1975-03-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid on the table the fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I wish to refer to two newspaper articles written by Claude Henault of the United Press, one appearing in the Montreal Gazette of Saturday, March 8, and the other appearing this morning, March 10. These articles might have appeared in other newspapers as well. In the first article of March 8 there is the following statement:
The investigation into the Hamilton Harbour Commission fraud scandal was delayed at least six months and perhaps one year while the RCMP waited for political permission to proceed.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


William Warren Allmand: This is a completely false statement. I told the reporter on Friday that it was false. There was no negligent or deliberate delay in these investigations. It was officially launched on February 22, 1973, soon after I received a letter from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) requesting such an investigation. It was proceeded with with all due dispatch, without any hindrance from any political source. This can be confirmed by the RCMP.
The RCMP communique issued on May 29, 1974, at which time charges were laid against five individuals, stating that the investigation was commenced in September, 1973, referred only to one aspect of the total investigation, for example, the particular investigation which lead to the five charges. But the investigation into the original allegations was started on February 22. This was explained to the reporter several times, but he negligently or deliberately ignored this fact.
I should, furthermore, point out to the House that a member of the Hamilton City Council approached the Hamilton detachment of the RCMP in September, 1972, with certain allegations of wrongdoing in the Hamilton Harbour Commission, but on examination the detachment felt that the matters involved were those matters which fell under the Criminal Code and, consequently, should be investigated by the Hamilton City Police or the Ontario Provincial Police.
We understand that the Hamilton Council member then approached the Hamilton City Police and the Ontario Provincial Police, but they did not have the resources to carry out the investigation and the Hamilton official came back to the RCMP at a later date. At this point the RCMP referred the matter to the Minister of Transport, who in turn wrote me requesting the investigation. I immediately turned the matter over to the RCMP and the investigation was started on February 22. There was no delay of six months to one year, as alleged in the article, while the RCMP waited for political approval. When political approval was asked, it was given immediately.
The second article appeared under the same reporter's name in the Gazette of this morning, March 10. The story reports that the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has charged the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal government with covering up the politically explosive Hamilton harbour dredging contracts scandal. I do not know if the reporter reports the hon. member as the same reporter likes to report me; but in any case, if the hon. member did make that charge, I should like to ask him to repeat it in the House of Commons and defend it in the usual way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: I am surprised that an experienced member would rely on such flimsy evidence as newspaper reports to make such serious allegations.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my name has been mentioned in the question of privilege raised by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) in connection with an article which appeared in today's edition of the Montreal Gazette under a UPI byline. The article in question was written as a result of an interview which was given to Standard Broadcast News on Friday. There is a tape recording of that interview and my exact words, so there is no question about what I said.
So far as I am concerned, the reporter did a reasonably accurate job of paraphrasing what I said in the tape-recorded interview. I base my evidence, not on some spurious newspaper accounts of what took place but on the ambiguous statements and replies to questions made in

March 10, 1975
Children in Poverty
the House by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and the Solicitor General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: If the Solicitor General is able to satisfy the House and the country on two points, then I am sure this whole matter could be clarified. The first point is: why the delay from the time of the inquiry in Hamilton to the commencement of the inquiry into the lie d'Orleans contract? The second question is: why would the RCMP, if they wanted to commence an inquiry into dredging contracts in the province of Quebec, go to the Minister of Transport?
The Minister of Transport has no jurisdiction whatsoever over the RCMP. The only minister to whom the RCMP could report regarding any apparent irregularity in contracts anywhere in Canada involving the federal government would be the minister responsible, and that is the Solicitor General. But the RCMP did not do that, and we have the minister's own words for it in the House on March 4 in reply to my question. I asked the minister:
Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary question. Did the RCMP extend the investigation into the lie d'Orleans contract on their own initiative, or were they requested so to do by the Minister of Transport?
The minister's rather intriguing reply was:
Mr. Speaker, they were requested by the Minister of Transport to begin investigations in Hamilton. Once the RCMP found there was evidence which led them to Quebec City, they reported to the Minister of Transport, and he told them to go full speed ahead in Quebec City as well.
Why would the RCMP have to report to the Minister of Transport? Why would they need his permission to go full speed ahead in investigations into very serious, alleged criminal charges? I submit that this whole affair has evidence, albeit circumstantial, of an attempt at least to confine this investigation to Hamilton, and when that failed the attempt was made to try to cover it up. Until the minister is ready to answer our questions, I am afraid he is leaving himself and his colleagues in the government open to suspicion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has given me notice of the proposed question of privilege. I am sure that he knows well, now that there have been equal contributions by both sides, that we are talking about a matter of debate and not a question of privilege. That debate should take place in this chamber, and I am sure it will in due course, under the proper framework within the rules; but it does not constitute a question of privilege and should not be debated at this time under that guise.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask leave to present a motion concerning a matter of

urgent and pressing necessity to more than 1,600,000 Canadian children. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands:
That each member of the cabinet as a matter of urgency be asked to read in full the National Council of Welfare's Report on Children in Poverty in Canada entitled "Poor Kids", and that the cabinet meet at an early date to decide on steps to be taken to meet the serious challenge to the future of this country set out in that report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 and therefore cannot be debated without unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals said no.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43 in reference to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This morning's Vancouver Daily Province has a headline "Vigilantes to Act Against White Racists" and goes on to say that a group of the communist party plans to retaliate against white racist attacks on East Indians living on the lower mainland. On Sunday about 125 East Indians were told that the Vigilantes will be armed and will not be afraid to use force.
In view of this announcement by a declared communist organization in British Columbia I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour:
That the Solicitor General be instructed to provide additional support to the RCMP who seek to promote peace and security in that racially unsettled area and prevent an escalation of a potentially explosive situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. It cannot be presented or debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.
March 10, 1975



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43. The motion is seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer and is in regard to Mr. Charles Guagliano of Hamilton, Ontario who was appointed to the Canada Pension Advisory Committee on April 27, 1972 by the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Munro) in his capacity at the time as minister of national health and welfare. I move that:
The House requests the Minister of National Health and Welfare to make a statement on circumstances surrounding the resignation of Mr. Guagliano from the Canada Pension Advisory Committee on December 19, 1974 and specifically to state whether charges laid under the Criminal Code of Canada against Mr. Guagliano had anything to do with his resignation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect to the hon. member, surely a motion which concerns itself with a hiring in 1972 and a resignation in 1974 cannot be considered to be a matter of urgent and pressing necessity in 1975 within the terms of the rule.



PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT, NO. 2 AMENDMENT TO AUTHORIZE DEDUCTION FROM RECEIPTS TO PAY BOARD FOR OUTSTANDING ADVANCE

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-53, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, No. 2.


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


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture) moved: the first reading of Bill S-10, (from the Senate) to amend the Feeds Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
["1.\tWere any Local Initiatives Programme projects for the year 197172 investigated by the RCMP?\n2.\tWhat were the names of all projects investigated including, in each case (a) the address of the project (b) all names on its application (c) the constituency in which it was located (d) full details of the project's nature (e) the amount of funds granted (f) the names of all persons who recommended acceptance of the project application (g) the reasons for such an investigation (h) the results of the investigation (i) the name of person or persons ordering or requesting the investigation (j) the dates the investigation was carried out?\nReturn tabled."]
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 11, 308, 830, 860, 1,030, 1,041, 1,042, 1,051, 1,169, 1,209, 1,268, l',305, 1,333, 1,464, 1,477, 1,533, 1,535, 1,565, 1,597 and 1,729.
Order Paper Questions
If questions Nos. 57, 363, 759, 766, 985 and 1,040 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,528?
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



Mr. Reynolds: What would be the estimated cost to the Federal Treasury in each year if the old age pension were reduced from 65 to 60 over a five year period, eliminating one year, for example, the first year 64 years would be eligible, second year 63, third year 62, fourth year 61, fifth year 60?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: The
estimated cost of a year-by-year reduction in the present minimum eligible age of 65 for Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement benefits is $300 million in the first year, $500 million in the second year, $900 million in the third year, $1.3 billion in the fourth year and $1.7 billion in the fifth year. These estimates are in 1974 dollars
i.e. no account has been taken of adjustment to monthly benefits arising out of changes in the Consumer Price Index. The indicated costs are gross costs and do not take into account tax recoveries on OAS benefits.


CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY
Mr. McGrath: 1.	Who are the members of the Canadian Egg Marketing Agency?
2.	Who are the Directors of CEMA?
3.	How much is each Director paid?
4.	How often does the Board of Directors meet?
5.	How is CEMA financed?
6.	Who appoints CEMA's Directors?
7.	What methods are employed by CEMA to (a) control production (b) control inventories?
8.	What rate of net profit does CEMA permit it's members?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Mr. Phillip Eldridge, Alberta; Mr. John Hyde, Ontario; Mr. William Jansen, British Columbia; Mr. Harold Crossman, Saskatchewan; Mr. Peter Dyck, Manitoba; Mr. Gilles Yer-geau, Quebec; Mr. Harry Law, New Brunswick; Mr. John Eyking, Nova Scotia; Mr. Bert Haneveld, Prince Edward Island; Mr. Fred Wells, Newfoundland.
2.	The Structural Committee of CEMA are: Mr. Phillip Eldridge, Mr. John Hyde, Mr. Harold Crossman.
3.	It is the policy of CEMA not to disclose the salary paid to its membership. However, a per diem is paid for each day spent on CEMA affairs.
4.	The structural committee meets as often as the need for such arises but on an average at least once per week.
5.	CEMA is financed through the imposition of a levy of 1 cent per dozen eggs to producers.
6.	The directors of CEMA are appointed by the members of CEMA.
3920

March 10, 1975
Order Paper Questions
7.	(a) There are no production controls as such, there are only marketing quotas, (b) A new storage policy is to be recommended in accordance with storage standards comparable to government policy.
8.	CEMA does not set a rate of profit to its members. The level of management efficiency has a direct bearing on the profit of any producer.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION-PERSONNEL
Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Corporation?


John Napier Turner: Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation: 1.
Number of Year Employees
Salary Levels
Total	$20,000- $35,000- $50,000
Salaries	34,999	49,999 plus
1968	3
1970	3
1972	3
1974	3

45,320	1
53,700	1
61,000	1
1970
1974
$17,000 20,000; $20,000-23,000; $23,000-27,500; $27,500-31,000;

$6,500-7,500; $7,500-8,600; $8,600-9,400; $9,400-10,700.


CONSIDERATION OF TAX MEASURES
Mr. Herbert: Will tax measures be considered to encourage pension plans to adopt more uniform regulations with regard to (a) sound financing and funding (b) vested rights (c) age discrimination (d) portability?


John Napier Turner: A significant portion of time spent reviewing provisions of the Income Tax Act is devoted to problems of retirement income, including, of course, pension plans. The points raised in the question are always factors which are considered in the review of legislation. However, it should be noted that the four areas mentioned are covered to a major degree by provincial legislation and by federal legislation in acts other than the Income Tax Act. The major role of the provinces in the pension area makes it undesirable for the federal government to attempt to unilaterally legislate pension criteria. It should be noted that the guidelines of Revenue Canada for registering pension plans for purposes of the Income Tax Act have been drawn up to be consistent with provincial legislation and that there is constant contact between federal and provincial officials on matters dealing with pension plans.


LIP-MEMORANDUM FROM DEPUTY MINISTER TO MINISTER
Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the memo dated January 25, 1973, signed by Mr. J.M. DesRoches, Deputy Minister of Manpower and Immigration and addressed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, saying in part with reference to the Local Initiatives Programme, "no project is approved without concurrence of the Regional Minister" (a) what are the names of all the Regional Ministers that were involved (b) over what geographic area did each have jurisdiction (c) as of what exact date was this system created (d) what part did the present Minister play in such creation (e) what part did his immediate predecessor play?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: (a) See sessional paper 291-2-2319, tabled in the House of Commons on September 5, 1973; (b) See
(a)	above; (c) The custom of having cabinet ministers represent the interests of provinces and regions has been in existence since July 1, 1867. As R. MacGregor Dawson and Norman Ward point out in their standard work, the Government of Canada: "The Cabinet, in short, is federalized, a turn of events which was shrewdly forecast by one of the critics of the confederation proposals in 1865 and accepted by Sir John A. Macdonald in forming his first ministry in 1867" (fourth edition, pages 193-4); (d) None (see (c)); (e) None (see (c)).


LIP-RCMP INVESTIGATIONS 1972-73
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were any Local Initiatives Programme projects for the year 197273 investigated by the RCMP?
2.	What were the names of all projects investigated including, in each case (a) the address of the project (b) all names on its application (c) the constituency in which it was located (d) full details of the project's nature (e) the amount of funds granted (f) the names of all persons who recommended acceptance of the project application (g) the reasons for such an investigation (h) the results of the investigation (i) the name of person or persons ordering or requesting the investigation (j) the dates the investigation was carried out?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The RCMP conducted 17 investigations of the 5,823 LIP projects 1972-73. In four of the foregoing investigations, no fraud was involved. In these cases, it is the Department's policy not to disclose information concerning projects investigated as such disclosure might be detrimental to innocent individuals or associations. Additionally, information concerning the twelve projects currently under investigation is withheld pending the results of the inquiry.
2.	Details of the one project investigated in which fraud was found are as follows: H-2217-Le Club des 40 a 60: (a) Mr. Guy Poulin, 5116 boul. Leger, Montreal Nord, Quebec;
(b)	Guy Poulin, Robert Chandonnet; (c) Montreal-Bourassa; (d) The objective of the project was to provide such services for the old, sick and handicapped persons of the community of Montreal North as washing and cleaning homes, painting, bringing out the garbage and removing snow; (e) $193,581; (f) The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and content of all representations made to the minister or the department; (g) Complaint from a confidential informant to the RCMP that Mr. Guy Poulin (sponsor) was also
March 10, 1975

running a business under the name of "Les Ambulances Urbaines" in which non-project people were being paid by LIP funds; (h) October, 1974-RCMP report that charges will be laid; (i) Confidential local informant brought the matter to the attention of the RCMP; (j) December 22, 1973-RCMP confiscated files.


LIP-RCMP INVESTIGATIONS 1973-74
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were any Local Initiatives Programme projects for the year 197374 investigated by the RCMP?
2.	What were the names of all projects investigated including, in each case (a) the address of the project (b) all names on its application (c) the constituency in which it was located (d) full details of the project's nature (e) the amount of funds granted (f) the names of all persons who recommended acceptance of the project application (g) the reasons for such an investigation (h) the results of the investigation (i) the name of person or persons ordering or requesting the investigation (j) the dates the investigation was carried out?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The RCMP conducted 11 investigations of the 3,401 LIP projects 1973-1974. In first of the foregoing investigations no fraud was involved. In this case, it is the department's policy not to disclose information concerning projects investigated as such disclosure might be detrimental to innocent individuals or associations. Additionally, information concerning the nine projects currently under investigation is withheld pending the results of the inquiry.
2.	Details of the project investigated in which fraud was found are as follows: 311-3520 Le Club des 40 a 60: (a) M. Guy Poulin, 5116 boul. Leger, Montreal Nord, Quebec; (b) Guy Poulin; (c) Montreal-Bourrassa; (d) The objective of the project was to provide such services for the old, sick and handicapped persons of the community of Montreal North as washing and cleaning homes, painting, bringing out the garbage and removing snow; (e) Approved for $59,800.00 but suspended due to RCMP investigation; (f) The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and content of all representations made to the minister or the department; (g) Complaint from confidential informant to the RCMP that Mr. Guy Poulin (sponsor) was also running a business under the name of "Les Ambulances Urbaines" in which non-project people were being paid by LIP funds; (h) October, 1974- RCMP report that charges will be laid; (i) Confidential local informant brought this matter to the attention of the RCMP; (j) December 22, 1973 (RCMP confiscated files).


GRANTS TO WOMEN'S CENTRES
Mr. Jelinek: 1.	Of the seventeen women's centres offering advice on abortion that are receiving grants from the Department of the Secretary of State, are any in the Toronto area and, if so (a) how many (b) what is their identity (c) what is the dollar value of their grants?
2.	Are any other departments involved in giving grants to women's centres?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	(a) Of the 16 women's centres in Canada which have received grants from the Secretary of State Department, two are in Toronto. These centres are engaged in a wide
Order Paper Questions
variety of activities including information and referrals with regard to community agencies serving the needs of women, libraries of books and other material on issues of concern to women, and forums for discussion and training, (b) and (c) Y.W.C.A. Women's Resource Centre, $8,000; The Women's Information Centre, $15,000.
2.	The Department of National Health and Welfare, through its Welfare Demonstration Grants Directorate, is presently funding two women's centre projects which offer special counselling and shelter services to women undergoing changing life circumstances as a result of divorce, separation, widowhood, etc. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is also involved in giving grants to women's centres through LIP and OFY programmes.


LIP PROJECT OFFICER, MR. RON BELL
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) Is Mr. Ron Bell employed as Project Officer with the Local Initiatives Programme (b) what is a complete history of Mr. Bell's employment in the Public Service including (i) jobs held (ii) dates (iii) salaries?
2.	Is the Minister or any other of Mr. Bell's superiors aware (a) as to whether Mr. Bell acted as a campaign manager for the Liberal Party of Ontario in the provincial constituency of Carleton (b) as to whether or not he worked for the Liberal Party of Canada during an election campaign in the federal constituency of Grenville-Carleton?
3.	Is it the policy of the government to permit employees having influence as to the disposition or supervision of Local Initiatives Programme grants to actively or openly work on behalf of candidates of the Liberal Party?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) Yes-he is a program officer with the Local Initiatives Program.
Range of
(b) (i) Jobs Held	(ii) Date	(iii) SalariesLIP Project Officer	18-11-71 to 29-7-73	$11,034 to $12,538Acting ('hief, Atlantic and Ontario Legions LIP	30-7-73 to 24-8-73	$18,867 to $21,442LIP Project Officer	25-8-73 to 3-8-73	$11,586 to $13,165Acting Headquarters Senior Project Officer for Prairie and Pacific Regions	4-9-73 to 18-12-73	$14,246 to $16,189Acting Chief for Prairie and Pacific Regions, Job Creation Branch	19-12-73 to 4-1-74	$20,565 to $23,372Acting Headquarters Senior Project Officer for Prairie and Pacific Regions	5-1-74 to 31-3-74	$14,246 to $16,189LIP Project Officer	1-4-74 to date	$11,586 to $13,165
28996-43)4
March 10, 1975

Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) and (b) As of December 16, 1974, they were not aware of this. All employees of the Department of Manpower and Immigration are made aware of the provisions outlined in Section 32-1 of the Public Service Employment Act.
3.	See answer 2 above.


APPLICATIONS FILED IN ONTARIO FOR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LOANS
Mr. Wise: 1.	How many applications were filed by businessmen in the Province of Ontario for Industrial Development Bank loans for each year from 1970 to 1973 inclusive and, of these, how many were approved?
2.	What was the total amount of money loaned to these businessmen for each year?


