I have in my constituency. This is a CPR track between Montreal and Mont-Laurier and it is used by only three trains each week at hours which do not meet requirements. I intend to revert to this subject which is of some interest to my constituents.
However, I would like to proceed with my examination of transportation cost in Canada, specifically the most popular means of transportation-cars. Transportation expenses are becoming increasingly prohibitive for Canadians and both CP and CN are studying this continuously aggravating problem to try and find solutions.
In the Speech from the Throne there are several important items but two of them are particularly important for those interested in transportation problems.
Let me read extracts from the Speech from the Throne, and I quote:
Transportation in particular is a key factor in regional development. A number of measures will be taken in the larger context of ensuring that Canada's transportation capability supports the government's national goals and is safe and efficient.
And further on:
Steps will be taken to end any discrimination in freight rates.
Another part in the Speech from the Throne advocated and I quote:
Improvements in Canadian grain rail transportation capabilities.
Certainly the government is most concerned about this question in view of the cost of road building and of the necessity to protect the environment, a question increasingly exciting to Canadians. The Department of Transport is already engaged in important research work, Mr. Speaker, to develop means of transportation meeting present needs.
I indicated a moment ago the concern of my constituents for the transportation problem. I thank the Minister of

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
Transport for mentioning in his speech my interest in improvements to transportation in my constituency. It becomes increasingly expensive to build highways, bridges and overpasses. A rational use of structures built some eighty years ago must be done. To this end, Mr. Speaker, I have made representations to the president of the CPR to re-establish the services of this company to travellers between Montreal and Mont-Laurier, a run which goes through a good part of the constituency I represent in the House of Commons.
To my first letter of December 21, 1973, the president of CPR answered in somewhat unusual terms. This is what he answered to the request I made, and I quote:
In its decision and order of December 14, 1973, the railway transport committee of the Railway Transport Commission declared the present passenger service to Mont Laurier uneconomic and ordered that the service be continued.

As I indicated a while ago, Mr. Speaker, I know the operation of the railroads is to become profitable in the name of an efficient administration, but I say that it is a challenge to the administrators of the Canadian Pacific; and I say to them that if they gave adequate service, with modern equipment, I am convinced that in next to no time the service we ask of them would be profitable.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that since I launched that campaign of representations to the CP administration, no fewer than about twenty municipalities in my riding have already supported them through resolutions. In fact, 14 associations made representations and recommendations to me, assuring me of their support; a large number of citizens in my riding who travel daily between Montreal, Sainte-Agathe, Sainte-Adele and Saint-Jerome have written to me expressing their support for the campaign I launched with the view to restoring the Canadian Pacific service.

To this end, in my last letter to the chairman of the CPR on March 4 I made the following recommendations:
1.	Immediate inauguration of daily commuter service between Mont Laurier and Montreal with trains leaving Mont Laurier every morning and returning each evening.
2.	Beginning in the fall of this year, regular weekend ski trains providing same-day service to the Laurentians and back to Montreal.
That is for the skiers who go to the Laurentians region.
3.	Renovation of existing stations along the line as required.
4.	A survey of the potential commuter market between St.-Jerome and Montreal. (One is reminded of the recent order of the Canadian Transport Commission that the CNR provide commuter service between Barrie and Toronto).
5.	An in-depth assessment of present rolling stock which is used to service this line with a mind to providing whatever equipment required to fulfil future needs. (The practice of allowing usage to meet the service that existing equipment can provide is "putting the cart before the horse").
6.	A study to determine the linking of present rail commuter needs with a future rapid transit link between Mirabel airport and downtown Montreal. It appears that for much of the route, existing CPR lines will be used.
(Mr. Dupras.l

Those, Mr. Speaker, were my representations to the president of the Canadian Pacific and I hope that he will give them serious consideration because I have no intention of changing my mind in view of the unexpected support that I am getting from the population of my constituency as well as of Montreal, and in view of the ecological needs that are at stake. I now find it unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that each time the construction of a new road is announced, a swath of at least 200 feet of often fertile land is taken over and the scenery is irreparably damaged.
For all these reasons, I believe that the facilities that the CP owns from Montreal to Mont-Laurier should be put to use as soon as possible.
I therefore ask all those who are concerned with this question to support me because I believe that this line which I mentioned earlier could show a profit in a few months, and that it could enable us to prove that the Canadian population really needs a modern public transportation service. If we compare the services and equipment that the Europeans have with our own, it is easy to see why Canadians no longer travel by train.
This is regrettable because it is an excellent way to travel, and a safe way which does not endanger the environment.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the mover of this motion, the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), for his initiative, and as I stated at the beginning of my comments, he has my support for one part of the motion, that which concerns the railway operations of the Canadian Pacific.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, in the time remaining before six o'clock I shall try to cover a number of items. I know I will not complete my remarks before six, so I shall probably speak again at eight o'clock.
I was interested to hear the minister's remarks. In his speech, when speaking about the difference between the Tories and the Liberals, he said the only difference was that the Liberals are more skilful. I am sure he did not mean they are more skilful in bringing forward a transportation policy, because that is what this debate is about. Members of my party for years have been saying there is no difference between the Liberals and the Tories. I was pleased to hear such a distinguished gentleman as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) confirm our view.
Others taking part in this debate have dealt with various difficulties associated with achieving an efficient and integrated transportation system in Canada. They have also talked about how competition in the private sector has impeded the functioning of an industry so necessary to our economic survival. Some of us in my party view transportation not only as another industry but as a required public utility.
The leader of my party asserted that we face our present transportation mess because both our multinational corporations, the CN being the so-called public corporation and Canadian Pacific being the private one, have followed
March 21, 1974

identical policies directed to making profits which are largely based on the principle of greed. I wish to spend a few moments talking about the philosophy of greed and what greed does to the morale of those working in the industry. I say that because a high level of employee morale is vital for the successful running of any transport system. You can have all the good equipment in the world, but if the morale of the employees is poor you will not get the most out of your equipment. Productivity will lag, no matter how much you have spent in purchasing and maintaining equipment.
I will make a few general remarks on topics such as wages and working conditions and, of course, rail safety. Then I want to speak briefly about the inadequacies of pensions, especially with regard to those who have already retired and have nobody left to speak on their behalf except possibly the muscular member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In all these areas the record of the railway companies has been appalling.
At one time, most people who worked for the railways looked on railroading as a lifetime career. Now, because of conditions which have persisted over the past 10 or 20 years, that attitude on the part of employees has been eroded to the point where they are leaving the railways in droves. The CNR, with respect to which information is more readily available and which is therefore subject to more criticism than is the CNR, loses 15 per cent of its work force every year. This year, probably about 7,000 employees will leave.
Let me tell the House that 23 per cent of the CNR work force has been on the job less than two years. How can such a proportion of new people, no matter how skilful, be as efficient as older, more experienced workers? How can they know as much about rail safety, for instance, as workers who form part of a more experienced work force? It seems to me that such factors add to the inefficiency of the system. This holds true no matter what your policy may be or how progressive and enlightened it is.
How can tracks, equipment or anything else be maintained when 20 per cent of the machinists, 18 per cent of the electricians, 10 per cent of the carmen and at least 40 experienced yardmen left the railroad in disgust in the Vancouver area in 1973? You would need to do a lot of looking to find another national industry in which such a high proportion of workers is leaving. Where else will you find such a rot in the work force? If you add the scores of truckers who left after difficult wage negotiations, and add the fact that wage negotiations are so lengthy, so protracted, the fact that the companies know parliament will bail them out, and they will not bargain in good faith, and the feeling of railroaders working on the job that their views and suggestions count for nothing, you will not wonder why the trains do not run on time.
Last week two Kamloops men were killed in a tragic CP derailment at Spences Bridge in the Fraser canyon of British Columbia. The very next day there was another derailment near the same spot. In case one thinks such derailments are rare, let me put the record straight. I have a number of figures relating to these derailments. They are current; that is to say, up to date. My only difficulty is that I cannot find them. If we could call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I could use the dinner hour to find these figures.
National Transportation Policy The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger): It is six o'clock in any event. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, just before the recess at six o'clock I was saying that the two tragic deaths in the Fraser Canyon last weekend were part of a pattern. I was about to cite some figures to support my contention. I received these figures from the Canadian Transport Commission today: they list the derailments and accidents on railway lines between Vancouver and Kamloops from January 1, 1953, to March 1, 1974, a period of 21 years. In the case of Canadian National derailments, there were 86 accidents, 9 killed and 41 injured. For other accidents, and I presume these had to do with unmarked crossings and automobile accidents, there were 10 accidents, 1 killed and 23 injured.
The CP rail record is equally appalling. There were 29 accidents, 5 killed and 10 injured. For other accidents, and
1	again presume this to be rail crossing accidents involving personnel other than railroaders, there were 19 accidents,
2	killed and 19 injured.
I think I have given sufficient documentation and statistical material to indicate to members present this evening that this particular piece of trackage is a suicide run as far as Canadian railwaying is concerned. There has been a good deal of carnage throughout the Fraser canyon for a great number of years. I make no reference whatsoever, except incidentally, to the number of people killed building the railway. I think we have to admit it is the toughest terrain in the world. In spite of the fact it is difficult terrain, we have to assure ourselves that the maximum safety standards are always adhered to.
According to an editorial in the January-February Canadian Railwayman, the number of CP and CN derailments across Canada in 1972 is up three times over 1959 and nearly double that of 1969. The CTC became so alarmed over this increase that a rail safety committee began an intensive study of the problem in 1970 and to date had issued three volumes of a five-volume report. If the last two are anything like the first three, they will be equally devastating in their criticism of current safety measures on Canadian rail lines. Canadian Railway Labour Association spokesman J. M. Walter, in the same editorial, places the blame for wrecks squarely on the shoulders of the rail companies. He asks why, if as they railways insist many of the committee's recommendations have already been instituted, the derailment record remains so bad, and why there was not a cutback by at least two-thirds in 1973 over 1972.
There is no doubt about it, without pressure from CTC reports and the safety advisory committee the rail lines would have persisted in ignoring safety and men's lives would have been sacrificed for the sake of the buck. In the northern part of British Columbia, track maintenance is