John Napier Turner: The IDB
provides comprehensive statistical information in its annual report but it does not provide nor does it publish the number of loan applications by province. As published in the IDB's annual report the number and total amount of loans authorized from 1970 to 1974 inclusive, in Ontario, are recorded below:
	Number	Amount ($000)
1970	978	46,4901971	1,216	49,7231972	1,568	65,1241973	1,789	75,3361974	2,391	110,850


CANADIAN POTASH
Mr. Hnatyshyn: 1.	Has Canadian potash been included in any foreign aid programme and, if so, in the year 1974 how much was distributed under foreign aid and to what countries?
2.	Is the government giving consideration to the inclusion of Canadian potash in such programmes in the future and, if so, to what extent?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes. Canadian potash has been included in CIDA programmes in the past. In the fiscal year 1974/75, a total of 280,400 metric tons was shipped to the following countries: India (240,000 metric tons); Indonesia (28,000 metric tons); Bangladesh (6,400 metric tons); Sri Lanka (5,000 metric tons) and Guyana (1,000 metric tons).
2. Yes. Canadian potash is being considered for future programmes. The actual tonnage shipped will depend on the supply situation which remains tight to a significant extent. It will also reflect the current priority of the recipient.


DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE-PERSONNEL
Mr. Paproski: 1. How many full-time employees were under salary in the Department of Finance on (a) January 1, 1974 (b) January 1, 1975?

2. How many people in each of these years received salaries of (a) under $10,000 (b) between $10,000 and $20,000 (c) between $20,000 and $30,000 (d) over $30,000?


John Napier Turner: 1. (a) 561; (b) 591.
	January 1, 1974	January 1, 1975
(a)	270	226(b)	167	226(c)	100	83(d)	24	56


CONFIDENTIALITY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What specific section of the Income Tax Act assures the taxpayer that his return is confidential to the officials of the Department of National Revenue?
2.	What departments have access to individual or corporation income tax returns and, in each case, what is the method by which officials of departments other than the Department of National Revenue can have access to individual income tax returns?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
Section 241 of the Income Tax Act states no official or authorized person shall communicate to any individual outside Revenue Canada, Taxation, any information obtained for the purpose of this act. However, an official or authorized person may, under prescribed conditions (as defined in Regulation 3000), communicate or allow to be communicated information obtained under this act, or allow inspection of or access to any written statement furnished under this act to the government of any province in respect of which information and written statements obtained by the government of the province, for the purpose of a law of the province that imposes a tax similar to the tax imposed under this act, is communicated or furnished on a reciprocal basis to the minister.
2. Statistics Canada, under the authority of the Statistics Act, has access to individual or corporate tax returns or computer files containing information extracted from these returns for the purpose of compiling statistics. Health and Welfare Canada receives information for the purpose of the administration of the Canada Pension Plan. Unemployment Insurance Canada is provided information due to our involvement in the collection of unemployment insurance premiums. In line with the legislative requirements of our department and other federal agencies, Revenue Canada, Taxation provides to other federal departments specific information obtained from tax returns. The agencies and activities or information involved are as follows: Supply and Services Canada, refund cheque processing; Public Archives, microfilming and storage; Finance Canada, public utilities; Treasury Board, uncollectable debts; Energy, Mines and Resources, verification of mine exemption; Industry, Trade and Commerce, scientific research.
March 10, 1975


FREIGHT RAIL CARS FOR SHIPMENT OF ATLANTIC PRODUCTS
Mr. Howie: Are there any plans to ensure an adequate reserve of freight rail cars for the shipment of Atlantic products?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: At
present there are no reported rail car shortages for shipment of Atlantic products. The railways are reviewing their car needs continuously and order cars as required. The freight rail car supply and shipper service is now being monitored continuously by the Ministry of Transport in conjuction with the railways and the shipper groups.


HOME BANKS
Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government considering instituting a plan of "Home Banks" whereby senior citizens who own their own homes can sell them to the government at market price and retain the right to rent them for as long as desired?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: The government is not considering the institution of a plan of "Home Banks".


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION-LENGTH OF SERVICE OF HON. J. W. PICKERSGILL AS PRESIDENT
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	For what period of time was the Honourable J. W. Pickersgill, P.C., President of the Canadian Transport Commission?
2.	What salary per annum, year by year from the time of his appointment to his retirement, did he receive?
3.	What is the amount of pension or retirement allowance that he is receiving monthly in consequence of his service with the Board?


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the Canadian Transport Commission and the Department of Supply and Services as follows: 1. Mr. Pickersgill was President of the Canadian Transport Commission from September 19, 1967, until his voluntary retirement August 31, 1972.
2.	On appointment and up to December 31, 1969, Mr. Pickersgill received a salary of $40,000 per annum. His salary thereafter fell within the range of DM-3, which, for the year 1970 was $39,000-$42,000, for the year 1971 was $42,000-$46,000, and for the year 1972 was $45,000-$50,000.
3.	It is not the policy of the government to disclose the pensionable income on an individual basis. The government understands that Mr. Pickersgill has written to the Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker providing him with all the details requested.


COST OF PHOTOGRAPHIC SERVICES DURING QUEEN'S LAST VISIT TO CANADA
Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): How much did the government pay for photographic services during the Queen's last visit in Canada?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: In
connection with the last visit of Her Majesty the Queen to Canada in 1973, the government paid $500 in fees for photographic services and $618.96 for travel expenses.


UIC-NUMBER EXCLUDED UNDER UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE REGULATION 145-9, 1973-74
Mr. Caouette (Villeneuve): 1.	How many persons were excluded in 1973 and 1974 under Unemployment Insurance Regulation No. 145-9?
2.	What province was most affected by this regulation?


Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. 1973, 92,871; 1974, 93,133.
2. 1973, Quebec; 1974, Ontario.


CIDA SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAMME
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	On what date did CIDA institute the scholarship programme for students anxious to pursue their studies in the area of international development?
2.	(a) How much was allocated to this programme each year (b) was it all awarded and, if not, how much remained each year?
3.	How many Canadian students were awarded scholarships under this programme?
4.	On a year by year basis, from what universities were these students drawn?
5.	Is it one of the requirements that the study be carried out in Canada and, if so, at what universities?
6.	Have any non-Canadians benefitted under this programme?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. The CIDA scholarship program for Canadians was established on March 1, 1972 under the authority of T.B. 710122. A maximum of 25 scholarships can be operational at any given time, and not more than 15 new scholarships can be awarded each year. The first eight scholarships were awarded effective August 10, 1972.
2. (a) and (b)
Fiscal Year Allocation Disbursement
1972/73
1973/74
1974/75
I 75,000	$ 37,221.87
125.000	95,779.83
200.000	190,000.00 (est.)
Unspent
Balance

3.	The number of Canadian students who were awarded scholarships under this programme is as follows: 1972: 8; 1973: 11; 1974: 14.
4.	Year	Institution	Number1972	University of Toronto	1Queens' University	1University of Ottawa	1Carleton University	1
not attending university

March 10, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Year	Institution	Number1973	University of Ottawa	1University of Montreal	1not attending university	91974	Carle ton University	1Laval University	2University of Manitoba	1not attending university	10
The number of students who were attending academic institutions is low due to the fact that the scholarship program is not necessarily directed at people who are attending university.
5.	Studies and/or research are normally undertaken in Canada or in developing countries. Studies in another developed country may be undertaken when the required program is not available in Canada. The choice of institution rests with the applicant.
6.	The program is limited to Canadian citizens.


Mr. Epp: Is the name of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to be changed to "Habitat Canada" and, if so, for what reasons?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No action is being taken, at the present time, to change the name of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to "Habitat Canada".


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES- RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Francis: What amount of money has been spent by the government on the research and development of the following alternatives to nuclear energy (a) solar energy (b) biomass energy (c) magneto-hydrodynamics?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: in the 1974-75 fiscal year, it is estimated that the level of government expenditures on research and development has been approximately: (a) Solar energy (including wind) $180,000; (b) Biomass energy, $355,000; (c) Magnetohydrodynamics (which is not an alternative to nuclear energy but an energy conversion method), Nil.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Cossitt: 1. With reference to the answer to Question No. 46 of the Second Session of the 29th Parliament, which states in part that a total of $776,040 was allocated under the Local Initiatives Programme for 
1972-73 in the constituency of Saskatoon-Humboldt, Saskatchewan (a) what are the names of all projects involved along with their addresses and the names and addresses of those signing the applications (b) in each case what is a detailed description of the actual project, specifically including the functions performed under the project?
2. What are the names and addresses of all persons or organizations who recommended each project in any manner whatsoever to the Department?
Return tabled.


OVERHAULING OF BOEING 707'S
Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Did DND or the government in 1973 or 1974 advertise or call for tenders to do any maintenance or overhaul work on the military Boeing 707's?
2.	How many firms bid to do the overhaul work and, in each case, what is the name of the firm and the cost of overhaul in bid?
3.	Did (a) World Airlines of Oakland, California (b) CAE of Winnipeg submit a bid to do any of the overhaul work?
4.	(a) What overhaul or maintenance work must be done to the 707's
(b)	will painting, engine overhaul and frame inspection be required
(c)	will painting, engine overhaul and frame inspection all be done by the one firm and at what cost?
5.	(a) What will be the cost to DND and other government departments to tool and outfit CAE of Winnipeg for Boeing overhaul (b) what is the cost by government department?
6.	(a) Who is paying the cost of training CAE employees at the Boeing plant in Seattle or at any other Boeing plant (b) how many CAE employees will be trained?
7.	(a) Will it cost more to have 707's overhauled at CAE in Winnipeg than at World Airlines or any other firm and, if so, how much more (b) what is the cost breakdown for each company?
8.	In what hangar will 707's be overhauled if the contract goes to CAE in Winnipeg and, if it is a military or government hangar, how long will CAE be able to use the hangar?
9.	Will any modifications have to be made to a hangar in Winnipeg to accommodate 707's and, if so (a) who will pay the cost of modification (b) what is the cost?
10.	If CAE is awarded 707 overhaul contract will DND or the government arrange for any other jet aircraft to be overhauled by CAE upon completion of the military 707 overhaul contract?
Return tabled.


KIDNAPPING CONVICTIONS SINCE 1969
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many convictions have there been for the crime of kidnapping since 1969?
2.	Without designating the names of the individuals convicted, what were the sentences imposed in each case and, if paroled, how long did each serve before parole?
Return tabled.


RAPE CONVICTIONS SINCE 1965
Mr. Diefenbaker: 1.	How many convictions for rape have been returned by juries year by year since 1965?
2.	Without designating the names of the individuals convicted, what were the sentences in each case?
3.	How many of those convicted have been paroled after serving (a) less than one year (b) from one to two years (c) from two to three years?
Return tabled.
March 10, 1975


EMPLOYMENT OF MR. RODERICK M. BRYDEN BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Nystrom: 1.	For what periods and in what capacity was Mr. Roderick M. Bryden employed by the government (a) as an assistant or on the personal staff of the Honourable Otto Lang, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (b) as a member or on the staff of the Grains Group (c) in any other capacity?
2.	With reference to a grant or grants by the government to offset or bear the costs for a study of the feasibility of an inland terminal elevator at Weyburn (a) was the grant paid and, if so (i) to whom (ii) what was the total amount paid (b) who conducted the study and what fee was charged (c) has a copy of the study been made available to the government and, if so, will it be Tabled?
3.	(a) Is Mr. Bryden proprietor and owner of Bryden Ltd., which was engaged to do a feasibility study on an inland terminal at Weyburn, Saskatchewan (b) is Mr. Bryden part owner or a partner in Techtrol Ltd., who is seeking a contract for construction of the inland terminal?
4.	What, if any, contracts and payments have been made by the government, or any agency of the government, to Bryden, Ltd.?
5.	Has Mr. Bryden made any representation to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in support of, or requesting a loan or a guarantee of borrowings on behalf of a company organized to explore the feasibility of or to construct an inland terminal at Weyburn and, if so, on what date were such representations made and what was the nature of the representations?
Return tabled.


LIP-INVESTIGATION OF PROJECTS BY RCMP
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were any Local Initiatives Programme projects for the year 197172 investigated by the RCMP?
2.	What were the names of all projects investigated including, in each case (a) the address of the project (b) all names on its application (c) the constituency in which it was located (d) full details of the project's nature (e) the amount of funds granted (f) the names of all persons who recommended acceptance of the project application (g) the reasons for such an investigation (h) the results of the investigation (i) the name of person or persons ordering or requesting the investigation (j) the dates the investigation was carried out?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Now that the talks with the GLT workers of the Public Service Alliance have broken up, what are the government's plans to end the dispute? What is the minister waiting for? That with patience the strike will settle itself?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that we have a great deal of
Oral Questions
patience, and those workers have the right to strike. The right was granted to them by the Parliament of Canada in 1967, and we have every intention of respecting it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister who told us on several occasions in the last week about his determination to see that those who were responsible for carrying out services designated as essential, did so. In view of the fact that services designated as essential to the safety and security of the public are not being provided, what does the minister propose to do?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: What would you do?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am proposing to do what the law authorizes me to do. We are gathering evidence against everyone who acts illegally. We are asking permission from the Finkelman Board to prosecute them and we will prosecute in court for every illegal strike as is provided under the law. We do not have any intention of withdrawing any of the cases.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: have a question for the Acting Prime Minister, which I put to him in view of the obvious inadequacy of the responsible minister under the machinery available to him to assure that essential services will be provided, and in view of the tie-up of shipments of western grain as a result of two disputes involving the GLT and the grain handlers. I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government will review both of these disputes in depth and advise the House tomorrow what his plans are, or must we wait until the return of the Prime Minister before the government undertakes its responsibility?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, just one word in connection with the first comment made by the Leader of the Opposition who spoke about essential services as if it were a much broader term than the act itself provides. It is services that are essential to public safety and security.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I said that.


Mitchell William Sharp: They were not the words that he used on this occasion.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: We cannot help it if
you are asleep.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the general question of the strike and the negotiations that are now going on, the government has these under very careful review. We recognize what a serious problem is being created, particularly in the movement of grain, and this we are reviewing almost hourly.

March 10, 1975
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-INQUIRY WHETHER ACTION TO SETTLE AWAITS RETURN OF PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of all the uncertainty, am I to take it that no action will be taken to end the public service strike by the government of Canada until the Prime Minister returns, even though our grain markets and other markets are suffering and deteriorating every day?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are, of course, all awaiting the return of the Prime Minister after a most successful tour in Europe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. member that the government will not wait for the Prime Minister's return in order to take any action that is necessary under the circumstances. The situation is quite clear. My colleague the President of the Treasury Board has been negotiating in good faith with the strikers. We are hoping that this will work. If it does not we will, of course, have to take other measures.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that many members on all sides of the House will congratulate the Prime Minister on his skiing trip.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I can wait if hon. members can; I have lots of time. I ask the Acting Prime Minister, will the government take some action to end the strike before the Prime Minister returns from Europe, irrespective of what he is doing there?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had taken the hon. gentleman's comments seriously until he made that most unfortunate remark. I think it is an example of the standard of taste of the hon. member; I regret to have to say that. When the Prime Minister is abroad engaged in serious public business, surely we should all regard with great favour the fact that the Prime Minister is taking his responsibilities with respect to Europe seriously, and is over there working on our behalf.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: It was the sort of cheap crack that I really thought was below the standard of my hon. friend. If it is necessary, and considered desirable for this parliament to take action, then we will take action whether or not the Prime Minister has returned. If my hon. friend the President of Treasury Board can find an opportunity to complete these negotiations, then he will be only too happy to do so.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-SUGGESTION GOVERNMENT MAKE SERIOUS OFFER
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question on this same subject to the President of Treasury Board. In view of repeated assertions on the part of the government that it supports the principle of collective bargaining and the right to strike for public servants, and in view of the fact that the right to strike carries with it the obligation at some point on both sides to try to reach an agreement, may I ask the President of Treasury Board when the government is going to make a serious offer designed to bring this strike to a conclusion?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that the House of Commons is not the place to negotiate. I can repeat what I have already said. Our final offer was much lower than the majority conciliation board report. Eventually, in order to arrive at a settlement, we concluded it would be good for the government to accept the report of the president of the conciliation board. If the union had acted in the same manner in that conflict, there would have been no strike at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In view of the assertion by the President of Treasury Board that he does not believe in negotiating on the floor of the House of Commons while at the same time he negotiates by radio, television and speeches outside the House, may I ask whether he realizes the strike has gone on for three weeks and that the time comes when, regardless of what offers have been made and rejected in the past, a serious offer should be made that would be fair to all concerned.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it was exactly for that reason we went back to the negotiating table last Friday. We made new offers over the weekend. As far as communications with the press are concerned, I have not talked to any members of the press since last Wednesday. However, I have to reply to questions in the House of Commons and I am doing my best to give answers. I would like to say to the House that we are willing to sit down with the members of the union to try to conclude the strike as soon as possible. At the same time, I do not think I have to abdicate my responsibility because it is not my money, but the taxpayers' money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a final supplementary, may I put this question to the minister. How can he say the government went back to the bargaining table when all it did was ask the employees to accept the offer they had already turned down.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think someone has spoken to the press. I have not spoken to them at all. I listened to the news over the weekend. At one point the press reported we were making progress. I was not the one who said that. We made offers and counter-offers, but unfortunately we could not come to terms. I hope we will soon come to terms.
March 10, 1975


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP- GOVERNMENT POSITION ON CONSEQUENCES TO PUBLIC
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Does the government accept as a matter of principle that the public shall continue to suffer losses, businessmen will suffer serious slowdowns in cash flow, pensioners will have their cheques delayed and the general public, which is defenseless, should just stand idly by and suffer the consequences of this particular strike?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Considering the intolerable delays in the extremely slow delivery of parcels and freight by railway from Montreal to Val-d'Or and northwest Quebec, can the minister tell the House whether he will look into the matter and take the necessary steps to improve this situation which is most disastrous for the people of northwest Quebec?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the trains serving northwest Quebec have not slowed down. I shall inquire from my colleague, the Postmaster General, to see whether this complaint is really founded.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Solicitor General. Is the minister now prepared to explain to the House the delay between the investigation into dredging irregularities in Hamilton and the allegations of serious irregularities in the contract of Quebec City or lie d'Orleans? Second, will the minister explain why it was necessary for the RCMP to report to the Minister of Transport and not the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked two questions. On the first question, there was no delay in the investigation with respect to the lie d'Orl6ans dredging contract. Certain evidence came to light during the Hamilton harbour investigation with respect to the lie d'Orleans case. As soon as that evidence came to light, the RCMP went to the Department of Transport and asked for certain files and documents with respect to the lie d'Orleans case. Those files
Oral Questions
and documents were given and the information was relayed to the Minister of Transport. He agreed that full co-operation should be given.
It was not necessary for the RCMP to go to the Minister of Transport or the Department of Transport to obtain approval to proceed with the investigation. However, they required certain documents. It was regular procedure to advise the department that the investigation was proceeding with respect to lie d'Orleans. They could proceed without any authorization, but they needed documents and so on. Therefore, they went to the Department of Transport to obtain these. Full co-operation was given. I think that answers both questions. If not, I will expect a supplementary.


INVESTIGATION INTO DREDGING CONTRACTS-WHEN AND BY WHOM DECISION TAKEN TO EXTEND INVESTIGATION INTO QUEBEC
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister's reply today is not quite consistent with the reply he gave to the same question last week whereby he stated quite clearly that the Minister of Transport gave permission to go full speed ahead on the investigation into Quebec. When was the decision taken to extend the investigation beyond the contracts in Hamilton and Quebec and by whom was this decision taken?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the RCMP found evidence in the Hamilton Harbour commission that there might be wrongdoing in the Quebec City area, they took the decision to continue the investigation. However, they needed documentation of other evidence from the Department of Transport. They went to the Department of Transport to obtain it. I never at any time said that permission was granted by the Minister of Transport. I said the information with respect to the lie d'Orleans contract was relayed to the Minister of Transport and he said go full speed ahead. He in fact said full co-operation should be given. However, the decision to proceed in Quebec was taken by the RCMP.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the minister has not replied to my question as to when the decision was taken to carry the investigation beyond the contracts in Hamilton and Quebec City. Perhaps the minister can now tell us if criminal charges are pending or are about to be laid in consequence of any investigations into dredging irregularities which have taken place apart from charges already laid in connection with the Hamilton incident.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the date in my memory right now. Since the hon. member wants me to be specific, I will get the exact date and give it to him. I have recently been told that the investigation is still continuing into the Quebec area dredging contracts and that the police are not yet ready to lay charges, but they expect to be shortly.
3928

March 10, 1975
Oral Questions


INVESTIGATION INTO DREDGING CONTRACTS-REASON FOR FAILURE TO ACT ON REQUEST BY CITY OF HAMILTON IN 1972 FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Keeping in mind that the minister indicated the city of Hamilton had the local police as well as the OPP involved with the investigators in connection with the Hamilton harbour, which indicates that something was going on, and keeping in mind that the city of Hamilton asked this government by way of a resolution on October 31, 1972, to conduct a full-scale open inquiry, can the minister now advise why that request by the city of Hamilton was refused at that time, particularly when we note that an investigation had been asked for subsequently, sometime around January 8, January 12, January 26, leading up to February 22, 1973. Why was the request by the city of Hamilton not recognized at that time, because it seems they knew what was going on and were seeking assistance.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is true that in September, 1972 some person or persons from the Hamilton city council came to the RCMP detachment in Hamilton with certain allegations of wrongdoing with respect to the Hamilton harbour. On examination of those allegations by the local detachment, the local detachment felt these were matters which gave rise to accusations under the Criminal Code and in the ordinary course such investigations should be undertaken either by the Hamilton City Police or by the Ontario Provincial Police. For that reason, the officials went to the OPP and the Hamilton City Police but the latter felt they did not have the resources necessary to carry on that kind of investigation-this is what I am told. So, the Hamilton officials went back to the RCMP, and the RCMP said that since this was a case which was usually dealt with by another police force they would refer the matter to higher officials. This they did, and on balance the RCMP decided that they would investigate after consulting with the Ministry of Transport, even though it was a case which would normally be dealt with under the authority of a provincial government. They did decide to investigate in any case, because the others were not ready to do so.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It seems to me there was a lot of action in the City of Hamilton in and around September, 1972. I want to know why it took the government so long to involve the RCMP. We find out, now, that they were not engaged in a full investigation until February of 1973.


William Warren Allmand: The government did not interfere. It was not even aware of what was going on in the Hamilton detachment at that time. It was the Hamilton detachment of the RCMP itself which came to the decision that the matter was not within its jurisdiction at that stage. That was the judgment based on the facts as presented to the detachment. The matter only reached the level of officials in Ottawa, and the RCMP in Ottawa, at a later date. At that time, as the hon. member knows, an election was in progress, or had just been completed, ministers had been changed, and so on. But as soon as possible, after the matter had been brought to the attention of Ottawa, a

letter was sent to me by the Minister of Transport and the investigation was under way.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: A supplementary to an earlier question, Mr. Speaker. Might I direct a question to the Minister of National Defence and ask him whether or not he is satisfied, following investigations he may have caused to be conducted over the weekend, that the civil rights of picketers, legally on strike and legally picketing at the Canadian Forces Base, Halifax, were not violated? I have in mind searches conducted on their persons while they were on city streets, away from the Armed Forces Base.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied there has been no violation of civil rights. Reports today are that the picket lines are orderly.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the minister advise the House whether searches of private picketers, searches of their persons, did in fact take place away from base property and, if so, under what authority this procedure was followed?


James Armstrong Richardson: I cannot confirm that, Mr. Speaker.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Has the minister written a letter or letters to Liberal Members of Parliament or Liberal Party members asking for the name or names of lawyers in the respective constituencies who support the Liberal party with a view to awarding CMHC mortgage business to these party supporters who belong to the legal profession?


Barnett Jerome Danson: In no such terms at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Hylton Brisco: My supplementary question is this: has the minister sent similar letters to Conservative, Social Credit and NDP members of the House or their supporters?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Answer!
March 10, 1975


IMMIGRATION
Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Since Communist Party Chairman, Hardial Bains, has advocated the forceful overthrow of the Canadian government and is now organizing a vigilante group in British Columbia would the minister agree that Mr. Bains qualifies for deportation under section five of the Immigration Act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will know that one of the restrictions during the question period is that a minister ought not to be asked to give a legal opinion.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Finance. It arises from a CMHC report that housing starts in the last three months are down by 50 per cent compared with the same period a year ago, constituting the worst winter for house building in eight years. In view of this situation, would the minister consider transferring the equivalent of the five per cent tax cut on personal income to the housing budget, having regard to the emergency in the construction industry?


John Napier Turner: I appreciate the thrust of the hon. member's question, but the motion her party put forward in connection with that five per cent tax reduction was intended not to stimulate the economy further but to control government expenditures. If the hon. member could tell me how to reconcile those two directions I would be happy to oblige her.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What we were asking for was a transfer of moneys the government had already allocated. The fact is that total government spending has increased by 28 per cent while the capital budget for housing has been increased by only 12 per cent, which is less than the annual inflation rate, which indicates the low priority the government places on housing needs. If the minister is unwilling to increase the housing estimates, would he tell us what steps he intends to take to stimulate housing construction so as to combat the current recession, while at the same time providing an essential commodity.


John Napier Turner: One of the government's priorities is to give sufficient leverage to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to enable him to achieve a rate of housing starts equivalent to 210,000 a year.
Oral Questions HOUSING


INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT MEASURES TO INCREASE NUMBER OF STARTS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I ask him whether, in the light of the fact that government expenditure has risen by 28 per cent while the housing budget is up by only 12 per cent, what steps he proposes to take to urge his colleagues to increase the housing budget so that housing starts may be sufficient to meet the vital need of the people?


Barnett Jerome Danson: The hon. lady forgets that non-budgetary expenditures are up by 66 per cent, affording great assistance to Canadians in lower earning brackets; also, there is in effect a program for reducing interest rates in cases where assistance is needed.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the Berger Commission. Judge Berger has ruled that matters of gas processing and feeder lines and their impact on native people are within his jurisdiction. Would the minister advise the House whether his department is continuing to carry out an in-House study on this subject, a study which to some extent duplicates the Berger inquiry?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: It is our intention to carry out that study and to make available to Mr. Justice Berger this information and the results of the hearings in all the communities.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Would the minister tell us when he expects that study to be completed and turned over to the Berger inquiry?


J. Judd Buchanan: If things move along as they should, I would hope it would be toward the end of his hearings in the latter part of this year.


FINANCE
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to those asked by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. It is addressed to the Minister of Finance. I think it is generally accepted that one of the most important contributing factors to the slowing down of house construction has been high mortgage interest rates. Is the minister planning any action to reduce
28996-44)4

March 10, 1975
Oral Questions
mortgage rates in general as they affect housing construction?


John Napier Turner: Mortgage interest rates have declined over the last month or so by one, to one and a half per cent, to two points, and in certain cases housing mortgage rates are, in effect, subsidized under the Assisted Home Ownership Program operated by my colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration whether he is aware of the case of Hari Charan Singh, a former policeman in Fiji, who last week was ordered deported after five years respectable residence in Vancouver? Will the minister investigate the circumstances surrounding the lifting of landed immigrant status from the father of a Canadian citizen, with a view to allowing this family to stay together and continue their new life in Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, this case has just been brought to my attention and I have requested the full preparation of the file so I can review it. Preliminary indications are that Mr. Singh entered Canada in January, 1970, on a visit and applied to remain permanently but failed to meet the selection criteria, so was subsequently ordered deported. He appealed that order to the Immigration Appeal Board and on August 20, 1973, the board ordered that he be granted landed status and the department was under the obligation then to proceed with landing. In that process, certain evidence was produced and placed before the department requiring referral of the case back to the Immigration Appeal Board. A subsequent rehearing resulted in the order for deportation. This is perhaps unfortunate in many ways, but it is the process of law. I am in the process of looking at the case to see what discretion I may or may not have. Certainly, the proper procedures under the law, have been followed, although admittedly it is an unfortunate case.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the Minister of National Defence was expressing the government's view on Canadian bilingualism in the March issue of Maclean's cover story in which the author Ms. Marci McDonald, writing a biographical expose on the hon. gentleman indicated "and it is no secret that his hangups are

about the French-English question. James Richardson in fact believes that bilingualism is leading us to wrack and ruin"?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am aware, and I have had many conversations with my colleague, he supports government policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I would direct my supplementary question to the Minister of National Defence. Does he deny the direct quotation which is attributed to him in the article on the subject of bilingualism which is as follows:
You don't know how frustrating it is that I can't put my views on the record. It's really more important to me than the west.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I confirm what the Acting Prime Minister has said on the question of bilingualism. As long as I am a member of this government I support government policy.


An hon. Member:: And with such willingness, too.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CRIMINAL CODE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the intention of government policy to go into the betting business at race tracks under the jurisdiction of the federal government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take those representations under consideration.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is not a representation, it is a question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, in following up my preliminary question, which was, whether or not it was government policy, to which he answered that representations have been made, under which department will this nefarious type of activity be placed?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the purport of my previous answer was that this was the first time I had heard the suggestion and I thought it was coming from the hon. gentleman.
March 10, 1975


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to the earlier series of questions on the problems we are having in the public service, addressing my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it government policy to stay with the bilateral confrontation method in settling these disputes rather than explore other methods which have been proposed, such as a public interest disputes commission, or perhaps the final offer suggestion, both of which have been put forward?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, these are the kind of general questions that are under discussion in the special committee which is considering the Finkelman Report. I hope that hon. members, such as the hon. member who posed the question, will take the opportunity of making their views known. These are serious questions. At the present time, however, this is not the law and we have to negotiate under the terms of collective bargaining.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, is the Acting Prime Minister suggesting that the government feels bound to avoid any other means or any other forum in trying to settle this matter in which the public interest is deeply involved?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, and that is the reason we supported the establishment of the standing committee.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The special committee.


Mitchell William Sharp: The special committee, I am sorry, which is studying the Finkelman Report. This is an opportunity to review in depth all those arrangements, and I hope there will be very active participation with many suggestions from members on the other side of the House.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I misunderstood or did not hear the answer the Acting Prime Minister gave to my question. I asked whether it was federal government policy to put the federal government into the betting business at horse racing tracks, and I thought his answer was that the government had received representations. I am informed by my seatmate that in his answer he actually thanked me for my representations. The point I want to make clear right now is that the Acting Prime Minister did not answer my question which was, is it federal government policy to put the federal government into horse racing?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If I recall correctly, the last answer of the President of the Privy Council was that this was the first time he had heard about it, and he took it as a representation by the hon. member who put the question.
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


FERTILIZER-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PREVENT EXORBITANT PRICES
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, what action is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs taking to prevent the fertilizer industry from charging exorbitant prices for ammonium nitrates and other fertilizers to farmers in eastern Canada as alleged is the case by his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when the government has introduced its bill on unfair prices, it can then resort to it if need be. I hope the hon. member will support us in our endeavour when we do introduce it to the House.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Terrorist guerrillas captured after the raid on a hotel in Tel Aviv have said they were told to blame Egypt for the attack, and A1 Fatah has claimed credit, if that is the right word, for it. In light of the fact that there appears to be a deliberate attempt to sabotage settlement negotiations in the Middle East, what has the government to say as to what the effect will be of Canada's recognition of the PLO as an unofficial party to or as an observer at the Geneva negotiations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last I issued a statement on behalf of the government of Canada expressing our condemnation of these acts of terrorism, or this particular outrage which cost the lives of innocent people. We have previously condemned these acts of terrorism, but this particular one seemed more outrageous than the others. In respect of the question my hon. friend has asked about the observer status of the PLO, you may remember that when the resolution requesting observer status for the PLO was put at the United Nations the government of Canada voted against that particular resolution which would have accorded the PLO observer status at the United Nations. In regard to the Geneva conference, to which my hon. friend has referred, that seems to be somewhat far in the future, and at the moment I am not aware of what the ingredients might be of the resumed Geneva conference.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the PLO appears to have been a party to sabotage, which affects all peace settlements between Egypt and Israel and between other countries in the Middle East and Israel, will the minister on behalf of the government and on behalf of Canada oppose any attempt to draw that particular element into the negotiations.

March 10, 1975
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I, along with the hon. member, deplore the effect that this particular act of terrorism might have on the negotiations that are now being conducted by Dr. Kissinger whose peace-making efforts in the Middle East we support. In respect of the second part of the question, I believe this is hypothetical at the moment, but when the situation arises the government will make its position clear.


MANPOWER
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the prolonged delays in the mail service, particularly in the Toronto postal station, which delays have resulted in many applications for Opportunities for Youth grants not reaching the provincial offices, I should like to ask the minister what provisions if any he has made to overcome this problem.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, we all hope that the interruptions are not a long duration and will be resolved very soon. In the meantime, within my responsibility, where there are documents or grants involved, or where income support is involved we will do everything possible by direct action or pick-up to see that the process is not unduly delayed.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. The statement by the President of the Treasury Board that the government has a great deal of patience would seem to suggest that the government is prepared to wait out this strike on the west coast. I am wondering whether the acting Prime Minister would have the government undertake, from this day forward, to pay out the demurrage charges in respect of the number of boats that are accumulating there?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport

which I asked him on Friday, and of which I sent notice a second time. With regard to the urban transportation assistance program, what steps is the minister taking to ensure that the words "commuter system" will be defined to include municipal transit systems, so that, for example, the Northeast Rapid Transit line in the city of Edmonton will qualify for federal assistance in the amount of 100 per cent in respect of the cost of vehicles and 50 per cent of the cost of stations and platforms?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are just preparing a brief for cabinet, with my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, and as soon as a decision is taken in cabinet, I will be happy to communicate the result.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I want to ask him what action he is taking to resolve the conflict between the officials of his department and the officials of the Department of Transport regarding the definition of commuter system so that the assistance will be the same for rapid transit vehicles between municipalities as well as within a municipality.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member used the term conflict. There is never conflict between the officials of the Ministry of Transport and my ministry. There has been the greatest co-operation. Sometimes there is a disagreement, but we always reach an understanding. As my hon. friend said we will be bringing in a document in this regard in the near future.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has stated that there will be an important meeting between the oil-producing and oil-consuming countries which will open in Paris on April 7. As I understand it, the talks will cover not only future oil pricing policies but also trade in key raw materials in which Canada is vitally interested. Since this really will be a face-off between the industrial world, the oil-producing countries and the poorer developing countries is the minister planning to attend this conference to discuss not only oil problems but also the stabilizing of world trade in raw materials which is a topic of major concern to our country.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I take it that my hon.
March 10, 1975

friend is referring to the preparatory conference which is to be the prelude to a major conference of oil producers and oil consumers. Canada is not one of the invitees to the preparatory conference. It has expressed interest in attending. I have expressed the interest of Canada in attending the preparatory conference, but because there was an effort to keep the preliminary list down to the smallest number that wish was not acceded to. But we do expect to be in attendance at the full conference to which this preparatory conference is but the prelude. The preparatory conference will determine, among other things, the agenda and it may be possible that the subject of raw materials might be on the agenda of the main conference.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, to whom I did not have the opportunity to give notice of my question.
Considering that the CNR, in New Brunswick and in certain parts of the Atlantic region, keeps reducing or discontinuing services which people look upon as essential and which are partially subsidized by the federal government, would the minister ask his "hawks" to consider this question immediately with a view to restoring those services as soon as possible? I am referring specifically to night trucking services between Moncton and Edmunston, the two outermost localities of the province and all the intermediate points.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly transmit the hon. member's representations to the Canadian National Railways.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, through you, I should like to ask the Minister of Communications if he would undertake to ask the CRTC to investigate, and if necessary issue guidelines to certain cable television companies, the manner in which these companies collect rates recently authorized by the CRTC.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have acquainted myself with the newspaper reports on this subject and I shall be very happy to convey to CRTC the hon. member's representations.
Oral Questions


EFFECT OF POVERTY ON CHILDREN-SUGGESTED CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES ON ADOPTION OF FOOD PROGRAM
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is really supplementary to a question asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on Friday. In view of the disturbing number of children who are suffering from poverty, and in view of the fact that many schools across the country are indicating concern to the provinces about the fact that children are unable to participate in their studies because of a lack of nutritious food, would the minister treat this matter as an emergency and consult with the provinces in order to come forward with some sort of a program so that the children may obtain the nutrition they require.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this matter comes under provincial jurisdiction. All social services are now under study with the provinces within the context of the social welfare review.


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


Mr. Ritchie:: Mr. Speaker, the acting Minister of Labour has left the House, so I shall defer my question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since the bankruptcy of Sintec has now been made public, could the minister inform the House whether CIDA made any payments to this corporation for works carried out in the establishment of a telecommunications system in Zaire and, if so what amount has been paid up to date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can provide the information for my hon. friend. I do not have it at the moment, but I will guarantee that he will have it later this week or before that.
March 10, 1975

Privilege-Mr. Cossitt THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


POSSIBLE ACCORD OF MINISTER OF FINANCE WITH VIEWS OF LEADER OF OPPOSITION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance in view of the depressing statistics we have been receiving in recent weeks about the growth of the economy and the unemployment figures, which I think are to come out tomorrow and which the minister probably has now. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether, in view of the tremendous respect he has paid during the past week or two to the opinions I have expressed in the past with regard to the economic policy, he feels he needs my permission to engage in any policy now to stimulate the economy. If he could assure me that he needs my permission or advice, I would be very pleased to let him have it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: In view of the parliamentary system under which we operate, I never felt that I needed the hon. gentleman's permission, but I always appreciate his support.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask the government House leader whether he is now in a position to state what government business will be proceeded with tomorrow and the next day.


Mitchell William Sharp: Tomorrow we will resume debate on the second reading of Bill C-50, the Agricultural Stabilization Act, followed in this order by the report state of Bill C-13 and Bill C-48. Then, if we manage to get past those bills, we will take up Bill C-25, resumption of the debate on second reading on the contaminants bill and, Bill C-19, the report state of the bill on two price wheat. On Wednesday, we will take as the first order of business Bill C-8, the bill to establish Petro Canada.


Jack Marshall: I have a supplementary question which I should like to put to the President of the Privy Council. Could the minister say, in view of the concern and the promises made over the past two or three weeks, when the Hermann report will be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. Time is passing and the committee is awaiting the report.