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
deplorable. Last fall, in seven subdivisions with authorized manpower calling for 126 section men and foremen, only 56, or less than one half, were on the job. I had an opportunity to ask Mr. McMillan and his chief of operations, Mr. Hunter, about this in committee hearings. He admitted that even the new rates of arbitrated pay were still too low to attract sufficient manpower to that region.
We could go on to document the fact of poor track maintenance and resulting poor rail safety because it applies throughout the whole system, but perhaps I have made the point. Men on the job and retired railroaders constantly write me with complaints and suggestions. Members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers have been under a legal threat since 1972 because they dared to push to CPR with respect to a litany of 30 or more and working condition safety complaints, many of them centering in the Fraser caynon.
After last weekend's accident, the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications received a wire from the engineers calling for the installation of ditch lights, slide fences, padded engine cabins and roll bars to prevent future fatalities of the kind that occurred. I have a few suggestions to offer the Canadian Transport Commission in their pursuit of better safety. First, I think we have studied this problem long enough. We should start telling the railways what to do, give them a time to improve and, if they do not improve, take strong sanctions against them. Second, we should start publishing the results of inquiries, produce the facts, name names and shed the full light of publicity on the people responsible for the problem. There are far too many rail accident inquiries hidden in CTC files. If the CTC needs a PR man or a PR department to publicize what they are doing, then I urge them to obtain one.
Third, the present regulation limiting a railway employee called before management on a disciplinary matter regarding one of his colleagues to speak on his behalf, is not sufficient. Why not consider making a CTC official available for all kangaroo courts in which they issue demerits, and make certain there is an independent person in addition to the employee concerned and the management personnel, before management is allowed to hand out demerits. There is a club in Vancouver called the Take 30 Club. This is a group of people who have had to accept at least 30 demerits. It puts them in a certain kind of jeopardy.
Fourth, the CTC should constantly and actively seek information from the rank and file, and not limit itself to receiving information from labour representatives who have to pay part of the national rail leadership in Ottawa. Someone has suggested that with the publication of reports from the CTC rail safety committee and the stab-lishment of the CTC union-management safety advisory committee, things are improving. We are rounding the bend, they say; there is light at the end of the tunnel. Let us hope that rounding the bend doesn't lead to another derailment, and that the light at the end of the tunnel is not affixed to the front end of an on-rushing freight train.
I should not like to turn my attention to a matter of great importance, that is, the subject of pensions, especial-

ly those of retired railway employees who have no one to fight on their behalf, neither the unions nor railway management. One is reminded of the plight of the family of the former minister of labour, the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) whose father was a railwayman. I do not think he would mind if I were to reveal the story.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired, and under the Draconian measure to which we agreed earlier today there can be no extension.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) when addressing the House earlier today talked about the enormous land grants given to the Canadian Pacific in the eighties and nineties. Those grants were made 75,80, nearly 100 years ago. Yet they are still called up continually by detractors of this railroad. Let us think about the background to these land grants. In the eighties everything possible was done to attract settlers to Canada. One way of doing this was to give land to a corporation and hope that the corporation, on a private basis, could stimulate settlement.
The CPR did a great many things for this country. The program put out by the CBC based on a story prepared by Pierre Berton is the story of the building of Canada. Looking back now, it might seem the country was well rewarded in return for these grants of land. The railway encountered extraordinary difficulties when it tried to raise money by pledging what were then considered to be worthless land holdings. The government gave the railway a few built-up lines, $25 million and a pile of land, and that is all the company ever received.
What do we hear from socialists on this side of the House such as the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre? He wants to take over the CPR. He wants to do that because it is the only railway we have which has made a profit and made it consistently, and done a job and done it consistently. The hon. member's party is only calling for nationalization of this railroad because party dogma demands it, because of a philosophy developed in Regina years ago in another era. These people to my left simply carry it on because they have no new policy, no new philosophy, no new drive for the development of Canada. They do not believe in the building of Canada. They believe in the nationalization of Canada. They believe in putting Canada in blue jeans. They believe in making everybody equally poor. They do not really believe in the development of a transportation system.
A week ago I was amazed to read in Toronto papers and elsewhere statements made by the minister that the transportation system is botched up. Well, who has been botching it up? I was a Liberal government which appointed the famous Edgar Benson to be in charge of the CTC. It took a guy who had messed up the financial affairs of this country and put him in charge of transportation so he could mess that up, too. I pity the minister if he has to work with Edgar. But he should have known better when he accepted this portfolio.
The minister says he has no authority to do things. He has all sorts of authority under the National Transportation Act. It is time he used that authority to develop a
March 21, 1974

consistent transportation policy. A new transportation policy does not need to be based on the nationalization of the CPR. That is old crap. If we are talking about the nationalization of railway companies, let us compare the activities of the CP and the CNR. On one hand we have a railway which from rail operations alone was able to make $57 million a year, according to the last financial statement; on the other hand we have a railway which before debt is taken into account makes $23 million and, when debt is taken into account, lost $17 million.


An hon. Member:: Where did you get that figure?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They talk about debt. When I was a student in high school they said the reason the CN failed to make a profit was that it was forced to carry a heavy load of debt caused by being obliged to take over a lot of bankrupt railway companies. The truth is that the debt charges, in terms of total revenue, borne by the Canadian Pacific is in excess of cost of interest on debt paid by the Canadian National. Yet every year this House is required to pour money into the CNR to keep in operation the inept management of that railroad.
One of the major problems the country faces is this: we are stuck with a national railroad which is improperly and ineptly managed. It is not managed as a business; it is managed in a political fashion, and therein lies the problem. It is not managed sensibly or capably. In the early 1950s, the financing of the CNR was reorganized. We settled all its debts. It was virtually debt-free. Who was appointed to manage that railroad? A pseudo-politician by the name of Donald Gordon. He had a great record of experience: he had worked for the wartime prices and trade board; he was in charge of the Bank of Canada. This gave him long experience in working for government. They put him in charge of CNR. That is how government departments run government departments.
How is Air Canada run? We appointed a president, a fellow by the name of Baldwin. He worked for the Department of Transport for a long time and then suddenly it was decided he should go into the private enterprise system and run Air Canada. You know, Mr. Speaker, you cannot run a business like you run a government department because politics and business do not necessarily mix. Business is concerned in doing things effectively and efficiently, while politics is not business-oriented. Politics is interested in social affairs, and those two things do not mix.


Mr. Orlikow:: Tell us about Brinco and Moores.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Let's not worry about Brinco and let's not worry about Moores. He may be a bit misguided in some ways, but he is doing a good job in that province-a lot better job than the fellow you have running the province of Saskatchewan.
One of the difficulties about Crown corporations is that in the railway field the CPR has it made. I am sure friends to my left will agree when I say that the CPR is responsible for moving 55 per cent of the grain in this country while the CN is responsible for moving 45 per cent. The CPR doesn't like to move grain any more than the CNR does, but the CPR is really smart; they hide under the umbrella of state ownership and they move exactly 55 per
National Transportation Policy cent of the grain. They organize their boxcar movement on the basis of the efficiency of the CNR. If the CNR were to move its quota of boxcars, the CPR would move its quota of boxcars. The CPR is fortunate to have the CNR around because the CNR, a nationally-owned corporation, is the prime example of poor, inept socialist management of a Crown corporation. This is exactly the kind of thing that happens when you have socialism-you have inept management, which leads to inept political management.
If, Mr. Speaker, you had had the opportunity to attend the meetings last fall of the House committee on transport and communications when it was debating Bill C-164, you would have been shocked at the way the management of the CNR and Air Canada spent day after day trying to bamboozle members of parliament. We asked them some embarrassing questions, like some of the questions I asked about the Bessborough Hotel. Let me tell the House about the Bessborough Hotel scandal. This is a hotel which is worth, on the books, $3 million to $4 million. If appraised on the basis of efficient management, it is only supposed to be worth $800,000. The Bessborough Hotel property occupies some of the choicest land in the city of Saskatoon. The bricks and mortar alone, on anybody's appraisal, are worth $1,600,000.
Somewhere along the line the CNR lost $400,000 in 1971 and another $400,000 in 1972. That year they decided they had better fix the place up, so they spent another $214,000. So there is $1 million. They then decided they would like to get rid of this lemon because they could not operate it properly, so they called for bids. A fellow went from Saskatoon to Montreal and offered $1,600,000 for the hotel. They snapped that up like a lunge going after a small fish. Having bought the hotel for $1,600,000, it was immediately mortgaged for $2 million. That is the kind of management you get from socialism. They do not know which end is up, and if they do know which end is up, they do not know where down is.
The Hotel Bessborough scandal-which is what it is-is what you get from the management of Crown corporations. One reason we get that kind of management is that politicians appoint to boards of directors people who really have no vested interest in the success of their company. They know that if they need a little more money to do the job, they can always call upon the government. They plead with the House that they are doing a necessary job, just as the CNR pleads with the committee for $5.6 million for hotel expansion because hotels are necessary for the community. Yet the CNR has not yet invested 1 per cent of its own money in hotels.
The history of Crown corporations in this country has been abysmal. The suggestion of the New Democratic Party that the railroads be nationalized is amazing. They suggest the CPR be taken over by the government. At least at the present time the government of Canada is collecting enormous corporate taxes from the CPR. What kind of corporate taxes is the government collecting from the CNR? None.
The truth of the matter is that a railroad never makes a profit. And if it did, it could go on to the year 3000 and never pay a dime in taxes. The truth is that this railroad