Mitchell William Sharp: I will talk to my colleague immediately and we will put it on the Order Paper.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the answers to two questions on the Order Paper given today which were recently delivered to my desk. I refer to questions No. 1,041 and No. 1,042 which ask for certain details of LIP projects investigated by the RCMP in the past several years. The answers today stated that two projects, applied for by Mr. Guy Poulin in the 
constituency of Montreal-Bourassa, involved fraud with sums of public money involved, in one case amounting to $193,581 and in the other almost $60,000. The answer stated that charges are being laid by the RCMP.
My question of privilege is this. It seems to me a breach of my privileges and the privileges of all members of the House that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) in giving these answers hides the identity and the names of the persons who recommended the acceptance of these fraudulent projects. He has no authority extended to him by the House to hide such information with the words:
The Department of Manpower and Immigration regards as confidential the names and content of all representations made to the minister or the department.
On what decision of the House was the withholding of legitimate information undertaken? Can a government department override the will of the House? Surely, it is within my rights and the rights of any hon. member to ask for legitimate information and not to have this information refused by a government trying to protect its political hide.
I raised a similar matter to this a week or so ago. I feel that members of the House, such as myself and others, have the right to have our questions answered honestly and accurately, and not refused in the way they were today, especially when the case involves the defrauding of the public purse to the tune of a quarter of a million dollars. I think we have the right to know who did it, who recommended the projects, and all the details. I think it is shocking that the minister hides behind some pompous phrase and that he has taken it upon himself not to make this information available. I think the House has every right to demand this information, and I think it is within the rules for me to raise it as a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: With the greatest of regrets I must differ with the last statement of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt). The fact of the matter is that under our existing rules there is not even an obligation upon a minister to give any answer at all, and in providing an answer, whatever information he proposes to retain on a confidential basis, or for some other reason, is within his discretion. As the hon. member well knows, the action on his part may be the subject of debate, which it surely is, but under the rules as they are presently drawn, it does not constitute a question of privilege.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: That this House condemns the government's failure to present a co-ordinated transportation policy.
March 10, 1975

He said: Mr. Speaker, I believe the timing of this motion bears some significance for it was one year almost to this day-on March 7, 1974-that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in a speech to this House said the following, as recorded at page 267 of Hansard:
We do not have what we can call a real policy for the future. If I stay in this post I shall surely ask the authority of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet to try to elaborate this kind of policy so that we know where we are going.
Perhaps I should repeat the last phrase, "so that we know where we are going," because in a nutshell it summarizes the state of affairs in which we find ourselves. Judged on its performance, this government and this minister simply do not know where they are going in developing a national transportation policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister went on to say, as recorded at page 268 of Hansard:
Something we do not have is a real policy and I hope that sooner, rather than later, it will be possible to have such a policy.
The question that one must ask is this: after we have gone through a general election campaign in which the subject of transportation was one of the major issues, after the Liberal Party received a mandate, after the Speech from the Throne, and after a signal of willingness from all parties of the House to co-operate in developing a worthy national objective, where is the government's policy on transportation? We still have nothing that resembles, in the slightest sense, a comprehensive, national transportation policy. In fact, by the minister's own admission on January 23, 1975, as recorded at page 2530 of Hansard, there was then still no over-all policy and the means of transportation had not been integrated.
That is the purpose of the motion I have introduced in the name of my party today. This is our way of registering our protest against this government and against this minister for their inaction and for their disjointed approach to this very important and vital matter. Where are we going, and what has happened? The minister indicated himself on March 7, 1974, that transportation was in a mess. On October 3, 1974, in another speech to the House, he reiterated that statement by saying, in reference to his speech of March 7:
There is not a single sentence in it that needs to be changed.
That was said in October. It is significant that at the time the minister first made his comments about no policy and the fact that transportation was in a mess, he was praised by the news media for his candour, his frankness and his originality. However, as time passed the phrase was reused and it began to wear thin. We found the minister referring to that phrase only on rare occasions when he was in a state of depression or flippancy, as he did on January 22, 1975, as recorded at page 2509 of Hansard-almost a year later. In response to a question posed by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), he repeated that we have no over-all policy and, further, he agreed that transportation was still a mess, "and more than you think".
Transportation
This simply means, in the words of the minister, that no progress has been made. The minister can shake his head in the negative: I do not know what interpretation he puts on those phrases. But what is more astonishing is the fact that the minister attempts to blame the Conservatives for the mess, as he did on January 22, 1975, when he said as reported at page 2509 of Hansard:
-while the Conservative Party was in power they did nothing to correct this mess.
That was twelve years ago. I should not have to remind the minister of some of the bold initiatives which were taken during that administration. I think the minister knows very well, and surely he should not have to be reminded, that it was a Liberal government of which he was a member which developed the present National Transportation Act which to this day provides the umbrella of transportation policy in Canada and from which he now, for the sake of expedience, conveniently attempts to dissociate himself.


Mr. Baldwin:: It's a leaky umbrella.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, a year ago the minister said that this policy was fundamentally wrong. If it is fundamentally wrong, what does he propose to do about it? He is in command; he is in power; his party is in power. His party certainly had all the answers at election time, but today we see the minister resorting to his old tactics of political gamesmanship and phony rhetoric.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I am the first to acknowledge the minister's ability in debate: I commend him for the spirit, the enthusiasm and the vigour with which he pursues topics in debate. But last Friday, once again, he showed his weakness when, desperately on the defensive, he tried to turn the subject around. He tried to distort the issue by blaming the Conservatives and asking them for their policy. This is the kind of slick political gimmickry we do not buy: we find it devious and deceitful.
We have a policy, and if time permits I will enunciate some of the broad objectives in our approach to policy. Surely the minister and his colleagues know our policy very well because some of our proposals found their way into Liberal propaganda and into the Speech from the Throne. If they would move toward implementing some of the proposals we have advocated we would be the first to support them. The fact of the matter is that our policy is not the issue; the issue, on the subject of transportation, is the Liberal government's policy. So far, it can best be summarized as one big, fat question mark.


An hon. Member:: Zilch!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The issue is the failure of the government to fulfil its promises. This government was elected to lead. It is its responsibility to bring forth a national transportation policy based upon its election platform, based upon the promises advanced to the Canadian people and based upon the mandate it received in the July election. And if it fails to deliver, we can only assume that it deliberately misled the Canadian people, that Canadians

March 10, 1975
Transportation
were sold a bill of goods; and if that is their only defence, then the minister should stand up and sincerely and courteously say so.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They should all be in jail.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Or, as my leader suggests, they should all be thrown in jail. And that is not all. The minister repeated last Friday another of his well known tactics. Once again he tried, vainly, to distort the issue by suggesting that the debate represented a personal attack upon him and upon his French-speaking colleagues.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Such insinuations are cheap and inflammatory, and they are obviously weak-kneed excuses for his incompetency and ineptness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Quite frankly, my colleagues and I have always thought of ourselves as being Canadian. Notwithstanding different ethnic backgrounds, I think the minister should think the same. Speaking for myself, in the arena of politics and standing up for what I believe in in this chamber and outside, I have never taken any remarks against me as personal or racist, and there is no reason in the world why the minister should not do likewise.
Some horn. Members: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: We all know that the minister is charming and delightful; he is disarming and candid. But I say to him in all sincerity that whether he is French, English, German or Polish, he has not proved himself to be competent in his portfolio, and until he proves otherwise my view will remain the same. The Ministry of Transport and the minister himself can best be summarized as being in a state of suspended confusion with regard to Canada's transportation system. One can only sympathize with the very hard working, dedicated people attached to that department who have been starved of leadership and direction and who have been promised government leadership but, instead, have received nothing. I am not alone in reaching that conclusion. A well known and well respected journalist, Mr. W. A. Wilson-I presume the minister would not place him in the same category as Mr. Fisher or Mr. Barkway-in the February 3 issue of the Montreal Star headlines it as "A transport policy run-around, nothing achieved".


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I never attacked Mr. Barkway. On the contrary, I cited him and I said that he was right.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That may or may not be a point of privilege, but I simply want to reiterate the fact that there are some journalists who are objective. The Minister of Transport may have his views and opinions on some of them, but I believe the person whom I have just quoted, namely, Mr. Wilson, is indeed an objective, well respected and well known journalist and I think his comments and summary should not go unnoticed.

Let us look for a moment at some of the commitments and promises advanced during the election campaign of 1974. It seems to me that the minister has a short memory, as do some of his colleagues who support him. Their objective seems to be to say anything that will win votes, and hope that the opposition and the people will forget. But we shall not forget the promises that were made; we shall not forget the commitments. We shall remind this minister and this government, at every opportunity, of the commitments and promises they made to the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wish to put a few things on the record which are included in the $2 billion transportation package unveiled back on June 19, 1974. I will quote in some detail because it seems the minister must be reminded of some of the commitments and promises which were made. The June 19 press release of the minister, given at a news conference, reads as follows:
Transport minister Jean Marchand today announced sweeping changes in the institutional structures which manage Canadian transportation, a radical departure from past transportation philosophy and a comprehensive set of new transportation programs for Canada. "These changes and these programs are going to move Canada toward world leadership in the use and construction of passenger and freight transportation systems. We are reaching for world leadership in quality equipment and systems", Mr. Marchand said.
Canada is going to be given a new generation of management mechanisms-and a new set of programs-for transportation ...
The government is going to develop a new relationship with the Canadian Transport Commission, and with the private sector and Crown corporations which provide transportation to Canada, to ensure that the government can review and co-ordinate plans formulated by our transportation industry. The Minister of Transport will have all the authority he requires to put policy into place and make it work, and to ensure key national priorities are not sacrificed to other considerations. It will be the federal government, on behalf of the Canadian people, that will play the leading role in managing transportation policy in Canada.
It goes on to say that a Canadian passenger transportation corporation will be brought into existence, and later it
says:
Federal support will be made available to municipalities for both the design and financing of top quality Canadian designed and built city and suburban transit systems.
Air services to Canada's populated remote areas will be improved. "In effect, we are moving toward abolishing the term 'isolated' from the Canadian vocabulary as far as Canada's populated remote communities are concerned," Mr. Marchand said. "We are going to guarantee first class citizenship to residents of Canada's remote areas through equal quality transportation networks."
A second major priority of these new transportation policies will be the redevelopment and upgrading of Canada's rail and port systems so that Canada can handle the doubling of its exports expected within the next seven to ten years. A central part of this thrust will be a "reserve freight car fleet" ... a new "national freight car leasing corporation."
This is hilarious. It continues:
In the west, railway access from the prairies to the west coast and to Thunder Bay is going to be strongly upgraded. This program will involve strengthened rail roadbeds, some double tracking and eventual electrification. The government will be launching a comprehensive program to improve railway access to the ports of Vancouver and Prince Rupert...
March 10, 1975

The third major priority of these new transportation policies is the removal of regional inequities in freight rates. Mr. Marchand said it has been demonstrated over the past six years that the principle of competition on which Canadian freight rates has been based, that is, competition between different modes of transport supposedly resulting in fair and low rates, has not worked for many areas in Canada. The Liberal government will adopt the principle of consistent and equitable pricing of freight rates rather than the old "what the traffic will bear" principle. "This will be a dramatic change ... a "Transportation Information Act" will be introduced ...
New legislation will make it clear that henceforth the Canadian Transport Commission will be exercising its powers within the guidelines of government policy. The CTC will function less as a "court of record" and apply regulations in a fashion that encourages the positive development of the Canadian transportation system ... "Canadians deserve a transportation system that matches the imagination of the country-and they are going to get one," Mr. Marchand emphasized.
It goes on to deal with urban transportation policies and then continues:
The Liberal government will ensure adequate funding for capital expenditures from both public and private sources to meet the public's minimum capacity and service expectations in transportation.
I could go on and on. But what happened to those lofty proposals? They were lost somewhere between the election and the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne advanced about ten specific commitments, but to this date action has been taken on only one, Bill C-48, the amendments to the Railway Act. The opposition co-operated in the passage of that bill by allowing limited time for debate in the House. It was considered in committee at two short meetings and has been proceeded with. If this were such a priority item, one might ask why it took so long for it to be introduced.
The Speech from the Throne referred to grain handling and the urgency of facilitating grain movement. But no plan of action has been brought forward. We must give the government credit for moving to end the strike which stopped grain shipments last September, but we must also ask why it hesitates to act now. Grain has been tied up on the west coast since February 17. Is it not considered essential to move it because there are two different parties involved, or is it because the government has a policy of selectivity in disputes of this nature?
The situation is urgent and people in the world are starving. In the port of Vancouver, the Liberian tanker which was destined to carry the largest grain cargo ever sent to the hungry and starving people of Bangladesh remains tied up, half loaded. Close to 50 ships are waiting now, and demurrage charges are piling up all the time. In the last year, demurrage charges to farmers in Canada were $17 million. Grain has not moved for three weeks, Mr. Speaker, and sales are being lost. The forward sales arranged last year were made on the basis of price set at the date of delivery. We all know that wheat prices have dropped significantly over the past 60 days. It has been estimated that Canadian producers will lose in the order of $200 million or $300 million because of the delay in delivery.
Canada's economy is being severely impaired. In total, the public interest is being severely undermined. I believe it is time for the government to act. In my view-and this is only my view-it is time the movement of grain in this country were classified as an essential service and the right to strike withdrawn.
Transportation


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I say this after a great deal of deliberation, Mr. Speaker, because of the importance of the grain economy to this country and the importance of our international reputation. I do not believe we can tolerate this situation any longer. Surely when lives and Canada's reputation are affected it is time to put an end to this stupidity and nonsense. We must be the laughing-stock of all nations. Surely we can manage our affairs with much more command, with more order and sensibility. The government must seriously consider ways to stop this horrendous waste now and in the future. For goodness sake, in the name of humanity let us inject some sensibility into the handling of this important matter. This must come, and it can only come through government leadership.
Some things have been done by this Minister of Transport, and I want to give credit where credit is due. There have been a number of studies-the roadbed study, Alberta's equitable pricing technique, Manitoba's destination rate principle-but of all these studies and seminars only one has been tabled, and that was done before the committee. Why all this secrecy? These studies were paid for with public funds and were supposed to be for the benefit of all Canadians. It seems to me that members of this House are entitled to this information, Mr. Speaker. But this is another example of the government's contempt for members of this House. Surely, if we are to consider national transportation and the objectives of a realistic and comprehensive policy, all members should have the benefit of studies that have been carried out to date.
There have been meetings in the west and in the mari-times, technical committees and federal-provincial committees. The minister in charge of the Wheat Board even has his own study group apparently working in isolation from the others. But we have not seen any progress reports, Mr. Speaker. What are they doing? What guidelines do they operate under? We get the odd communique, but basically this information is for political consumption. A communique issued on February 24 was described by some as a breakthrough, but in reality it was only a regrouping of anomalies and amounted to nothing more than a repeat of a commitment given two years ago.
The best we can say is that the steps taken to date represent a hodge-podge, a patchwork of proposals without any national direction or purpose. The same disjointedness and inconsistency applies when members seek information in the House or in committee. Anyone who wants to review the situation should read the debate that took place on the estimates on October 23, or the minutes of some of the committee hearings. It is no wonder members of the House are frustrated. When we get into major items such as the Crowsnest freight rates, rail line abandonment or policy issues we only get evasive or flippant answers; and, when we speak to different ministers we get different answers.
So far as the Crowsnest freight rates are concerned, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is calling for a complete review. The Minister of Transport has indicated that no officials in his department are reviewing the Crowsnest freight rates, and that certainly there is no

March 10, 1975
Transportation
intention to modify them. So we have that double standard. Then there is the rail line abandonment issue which must be considered. About 6,000 miles of trackage is due for study and review. We get one answer from the Minister of Transport and another from the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. The question of the rape-seed freight rate case has been the subject of consideration by the CTC since 1970. An interim decision was handed down in 1973. There was an appeal to the cabinet in March of 1974, but still no action has been taken.
The minister asks where is our policy. When we look at the question of air policy, where is their policy, Mr. Speaker? So far as third level air carrier service is concerned, on March 7, 1974, the minister stated, as recorded at page 267 of Hansard, that we would be silly to establish a third carrier air system. Then during the election campaign we were told that there would be a third level air carrier service developed in Canada, engineered, managed and with assistance provided by Air Canada. Last Friday the Minister of Transport as reported at page 3893 of Hansard, said:
We are now formulating a comprehensive system, a third level of regional carriers.
There is inconsistency on the part of the Canadian Transport Commission, the minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). The CTC is evidently operating in a vacuum with respect to regional and third level carriers. There is no pattern to any of the actions that either the commission or the ministry have taken to date. We have unfulfilled commitments, no planning, no co-ordination- just ad hoc, political gimmickry.
It is, surely, essential that this country be linked by and served with the safest, most efficient and effective transportation system known. It is as important as, if not more important than, issues such as energy, communications, health and welfare, the economy, the constitution or the Mackenzie Valley pipeline. I mention these specific items because they have been the subject of consideration by first ministers' conferences, federal-provincial conferences and national forums. Transportation is by no means a small item. We spend well in excess of $15 billion a year on transportation, more than on food and the federal health budget. Surely we must stop dealing with transportation in little bits and pieces here and there.
Having regard to the importance of transportation to this country, the link it provides in maintaining national unity and the role it plays in achieving social and economic justice, I believe the time has come to convene a national conference on transportation to deal with this national problem in a national way. It should be a conference that will draw together the various provincial and federal governments, the various modes of transportation, all the elements of our transportation system and those who are specialists in the field. I think such a conference should be broad enough to allow input from all interested parties. The federal government would naturally have to define the national goals and objectives-the guidelines, if you wish-and serve as a leadership catalyst.
In this over-all review, with all elements working together, it seems to me that a broad, national consensus may be achieved that would serve as a national instrument for achieving unity and national purpose. I admit it

might be difficult to achieve such consensus, but I do believe it is possible even though it is a very complex subject. I believe it can be achieved, I believe it should be achieved, and I recommend this suggestion to the minister.
I should like to continue, Mr. Speaker, but I see that my time has practically elapsed. I will close simply by saying that the subject of transportation is indeed a very serious one. It is something that should not become a game of political gimmickry; it is an issue that is far too serious for such tactics. In my opinion, transportation in this country is at a critical juncture. It requires strong, determined leadership-not phony showmanship or political gamesmanship.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want first of all to say that I agree with the motion before the House today. I believe the issue of transportation is very complex and complicated, and is very badly coordinated and planned throughout the economy. Transportation is central to the future development of this country. It is essential to the present economy and to almost every walk of life. In fact, if you examine the transportation system in this country you find that the minister was not only right when he said that, essentially, transportation is in a mess, but historically it has served the interests of the CPR and the huge corporations in terms of facilitating their profit motives rather than providing the people of Canada with service, it has perpetrated a hinterland economy to the detriment of areas like the north, the prairies, many parts of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces and to the favour of the golden horseshoe area and the lower mainland of British Columbia, to give two examples.
I should like to give some examples later in my remarks of how our transportation and freight rates systems discriminate against western Canada and the prairies, but I think transportation itself typifies or personifies the very nature of our unplanned economy. We find ourselves often subject to the many whims of international economics, particularly those of the United States. We are suffering, in this country, from unemployment and inflation but many of our problems stem from the fact that we have a transportation system that is inefficient and does not allow certain areas of the country to thrive as they should. These are anomalies that must be removed.
I think the greatest tool to fashion a regional development policy in this country is massive subsidization of freight rates in the maritimes, many parts of Quebec, the north and the prairies. The present freight rates structure discriminates against the processing of raw materials in those areas and favours such processing in the golden horseshoe, particularly the city of Toronto. It is cheaper to ship livestock from Saskatchewan to Toronto than it is to ship the processed product. Therefore, this means we are exporting jobs from Saskatchewan to Toronto.
We in this House must get the government to become serious about transportation and to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into equalizing freight rates and removing these anomalies. Perhaps we should favour areas that are now discriminated against. We must have equality of conditions if the maritimes are to be developed. One of the first steps we must take is to provide potential industries in these areas with equalized freight rates to enable them to ship finished goods from the maritimes, the north or the
March 10, 1975