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
must continue to be fed and fed because it has management that is inept. The reason its management is inept is that the government uses jobs on the board of directors of the railroad, and this, that, and the other thing which goes with the perks of office, as a reward to its friends. It looks after those people it likes to look after.
The problem with Crown corporations is politics. This is why the socialists want to become involved-because they are in league with the bureacrats. They really do not care about the ordinary guy, about the taxpayer, and neither does the government. They want to reward their friends, to look after everybody. They have a paper image, if I may call it that. This is the kind of situation we have with socialism, and that is the intent behind this motion.
Of course we have many transportation problems in this country, but a lot of them are caused by stupid, band-aid measures that are taken by the government. For example, we have a frozen branch lines policy. Although there are rail lines in this country that are no longer required, we do not have a government that is prepared to do something about them.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him by agreement earlier today has expired.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to members of the opposition, particularly of the loyal opposition, this afternoon and this evening it is very obvious that they were not listening to the minister when he spoke in the throne speech debate and again today. It is obvious because they are repeating the same old speeches I have heard since I have been here. It is the same old swan song, the same old story.
The minister outlined to the House the problems in his department and told the opposition parties what he intended to do about them. He said he would be bringing in soon legislation that would give him authority which at the present time he does not have. At the present time he has all the responsibility but no authority. The opposition applauded the minister at the time and thought his speech was great. They know this matter had been discussed in cabinet. Yet all the opposition can do is to repeat what they have been saying all along without giving any consideration to what is being said in this House.
In other words, I believe that the purpose of being a member of this House is to listen to what a minister has to say, and certainly the announcement made by the minister should have been interesting to members of the opposition because he was telling them how he was going to resolve our transportation problems. Having said that-


William George Knight: What was it you said?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The hon. member was not listening, and that is the problem. That is way they will not be re-elected; they do not know how to listen to members who have something to say.
The views expressed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) are very laudable in some respects, while in other respects they are very unrealistic, at least at the present time until the government and all parties have

had an opportunity to assess in depth what the ramifications of any major changes in the regulation and management of our transportation systems would mean to the social and economic well being of our country.
As the minister has stated, we do have some transportation messes and in some areas competition is not working like all parties thought it would in 1967. In fact, some members of the loyal opposition who spoke this afternoon have not suggested how to solve the problem. They were talking about us dragging our feet in respect of some of the powers we have given to these Crown corporations. Yet the same members of the loyal opposition, or at least some of them, were in power back in 1958 to 1962 with the biggest majority of any government, and what did they do? They did nothing about the problem, Mr. Speaker. They did not want to look at the needs of the country, yet they have criticized this government for years.
They do not like to look at these things; they just like to look at everything else-that is, everything but the real problems. They could never face them anyway, and when they get a government like this, even though it is a minority government, trying to do something for the benefit of all Canadians, what do we get instead of co-operation? I suggest all we get is criticism, with no help whatsoever, not even one small suggestion that might help.


An hon. Member:: Just bring on the legislation and we will co-operate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I should like to repeat what the minister stated: we do have some transportation messes, and in some areas competition is not working in the way that all parties in the House thought it would back in 1967. This is one of the main reasons the Ministry of Transport was restructured in 1970, so that the minister could be given a total overview-I repeat that-of what was required on a modal and intermodal basis with the basic aim of making transportation in Canada more responsive to the objectives of the government and the needs of the people.
At that time the government said that as new social and economic demands evolved, adjustments would have to be made in the years ahead in the areas of administration and regulation. This is a continuing process and never will it be resolved by a one-time decision of any government. The process is working. The very fact that we are discussing transportation today as an important issue is proof of that, Mr. Speaker.
I think we all have a common objective, and that is an economic, efficient and adequate transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest cost. That principle, incidentally, is already contained in the National Transportation Act. What this government is striving for now is the mechanism which will ensure that we can achieve those objectives in the short and long term. Unless it is absolutely necessary, it is not this government's desire to operate transportation systems, but rather, as I have mentioned before, to ensure that adequate systems are in place and
March 21, 1974

operating efficiently for the people and the economy of this country.
As the minister mentioned this afternoon, we have 694 commercial air carriers in this country. Many people do not realize that fact. We also have 48 railways which are regulated by federal and provincial governments, and we have more than 21,000 trucking companies. In addition to that, of course, we have pipelines, ferries, urban transportation systems and terminals. I do not think any government would want to be the operator of all those facilities. However, by and large most of these systems are dependent upon one another and this is why we have been evolving the Ministry of Transport concept over the past four years. The operative word is "management" and not "operation".
The minister mentioned this before, but I believe it is worth repeating: there are real problems within the area of transportation. Sure there is a lack of rail cars within this mess, and there is also freight discrimination. But there are other messes as well. The port of Montreal is a mess, but we will clean it up. Our railway access to the port of Vancouver is also a mess, and that will be cleaned up.
Ahead of us in the long and the short term lie exciting challenges. These are challenges which, if properly handled, will ensure that Canada maintains an over-all transportation system which will continue to be unparallelled by the system of any other country in the world. Many forward and positive strides have been made in the past few years. I should like to name a few of them if hon. members will listen. For example, the Ministry of Transport, as it now stands, is structured in such a way that we have better control and integration for planning all modes of transport-central planning for all ports and harbours and a ministry approach which permits decentralization of management but centralization of control.
The positive aspects of a ministry approach are such that all modes are covered, with a central ministry staff that exercises co-ordination over air, marine and all surface modes including urban transit. Integration is essential and that is why the ministry is so structed as to provide integration of all modes. The ministry concept has permitted the creation of the Transport Development Agency, TDA, as a focus for the determination and development of future technological changes in transportation.
Having regard to that aspect, under the old system we had programs which were carried on only by their own momentum. Now we can integrate and direct investments in order to get the best pay-off possible. We can direct money and resources where the need exists. There are no quick and easy solutions. For example, the National Transportation Act needs to be reviewed, and will be reviewed: but the problems are here now and we must face them. We need action here and now, and this is what the minister intends to do.


An hon. Member:: Let's get on with it.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Just listen for a moment; I am not through yet. The main problem in respect of the National Transportation Act is its reliance on competition. The underlying objective of the National Transportation Act is to have an economic, efficient and adequate trans-
National Transportation Policy portation system making full use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest cost. These are some of the things that hon. members in the opposition do not like us to speak about. They hate us when we come up with proper solutions, they hate it when they know we are coming out in the right way to solve the problem, because they know they can no longer criticize us. Every time we come up with a good solution, we are criticized because they do not know anything but criticism. They never offer good solutions or suggestions.
To carry on with what I began to say, this objective is sound, but how you translate objectives into action is where it is weak. The role of the ministry-


An hon. Member:: Who wrote this speech, Joe?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I could write some of your speeches and make sense of them. The trouble with most members in the opposition is they do not know how to put speeches together. I could write them and I could make them flow, but if I wrote some of their speeches I guarantee they would make a lot more sense. I am sure their constituents would be surprised if they heard a speech that was well written. If their constituents read some of the things they have said this afternoon, in the House, I would be surprised if they re-elected them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The role of the ministry is to define national objectives. What are those national objectives? They are a transportation system that is an integral part of regional development-but that is not the only factor. As a resource, like all other resources, a transportation system should be directed in order to achieve social and economic well-being. A transportation system should be reliable and provide reasonably priced transportation services as a fundamental right to all Canadians in all regions of Canada according to their needs. It should guarantee the provision of reliable, low-cost services for the movement of key commodities in the national economy. It should provide a system within which each mode must be allowed to provide those services, and only those, which it does best and in doing so achieve the most efficient utilization of public and private resources.
The transportation system must be responsive to our needs, both in the normal pursuit of our affairs and in times of extraordinary demands. The transportation system must be safe and people must have confidence in that safety. This is also important. It should be a transportation system which will serve Canadians from coast to coast, which will join regions and areas and allow Canadians to become familiar with all sections of Canada and not only some parts. Right now this government is working on all these types of programs and will be presenting legislation in the next few months to take care of the short term. The long-term situation, however, is another matter. But, like all parties, we can see far enough in the future to realize that as much action as is humanly possible must be taken now to minimize the recurrence of these problems in the future. That is what we call the exciting transportation challenge of the months ahead, which includes urban transportation, development of the north, a national port