prairies at basically the same cost as shipping products from one of the larger urban centres.
We should have, as minimum objective in this country, a freight rates structure that is no more expensive for any part of the country than the average rates in the United States. As long as we do not have this, there is no way we will be able to compete with industries in the United States. For years Canada has been an exporter of raw materials and an importer of finished goods. We have been exporting more capital than has come in by way of new investment. We have been exporting jobs because we do not refine and manufacture our raw materials. Before we can attempt to do this in a planned industrial economy, we need a freight rates system that does not discriminate against manufacturing goods. Indeed, we should provide incentives not to discriminate.
For the last two years the government has been saying that transportation is in a mess. When the minister first said that a year or two ago, I was very pleased by his honesty, frankness and candour before the House. But I have now reached the point where I am becoming very frustrated at the lack of action. The minister has had about two years to go through his department, study it, meet with ministers and governments across the country and find out what is wrong with transportation. But nothing has happened. There has been no concrete activity on the part of the government during the last two years.
I want to read into the record some statements made by the government many months ago, statements they are still making in the House today. I go back to the throne speech after the 1972 election when a minority government was elected. In the January 4 speech, the government proposed a western economic opportunities conference. One of the goals was-
-an improvement in the total transportation system so basic to overcoming the problems of distance.
On March 20, 1973, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) said in this House:
I am as amazed as anyone in the House when I come across freight rates that are higher for goods transported to Regina than for those transported to Vancouver or elsewhere. I can understand it in the context of the capitalist system... Anyone who believes in profits and in the private enterprise system knows that any company tries for the highest yield that the market can absorb. And that is the only valid explanation ... it is a provocation ... the present situation is frequently intolerable.
I agree with the minister. The present system is based on so-called competition, the free enterprise philosophy. We in the prairies have no competition. We cannot ship our cattle by air to the markets in the east. We cannot ship our goods by river, lake or ocean. There is no competition with the railways. That is why it costs more for people on the prairies to have many goods shipped to them from Toronto than it costs people in Vancouver to have goods shipped from that city. We have a market that is growing. Our only alternative is to have a government with the guts to carry on and do the things the Minister of Transport talked about in this House a year or so ago. He does not have the guts to do them. All he does is talk. In the March 21, 1974, issue of the Globe and Mail, the minister is quoted as saying:
Transportation
We don't know where we are going.
It is obvious the minister does not know. On June 12, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke in Edmonton about our outmoded transportation system, that some planning is needed, we cannot rely only on competition, and so on. We still have no concrete action from this government. In the Speech from the Throne at the opening of the thirtieth parliament there was a repetition of what had been said a year and a half earlier. On January 22, 1975, the minister said in this House:
We have no over-all policy ... It still is a mess, and more than you think.
As I said at the outset, I was willing to tolerate the minister saying that when he first took over the department. However, he has been Minister of Tranport for over two years, and if it was a mess when he took over two years ago, why has he not done something about it? I know it is a very complex, massive department, but why have we not had the changes the minister talked about when he took over the department? Freight rates are still rising, anomalies are still increasing, discrimination is escalating. I want to put on record some of the anomalies and discriminatory freight rates to which we in the prairies are subjected. The Minister of Tranport and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) will be participating in this debate. They must understand how the sort of freight rates which we have discriminate against various regions.
With regard to canned foodstuffs, to ship 100,000 pounds from southern Ontario to Vancouver costs $2.57 per hundredweight. To ship the same amount of foodstuffs to Saskatoon, which is on the main CNR line, costs $2.75 per hundredweight. It costs almost 20 cents more per hundredweight to ship about half the distance. Why does that anomaly exist? The Minister of Transport and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion both know this. How can we eliminate regional inequality if the freight rate structure, which is the backbone of this country, has these built-in discriminations?
To ship an 80,000 pound lot of packaged foodstuffs from southern Ontario to Vancouver costs $2.43 per hundredweight. To ship the same amount of the same kind of goods to Saskatoon costs $2.93 per hundredweight, 50 cents more. Because of the way freight rates are set up, it might be cheaper to ship from southern Ontario to Vancouver and then reship back to Saskatoon. After two years in office, how can this minister still go on saying, in effect, "The damn thing is still a mess and we cannot do anything about it"? Where is the minister's intestinal fortitude? Why can't he stand up to the CNR, the CPR and others in the transportation field and make them do something about the blatant anomalies that exist in the freight rates system?
I now go to the open tariffs which took effect on March 1, 1975, just a few days ago. They widen, instead of close, the gap in discrimination against Saskatchewan. I wish to deal with the cost of shipping live cattle versus dressed or slaughtered beef. The rates from Saskatoon to either Toronto or Montreal are the same. The old rate for live cattle was $3.24 per hundredweight. As of March 1 it was increased to $4.23 per hundredweight. If the cattle are

March 10, 1975
Transportation
slaughtered and processed in Saskatchewan, providing jobs for people there, the rate as of March 1 is $5.40 per hundredweight, compared with the old rate of $4.15 per hundredweight. Why does the Minister of Transport tolerate that type of discrepancy?
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion professes to be getting rid of regional discrimination in this country. However, it now costs $1.17 per hundredweight more to ship dressed beef to Toronto. Any company engaged in the business of packing beef will obviously locate in Toronto or Montreal. That is not being anti-Canadian; it is sound economics. Obviously, any such operation would be expanded in central Canada because the freight rate structure is designed for them, not the people in the prairies, those in much of Quebec, in the north or the Atlantic provinces. These anomalies must be cleared up very quickly.
I will give two or three more examples. Iron and steel articles such as bars, rods, plates and studs can be shipped in 80,000-pounds lots from Hamilton to Vancouver for $2.43 per hundredweight under the new freight rate structure. The rate to Saskatoon is $2.84. To ship the same goods on the same line costs 40 cents per hundredweight more to ship to Saskatoon than it does to Vancouver. Why is that not changed? It is for this reason I have no confidence in the government's transportation policies or the handling of its affairs by the Minister of Transport.
Let us now look at more agreed charges. To ship a 75,000-pound lot of chemicals such as calcium carbide from Niagara Falls or Shawinigan to Vancouver costs $2.63 per hundredweight. The rate to Saskatoon is $3.12 per hundredweight. There is a difference of 30 or 40 per cent. I am not against the city of Vancouver. What I am saying is that freight rates should be lower for shorter hauls. Saskatoon and Regina are about two-thirds of the way to Vancouver, yet the freight rate for the same product on the same rail line is higher. That does not make sense: it is blatant discrimination against the prairies.
I could give other examples such as phosphates and sulphates which can be shipped to Vancouver at a lower rate than to Saskatchewan and, indeed, to many parts of Manitoba. The minister understands the situation. He knows the present freight rates structure is controlled by the railway companies, the private corporation. He knows they do not serve the majority of the regions of this country. Why does he not change it? Why does he not tell the CN and CP that there should no longer be anomalies in the freight rates structure? It should be equalized across Canada. If that were done, this country could be developed from coast to coast.
Why do we have to crowd our people into two or three large centres instead of dispersing our population around the country? And you will not be able to do that, no matter how much money DREE pumps into Newfoundland or other areas, if you continue to have a freight rates structure that discriminates against the very areas that DREE puts money into. It just won't work, Mr. Speaker. Why doesn't the minister-and I think that philosophically he believes it-nationalize the CPR and have one efficient transportation system in this country? We do not have

competing sewers. We do not have competing roads. Why don't we have one railway system?


An hon. Member:: Why don't we have one political party?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I do not think railways are there to make a profit. It should be a service to the people of this country. Why have two competing airlines. Why not have one Air Canada that has all the routes in this country? I think the minister made a comment about this when he spoke the other day. CPR often has the very lucrative routes in this country. Air Canada is serving many areas of the country where you wouldn't have service if it were not for the publicly-owned airline. So I very strongly urge this minister to follow his own gut instincts and nationalize the CPR into one comprehensive transportation system that is efficient, that is run with a tough, efficient manager for and on behalf of all the people of this country.
Pour into that transportation system hundreds of millions of dollars. Subsidize freight rates in areas where they need support. Provide equality of conditions in the mari-times, the north, the prairies and other regions which I have mentioned. Unless you do that, Mr. Speaker, you are not going to develop this country. Unless you do that you will continue to have unemployed, because it is just not worth processing our own goods in our own country. Unless you do that you are not going to have the political sovereignty to make a lot of the economic decisions we must make if we are to plan our country. Unless you do that you can no longer have a national development plan to put more people into areas where they are needed, and slow down growth in areas where growth is occurring too quickly.
I am sure people in Toronto would like to see growth in that city slowed down and rationalized. They would like to see some of their growth and industry go to the north, to the prairies or to the eastern part of this country. But that will not happen as long as we have a government which believes in the centralization of all industry in this country into central Canada, the golden horseshoe, as governments have done ever since confederation.
So, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister, when he replies tonight, will agree to some basic changes in the transportation system, some of the things that I have talked about and some of the things to which the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) has referred. I hope he will also look at the grain handling system: we are having many problems there. Also, we have rail line abandonment; about one-third of the rail lines may be abandoned after January 1, 1976. we have a grain handling system that is inefficient mainly because the railways aren't repairing the tracks and maintaining them. They feel they don't make enough money out of handling grain.
We have many many problems in the west, problems that we must solve if we are to preserve the rural community from which some of us come. We must also make it very clear that the Crowsnest pass agreement which was made back in the 1800s must be upheld. The Crowsnest pass agreement is God in the west, and once again I tell the Minister of Transport that if he tampers with it, then he is tampering with something that everyone in western Canada will fight him for all the way down the line. So I
March 10, 1975

hope he reaffirms his intention not to tamper with the Crowsnest pass agreement when he speaks in the House later this evening.
Mr. Speaker, there are many things I could say. However, I realize that my time is up and I want, in closing, to ask the minister to respond very sincerely to many of the points we have raised. When he replies tonight, I ask him not to raise some of the old bogeymen, not to treat it as a personal attack upon his character, but to take it as constructive criticism of his department and the policies of the Government of Canada which most of us in the opposition see as falling short of what they should be. I know that many Liberals in all parts of Canada agree with me in that respect.
If we are to plan this country for the twenty-first century, for those who come after us, we must start with a transportation system that is publicly-owned, efficient, serving all the people, and subsidized in order to serve the whole country equally from coast to coast.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure nothing could more graphically demonstrate the complexities of trying to devise in this country a cohesive transportation policy than the differences in approach taken by the first two speakers. The Conservative Party has put down the motion. The New Democratic Party, announcing that it will support it, then proceeds to demonstrate in the most graphic fashion imaginable that the elements the NDP would put into a national transportation policy would be totally rejected by the Conservative Party.
For example, just a moment ago when the spokesman for the NDP called for the nationalization of Canadian Pacific, I heard murmurs of indignation among Conservative Party members. Yet nationalization is the basic plan of the NDP program.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The motion is an attack on your policy; that is the point.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sure that when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) replies, as he will later in this debate, he will be perfectly able to defend himself. I say this with particular regard to some of the suggestions which have been made as to his intestinal fortitude and the like. I do not intend to deal with the broad spectrum of issues which have been raised; I shall confine my remarks to the aspects which concern regional development.
A number of speakers, including the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), have acknowledged the element of regional development which exists in any transportation policy. It is one which we, too, acknowledge. I hope I shall be able to show the hon. member that some of the proposals which he is advocating would have precisely the opposite effects from those he is seeking and, certainly, from those we on this side of the House are seeking-and here I speak as the minister responsible for the DREE program.
When I first entered the House of Commons I was, within a matter of days, assigned to the standing committee on transportation. Few who were members of the committee at that time are still in the House, though I can see one or two of them on each side of the House. I think
Transportation
they would agree with me that the fundamental issues we are debating today are not greatly different from those of nearly a decade ago. Many go back several decades, and some to the very beginnings of confederation.
It is interesting to note that the opposition, as well as individual critics outside the House, are suggesting that in some way or other it is these fundamental issues which have been creating problems. The implication is that, having existed for so long, they could in some magic way have been resolved between July 8, 1974, and March 10 of this year. Let me emphasize that I am referring to fundamental issues, not to day to day transportation problems which are bound to arise in a country as vast and as complex as Canada. Over the years we have been able to deal reasonably well with these problems, as any objective observer would agree. For example, to my personal knowledge, as one who was minister of transport for four years, transportation authorities from other countries are unanimous in agreeing that the over-all structure of transportation in Canada is one of the best in the world. Nevertheless, the fundamental issues remain, and by and large it is these which give rise to most of the criticism.
During the present debate I hope to put at least a few of these issues into perspective, and I hope hon. members will appreciate that in this context I am using the word "issue" as meaning a question about which there can be legitimate differences of opinion with important and valid interests ranged on opposite sides. I gave a good example of this when I referred to the position taken by the two speakers who preceded me. The real task is to recognize this interest to the maximum extent possible, and in many cases the methods of doing this have evaded governments of all political persuasions-federal, provincial and in some cases municipal. The various modes of transportation have not been able to resolve them and successive royal commissions, inquiries and regulatory agencies have been something less than wholly successful. What are the types of fundamental issues to which I have referred? I am not going to take the time to list all of them, but I will give a few examples without at this time coming down on the side of any particular interest group.
There is the long-standing issue referred to by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, the Crowsnest pass rates, and a couple of larger problems, such as grain movement rationalization which involves both economic and social considerations and which, I am fully aware, is a highly emotional issue, as the hon. member has said, in terms of western Canada. But it also can be said that the Crowsnest pass issue and its related questions have bedevilled the development of rational, so-called developmental policies for perhaps as long as we have been a country, or at least as long as the western provinces have been in Canada.
In the east there is the Maritime Freight Rates Act and related subsidy programs. This is another fundamental issue. The appropriate level of tolls and long-term financing arrangements for the St. Lawrence Seaway is another. Then there is the difficult and continuing problem of determining with more precision what the role of various national carriers and agencies ought to be, how much autonomy they should enjoy and what their relationship
March 10, 1975

Transportation
should be to the government and to parliament. I propose to come back to some of these questions in a moment.
The same questions apply to Crown corporations and agencies and could be asked of federal-provincial relations as these relate to transportation, a field where there is divided, and sometimes fragmented, jurisdiction. Other fields where there are wide differences of opinion and of interest include ports administration, the type and size of merchant marine Canada ought to have, and shipping policy generally.
These few examples illustrate the complexity that surrounds Canada's transportation system; and I did not mention the air mode with the conflicting objectives of transcontinental or major carriers and the regionals. I could add the issue of the federal role in the operation of ferries, in the building and upgrading of highways and in coastal protection and services of various kinds. This is just a random sample and I am sure there are many important aspects of transportation which I have omitted in this brief review.
The essential point is that there is no unanimity on how these issues should be resolved; there is no unanimity on this basic question. Quite the contrary: anyone charged with formulating transportation policy-and here the Minister of Transport has my total sympathy, as he has the main responsibility in this regard-is inundated by conflicting views. The difficulty is, and this is a very key point I would ask members to note, that it is not simply a matter of separating sound opinion from the unsound; it lies in choosing between proposals that are frequently of equal validity but which are mutually exclusive.
Let me illustrate by dealing with the hardiest perennial of them all, freight rates, to which the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville gave a good deal of his time. Let me say at once that there continue to be anomalies and inequities in the freight rate structure that must be eliminated. Much has been done along these lines in recent years. If time permits, I will give certain examples because I do not think it is fair to blanket this issue and I do not think hon. members would want to be unfair by simply saying nothing has been done. A good deal has been done to eliminate certain anomalies, but even with further improvements we, as Canadians as well as legislators, will have to come to grips with certain basic questions. I suggest this in total sincerity, trying to put this matter into proper perspective.
It is my judgment that in most of the debates we have in this chamber, these questions tend to be ignored, perhaps because it is more immediate and more urgent to deal with some specific matter and perhaps, also, because it is easier to get one's mind around a specific matter than it is to come to grips with certain basic questions, which I shall attempt to do in the interest of generating what I hope will be a worth-while debate. For example, is the principle of compensatory rates valid? This principle is basic to the present National Transportation Act, but judging by the frequent comments of members in all parts of the House there are serious doubts on the issue. It is not enough to be opposed to the principle; it is necessary to decide what should be in its place if, in fact, it is going to be changed.
The record of the last seven or eight years makes it clear that this government has been prepared to make significant modifications to what was proposed and eventually

passed into law in the act of 1967. There has not been rigidity on the question of compensatory rates. There have been, for example, periodic freezes applied to certain categories of rates; substantial additional subsidies have been added under the MFRA and related legislation; the movement of various agricultural products, including feed grains, has been assisted at a cost of many millions of dollars; there have been increased subsidies for various types of coastal shipping, and the government has moved in directly to provide specialized rolling stock for the railways.
There are many other ways, also, in which the government has shown itself prepared to depart from the principle of compensatory rates. The argument persists, however, that there should be still more, even though the totality of demands one hears from all sides of the House-incidentally, not always from the opposition-is still on the basis of ad hockery and reflects no coherent plan. I find it difficult, and I hope I will be able to illustrate this as I go along, to rationalize the variety of proposals which come from members opposite, which in many respects, I suggest, if you look at them in isolation and then try to put them together into a package, are contradictory and not what the motion would call a cohesive and generally comprehensive transportation policy.
The reasons are perfectly clear and very understandable. Once a concession has been obtained, no beneficiary wishes to give it up. Therefore, the principle of compensatory rates becomes more and more distorted. Furthermore, there are grounds to question whether such individual measures designed to ease the impact of particular rates actually achieve their objectives. I want to re-emphasize that point if I may, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is important for us, when we are seeking ad hoc solutions which are very costly to the taxpayers of Canada, to ask ourselves whether in fact these individual measures are designed to ease the impact of particular rates and whether they achieve that objective.
Let us look at one example which bears on my responsibility to encourage regional development. When representatives of regions of the country away from the centre-that is most of Canada, in geographic terms; and I am sorry the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville is not here because this bears particularly on the remarks he made- complain about freight rates, it is often because such rates result in higher costs for goods which they purchase from central Canada. That is a very important point. Criticism of the rate structure may be entirely valid, but essentially that is the main basis for the complaint-that it costs more in various parts of the country to bring goods from central Canada.
I repeat that these complaints are understandable. If, however, there are substantial forms of assistance for traffic inbound to western Canada, eastern Canada or northern Canada, such assistance-I would ask members who make this point in Atlantic and western Canada to bear this in mind-really constitutes a subsidy to central Canadian manufacturers and shippers. It makes it harder for manufacturers in these areas, that is, the west and the east, to compete and in many cases it runs counter to the outbound subsidy programs the government has in place.
March 10, 1975