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy policy and a safety program for all modes of transportation for the benefit of all Canadians.
I see I have a few moments remaining, Mr. Speaker; therefore I should like to refer to the matter of the CNR employees who for years have been asking for pensions on a parity with those of the public service. I am rather proud to say to the House tonight that I have presented a bill which was suggested by the president of the CNR in a letter to me dated March 4, which would require that these employees would be given parity pensions which they have requested for a long time and would be applicable to retired employees and those still in the service.
My bill is C-139. If I may, I should like to refer briefly to the explanatory note which reads as follows:
The purpose of this amendment is to remove Canadian National Railway company from the scope of the act in order that it may, without adding substantially to its annual deficit, improve its pension plan by providing pensions for its existing and retired employees on a basis similar to that applicable in the public service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, it is not unusual for a minister in this government to be highly critical of a former minister in a former government for lack of action and inefficiency as well as failure to meet the problems and so on. I do not suppose that in the parliamentary history of the past 65 years there has been the kind of positive action we have seen in the past couple of weeks. After all, we have had a Liberal government since 1963. We have had a Liberal government headed by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) since 1968. For more than ten years, therefore, the decisions in respect of our transportation policies have been made by Liberal governments on the advice of Liberal ministers of transport.
The present minister has held the position for about a year and a half. Before that we had the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) and before that we had the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer). Before that we had the man who piloted through the House the present National Transportation Act, the Hon. J. W. Pickersgill. If we are in such a hell of a mess, where were these cabinet ministers before? If they were on the job, how could we be in the mess we are in now? We are in a mess because Liberal governments set the kind of policies which we have.
The minister, when he made his great conversion- probably the greatest conversion since Saul was on the way to Damascus-attempted to implicate everybody in the mess. He said all parties were in support of the basic principles of the present transportation act under which we operate our transportation system. Nothing could be further from the truth. This afternoon my leader placed on the record some of the comments made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) back in 1966. I wish to place on the record a few remarks made by the former member for Springfield, the present premier of the province of Manitoba, because he placed his finger on what was wrong with the act. As

recorded at page 11,380 of Hansard December 20, 1966, he said:
They-
The government.
-have put too much faith in competition as an effective means of protecting the public interest.
Then he said:
I think that those regions of this country which produce primary products will be adversely affected by the provisions of this legislation when it becomes law.
We opposed the basic principle of the law then, and still do. Today we brought forth a motion which is being debated at this time which suggests that national transportation should be integrated as a public utility. We heard an attack by the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Blenkarn) which demonstrates clearly the reason the Conservatives very seldom win elections in this country. He demonstrated his ignorance of what goes on in Canada. He talked about public ownership as if it were the most horrible thing in the world, on a day when the Conservative premier of Newfoundland is proposing the nationalization of Brinco. He talks of public ownership as being horrible, at a time when the Conservative government of Alberta is proposing to take a 22 per cent interest in the pipeline in co-operation with the government of Saskatchewan. Since he speaks of public ownership as being something terrible, he should have said this to the present leader of the Conservative Party when he involved this country in a fiasco over heavy water in Cape Breton. It cost the country over $200 million before we produced heavy water.
There is a great deal wrong with the transportation policy of this country. We are not alone in so thinking. I have before me a statement on transportation prepared jointly by the premiers of the four western provinces, including the Hon. Peter Lougheed, Premier of Alberta. Let me read one or two clauses from this statement. Premier Lougheed agrees with the other three premiers in the following:
National policy must recognize that an efficient and adequate transportation system, making the best use of all available modes of transportation, is essential for the economic and social well-being of Canada and its various regions. National transportation policy must recognize that competition at present acts unevenly between the various regions of Canada and between large and small users of transportation services. As a consequence, the development of the western region of Canada is inhibited by the lack of positive policy direction and the discrimination inherent in our present system of freight rates.
That is what the Premier of Alberta had to say. It is almost word for word what our resolution today calls for. That was last July. The premiers asked the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to co-operate with them in reassessing the transportation system and the freight rates system and to make sure that the Canadian Transport Commission and the railways co-operated in this reassessment. They were not being unreasonable. They wanted, on a confidential basis, the actual costs of moving a whole series of important freight items. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport both promised that this information would be made available to the western premiers. Now, seven months later, despite repeated assurances by the Minister of Transport
March 21, 1974

nothing in the way of hard, factual information has been provided to the western premiers.
The Minister of Transport has said publicly that if the railways would not provide this information voluntarily, he would introduce legislation requiring them to do so. No one in this party would object to that kind of legislation. I am sure that the Alberta members of parliament would be the first to urge quick passage of such legislation. If the minister means business, why have we not had that legislation? Mr. Speaker, we have not had it because the minister does not mean business, because he is not really interested in a transportation policy and because he is not really interested in the welfare of the people of the western provinces.
The minister is only interested in picking up an issue which the people of the four western provinces have indicated is important to them and in making speeches which will get support for the Liberal Party in the next election. The minister has had more than enough time to begin to deal with some of the specific cases of discrimination and injustice. He does not need to revamp the whole transportation system, although that is a laudable ambition.
The minister knows the difficulty facing him. He knows how complicated is this country because of its size, geography, sparse population, environmental problems and all the rest. He knows that even if he meant business, he is really talking about something which would take two or three years' work at a minimum. But the people of western Canada are not prepared to wait while the minister makes brilliant speeches and is the subject of laudatory editorials. The people of western Canada, regardless of party, want action and they want it now. The people of western Canada have told the minister, the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission and the Prime Minister the kind of problems with which they must live. They have pointed out that it costs as much to ship steel products from Regina, where a rather substantial steel plant has been built up, to Vancouver as it costs to ship steel from Hamilton to Vancouver. They have pointed out how cheap it is to ship rapeseed from Saskatchewan to Toronto and how expensive it is to ship rapeseed oil, resulting in the processing and associated industries being located in eastern Canada rather than in western Canada where the grain is grown. They have pointed out how much cheaper it is to ship livestock from Calgary to Toronto or Montreal than it is to kill the livestock in the packing plants in Calgary and ship the finished product to Toronto or Montreal. The facts are so clear and abundant that there is no reason for continual delay on the part of the government.
For the minister to speak so glowingly about the need for a new transportation policy is simply to admit the shocking lack of attention and the complete indifference of Liberal governments up until now in dealing with the serious matters that affect western Canadians. The hon. member for Mississauga may think that because these problems are 75 years old they are not important. The fact remains that they have been a cause of dissatisfaction to western Canada from the time the west came into confederation. In fact, they have become more important rather than less important. I have no confidence that the minister
National Transportation Policy and the government will act. They have not acted up until now. They have not dealt with the question of freight rates. They have permitted the railways to destroy the passenger service system: the railways are still continuing that policy.
At present we are involved in the development of a short take-off and landing plant at a cost of $100 million. What will this do? I suppose it will get people from the heart of Ottawa to the heart of Montreal in an hour and a half. But, Mr. Speaker, the railways have been moving people from Ottawa to Montreal in two hours over the last 50 years. Instead of encouraging the railways to upgrade their service and to carry more passengers, the government has permitted them to downgrade passenger service so that people are encouraged to travel from Ottawa to Montreal by any other mode of travel. I use these two locations just as an example. People are encouraged to take a plane, to take a bus; and even with a worldwide shortage of oil, people are encouraged to drive their own cars rather than take a train. We have had another illustration of what the railways and the government think about passenger service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am afraid I must interrupt the hon. member; the time allotted to him by special order today has expired.


Mr. Charles H. Thomas (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the motion put forward today by the NDP because it gives me a chance to speak once again on what has become my favourite lead-off topic in the House. I do not apologize for my interest in transportation because there is no doubt in my mind that it is the most important single element related to economic policy in Canada. After all, it was the provision of transportation between east and west that brought this country together.
It is shocking that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) should stand in this House and confess that the government has no policy, and that what policy it has, has failed. We have been stumbling along for the past six years without a transportation policy. It is even more shocking to hear his parliamentary secretary somehow blame the opposition for this lack of transportation policy. He seems to forget that his party has been in power for ten years. His party passed the National Transportation Act. His party has been responsible for administering that act. Surely he is reaching for extremes, reaching for the clouds when he tries to place the blame on the opposition.
After that the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) got up and stated categorically that he has no faith in the present minstry, that he does not believe they are capable of enacting proper legislation and that even if they had the legislation, he doubted they would enforce it. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I simply ask him: Why do you keep this crowd in power? You have had your chance, and you are doing nothing.
If there was any question of the urgency of this problem, the fact that we ran into a simulated oil energy crisis is an example. It turned out not to be a crisis of supply but a crisis of transportation. In its shortsightedness, this government had not provided facilities to move the oil

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
from the west to the east. There is also the fact that we ran into a wheat transportation crisis because, again, in its lack of wisdom and failure to formulate a proper policy this government has not provided the facilities to move the grain to the ports so that it can be shipped to the export markets which we have developed.
The crisis is here, the problem is here, and this motion is very appropriate at this time. I agree with the premise of the motion, that we need some sort of policy to end indiscriminate rail line abandonment, to do something about supplying new, modern equipment to move goods and get passenger service back where it should be. I agree with all those things, and action should be taken to get us out of this mess.
Having said that I agree with the objective of the motion, my agreement with the party that proposed it ends. I certainly do not agree with the approach my socialist friends would take. It is too easy. They always say that if something is not working, it should be nationalized. But surely we have had a great deal of experience in this country and know what happens when something is turned over to a Crown corporation. We have seen the horrible mess in the Post Office. Surely any business operated as that one is would not long survive. We saw what happened with the waste and duplication in Manpower offices. Also, there is the horrible example of the CBC. But the thing that disturbs me most, Mr. Speaker, was referred to briefly by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) earlier today: it is all right to talk about public ownership, but judging from what I have seen during my time in this parliament, once something is turned over to public ownership the public loses all control of it.
We have had examples of this in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications when officials of the CNR and Air Canada have appeared. We have watched them deliberately dodge questions when they did not want to give information on the operation of those companies. Surely this information should be public knowledge and at least available to the representatives of the people. We have seen what happens when Crown corporations are set up: parliamentary control is lost. This does not make me very receptive to any suggestion of further nationalization of our transportation system.
In his speech on March 7, when he first admitted that things were in such a mess, the minister told us what we in the opposition have been telling the government for six years; things, incidentally, that everybody knew. I do not know why it took the minister so long to become aware that the transportation policy had broken down, but at least we can give him full marks for admitting it in public in the House. I cannot agree with all that the minister says because I do not think he can lay all the blame for this breakdown on the legislation. I feel that there is statutory authority both in the Railway Act and in the National Transportation Act which gives the minister the power to force the railways to move grain when necessary. There is power in the National Transportation Act under Section 3(2) and section 26 for the CTC to act if it is felt that the carriers are discriminating against any particular region. These are powers that the minister has not used, Mr. 
Speaker, and this is my chief criticism of the minister and the government.
In committee we have heard from the CNR and Air Canada. They complain and criticize and say, "If only someone in the government would define and delineate our responsibilities . . . " The minister's appointee, Mr. Pratt, made this statement two or three years ago. He said that Air Canada was prepared to carry out its responsibilities if only the minister or someone in government would define which routes would be operated on a public service basis and which on a profit basis. The president of Canadian National Railways has said the same thing. It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that while the existing legislation is not perfect, there are powers that can be used; therefore, this minister and this government are derelict in their duty because they have not used those powers. They have not said to the carriers, "This is your responsibility. This you must do."
I should like now to refer briefly to another matter of policy which has disturbed me greatly. This is another example of the government's failure to give direction. I was very pleased when the hon. member for Verdum (Mr. Mackasey) referred to CNR pensions today. I know that, with his vast experience in labour relations, he is a man who is entirely sympathetic to the underdog and he has always tried to give help where necessary. The hon. member referred to the sad situation existing in the original pension plan, the provident fund or, as we in the maritimes know it, the ICR pension plan. It is unbelievable that former employees of Crown corporations or quasi-Crown corporations should be expected to live under the conditions that these pensioners have been enduring for the past ten or fifteen years since they retired. It is unbelievable in this day and age that many of these people retire on a pension as low as $25, and when they die their widows are cut right off, or maybe left with $5 and-as the hon. member for Verdun mentioned-they take 10 per cent off that.
The sad thing is that there are so few of these people that it would not cost very much to give them something extra to bring them in line with present-day costs. I have not estimated the amount, but in the over-all budget of this government it would be infinitesimal. I have heard it said that there might only be about 2,000 of them altogether, and maybe 40 or 50 still working for the railway. There may be 40 or 50 widows, but those widows have no pension at all. I know the minister has compassion for people, and I know the parliamentary secretary is interested in this problem because I have talked to him about it. Here is an area where the government can give direction to the CNR and other Crown corporations. Surely there must be a way to bring some measure of justice to these people who have been deserted by the unions and the company. I call upon the minister and his parliamentary secretary to look into this problem.
We hear the argument that the National Transportation Act has broken down because it is based solely on the profit motive. I do not agree with that entirely, but we cannot disregard that motive. There is no reason why a company, whether a Crown corporation or a private corporation, should not be operated efficiently and pay its way. But in a country such as ours, with regions where a
March 21, 1974

rail line or airline cannot make a profit, such areas should be delineated as public service runs and supported from the general treasury.
This idea of phasing out the profit motive and running everything as a Crown corporation is hogwash; you have to operate a business and make a profit where it can be made. This was brought home to me a few weeks ago when the CTC held hearings on the efficiency of air services. In brief after brief the complaint was made that service in the area was not adequate because the main carrier, Air Canada, had no competition and as a result service had run down to the point where actually there was no service; In other words, if there is to be service there must be competition.
May I refer briefly to something the minister mentioned this afternoon. The great weakness of the National Transportation Act is that it makes no provision for regulatory authorities to supervise carriers in order to make sure they give efficient service. The minister referred to the subsidies the railways receive. Yet there is nothing to force them to upgrade service or to buy new equipment. This matter should be looked into. A regulatory body ought to be set up which on a day to day basis will make sure that efficient service is provided.
I could say much more on this topic, Mr. Speaker, but in my limited time I wish to say that I feel the Minister of Transport is sincere in wanting to clean up this mess. I know he is disturbed because the government has let transportation policy deteriorate to this point. Yet I remind the parliamentary secretary that we on this side are somewhat skeptical when we hear promises, promises but see no action. Only two years ago the previous minister of transport said in the House that he would immediately bring in an entirely new transportation policy. We have not yet seen it. Is it any wonder that we grow skeptical when the minister says he will bring in a new policy?
I feel that the legislation the previous minister had in mind was blocked either by the cabinet or by officials in the department. If these officials still have their jobs, they will continue blocking action which the present minister might take. As he does not have sufficient power to correct the ills of the transportation system, I feel that new legislation should be passed to give him that power. If he is honestly and sincerely trying to clean up this horrible mess, he can count on my full and complete co-operation in rushing the legislation through.


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by saying how pleased I am to have heard what the minister announced today and during the previous few days. He admits that there is something seriously wrong with our transport system. That is the only way you can straighten out a difficulty: first you must admit there is something wrong, and then you work toward realigning transportation policy by bringing in a new set of policies which will be relevant for Canadians. I shall examine some of the problems inherent in our transport system and I shall confine my thoughts first to railroads and then deal with intermodal possibilities. The root of the problem is
National Transportation Policy the National Transportation Act of 1967, as the minister admitted. There is general agreement about this.
We must face the difficulty that parliament lacks control over our transportation system. Neither the minister nor parliament can exercise direct control over the CTC.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is not correct. The minister has that authority.


Paul Edmund McRae: In some respects he has the power. However, in day to day administration the CTC has control and tends to act in the manner of similar regulatory bodies.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Read section 64.


Paul Edmund McRae: We have already dealt with that. As I said, the CTC tends to behave like other regulatory bodies in that it has become sympathetic to the views of those it is regulating. That seems to be the basic difficulty. Not long after you appoint new people to the CTC, they begin to speak and think as if they are operating a railroad. You can make similar observations about other regulatory bodies. There is a great body of literature about regulators.
I think the minister, the government and parliament must assume more power in order to control transportation, particularly in view of our difficulties in moving grain and lumber this year. At Thunder Bay, there are many problems connected with grain movement, with elevators being only half full when at this time of year they should be pretty well topped up.
Our second problem which concerns the act itself is the whole notion that transportation must pay, must be competitive and must be based on competition. I do not think that is a reliable policy in a country as broad as Canada, as thinly populated as Canada. It just does not work. Although competition may work in some areas, I am not sure that we really understand the effects of competition on the railroads.
As I said, I shall also be talking about intermodal systems. It seems to me that the underlying feature of the act should be in the preamble, which should say that the act shall be designed to redistribute growth throughout the country and bring equality to the regions of the country suffering from disparity. That ought to be the aim of our transportation system. A competitive system may work if it serves Toronto, Montreal and the golden horseshoe, but it does not work in the maritimes or the outer areas of this country. With these thoughts in mind, the act ought to be changed. It should take cognizance of the notion that transportation systems should be designed to bring equality to all parts of this country. That notion is missing from the act and from the regulations governing the CTC. As a result we see massive problems in the field of freight rates. It is much cheaper, for instance, to move cargoes west than to move them east. It is cheaper to move cattle on the hoof east than to move the finished product east. Anomalies like that must be removed. I know it will not be simple to sort out freight rates, but these anomalies stem from the present act.
Something else which disturbs me is how the railroads get subsidies. How do they get them? They apply for discontinuance and then downgrade the passenger service.