This is the reason I find it difficult, without hearing more detail on the question, to understand why the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville would suggest some equalling out of the freight rates structure all across the country. It seems to me that, clearly, would be counter-productive in terms of regional development initiative and what we are seeking to achieve. For example, all Atlantic provinces benefit from a 30 per cent subsidy on goods shipped out of the area. For certain value added commodities, the subsidy has been increased by my colleague the Minister of Transport-one of the many things he has done. It has been increased in recent years to 50 per cent. This subsidy is paid on truck as well as rail shipments. So 50 per cent of the total cost of moving certain goods out of the Altantic provinces is now subsidized.
Now, if Atlantic province manufacturers and processors, as well as certain primary producers, are to see their central Canada competitors subsidized to ship their goods into the eastern market, then the value of the subsidy, obviously, is reduced accordingly. What I am saying is that you cannot have it both ways in terms of subsidies. You cannot say in the Atlantic provinces or in western Canada that you want a break on the shipment of agricultural products to the centre, fisheries goods to the centre, or manufactured goods from both ends to the centre-that you want those subsidized-and at the same time ask for subsidies on goods moving from the centre to the outer perimeter of the country. It is clear that the same is true, as my friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has said, of tariffs.
I should touch briefly on this matter once again because it is a good example of two worthy examples which can be self-defeating. In the first place we have consumers wanting to get their goods from whatever source at the lowest possible shipping cost, but every such concession can make it more difficult to achieve regional development. One of the most frequent complaints which I receive from western Canada relating to regional development concerns the freight rate on steel shipped from the east. In a broader context, the hon. member raised-as I am sure other members will, and I am sure the chief spokesman for the opposition is concerned about this-the question of so-called short haul rates versus long haul rates.
I agree with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, who has said on many occasions-as I have said in this House, and I am not altogether certain why some of these things should suddenly have new prominence because they are spoken by the present Minister of Transport, but perhaps I was not as effective as he in getting it across- that essentially the short haul-long haul differential is something with which this government has coped for many years and with which its predecessor government coped for many years. I should like to deal with it in steel terms, to start with, and then perhaps elaborate a little further.
On the question of steel, I concede readily that the arguments have merit in many cases, but my department is convinced that one of the major developmental opportunities that exists in western Canada centres on capacity in that region for a major steel producing facility. I do not think there is any doubt about that. I believe that more
Transportation
and more the examinations and discussions we are having with Alberta and Saskatchewan in particular tend to support this fact. Is it good policy? I ask the question, not rhetorically but in the interest of generating a worthwhile discussion on the question. Is it good policy, therefore, if the capability exists for further steel development in western Canada, to make it easier and less expensive for eastern steel manufacturers to penetrate the western market by an artificial lowering of rates, or should we in fact be encouraging, as we are, more steel making and thus a stronger economic base in the west?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the rates were not artificially high you would not have that difficulty.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), who seems to have a very pat answer off the top of his head for every question, will have an opportunity to speak in this debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I asked a question.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I shall be quite prepared to answer the question if there is time at the end, Mr. Speaker. On the major question of short haul-long haul rates, of course here again in my conversations with other spokesmen, as well as those which I am sure have been held by the Minister of Transport, one discovers that the stance, if one can call it that, of unanimity about it quickly disappears when this particular issue is raised. Will the members from British Columbia, for example, regardless of where they happen to sit in this House, support an idea which in fact deprives British Columbia of its beneficial rates?
There have been many conferences, and I have attended many discussions at which you begin with the premise that no short haul rates shall be higher than long haul rates, and then quickly you see it disintegrate in terms of any kind of consensus as you discover it bears differently upon different regions of western Canada. I have no quarrel at all with the proposition that there must be some kind of levelling out of rates in western Canada and that there must be some kind of concession, but I say that simply putting forward a simplistic kind of suggestion such as that, without examining the ramifications, will lead to prolonged discussions with the provinces before any worth-while conclusion can be reached.


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


Donald Campbell Jamieson: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I believe as the first speaker on this side I am entitled to 30 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: The minister raises an interesting question concerning his rights. He is quite correct, 30 minutes are allowed to the mover of the motion and the speaker replying. It was the understanding of the Chair that it was the Minister of Transport who later this day would reply. If the Chair is incorrect in that, I would be prepared to hear from the government side on the matter.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I thought the matter had been agreed to by the parties. The Minister of Transport

March 10, 1975
Transportation
and I discussed it, and I understood it was the first speaker who had 30 minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to allow one of them 30 minutes, but not both.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, at the time of your comment I had given two examples of the complexity of a couple of regional development problems of major significance as they relate to transportation. I want to emphasize that neither of these examples is clear-cut. I do not suggest that I, or anyone else, have all the answers, recognizing that even within regions, trade and transportation issues compound the problem. For instance, it would not be sufficient to set up a steel freight rate from central Canada to western Canada and let it go at that. Our inquiries and studies indicate that if we are to have a major steel making capability in western Canada, this will require a very definite shift in the freight rate structure within the regions. This, I acknowledge and agree, is something that needs further examination.
Nevertheless, I suggest my basic point is valid. General freight rate freezes and blanket subsidies tend to work against regional development whatever benefit they may have to consumers. I might add that I have not been able to determine that many of the freight rate subsidy programs do in fact find their way to consumers, and here I speak particularly of the individual consumer. Consumers do not receive any significant benefit from them, so far as I have been able to determine. One has only to look at the recent study of consumer prices in the province of Newfoundland to see that transportation is by no means the main factor affecting consumer prices. Therefore, the concept that you can use transportation or freight rates specifically in order to reduce consumer costs is certainly open to question and should be examined thoroughly. It was determined that the distribution system within the province itself was a much more significant contribution to increased costs for consumers than the long distance transportation charges into the region.
In other words, once commodities get into the region, distribution services really need to be modernized and improved. I would expect this is true to the same extent in Atlantic Canada. This involves a good deal of private enterprise participation, which I do not rule out but which is certainly not the sole responsibility of the government.
Since time is short, I want to say a few brief words about another fundamental issue. I will be brief because of the limitation on time. I wish to speak about the toll system on the St. Lawrence Seaway. Here is another all-party effort, if you are talking about really fundamental issues on which decisions have to be made. It is significant that members of all parties from central and western Canada-it does not matter where these members happen to sit in the House-are strongly against any increase in Seaway tolls. In this, from my experience, they are accurately reflecting the views of their constituents.
At the same time, Atlantic province members-I include myself in this number-rarely, if ever, join in representations to keep tolls down on the St. Lawrence Seaway. In

this they, too, are echoing the views of those whom they represent, that the ports of Atlantic Canada suffer unfair competition from low Seaway tolls. Here, once again, we have another example of legitimate regional views being in conflict; and there are no easy answers. The government is being urged to cut costs, to behave in a businesslike manner; but if the logical steps were taken-I use the St. Lawrence Seaway simply as an example-in many of the other examples I have given, there would be greater inequities between regions and many national objectives would be thwarted.
In conclusion, I wish to touch briefly on one of the most difficult fundamental issues affecting Canadian transportation. It is the issue of jurisdiction, control and policymaking. A great deal has been made of the federal role in this regard, and of course no one quarrels with the key position that the federal government holds in this whole problem. I have spoken of a transportation system, in the singular. However, in reality we have dozens, even hundreds, of different and often competing components within that system. Not all of these are subject to federal control, and where there is federal responsibility it is exercised in a variety of ways.
I would invite hon. members to examine this structure. It is not this government, or any particular government, but parliament itself which has frequently reaffirmed its belief that Crown corporations must continue to enjoy a high degree of autonomy. I have no quarrel with that view, and certainly many instances have been brought forward in this House where indeed there have been claims that the government has been interfering too much with Crown corporations. There is, however, an inconsistency in the view often taken by members-again, I am not referring to any particular party-that the government should direct CNR or Air Canada, for example, to follow a particular course of action. Having said that, I repeat what I said at the outset, namely, that the role of Crown corporations, especially in the transportation field, is something that generates a great deal of heated debate with many valid arguments on both sides.
Harking back to the first comments that were made this afternoon regarding the nationalization of CPR, any kind of rationalization that would be massive in scope and would change drastically the long-established precedents for the relationship between Crown corporations, the government and parliament would be hotly debated and there would be no unanimity of view in the House on that important subject.
The same can be said of the Canadian Transport Commission. Parliament has given the commission certain wide-ranging powers, and it did so deliberately. I was here at the time as a member of the committee and I am sure that others who were there at the time-I do not want to single anyone out-would be prepared to confirm that it was done deliberately to cut down on the degree of direct government intervention. That was deemed to be a wise course at that particular time. Once again, this may be a highly commendable objective. The government or the responsible minister cannot be faulted for observing the law and allowing the processes set out in the act to be followed. If there is to be a change in the CTC approach and in the responsibility that it has, then parliament itself
March 10, 1975

will have to decide whether it wishes the government to become more directly involved. Indeed, this is a question, I repeat, on which there is no unanimity of opinion and which, I hope hon. members will appreciate, makes the job of any Minister of Transport exceedingly difficult.
There is another important aspect of jurisdiction, and that is the authority of the provinces, particularly in the matter of highway regulations and similar matters. While there are undoubted federal responsibilities in this field, the jurisdiction is shared, at the very least. Incidentally, it is interesting to note the history of federal responsibility in this field. It was on the basis of a 1956 Supreme Court judgment in the long run, and not so much because of any desire on the part of the federal government to be deeply involved in highway management or trucking, that the federal government was brought into the field. Therefore, there is no way to proceed other than through agreement and consensus, which are sometimes difficult to achieve.
The federal government, and particularly my own department, is helping many provinces to upgrade their road systems and to achieve certain national standards. Many millions of federal dollars will be spent on this objective again this year in the east, and also through the efforts of the Minister of Transport in consultation with western provinces to do upgrading on certain key network roads in western Canada. This will be an ongoing expenditure.
It is interesting to note that if one takes the average year since the end of construction of the TransCanada Highway, despite the fact that the primary responsibility is with the provinces the federal government in one way or another has contributed, on average, something like $190 million a year to road building in this country, a significant and important sum in terms of what it has been able to achieve. As we get better standards, in highway terms, across the country, a consensus is more likely to emerge in terms of provinces. But one should not underestimate a good deal of the anxiety that the provinces have about yielding any more than they have to of provincial jurisdiction or authority in this field. In this, frequently they are aided and abetted, for its particular reasons, by the trucking industry.
My objective today was to show in a realistic fashion some of the very real complexities that exist within the Canadian transportation framework. It is these to which the Minister of Transport refers when he discusses, with his usual candour as the hon. member has said, the difficulties involved both in policy-making and in keeping such a huge system operational. The difficulties are not new; they are not the creation of any one government or of any one period. They will not be solved by criticism alone, or by simply pointing out the flaws in the system, which everybody concedes continue to exist even after 100 years. They will not be solved by criticism, although frankly I consider constructive debate to be useful. If there is a debate in which suggestions can be made of specific ways in which transportation can be used to better advantage to aid regional development, then I want to hear those suggestions regardless of the quarter of the House from which they come.
What we must do, and what a great many others outside parliament must do, is to make some choices, because this
Transportation
is not a problem that can be resolved purely by legislation or co-operation between different levels of government; there are enormous private industry factors here which have to be part of the over-all exercise. Incidentally, perhaps a national conference might not be a bad idea, and I am sure the Minister of Transport would accept it as a worth-while suggestion.
It seems to me that if there is a great weakness-and perhaps I should plead guilty to part of that weakness, having been the responsible minister for some time-it is that in transportation, when it comes to the crunch, it is frequently easier and, perhaps one could say frankly, in the national interest to achieve some kind of accommodation that falls short of perfection rather than try abruptly to remove from the various elements in the transportation system some key element to which a particular region or interest group is very strongly dedicated.
So I say that we must make some choices if we are to get the cohesive policy to which reference is made today in the motion of the opposition. None of this will be easy, and on the fundamental issues which I have outlined there will be wide differences: I am sure that the same will be true of others I have not touched on because of time limitations.
If all hon. members go about this task in a reasonable, orderly way which gets to the root of the problem, and if they are prepared to face up to these root problems, whether they live in the east or the west, and examine some of the issues I have outlined, I do not suggest we will find all the answers: that may be too much to expect and, quite frankly, in a rapidly changing field like transportation I have no doubt that it will be difficult to achieve perfection. Nevertheless, we will continue to make what I think we have made over the years, and certainly over the years of this government, namely, progress.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, Friday last on March 7, a motion of the Progressive Conservatives questioned the ability of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to organize and develop a sure, efficient, coordinated modern transport system on par with the needs of national and regional economies, external trade and social welfare in Canada, in accordance with the undertakings made in the Speech from the Throne. And now today, Mr. Speaker, motion No. 15 introduced by the Progressive Conservative party condemns the government's failure to present a co-ordinated transportation policy.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Transport will have heard enough about transport problems since Friday to retain his attention. However, since I have been sitting in Parliament, I denounced on many occasions this lack of co-ordination in transport generally and more especially in our railway system.
This is not a new problem, Madam Speaker, since it has existed under both governments, which seem to take pleasure in accusing each other and rejecting the blame on each other.

March 10, 1975
Transportation
Last Friday, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) was telling the Progressive Conservatives: You did not do better than us in the past; you are always criticizing, but make concrete proposals, tell us what is your policy, tell us what to do, and we shall act. This is the behaviour of a government which was so strong, which said that it was strong and capable of the greatest things during the whole election campaign and is now weak and powerless when it is in power. The government is suddenly so devoid of ideas that it must beg the opposition for some answers. In his speech of March 7, 1975, last Friday, as is reported on page 3894 of Hansard, the Minister of Transport, when he realized that his appeal was falling into deaf ears continued his speech by saying, and I quote:
The only answer I get from the opposition is: It takes a long time! But, Mr. Speaker, should I, as Minister of Transport, be quicker about changing the whole transportation system in Canada than the Conservatives about designating a new leader?
This is how the minister clowns to get rid of a serious problem which is of great concern for all Canadians. I sincerely ask you what the replacement of the Progressive Conservative leader has to do with the transport situation. Mr. Speaker, I ask the Minister of Transport to be a bit more serious, and I know that he can do so when he is clear-minded in the House. The minister must realize once and for all that the election campaign is over, that we are here to find answers to the problems, and that it is up to the government to propose solutions to the House since generally all the legislation to be voted is introduced by the government.
I am in favour of this motion, and I hope that the government will not consider it simply as an insignificant criticism, but as a pressing appeal from the Canadian people to work concretely to solve the big and thorny problem of transportation across Canada. Be it transportation by water, by air or by land, I am sure we have everything that is needed to provide Canadians with an adequate and well coordinated transportation system.
Last week, we discussed our ridiculous situation with regard to the nonexistent merchant marine in Canada. On Friday, many members referred to our air transportation system, which is far from being adapted to our needs. In my region, at least, we have no congratulations to extend to the present minister and even less to all the other ministers who preceded him.
During the last six election campaigns, Madam Speaker, we received in my riding of Roberval dozens of ministers who gave rise to the highest expectations among the people. The Minister of Finance himself (Mr. Turner) came and promised on his honour of gentleman that if his government were reelected, he would order the complete rebuilding of the Roberval airport. Let us see what we "salvaged" from the visit of that flight of doves?
I ask him again today: where is his honour of gentleman, and why did he come and give false hopes to our people? I ask the present Minister of Transport who, at the time Minister for Regional Economic Expansion, had $500 million to distribute as productively as possible electorally, what has happened to all those beautiful promises for an airport at Dolbeau and Saint-Felicien? At the time he said an airport was needed at almost every centre in my riding to meet the demand. What has he done since? And particu-

larly, what will he do now that he is a full-fledged minister? We are still waiting.
I cannot miss this wonderful opportunity of speaking once again to the minister about the problems we have been running up against for years with regard to the Canadian National, since it is the only Crown company in our area.
First, let us speak of the freight service. After ten years of requests, has the problem of freight cars been solved? Here is some correspondence, Madam Speaker, that speaks for itself. This letter is dated February 21, 1974; it is addressed to the Minister of Transport. It comes from the Domtar Company. I quote:
The problem of the shortage of railway cars for the transport of newsprint, pulp and shavings seems to be widespread.
A few of the fifty-six pulp and paper industries in the province of Quebec depend almost entirely on railways for the movement of freight, to and from their facilities. The remaining ones, while having access to other modes, still count on rail to a large extent for their incoming and outcoming trade. Although the size of the shipments involved cannot be determined exactly, since they include raw materials and finished products, we know very well that the volume and revenues of such movements by rail are very high indeed. In any event, adequate rail service is one factor in the maintaining and economy of production of these plants.
For more than a year, railway cars have not been available in sufficient numbers. The problem is aptly summed up in the following remarks by one freight movement officer: "The availability of freight cars is a day-to-day affair; there are never enough cars to meet the demand, and we must constantly pressure railways to get our share of available rolling stock".
There is a serious scarcity of cars for newsprint. Very often the type of car required cannot be obtained. The use of another type of car entails higher costs, since it is impossible to load the specified minimum into shorter cars, with the result that we must pay freight on dead weight. The lack of cars when needed forces companeis to store their products and rehandle them, at extra cost. Some companies have to use trucks to compensate for inadequate rail service. One major company indicated the loss of sales by reason of a persisting scarcity of cars. As far as the movement of chips is concerned, substitution of boxcars for the usual gondola cars creates difficulties, as well as needless costs caused by dead weight; because at certain times, loadings are below minimum ...
Time is lacking to read the whole letter through, but this proves to the department that the companies constantly requested more adequate and more cars, without avail.
Let us now talk about our famous passenger service. On April 17, 1973, I pointed out to the Minister of Transport the need for an immediate improvement in passenger services. There was at that time an outbreak of derailments that were attributed to all kinds of causes, without the real one ever being denounced. There were even wild accusations that train engineers had shortened the allowed time for a haul by half an hour. Let us not forget that on our local circuit speed should not exceed 25 or 30 miles an hour. I am sure that Montreal or Ottawa travellers would not want to hear about trains anymore if they travelled at such speed.
Are the railway tracks between Montreal, Chambord and Dolbeau too weak? Let us go and watch freight trains more than 100 cars long roll by. Incidentally, we have always exposed the lack of maintenance as the great evil.
March 10, 1975

Teams of three or four men are designated when those teams should be made of six or even eight men.
That is the first mistake technoracts in Montreal offices make when they perhaps never went on a field check. When I say field check I do not mean spend five or ten minutes in brain centre offices before returning to Montreal with their report. I mean they should run the track with maintenance attendants. That way, Madam Speaker, we could get much better results.
If CNR decided one day to play its role which is to give good service, its clientele the heads of that Crown corporation should stop thinking that hotels are their first priority in that system of transportation. Those people forget entirely that if they want to ensure a good clientele for hotels, here again, a good and well coordinated system of transportation will enable them to achieve it.
It CNR wants a profitable passenger service, it must first provide an adequate service with planned schedules and well maintained cars. It seems quite strange to talk about those matters, Madam Speaker, but in my area I think the directors of that corporation have completely lost sight of the basic principles, with the result that fewer and fewer people want to use CNR services.
On several occasions we showed that the Chambord-Montreal passenger run could be done in five hours, while it now takes eight or ten hours, if there is no delay. I would say incidently that delay is the trademark of CNR in our area. The cause of that slowness is that at present freight has priority. Consequently, we must wait hours along the route to allow freight to run freely. That is ridiculous, one might say, but it is the simple truth.
I shall just take the example of the Montreal bound train which leaves Chambord on Sunday night. In spite of all the useless delays, it reaches Montreal by 7 a.m., so that we can take any other train to Toronto, Ottawa or elsewhere. But if you happen to take the very same train any week day, you have to wait for the train from Abitibi, which is always very late. And so you reach Montreal by 10 or 11 a.m., and even frequently after 12 noon.
We have been wondering for years why it should not be an all-Sunday week for the CN in our area. The Sunday night train might very easily take two hours less if the authorities would give Montreal bound passenger trains priority. We also suggested the implementation of a direct daytime service to Montreal.
Madam Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: There is no private members' hour today.


Mr. Gauthier (Roberval):: Our voice always remains unheard in the offices of increasingly numerous technocrats while services keep diminishing.
In our opinion, the Canadian National is a group of Montreal technocrats who send orders, prepare all projects in their Montreal offices and do not often leave them to actually check the situation on the premises. We are only presented with accomplished facts, which we have to accept and put up with. But I believe that as long as we shall have, at the Crown corporation level, and ivory
Transportation
tower management, we shall have that dictatorship without any consultation with the people concerned in the region, and we will keep having the problems we are facing today.
When will the government, through its Minister of Transport hold a public inquiry, since in the end deficits are always paid for by the people, in order to at least once a year meet all those technocrats, all those civil servants? Today, you only see civil servants wandering in the area, and you can frequently, although this is a delicate thing to say, see two foremen for three workers.
Another mistake of the Canadian National was to put an end to all the repairs which had been carried out for years in Chambord.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him is expired. I recognize now the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe.


Claude Wagner: Madam Speaker, this debate which occurs at a very appropriate time is indicative of the inability and inconsciousness of the government regarding transportation. We are obligated to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) for having submitted to the attention of the House the motion we are now studying, which faithfully reflects not only the concern of the official opposition, but also that of all Canadian citizens about the complete and permanent disorder existing in the Department of Transport.
It is obvious, Madam Speaker, when considering the government's performance in this field, one would be tempted to say as in the song: "Faut-il en rire ou faut-il en pleurer?" But when considering the minister's accomplishments, I fear there is no alternative but to pity him. This is what leads me to adopt towards him perhaps a more sympathetic attitude than would justify the mess his department is in, sympathetic because I had hoped that before this debate or perhaps during the first day on Friday last the minister would find a way to answer the members' concerns and set forth the solutions he wants to bring in, indicate a general policy, the new policy he intends to advocate in transport.
However, to our great disappointment, the minister rather took delight in falling back on means which in the art of oratory have certainly their merits but are not acceptable on the Parliamentary level. That is how, Madam Speaker, I have considered the minister who, noticeably disturbed, irritated by the questions put to him for some time on account of this mess existing within his department, and under pressure about this issue of the Hamilton and lie d'Orleans dredging contracts, the Minister of Transport, in my opinion one of the most pathetic ministers in Canadian history-I am saying this almost with a measure of friendship-had to raise his voice in the House last Friday. And over the weekend, Madam Speaker, the papers printed the following headlines:
"Marchand Alleged Victim of Racist Campaign"
"Marchand blows his top and is blown up".
"Marchand notes evidence of suspicion and racism".
"Accused of incompetency, Marchand seeks an end to racist attacks". "Strong attack by Marchand against English-speaking racists' aspersion casting".
March 10, 1975

Transportation
Last weekend, Madam Speaker, these media reported to the Canadian public the statements the minister made and which he will not withdraw, judging from what I have just heard, statements he made both in the House and outside to the reporters of French-speaking press. In all fairness to and out of regard for him, I refer him to this statement he made to the French-speaking press and I quote:
"I have been living here since 1965, and I have witnessed the Lamontagne affair, the Favreau affair and the Tremblay affair. Wherever there were French Canadians, they attacked them. And who are they attacking in the House now? The Minister of Transport, Jean Chretien, Yves Pratte. If you look up the oral question period for the past month, you will see that this is what is going on."
This last remark was made by the Minister of Transport, as though his outburst had not been enough, and as though he needed hidden threats, he added:
"And if they want to play this little game, we are going to play it rough".
Madam Speaker, I wanted to report those remarks, to note the minister's attitude and behaviour, in order that he knew how essential it is for Parliament that a Crown minister act with objectivity and impartiality, and foremost how essential that he was not too sensitive about some criticisms and that he never thought that when a minister's competence is questioned, his race, his colour or his origins are attacked.

Madam Speaker, it is not surprising that when the issue of the minister's competence is raised, when the issue of the minister's admitted transportation mess is raised, the minister claims that my colleagues are making prejudicial and racial attacks on him personally. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and his now well known consensus have been attacked by members on this side of the House of both English and French background, yet he does not feel personally slighted or racially attacked.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) has been attacked at times for lack of direction, and for a basic sloppiness of approach, by myself and others, yet he does not feel particularly slighted or racially offended. If we attack a minister who happens to be of French Canadian origin, according to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) we do so for racial or prejudicial reasons. When we attack a minister of English Canadian origin, according to the Minister of Transport we do so to divide English from French in this country's government.
While paranoia expressed consistently in an emotional fashion either inside or outside this House does not constitute a direct infringement on the privileges of members, surely the House can understand that the workings of government and the processes of this House are not aided by the type of shrill accusations and meanderings of the Minister of Transport. Surely, Madam Speaker, compared to his cabinet colleagues he has little to be worried about. The Minister of Finance must have at least every second taxpayer in this country after him. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) has a steadily diminishing but nevertheless 80,000 loyal and well armed defence forces upset with him. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) has taken on all of Canada's consumers and, despite a basic kinship with the fertilizer producers, he

has them to worry about as well. The Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) must have to hire people to open his mail. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has thousands of unemployed speech writers trying to break down his door-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: -not to mention all the Larry Czonka fans in Toronto. And so the list progresses. If all these men were to take the substantive criticisms levelled against their departments as personal attacks, personal slurs, racial references, then we would have descended from the steps of parliamentary democracy to a level of operation not befitting this parliament or the people it serves.
I appeal to the Minister of Transport to think carefully and seriously about the silliness of his ramblings on Friday. No one in this House has ever doubted his sincerity. We doubt his competence, for reasons being enumerated in this debate and because that happens to be part of our responsibility as members of the opposition. If the minister is unprepared to make the distinction between an attack on his administration and an attack on him personally, if he is unable to separate the two, then I submit that he should reconsider the reasons for which he and his colleagues from Hochelaga and Mount Royal came to this federal House originally.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: They came, as many are prepared to believe, to show Quebeckers that there is a role for them in the national politics of this country and perhaps to illustrate to Canada the role that Quebeckers can play. That, Madam Speaker, is a mission with which many of differing political persuasions can identify. However, if it is now to be the minister's function to portray Quebeckers as so entrapped by their ethnicity, so hypersensitive and suspicious as to make it impossible for them to interpret any criticism as anything other than an attack on their person or their origin, then the minister does himself, the people of Quebec and the people of Canada no good whatever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Madam Speaker, the minister owes my leader, my party and this House an apology.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: While I may be naive enough to hope that such an apology might be forthcoming, I say to this House that should it not be forthcoming the minister will have laid open to attack, not his background as a Quebecker, not his competence as a minister but his decency and sense of balance as a member of this House. That Madam Speaker, is very serious indeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: I know, Madam Speaker, that time is running short, and I would like to remind the Minister of
March 10,1975

Transport of different aspects of his department that leave so much to be desired that I would need at least one hour to detail them.
I found it strange that the very day the director of the Association for the Unity of Christianism, Mr. Allan Wilding, ended a two-week march between Toronto and Montreal to make the public aware of the unity of Canadians, the very day the pope welcomed our right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Rome and praised our pluralism and the policy of bilingualism and biculturalism which is being built year after year in our country, giving them as examples of cooperation, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) chose that day to show what I would call a thoughtlessness which can seem to be childish or cynical, depending on the way you look at it.
Now that this incident is over, I think the minister should go back to his previous functions. He should be able to find again in himself the energies, the dynamism that characterized him in the years he was an impetuous trade unionist in Quebec. It seems to me he should bring back from this experiment enough strength and objectivity to be able to give at last the Department of Transport the impulse Canada is expecting from the government in such a matter.
I express the wish, Madam Speaker, that this debate will not merely provide the minister with the opportunity of accusing hon. members of the opposition of childishness, as he did, of obscurantism,-how learnedly these things are said-of showering them with abuse, of telling them they know nothing, as we can read in last Friday's Hansard, that they do not know how to win elections.
That attitude is far too arrogant, complacent, self-satisfied. Could the minister, in all humility and modesty, not see the errors of his department, accept the suggestions made to him by hon. members of all parties, perhaps even follow the advice just given to him by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), and by grouping all those suggestions at long last give this country a co-ordinated and overall policy to reassure Canadians and above all to guarantee this country the economic future it is entitled to expect from any government?


Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Madam Speaker, I anxiously look forward to taking part in this debate for two main reasons. First, I want to comment, from a different perspective, on how I see the government's transportation policy and, second and more important, I want to come to the defence, on a personal basis, of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) who I feel very strongly has been unfortunately much maligned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: Members opposite say the minister should not take their criticism as being directed to him personally. Show me a man who is challenged as to his competency, or asked "Where's your guts?" or "Where's your fortitude?" and does not take that on a personal basis, and I will show you a man who will not stand for what he
Transportation
believes in, something the Minister of Transport certainly does.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: I believe, Madam Speaker, following the representations I made on a non-partisan basis when I was a mayor of my municipality, that the results we obtained as a result of the policies set down by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) when he was minister responsible for DREE, as well as his policies as Minister of Transport, would demonstrate it was not the same kind of story as opposition members would like us to believe. This also gives me an opportunity to say "thank you" to the minister and to the government; on behalf of my constituents, for the tremendous job they have done for our area.
I am sure the only thing that members on both sides of this House would agree upon is the fact that regional economic expansion and transport policies go hand in hand. In 1970 the present Minister of Transport was minister responsible for DREE, and in the latter capacity he came to Cornwall. We had a very low base of economic power, to say the least, with over 20 per cent unemployment. At that time, in his usual candid manner, the minister did not make any false promises; he set out the facts as they were. We did not tell the people what they needed or what they did not need, but promised that a study would be undertaken. As today, he was criticized by some of the local people in the riding. In 1974, when the results of the very policies he advocated at the time had brought the unemployment situation down to the national level, there was no criticism left to be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: In 1972 I recall reading Hansard and listening to criticisms of opposition members with respect to DREE policies. If I am not mistaken, although I did not participate in the elections at that time, the election was conducted on the issue of regional economic policies. In 1975 I do not hear hon. members opposite from the Atlantic provinces, talking about in-migration for the first time in their history. I certainly do not hear members opposite from the western provinces talking about economic prosperity and the problems of economic prosperity they are presently experiencing. Many of these accomplishments were the result of policies advocated by the present Minister of Transport and his government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Rubbish!


Edward C. Lumley: The minister followed through with his policies in Cornwall in 1970, he followed through with his DREE policies in Canada in 1972, and he will follow through with the transportation policies which he set out in 1974.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: I am sure hon. members will agree that the position of the Minister of Transport is probably one of the most difficult in the entire dominion.


An hon. Member:: He's in difficulty all right.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Would the hon. member permit a question?

March 10, 1975
Transportation


Edward C. Lumley: I shall be glad to entertain a question at the end of my remarks. The Minister of Transport holds one of the most complex offices in the world. There is not a corporate executive in Canada who faces the problem of the Minister of Transport. The company for which I worked has perhaps the broadest distribution base in the world.


Walter David Baker: Things go better with Coke.


Edward C. Lumley: I am glad to recognize that statement from the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). Our country comprises 14 million square miles, almost 3,000 miles north to south and 3,000 miles east to west. I wonder how many members sit down and try to comprehend the problems the minister faces. The company for which I worked is involved in every city, town and hamlet in the country. It is one of the most profitable corporations in the world. Yet never once did we meet the magnitude of the problems this minister faces.
We keep talking about transportation policy in general. Hon. members may say that there is no policy. The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) commented about freight rates and regional expansion, as did the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) on Friday. I hope they do not really believe that equalization of freight rates would solve all the regional economic problems across Canada.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It would go a long way.


Edward C. Lumley: There is far more to regional economic expansion that the equalization of freight rates. Members opposite talk about the lack of foresight in the Minister of Transport. In my riding an announcement was made a year ago, prior to my being a member, concerning a new Ministry of Transport training institute. I challenge members opposite: if they do not think there is any future in the transportation policy the government is advocating, take a tour down to Heron Road and find out the future policy and programs of the Ministry of Transport. Let them find out about the new school that is going to be started in Cornwall in 1975. I guarantee the philosophy would change across the House.
At the present time, the Ministry of Transport is conducting senior management courses involving new training techniques in transportation. These courses are unique in the world. This is something which came under the administration of the present Minister of Transport. Provided all sectors of the economy, including the private sector and provincial governments which are actively interested in the programs of the Ministry of Transport training institute, can co-operate, hopefully this institute can become a national transportation centre.
I should like to comment on something the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) said the other day. He was talking about the inadvisability of DC-9 flights between Ottawa and Montreal. Who was the Minister of Transport who introduced STOL? That will answer the question. If that is not progressive, I really do not know what is. I do not mean the kind of "progressive" that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, who is looking at 
me, is thinking about now. The foresight of this government in the transportation field goes back many years. I recall the years during which Hon. Lionel Chevrier, then the hon. member for Stormont, was minister of transport: another great Liberal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: Little things, Madam Speaker, when you see the bridge between the United States and Canada in Cornwall; little things like having the foresight to add a span extension so that some day when the all-Canadian Seaway is built, maybe in 1980, maybe in the year 2000 no extra cost would be incurred. Foresight, Madam Speaker, foresight such as this government advocates in transportation policies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward C. Lumley: I realize there are many members who would like to take part in this debate, so I will close with this final remark. I mean this most sincerely. I also mean this in a non-partisan way, as a former mayor of the city of Cornwall. If every community in the country could benefit in as short a period of time as my community did because of policies, attitudes and working relationship we had with the Minister of Transport and this government, we would not have any economic problems in this country.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I want to concentrate on one vital aspect of transportation policy in Canada this afternoon, namely, regional air policy. Unfortunately, discussion on this subject has been sidetracked by the introduction of extraneous matters by the minister, so I want to get back on target this afternoon by zeroing in on a specific problem.
The speaker who just preceded me referred to the Hon. Lionel Chevrier as an outstanding leader in the development of transportation policy in Canada. I had a conversation recently with Mr. Chevrier in his capacity as President of Nordair. I can assure the hon. member that he was less than happy concerning the direction regional air policy has been taking during recent months.
I have some sympathy for the minister and the problems that confront him so I am not going to personalize my remarks this afternoon by zeroing in on any particular minister. The problems that have been outlined effectively by opposition spokesmen are the by-product of several recent ministers.
I was interested this afternoon to hear the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) take part in the debate. He was a former Minister of Transport. In fact, he changed places with the present incumbent in that position. I listened to the minister in charge of DREE and suspected that he was preaching for a call, as though he would like to get back on the job as Minister of Transport.
There was a little bit of uncertainty as to who was going to be the major spokesman this afternoon in replying to the presentation of opposition members, and it will be interesting to see the permutations of any Cabinet shuffle, as they unfold in the weeks that lie ahead, particularly if there is to be a transfer of responsibility in this portfolio.
March 10, 1975

The major difficulty in transportation policy arises from the failure of the government to come to grips with the MacPherson Report, which in the early 1960's resulted from an examination in detail of transportation problems in this country. After several years' delay, following the change of government in 1963, a new transportation policy was finally forthcoming. It established the Canadian Transport Commission in place of the old Board of Transport Commissioners. Placed in charge of the CTC was a former minister of transport, who has been referred to from time to time in this Chamber. In fact, during the question period today we had a very interesting question answered in respect of the position of that former minister of transport, the Hon. Jack Pickersgill, who shifted sideways from a ministerial responsibility to the chairmanship of the CTC. Incidentally he was followed by another former minister of the government.
In 1972 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) made the specific promise that should he become leader of the government in Canada this business of shifting ministers of transport and other former ministers of the Crown to head important bodies like the CTC would end forthwith. The tendency is to politicize those bodies which should above all else have an independent expertise in respect of transportation problems.
One of the major reasons we are in the mess that has been described by the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) as "a mess that is worse than anyone realizes" is that we have not had the leadership from the body designated by this parliament to bring the required expertise into the resolution of the extremely complex problems of transportation, recognized by everyone in this House.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A political graveyard.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Because it is a political graveyard it has also become the graveyard of all the fine hopes expressed in the MacPherson Report, which ushered in the legislation establishing the CTC with the hope of bringing order out of existing confusion.
To get back to the specific problem, the failure to move forward on a rational regional air policy, I point out that in 1973 the present minister announced route divisions between Air Canada and CP Air as designated international flag carriers for Canada. That was a good and positive step, and we applauded the minister for his initiative. He announced also that there would be two further announcements to deal with the fundamental problems involved in regional air policy, plus a supplementary statement on third level air carriers which would fill the gap in existing air transportation policy.
Some two years later we have not moved beyond the original initiative of the minister. As a result, general air policy and third level carrier policy have been a matter of flying by the seat of the pants on the part of the minister and the government. There is no guidance, no direction, and no policy which makes it possible for the five designated regional carriers to plan on a long-term basis.