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
It is anathema to me that a railroad should get a subsidy after it has downgraded the service. To prevent its discontinuance after the service has been downgraded, the subsidy is granted. As the previous speaker mentioned, such a system encourages the downgrading of service. In other words, the subsidy is provided for not giving service. This must be changed.
During the recess I had the pleasure of taking my family by rail to the west coast. We went out by Canadian National and came back by Canadian Pacific. The trip was interesting. I went to find out what was happening and to talk to as many railroaders as possible at various points. I had great difficulty in getting a bedroom on the Super Continental. When we got on the train there were already 15 cars well filled. The bedroom rate was $126 and the fare was $67, so that the one-way trip cost us $193. As I say, the train was full; it was hard to get reservations. They had to put on an extra car at Winnipeg. This was even though we travelled in mid-February. I must say this: the food was good, the service was good and a definite attempt was made to accommodate people who could not afford sleeping car accommodation. They had what is known as a day and night car on the train for which the price was reasonable, about $8.
The story of the CP train was entirely different. The fare cost us $232, for example, almost $40 more than the CN fare. There were seven cars on the CP train, with four or five people in each car. The company was not being at all competitive. I heard Conservatives talking about competition and about how wonderful CP is and how bad the CN is. Let me tell them there was no comparison between the services. As far as I am concerned, if there is a way to do this I will move that the subsidy for The Canadian of the CPR be reduced to $1 because they really are not doing their job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Edmund McRae: I just do not grab this thing. Because it is private enterprise, it is bound to be good. Because it is public, it is bound to be bad. Although there are inefficiencies and problems with CNR, they are trying. But the CPR does not give a damn. As far as I am concerned, there should be no subsidy for CPR.
I wish to deal with some other problems. They do not deal specifically with the act but they are basic problems in the transportation system. Neither railroad is aggressive. This is one of the problems. They are not aggressive in comparison with other segments of our industry. Where were the railroads when we were talking about the Pickering airport scheme? Where were the railroads when a ground transportation scheme was an alternative? Where were they when STOL was being considered? They were not there. Where was the privately-owned CPR? The railroads have not been aggressive in the same way as other industries.
International Nickel in my area has a mine in Shebando-wan, a mile or two from the CN siding. The ore is being trucked to a CP siding 50 miles away. The province of Ontario had to spend a great deal of money to reinforce the highway. There had been a series of accidents. This
[Mr. McRae.l
could have been taken to a CN siding for a small amount of money. Where are the aggressive railroads we should have in this country? This is a very serious problem.
I do not, however, blame the railroads entirely for all the problems that occurred this winter. One interesting feature of our trip is that we arrived in Kamloops six hours late. That was because on almost every siding on the north line CN had a freight train or we were sitting waiting for a freight train. I was told by employees that with one or two more trains the system would break down. CN is carrying a tremendous load. This heavy demand was creating some of the problems we were running into last winter.
I wish to talk about another problem. This has not been looked at as carefully as it might have been. I refer to the whole notion of intermodal aspects of transportation. It is the user who pays, or is it the state? When we talk about competition between truckers and railroads, are we really using similar cost figures? I cannot find decent cost figures. I can find figures based on the cost per ton-mile but I cannot find cost figures that say: In order to put a 50 ton truck on the road, it will cost so much more to build a suitable highway and maintain it. This kind of figure does not exist. I do not think we have done a decent job of understanding relating figures. Certainly of late there has been a move away from trucking and toward rail, particularly the notion of piggyback.
The other aspect of the intermodal situation we have not looked at is energy consumption. Up until now we have only talked about cost. We now have to consider the cost of energy and energy consumption. In this regard rail is certainly a far more efficient system. In terms of gross tonnage, for rail it is about 550 ton-miles per gallon. The highway user gets about 38 ton-miles per gallon, and the air user about 30 ton-miles per gallon. In terms of net tonnage the ratio is about four to one; 210 ton-miles for a railroad and about 50 ton-miles per gallon for a truck. This is another factor that has to be looked at very seriously. In terms of energy, the railways are far more efficient.
The intermodal form of transportation, the pipeline, has not been discussed in this debate. I give notice here and now that I am not at all happy about the building of the Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline. There are all kinds of problems with that, but that is another story for a future debate. In conclusion, I wish to go over what I think, needs to be done. First, control of our transportation system, particularly our railways, must be put back in the hands of parliament. Second, there must be a preamble to the act which states that one of the major functions of railroads in this country is to redistribute growth and move goods back and forth with some equality so that all areas of Canada have equal economic opportunities. Third, the subsidy for passenger service should be a subsidy for service, not taking away service. It should not be based on a system of asking to remove a service. Fourth, management must be made aggressive.
The federal government will have to assert a great deal more control and perhaps take over ownership also. In some way the railways must become more aggressive. Fifth, a much more careful study must be made of the rationalization of costs and energy use in terms of the intermodal use of our transportation system.
March 21, 1974

This country is very fragile. It is far too difficult a country to put together when railroads and our transportation system in general is not working. We cannot afford the luxury of railroads that do not care. Our railroads must be aggressive. They must work for Canadians. The control should be put back in the hands of parliament where it belongs.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, for many years I have listened to various parties discuss the problem raised today by the New Democratic Party, namely, the development of a transportation policy. I think it would be possible to take a motion that was moved ten years ago and put it today; I am sure there would be great similarity between it and the motion we are presently debating.
Governments do not have too great an opportunity to make a mark and ministers usually do not have a very great opportunity to make a mark in history. However, if the minister really understands what he said in the past few days, namely, that we have no national transportation policy and he is fed up with the fact he cannot provide boxcars to move national produce across our nation, he will do something. If he has been watching Pierre Berton reliving, or rewriting history, and if he wants to join Pierre Berton in the second episode of the National Dream, he will try to do something about what we have suggested.
If we are going to do anything about transportation in this nation, we will have to unite all rail transportation into one unit and make it a viable force. We will have to put great effort into making the railways our national transportation system for now and for many years to come.
I note that the National Energy Board has been presented with the first batch of 200 pounds of documents concerning transportation facilities. They do not count them any more by the number of pages; they weigh them. This concerns the Mackenzie Valley pipeline proposal. If the dream of the government at the time of confederation had any merit, Canadians would be well advised to take a close look at this proposition and determine whether or not a railway would be the answer to bringing our resources out of the far north.
A few years ago the Russians came to this country and were impressed by our transportation system. They were developing an industrial complex in their northern region and they felt Canadians had great expertise in the transportation field. If they were to return today, 15 years later, they would find we have gone backward instead of forward. Some of our troubles are caused by the fact that transportation system is so complex. We are experimenting with small STOL aircraft. There could not be a poorer designation for an Otter aircraft than to call it a STOL aircraft. The Otter is the old Norseman, but with two engines instead of one. It is an aircraft built primarily for bush operations. Yet we propose to use it to move passengers between Ottawa and Montreal, 18 at a time, and consider this to be a step forward. It is not a step forward, it is a step backward. We are moving a bush pilot operation into the cities now, plying between cities instead of between remote rural points. A great deal of money has
National Transportation Policy been spent on this project. Rockcliffe airport has been revitalized, as has the Expo airstrip in Montreal. The point is, we have dissipated our abilities in the transportation field.
If the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) wants to do anything at all, I suggest he concentrate on the railroads. I think it is possible that if he were to ask the Canadian Pacific Railway to give him the railway, lock, stock and barrel, it would probably do so because those people are not interested in the railroad business. I am sure they do not have the capital invested in it nor, any more, the experts who can run it. They are interested in diversification, in industries and operations which produce far more money for them than the railroad has ever produced. The only advantage they get out of the railway is the product of the millions of dollars the Canadian people gave them, money they have used, not to maintain the railroad but to reinvest in other directions, making a pot of money in the process.
The railway operation is the poor cousin, and we are continually asked to subsidize it. The railway service should be nationalized. I believe we ought to nationalize not only the Canadian Pacific but the Canadian National as well. The president of the CNR has appeared before the railway committee on a number of occasions. He could not even tell us what the directors were supposed to be doing. One of them is responsible for the communications tower in Toronto-the needle. How will that project help operate a railroad? We must divest the railroads of the other operations in which they are engaged. I think this involves the trucking operation too, though this is open for debate; it might be that there is advantage in running a trucking operation together with the railroad.
I spoke to a senior official of the Ontario Northland railroad some time after the bad accident which took place on Highway 401 in which a number of people were killed following a collision between a truck from my area, a bus and 13 or 14 other vehicles. He told me that the Northland railway could put on trains, particularly at weekends, which could move trucks and trailers of the kind involved in the accident directly into Toronto by rail, taking this traffic off the highway and making a profit both for the truckers and for the railroad.
There is much that could be done along these lines, but if the minister intends to do anything to improve the system he should devote his attention only to the railroads. I believe we can upgrade our railroads. We could investigate new types of rolling stock, though here again there may be setbacks. I am sure we are the laughing stock of the world, having spent millions of dollars on the rapid transit system between Montreal and Toronto only to find we have not been able to match the Silver Bullet which operated some 30 years ago between Buffalo and Detroit and which could even take on water while travelling at 60 miles an hour. We have not been able to match this, and why? The CN is really more interested in its investment portfolio than it is in running a railroad.
Last year I opposed Air Canada buying into the air charter business through Wardair. I would have been happy if the intention was to buy Wardair and operate it as an airline, because I think Air Canada should be flying airplanes. But the idea was to establish an investment

March 21, 1974
National Transportation Policy
portfolio. The idea, now, is to buy into Comstock. I remember Comstock as the organization which changed electric motors over from 25 cycles to 60 cycles right across Ontario. I am sure they have a lot of expertise in the aircraft industry. But Air Canada proposes to buy into it. Is this because it plans to fly De Havilland aircraft, or Otters? I doubt it. They are going to buy into it because it is an investment, and I am utterly opposed to the corporation getting into this field. If Air Canada wants to fly airplanes and be a national airline, let it stick to being a national airline, without letting third-rate carriers get into the feeder line business.
The same is true of the railways. If we were so stupid as to allow the Canadian Wheat Board to put up $400 million to buy 20,000 hopper cars-


Mr. Gilbert:: Four thousand.


William Arnold Peters: My hon. friend says 4,000. They already have
4.000.	They have 4,000 now and the order is in for another
2.000.	Over the next five years they want 20,000, at a cost of $400 million. My colleague does not know, but he did not attend many of the meetings where the Wheat Board made this request. In fact, they requested 20,000 cars, and the potash industry received $39 million from the government to buy hopper cars.
The premiers of the western provinces ask the federal government to upgrade roadbeds because they are unable to bear the loads of today. I suggest we will be establishing a third new railway system, one that has no engines. I imagine someone will come along shortly and say, "Let us give the Wheat Board some engines and some employees". Then the potash industry will ask for some engines. So we will be providing the rolling stock and the roadbed, and the railroads are going to haul our cars because they do not have their own. In Regina they were burning cars, but agreed to allow the federal government to select some of them and fix them up. Canadian National offered to pay 50 per cent of the cost, but Canadian Pacific said the government would have to pay 100 per cent of the cost and pay for the scrap as well. If the minister is going to do anything at all for Pierre Berton, and if there is going to be a sequel to the great national dream, then something must be done about the great national tragedy of today where there are not enough cars to haul the freight of the nation.
There is no question that passenger service on the railways today is a disgrace. Anyone who has recently travelled on a train will have discovered they were travelling on the same cars that were used during the war. There have been no new passenger cars put on our railways for years and years. It costs as much for a sleeper on the CNR today as it does to stay at the Royal York Hotel.
In closing, if the minister wants to make a name for himself, he will get the support of the Canadian people and other members of this House if he will concentrate on making the railway system of Canada a viable unit, making this unit, as Mussolini did, run on time and provide service to the Canadian people, something the railways are not doing at the present time.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this opposition day on the motion proposed by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) on behalf of his party. One of the main things I have become more aware of over the years is transportation, and the CPR has been foremost in this respect. I am reminded of the story that I once heard and believed to be true, that when the hon. member for York South was appearing before the board that was selecting Rhodes scholars, one of the board members, who was president of the CPR at the time, asked him what he would do with the CPR if he had the chance. The hon. member replied, "I would nationalize it". Now, some 30 years later, he is still taking up the same cause.
My involvement with the CPR started very early in my life. The hon. member for York South talked today about the land that the CPR was given by the Canadian people. I happen to have been born and raised on one of these sections of land and I was there for about 21 years. I ran a farm and in the last few years before I joined the air force we had, in my opinion, a fair deal from the CPR, especially during the thirties when it was very hard even to make any kind of payment. I should like to remind hon. members what land costs today in the province of British Columbia since the NDP government has taken over. I am sure the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) knows full well of what I am saying.
There are certainly many problems in our transportation system. It seems to me that to say they can all be solved by nationalization is a gross oversimplification. The problems are very real and must be faced with determination. I can tell the House from experiences I have had with the CPR on many occasions that I have found them superior to the CNR. During some 13 trips that I made in wartime over the Rocky Mountain passes from the prairies to Vancouver, I always found the CPR superior in every way to the CNR. During the change from reefer cars to mechanical cars, the CPR at least constructed new cars and made them large enough to conform to Canadian and United States regulations, whereas the CNR did a great deal of converting of cars. Thus the load limits of their cars are too small. Both of these railway companies, however, have let Canada down. The CNR, in my opinion, is certainly no example, and if nationalization is the answer, then they should be.
I get many complaints from my constituents regarding the mail service that is run by the Post Office, a government department. The Post Office had a program of assured mail. The program was supposed to assure prompt delivery, yet letters took anywhere from a week to ten days to come to my home town from Vancouver, 300 miles away. This shows lack of leadership. If we are to have nationalization and government-owned companies, they should be setting the example.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has finally recognized that truth of what I said in the transport committee on November 20 last year when the president of the CNR was a witness. As reported at page 20:92 of the committee proceedings, I said:
I know that there are two railways. The CPR is almost as bad. I would certainly be recommending that the CNR people go on the block and sell to a private enterprise, but here we have a private enterprise that cannot do very much better.
March 21, 1974

It has come to the point, to my way of thinking, that the railways are really telling the government. The government is not telling the railways. Probably the person in the government that I should be talking to is the Minister of Transport, because I think it is high time this government sould be doing something about telling the railways and making sure that they have the rolling stock and have the cars.
In the fruit and lumber industry there is a crucial < shortage of cars in British Columbia to haul the products. The railways are recommending that the companies buy or lease cars themselves. It almost appears as if the shortage is deliberate so they can force or bully these companies into buying cars, thus freeing them from any responsibility to do so. This is a responsibility that I believe must rest with the railways. Once they have bought cars, I would not trust the railways even to return the cars to their original destination. The next step would be for the railways to say, "Now you have bought the cars, you may as well buy engines too". This is not what I would call showing responsibility. Certainly the government should see to it that the railways carry out their responsibilities. The railways should be told they will not receive any subsidy unless they listen to what the government says. Instead, the government allows the railway companies to operate on tax dollars in spite of the fact that one of them is already government-owned. Perhaps it should hold back these grants in the hope that this might make more responsive the attitude of the railways to government demands.
I am very pleased to see that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Stanbury) is here this evening and I hope he will listen to my remarks. We had a problem in my constituency as a result of which we were sending products to the United States and shipping them on U.S. railways to eastern Canada because we could not get rail cars from a Canadian carrier. Suddenly there was an order issued that Customs officers should not go down to seal these cars. I think the excuse given was that it was too costly, even though the U.S. carrier was prepared to pay the cost of the trip of the Customs officers in order that the cars could go through the United States. This was being done on a short line of the Burlington Northern Railway which was running into Canada. A bridge had been washed out on the rail line and they were loading cars for us and shipping out of a small point just below the border. I suspect it was this action by the railway that caused the government to take certain action.
Let me read from a letter I received from the Minister of National Revenue as follows:
Originally we were advised by the Canadian railroad that they could supply the required rolling stock.
I do not know which railroad he meant by that. He went on to say:
Subsequently it was ascertained that there was, in fact, a scarcity of reefer cars in British Columbia and the railroad could only look after their regular customers.
There certainly was a shortage of reefer cars in Canada, but as far as we were concerned we had always been a regular customer. The minister continued:
-it would seem prudent for B.C. Tree Fruits Limited to get in touch with Canadian carriers to discuss their requirements for rolling stock
National Transportation Policy
so that they will be considered as "regular customers" and the problem can be eliminated.
It is very evident that Canadian railways still cannot supply sufficient rolling stock and that is the reason there is a shortage about which the grain people are complaining. It is for that reason the lumber people, the fruit people and almost anyone you might consider is complaining about rail service in Canada. Our grain shippers are surely regular customers of the railways. Perhaps they should be told to get in touch with these companies in respect of their requirements, in order that they can be considered as regular customers. The minister should and must know that these people are all regular customers. There is a problem but it will never be solved by that kind of action or that kind of statement.
If we are to solve these problems, the government must become more responsive to our needs and take stronger action. If that were the case, I suggest we would not be told that nationalization is the cure-all for everything. We must put the onus on these carriers, and we must take a hard line with them.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the CNR bill in 1968 I suggested that the trouble with the CNR was that there were too many chiefs and not enough Indians. Tonight I suggest that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) should fire the chiefs and let the Indians take over. I am sure that then the railways would be operated at 100 per cent efficiency, because the workers are transportation men, they know the transportation business and they could rectify the problems we are now facing. They could provide the services and the CNR would make a lot more money. These men have spent their lives in the railway business, whereas the officials have not.
During the past winter a man told me that there were no cars and no locomotives available because they were being held away from home at terminals for up to 24 hours. What a way to run a railroad! Certainly the CPR makes money because it takes only the cream and leaves the milk for the public system. There was no money in passenger business, and the CPR gave the public system what was left after it had done with it.
Canada is a large country and the CNR has to take the good with the bad and provide service to areas which the CPR will not handle. Between Windsor and the United States border the Canadian Pacific Railway makes plenty of money on their short and long haul freight runs, as nearly all the traffic is long-haul and the CNR has to look after the short as well as the long haul runs between Sarnia and Portland, Maine.
If a person buys stock in a company, he has the right to attend the annual meetings and question the president and officials about the operations of that company. However, thousands of railway employees pay into pension plans but are not supplied with any information about the type of investments made. The employees could not care less where the money is invested, but surely they should receive an annual statement showing a list of those investments and the interest made. All the employees are asking for is open books and proof that the CNR and CPR pension funds are not generating a 2 per cent pension per year of

March 21, 1974
Adjournment Debate
service. We should give the employees of the CN and CP and other railways the facts and let them decide what they want done with their pension funds. Surely these employees have a right to know where their money is being invested and at what rate.
Canada does not have a deep-sea merchant marine. The government is, however, taking the first step toward strengthening and enlarging our small fleet by closing the coastal trade to all but Canadian vessels. Legislation will soon be introduced to make this effective. Nevertheless, this legislation will take into consideration the fact that parts of Canada, especially the eastern provinces, are dependent upon water-borne transportation and the viability of their enterprises may depend on the lowest possible rates by water.
A second step to enlarge our fleet may occur in Arctic regions, where Canadian resources should be exploited by Canadian technology, giving rise to Canadian enterprise and employing Canadian labour. None of the major shipping countries of the world has vessels that can operate safely in the Canadian Arctic except for a few months a year. The ministry is currently devising ways and means of encouraging Canadian enterprise to take up the challenge of operating Canadian flag vessels in our Arctic on an extended season basis.
In the past, Canada has bought its deep-sea transportation at economical rates from the lowest bidders, whether they be Liberian vessels, British Commonwealth vessels or Russian vessels. This has been favourable costwise and ships have always been available. The changing pattern of world shipping must now be studied to determine whether Canada will be able effectively to continue marketing its products worldwide and at a reasonable cost without any ships of its own.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, the 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. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks tonight are addressed to both the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). On two separate occasions, on February 28 and March 6, I tried to get an answer from these ministers on a question of vital concern to all Canadian consumers. I asked what the government was doing to ensure that no beef would be imported from the

United States which came from cattle fattened with the chemical agent DES.
Reliable evidence has been available for some months that the chemical DES causes cancer in both humans and animals, and on the basis of that information the present government banned the use of DES in this country. In the meantime, the United States supreme court handed down a decision overthrowing the ban on its use in that country and this has raised a very serious question. It means that there is a danger that DES-treated beef can be imported into Canada and pose a threat to the health of Canadian citizens. That is my concern in this matter.
I thought that, between the two ministers, I would have received some assurance that the government had worked out this problem at about the same time the ban on the use of DES in Canada was imposed. However, Mr. Speaker, it now appears that nothing was done. The Minister of National Health and Welfare said on March 6 that necessary steps would be taken to ensure that DES-treated beef would not enter Canada. That was not good enough. He should have said that necessary steps had been taken months ago. It would appear that the health of our citizens is less important to the minister than football franchises.
When the use of DES was banned in the United States there was no guarantee that all beef producers in that country stopped using it as a feed additive. There is no way in which we can know whether or not we have been importing DES-treated beef during the period of the ban, because we have not required exporters in the United States to certify that every beef carcass had been inspected and found to be free of DES. Traces of the chemical can only be detected in the livers of slaughtered cattle, and even then slight traces of DES can go undetected unless very careful tests are made.
I heard recently that the government will undertake spot checks of beef being imported from the United States to ensure that none of it contains DES. This falls far short of what is needed. We cannot do less than demand that every carcass intended for export to Canada is checked and certified. We must insist that the liver test be made on all beef intended for export to this country, and that could not be made at border points. Last year, for instance, we imported 160 million pounds of retail cuts of beef from the United States, and it is obvious that the tests must have been made at the slaughterhouses under United States government supervision.
We cannot do less than demand that guarantee, Mr. Speaker. I think it was in 1952 that we had a serious outbreak of hoof and mouth disease in the western provinces, and the U.S. imposed a total ban on beef imports from Canada until they got assurances that Canada was free of the disease. When a health hazard is known or even suspected in imported foods, the United States government does not hesitate to erect the necessary safeguards for their citizens. Why should we be prepared to do less for our citizens?
Mr. Speaker, we are told that there are two ways that DES can be used to fatten cattle. The first is the way I have already mentioned, and that is by adding DES to the feed. The other way is what is called an ear implant: the chemical is implanted in the ear of the cattle. This can be done many times during the period the animal is being
March 21, 1974

fattened. It is widely believed that the marks of DES implants can be detected on the ear of a slaughtered animal, but while it might be possible in some cases it is not a sure test. And even if we could assume that it would be a valid test, there would still be animals that were given DES in their feed. In those cases we should have assurances that tests had been made on the livers of the slaughtered animals.
We should not lose any more time in setting up some kind of arrangement whereby the United States government would certify that all beef exported to Canada had been tested at the slaughter-house and found to be free of any trace of DES. We cannot, and must not settle for less than that, Mr. Speaker.
It is significant to note that the U.S. court did not overthrow the ban on the use of DES because the hazard to human health had not been proven. It was overthrown on a purely legal point in that the U.S. food and drug administration had not held public hearings on the issue before the ban was imposed. The ban was imposed on the basis that DES presented a hazard to human health, and there is good reason to suppose that a ban will be imposed again in that country as soon as the legal niceties have been ironed out.
In the meantime, no one in Canada can be sure that DES-treated beef will not show up on food counters. In fact, we cannot even be sure that we have not been eating DES-treated beef during the entire period of the ban in our country, which dates from January, 1973. This is an appalling situation and one that cannot be passed over with the answer that some day, someone in the government is going to do something about it.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I must say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare have been irresponsible in the handling of this matter. They made the assumption that all U.S. beef producers would discontinue the use of DES during the period of the ban, and therefore all beef that we have imported from the U.S. has been free of the chemical. That was a dangerous assumption.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Scott) and would like to point out that on March 6, 1974, when the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) responded to the hon. member's question, he indicated that there would be no importation of DES-implanted beef into Canada. That decision still stands.
I do not think it is really fair or responsible to become so alarmist as to indicate that people have been eating DES-treated beef when there is just no evidence to show that that has been so. The Department of National Health and Welfare is very deeply concerned with the health of Canadians, and it has been concerned with this question for a considerable length of time.
As the hon. member pointed out, up until the decision was made by the supreme court in the United States on January 26 to throw out the embargo on the use of DES in that country, it would have been unreasonable to think that some farmer, either an American or a farmer in any
Adjournment Debate
other part of the world, would have been so silly as to run the risk of destroying all his herd by implanting DES when such beef was not allowed to be sold in the U.S. or in Canada. I have a considerable number of rural people in my riding, just as the hon. member has in his, and they are certainly not dumb enough to do anything like that; and I do not think American farmers are that dumb, either.
In any event, we in the Department of National Health and Welfare have an inspection branch which is responsible for this kind of health question. It is not under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Agriculture at all. The Minister of Agriculture is concerned with the protection of farmers and with the quality of beef that is imported, but is certainly not directly involved in how it might affect the health of Canadians. That is our responsibility. We are discharging that responsibility. We have said that no beef implanted with DES will be allowed into this country. We are making representations this week to the Americans, through the Department of Agriculture, informing them that we want primary certification in respect of any beef that will be brought into Canada from the U.S. or else we will have to close down the border to imports of beef. I think that is a pretty strong and determined stand that we have taken.
We are concerned about the problem. We are certain DES-implanted beef has not arrived in this country to date, and there is no way it will be available to come in until May 24, 120 days after the ban in the U.S. was lifted. We assure Canadians, including all members of this House, that DES-implanted beef will not be allowed into this country under any circumstances.


ENERGY-REASON IMPERIAL OIL ALLOWED TO DRILL FOR OIL AND GAS IN BEAUFORT SEA BEFORE COMPLETION OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight on the subject of gas drilling in the Beaufort Sea, a matter which seemed to upset the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) when I brought it up last week. It was just last week that the minister claimed that a heap of silt dredged from the floor of Shallow Bay is an island. In a moment or two I will be returning to the subject of this so-called island.
Today, tears of joy must have come to the eyes of various ministers as a long awaited dream came true and an application was presented to the National Energy Board to export natural gas from the Mackenzie Delta. This project evidently has the support of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself. Last December, dreaming of all the precious gas reserves that might one day be sent south of the border via a Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline, the Prime Minister declared to the House:
The government believes that it would be in the public interest to facilitate early construction by any means which do not require the lowering of environmental standards or the neglect of Indian rights and interests.
One would hope that environmental standards and native rights would be of some importance in the drilling for this gas which the government seems to eager to export, but there is some question as to whether this is the case in the drillings now going on in the Beaufort Sea.
766

March 21, 1974
Adjournment Debate
Two weeks ago we were told that the government would allow no offshore drilling until environmental studies are completed, two years from now. At about the same time we learned that Imperial Oil had made a substantial find after drilling from a man-made offshore sand bar in the Beaufort Sea. But this was not offshore, insisted the minister; this was an island. Imperial Oil named it Adgo, or something like that. I suggest that after the spring breakup the island will no longer be there, so I call it a sand bar.
Oilweek, the government's favourite ecology magazine, stated on page 17 of its March 4 issue that Adgo is, and I quote:
-made of dredged silt, now frozen. It will "self-destruct" during spring break-up.
Mr. Speaker, it will disappear like the sand bars in the Mackenzie River which I have seen disappear after a flood and perhaps reappear further downstream.
It would appear that the only purpose of building the island at all was to snow the minister and his people who advised the Tuktoyaktuk council to grant a land use permit. A land use permit to drill for gas in the Beaufort Sea! The minister knows, or ought to know, that if a blow-out occurs it will take between four and eight months to drill a relief well. That can mean a lot of gas, and maybe oil too, in the Beaufort Sea. And is this such a far-fetched possibility? Imperial's first island well, Immerk, had to be capped after drilling to a depth of 7,000 feet because of the intense pressures encountered, well above the level at which they said this could happen. As Oilweek put it:
Geopressures will continue to cause moments of excitement as drillers attempt to harness high pressure zones.
Mr. Speaker, I hate the thought that at every "moment of excitement" serious damage may be threatened to the environment and to the native peoples of whose heritage it forms such an important part. I should like the minister to produce the environmental studies on the basis of which the government allowed the Beaufort Sea drilling to go ahead. I believe this would be a minimal indication of the government's sincerity in protecting environmental standards and native rights. If not, it will become very plain that the government speaks with a forked tongue.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member rose tonight, but I am a bit surprised by the tone of his remarks because he is the member for the Northwest Territories and should be happy that we were
right when we gave the permit to drill from land on a man-made island and that we have found oil and gas in that formation so quickly. Now the people of the north can be assured of a great future because we have found the way to drill efficiently and to protect the ecology at the same time.
Being the member of parliament for this area, he is not very well advised to come here today and tell me I was wrong when I got the permission of the people of Tuktoyaktuk to drill from a man-made island in very shallow water. There is no great problem there, such as there would be if you were drilling either from a platform or a ship in deep water. The drilling was in very shallow water and was carried out in accordance with regulations the government had put forward after studies had been carried out by my department, and after the advice of experts of the Department of the Environment and the people involved in the wildlife service had been given. So, Mr. Speaker, I think this is a great moment for the people of the north. They see that there is even more oil and gas there. This will help the economy of the north.
The hon. member raised the question of the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. That pipeline is very important because it will mean that the resources in the north will some day be available for the Canadian market. The pipeline will not be used only for transportating American resources, Alaska, of course, being an American state. There is gas there which will go through the pipeline to the American market, but I hope at the same time that we can use that pipeline for Canadian resources we are finding in the north, resources which will meet the needs of Canadians. If there is enough there, perhaps we can sell some to the Americans. But if there is to be no pipeline, the resources we are finding in the north will not be available to Canadians. I therefore think that it is important for Canadians, because energy is so important.
We must utilize the resources we have. We have been drilling for them in a safe way on a man-made island built in shallow water in the Beaufort Sea. By so doing we are making sure that Canadian resources will be available for Canadians. These are resources for the south which come from the north. I therefore welcome this discovery by Imperial Oil, which came after drilling had been done in shallow water in the Beaufort Sea. The hon. member should be just as happy that we are proving to Canadians that the north is a great part of Canada.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.20 p.m.

Friday, March 22, 1974