Jean Marchand: What about the agreement with the government of Manitoba on S-27 service for the Yorkton-Brandon region?
Transportation


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I am coming to that in a moment, and I will not be sidetracked at this stage of my remarks.
The tragedy in respect of regional development is that air policy, as it has been designed to the moment, is geared to the needs of Air Canada, and I think this can be easily demonstrated by some of the recent decisions in respect of regional air policy. I cannot go into too much detail, but the application by Nordair to provide a service between Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Ottawa and Montreal was rejected. This is where the Hon. Lionel Chevrier quarrels with the present lack of policy. Air Canada expressed no interest in that route, but as soon as Nordair submitted its application Air Canada submitted an application and Air Canada was given the right to provide that particular segment of regional air service.
At every opportunity this minister comes to the defence of the monopoly position of Air Canada, as he did in the House the other day when the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) asked for a copy of the Air Canada contract, which was formerly called a contract between the government of Canada and Trans-Canada Airlines. The reply by the minister was that to reveal this information would do irreparable harm to Air Canada. We have now discovered that the information is available in the National Archives of Canada.
It has become the case that whatever Air Canada wants, it is that which determines what the Cabinet decides. That is why Nordair has decided to appeal the decision of the Air Transport Committee, with every right, because Nordair was operating under the designated regional policy laid down by the former minister in 1966, and extended as recently as 1973.
Now I should like to move to the specific problem to which the minister has already referred as it applies to Manitoba and Saskatchewan. For over a year now the western part of Manitoba and the eastern part of Saskatchewan have had no air service whatsoever. This situation has existed in spite of the fact that the minister said that adequate air service is absolutely essential for regional economic development. He was supported in this statement by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion when he spoke this afternoon.
In order to help us understand how this situation of a complete vacuum and void in prairie air transportation policy has developed I have in front of me the regional air carriers' latest information booklet in which they show the routes that are already covered by the regional air carriers in Canada. The province of Saskatchewan has absolutely no regional air service whatsoever, and west of Winnipeg Transair is not carrying out its responsibility. This again is related to the basic broad orientation of the minister that what is good for Air Canada is good for everybody else.
Let me give a little history. Air Canada originally accepted the responsibility to provide the service. It provided an excellent service right through from Calgary to Winnipeg. With the announcement of the regional policy in 1966 Air Canada asked to be relieved of this responsibility and to have it turned over to the designated regional carrier, Transair. Because that run was not economically
3952

March 10, 1975
Transportation
feasible a subsidy was provided. Let me talk about this business of the subsidy.
Because there are very few air services in the smaller communities which actually pay for themselves it is essential that such services be subsidized from the national treasury. If the subsidy had been continued it would be a lot less expensive than the program of the commuter air service which is about to be launched. This service will not involve a regional air carrier but will involve a third level carrier even though we have not yet had a policy for third level carriers enunciated by the minister.
As an indication that the government had long term plans, runways were strengthened and lengthened. In 1970 the new terminal at Brandon was opened and it was such an auspicious occasion that the Minister of Transport at that time, the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, attended in person the terminal opening and made marvellous forecasts of how the service would be expanded in the future. Since then everything has been downhill. The subsidy was withdrawn and the service was downgraded to commuter third level service provided by Midwest Airlines, a subsidiary of Transair. Since January a year ago there has been no service.
It was the Air Transport Committee that gave permission to stop the air service into that area over a year ago. I shall deal with this in a moment in relation to a decision which that committee brought down with reference to an application Transair had before that committee for a year, in which it offered to meet its obligation to the regional air policy and to provide a first-class jet service between Prince Albert, Regina, Brandon and Toronto, without subsidy.
In giving a negative decision on the jet application, the Air Transport Committee obviously was looking over its shoulder, because on page 11 of its decision it states:
The concerns of the Saskatchewan government and the Regina Chamber of Commerce stem in part from the intervention of Air Canada respecting the adverse effect of the Transair proposal on Air Canada traffic and hence on its future plans for improved service.
In other words the committee was aware of the fact that if this were done Air Canada would not improve the service as it had intended. In its decision the committee states:
The committee is sympathetic to the concern expressed by Brandon and the communities in the Brandon area that the citizens of that area have to travel via surface to Winnipeg in order that they may connect with flights of a mainline or regional nature. The committee wishes to point out, had Transair or any other applicant made application to serve Brandon in a different manner than Transair has in this application, and, in addition justified the need for such a service, the committee would have given serious consideration to such an application.
In other words the decision of the committee was based on the attitude that Air Canada takes to these important matters. I want to suggest to the minister, who has referred to this third level commuter service, that it will not serve any useful purpose unless it is linked to a regional first-class service which makes it possible for Transair to discharge its obligation west of Winnipeg. I am sure the minister will agree that it is quite unreasonable and out of context with regional air policy to have Transair and its service at Winnipeg. It flies between Winnipeg, Dryden, Thunder Bay and Toronto, but does not provide any service west of Winnipeg because the ACT

has refused to authorize the provision of service in that area of responsibility.
I wish to make some precise suggestions before my time expires, whereby the minister can enhance his reputation and deal with a specific problem. I have been in correspondence with his former parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay). I received this reply in a letter signed by the deputy minister, Mr. Stoner:
Under the Aeronautics Act, applications for licences to operate commercial air services are made to the Canadian Transport Commission, and the Commission, not the Minister, may issue the licence. However, under the National Transportation Act an appeal from a decision of the Commission on an application for a licence under the Aeronautics Act is provided to the Minister. It would hardly then be proper for the Minister to interfere with a decision of the Commission in the first instance or to express his opinion on a matter before the Committee which might later be the subject of an appeal to him.
I ask the minister to accept his responsibility under the Transportation Act and appeal the decision of the committee, since it seems that this is the only way we will ever have adequate air service under the regional air policy. I would hope a public hearing would be held in this regard. The decision of the committee was brought down after a delay of more than a 12 months' period, and there were no public hearings. As is indicated by the decision from which I quoted, the ATC was sympathetic to the application in the realization that the air service was inadequate in the context of regional air policy. I believe the commission would have been willing to acquiesce, but because there was opposition by Air Canada to the effect that it interfered with its monopoly position in that part of western Manitoba and eastern Saskatchewan, the proposition was turned down.
I would hope also that the minister would meet with the regional air carriers. The regional air carriers obviously are quite concerned about the present policy. I trust that the minister has read the booklet which outlines their concerns. Perhaps I can best draw his attention to the situation by reading from the booklet itself. It refers to the fact that the policy was laid down in 1966. It states:
They were to provide regular route operations into the North, and to operate local and regional routes to complement the main carriers.
... The government also proposed a modest subsidy policy to aid the development of marginal air routes.
It refers to the fact that in 1969 there was a refinement of government policy which divided the country into regions covered by the five present regional carriers. With reference to Transair, the prairie provinces and northwestern Ontario were the designated area of responsibility for this regional carrier. A little note is added here that later Transair was also given access to Toronto. I ask the minister: why does that responsibility end at Winnipeg? Why is it not extended to cover such areas as Brandon, Regina and Prince Albert? Transair had to withdraw from this obligation because of the withdrawal of the subsidy.
The minister has indicated that a third level carrier is about to be established. The government's participation in this third level carrier operation is to provide two aircraft. There is no operating subsidy. The provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan have had difficulties meeting the obligations governing the operation subsidy.
March 10, 1975

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I ask the minister to compare this with STOL for which the government has taken complete financial responsibility. It is a demonstration project. The same designation is given to the proposed commuter service between Yorkton, Dauphin, Brandon and Winnipeg. Let us be fair and equitable, and let us take a thorough look at the proposition that has been put forward by Transair and turned down. Will the minister use the authority that is granted him under the legislation to ask for a review, and particularly refer the matter to the people?


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, I see there are a few minutes remaining before six o'clock. I am very pleased to be able to intervene in this debate as a mere, humble backbencher. I have been here six or seven months, and I find that whenever the subject of transportation comes up for discussion in the House it is always discussed in terms of freight rates or the regional air policy, such as was referred to by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). Regional matters are very important, and it appears to me that parliament does not hear too often the voice from central Canada on intercity rail, for example.
Let me state briefly the problem of intercity rail transportation in the context of this debate. One thing we must remember is that the issue is very complex. I think that my colleague, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), summed it up very well when he castigated the opposition for expecting a well defined transportation policy to be enunciated, introduced to parliament, and to become law in the space of a few months. This is not possible.
A debate on transport has been going on now for two days, and I think that my intervention this afternoon contains the first mention of intercity rail transport. It is a very wide subject indeed. I will refer to the words of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) when he spoke on Friday and said that we must find the best techniques to ensure the best possible service for Canadians. We should not try to rush off and implement a new policy just because the opposition members are getting hot under the collar and are prodding us every which way. To prepare a new policy takes time.
On Friday, the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)-who was here a few minutes ago and who is now lurking behind the curtains-referred to our party's well received transportation policy in the last election campaign. He said that it was enunciated but that no legislation had come before the House as yet. He knows as well as I do that many of our proposals do not require new legislation. As I shall show later, the minister is leading the way in implementing these new policies. In fact I might say as an aside that one of the things that made me proud to stand as a Liberal candidate in the last federal election representing an urban constituency in Toronto was the party's transportation policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: I know it is hard for hon. members opposite to swallow that, but members on this side are certainly united in their belief that the policies enunciated
Transportation
in the last election campaign were good ones, and that many salient points were brought out for the benefit of all Canadians.
One of our proposals last summer was for the establishment of a Canadian Passenger Transport Corporation to assume responsibility for the operation of all intercity passenger train services which are now the responsibility of CNR and CPR. The government in a sense issued a warning to the railways, through this proposed policy for the establishment of a corporation, to start paying attention to rail passenger services, especially in the high density traffic corridor between Windsor and Quebec, and to pay attention to passenger needs between Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, southwestern Ontario, the Atlantic provinces and the links between Edmonton and Calgary.
This proposal was bold and had the effect of creating- to use President Theodore Roosevelt's words from a by-gone era-"a big stick," because it appears, from all I read, from my travels on CNR these days, and from the remarks I heard from the president of CPR, that the railways are getting the message and are making a conscientious effort to upgrade their services. We have now the Turbo train running twice daily between Montreal and Toronto. I believe it runs once a day between Ottawa and Montreal. On Friday night, due to the disruption in the air service, my colleague, the hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon), and I travelled six and a half hours on that great CN train to Toronto. I think we were very well looked after, except for the speed at which the train travelled, something to which I will make reference in a moment. In any event we had a very comfortable ride!
It is clear that speed is essential in rail travel, but that the railways at present cannot achieve it. However, with the assistance of this government they will be able to achieve it. Madam Speaker, I see it is six o'clock. Perhaps I will be allowed to finish my remarks after the recess. May I call it six o'clock?


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I shall not be too long concluding my remarks as I understand there are a number of other members who wish to speak this evening.
Before the hour of six o'clock I was talking about the need for speed in intercity rail travel, and I put forth the argument that the railways really will have difficulty in matching our expectations unless the government comes forward with some assistance in helping to develop new technology, such as the very successful light, rapid, comfortable rail cars now being tested. Indeed, I believe the LRC test locomotive is being used on the daily Tempo run from Toronto to Sarnia pulling conventional coaches. These trains can attain speeds of up to 125 miles per hour.
28996-4 SH

March 10, 1975
Transportation
The test with the LRC is essentially designed to allow railway personnel to become familiar with the operation of a daily service and to see how the equipment performs in an endurance sense over a certain period. Recently the LRC completed thousands of miles of testing at the Am track Centre in the United States.
There are other ways in which the government can be of assistance in the development of intercity rail transport. We must remember that there are massive capital outlays required to build a new double track paralleling the present CN right of way from Montreal to Toronto. The government can assist in funding a fully computerized signalling system on the railways, concrete ties, electrification, and continuously welded track. All of these will help facilitate a high speed rail system. I understand that discussions are now under way with CN to look into some of these possibilities. In fact I was informed that only last Friday, the day when this debate began, that the Minister of Transport met with senior officials from both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to discuss ways of improving intercity rail passenger services.
As for Canadian Pacific, the big stick of the Canadian Passenger Transport Corporation proposal to which I referred earlier in my remarks, I am sure prompted Mr. Sinclair, the president of Canadian Pacific, in his recent remarks to admit that existing technology would permit CP to introduce highspeed rail links on the Montreal-Ottawa line and to cut down the travel time to about 75 minutes; and I reiterate to my hon. friend from Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, who is not here at the present time, that no new legislation is needed in this case, only the good will and the determination of the railways to comply with government intentions. The failure to comply with what we believe on this side of the House is the direction in which intercity rail should go would leave the government in a very dicey position. There is one alternative left if we do not receive the co-operation of the railways, and that is the full nationalization of the rail section of CP and the creation of one Canadian railway company, publicly owned, and serving the interests of Canada.
Hon. members of the Official Opposition this afternoon sneered when this solution was proposed by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), but it is the responsibility of the government to see that Canada's railway companies, which receive so much in the way of massive financial assistance from the taxpayers of Canada in the form of bonds, debentures, loans, land grants, etc., serve the present needs of the Canadian population.
The revitalization of our passenger rail services will involve a vast construction program for public transport vehicles and thus create an enormous area of industrial employment opportunity. I understand that there are now about 800,000 Canadians already employed in the transportation field alone, and this will be vastly increased by revamping the rolling stock through the introduction of new types of railway cars such as the LRCs. Revitalization of our intercity rail systems with high speed trains will help to decentralize growth in our urban areas. As a member for the metropolitan Toronto region I am very concerned about this particular facet of intercity rail.
Intercity rail development will help to add stimuli to smaller communities by offering them a fast direct link to

major metropolises. It will help them become small industrial centres. It will help them become bedroom communities for the larger centres. It will for the first time create competition for the airlines in many domestic shorthaul routes-shorthaul routes which wastefully consume jet fuel in an age of scarcity, crowd air terminals and exacerbate the noise problem for thousands of residents in the urban areas, especially in the west end of Toronto. Perhaps those of us who took a stand on this side of the House in doubting somewhat the wisdom of the government going ahead with the building of a second airport in the Pickering area will be justified in the end as a highspeed rail system could dampen demand for air transport in the dense corridor between Quebec and Windsor.
I would like to digress for just a moment to refer to the minister and his approach to the Pickering airport and the needs of that area. It is no secret that there was much discussion on this side of the House. There was much internal debate and opposition to the proposed full scale $1.5 billion Pickering Airport; but it is the measure of the present minister, who has suffered from the spurious and vituperative attacks of hon. members on the other side of this House, that he listened to hon. members on this side, took their counsel, and agreed after much deliberation to scale down the size of that airport. It is now a $250 million proposal. There is the option to expand if those critics of the airport are wrong, but I believe it leaves the door open to develop new ways of transporting people in the high density corridor along the Lake Ontario-St. Lawrence region.
I could go on to talk about the spinoffs of a highspeed rail system as it will affect our urban areas, such as weekend excursions for winter weekends for workers in cities, or to take masses of city dwellers to the lakeside in the heat of the summer, but I think I should conclude because I know there are other speakers who wish to contribute this evening.


Mr. Paproski:: Oh, go ahead, don't be modest.


David Michael Collenette: To this day, until the threat of massive government intervention with the Canadian Rail Passenger Corporation, the limited subsidies provided by the government to railways for rail passenger service-80 per cent of the losses, I believe, are covered-have not been sufficient incentive to the railways to maintain and update their passenger rolling stock and equipment. However, changes are on the way, and these changes destroy the credibility of the motion we have before us. We are dealing with a complex matter, and I realize hon. members on the other side are not used to thinking in such complex terms.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame.


David Michael Collenette: That is in essence the motion we have before us. We have a transportation policy which members of this party put forward in the election.


An hon. Member:: Come on.


David Michael Collenette: It was widely accepted by the Canadian public, especially in the urban and the highly developed areas. Look at who won all the seats in the highly devel-
March 10, 1975

oped areas of Canada-members on this side of the House. We have a policy, Mr. Speaker, but they do not like it and criticize it because it takes a long time. Mr. Speaker, it always takes a long time to develop good, sound ideas.


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) will be happy to know that I do not plan to speak very long on this motion. I would not want the minister to think that I am picking on him just because I think that he should have come up with a transport policy of some kind during the years that he has had his portfolio. After all, if a member accepts a portfolio, such as the Minister of Transport has, we in the opposition and the Canadian people as well, have a right to expect him to tell us from time to time what are his policies. If he does not have any policies then he can expect to have the opposition keep the pressure on until he comes up with some.
My own interest, strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, has to do with rail service, or the lack of rail service, in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, and in many parts of Canada such as western and northern Ontario. I know most people think of Parry Sound-Muskoka as a little corner of Paradise, or the Garden of Eden, and naturally think that it is off the beaten path, off the main line, so to speak. But that just is not so, Mr. Speaker. My riding is on the main line to Sudbury and North Bay, and for that reason you would think that it would be easy for the railways to provide adequate rail service through it.
There are a number of reasons why the people of Parry Sound-Muskoka have a right to expect the railroads to serve them, or at least to pretend once in a while that they know that we exist. The minister could show from one of his old timetables, that we used to have fairly regular rail service, passenger and freight, through my riding, and he could add that the people did not take advantage of the service and so it was cut off. The fact is that the regular service that we used to have came through at such times as to make it inconvenient, if not impossible, for people to take advantage of it. I know that it does not matter if a freight train runs through the riding on the way to Vancouver at three o'clock in the morning, but it matters a great deal if passenger trains go through at such an ungodly hour.
We find another example on the very important run from Ottawa to Montreal. A few years ago it used to be a pleasure to take the train, have breakfast on the way, and get to the big city in time to do some business and take the train back- again in the evening. However, the railways decided that it was too much trouble serving mere passengers. They altered the schedules, took off the dining car and generally discouraged people from taking the train.
The government is spending tens of millions of dollars on an experiment to initiate the world's first downtown to downtown STOL airplane service between major cities. While this is certainly a step in the direction of providing adequate service between cities, it is still not a complete substitute for adequate rail passenger service between Canada's major cities and areas. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the government talks about using the new STOL service in order to prove that our aircraft industry can make a better
Transportation
STOL plane than anyone else, so that we can sell airplanes.
Just a couple of years ago we were involved in fierce debate over whether the two major rail systems in our country should be allowed to discontinue transcontinental passenger rail service. It was found then that the railways wanted to concentrate on freight service and gradually scale down passenger service to the point where people would just get tired of the whole mess and use the planes and buses. We just squeaked through that one and ended up with minimum transcontinental rail passenger service. But we in Parry Sound-Muskoka still do not have anywhere near the service we need and should have.
Everyone in this House knows that our highways are getting to the point where they are clogged with traffic almost around the clock. This means that people are burning gasoline at a greater rate than they should, and it means also that the incidence of highway deaths and injuries is rising yearly at an alarming rate. Automobile repairs and write-offs amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, and this is reflected in increased insurance premiums. I can speak with some authority on that as an insurance agent.
Adequate rail passenger service from cities like Toronto to outlying areas such as the Muskoka lakes vacationland would take hundreds and possibly thousands of automobiles off the roads, especially on weekends. I do not believe that anyone in his or her right mind would consider driving an automobile between these points unless it were absolutely necessary; therefore, proper train service would take much of the necessity out of this type of driving.
It is said trains run at a loss, but if there were a special rate for a vacationland train of this type it would pay its way, and would be filled to capacity.
Most of the stations in my area have been torn down, abandoned or replaced with a small leanto that could only be termed as a backhouse. There are no lights, and you have to stand out and try to flag down the passenger train as it goes through.
The railways are concentrating most of their efforts on providing freight service while scaling down passenger service, and even the freight and express service are not all that they should be. During the last strike, because there was no express train service the Grey Coach Lines started a parcel delivery service, and they are still in that in a big way. Buses going north are loaded because they are giving fast, guaranteed service.
Industries and businesses in small areas are not able to ship goods by rail because of the high cost of freight. As was mentioned earlier today in the House, short run freight rates are prohibitive. If something could be done to streamline freight rates I am sure it would be to the advantage of the railways. Of course they do not have too much competition. The two main companies own trucking services-in other words, you have to deal with the railway whether you ship by rail, car or tractor trailer transport.
The countries of western Europe have better railway service than we have in Canada even if they do not have the distances to contend with that we have in our country,

March 10, 1975
Transportation
with its vast areas and distances between major cities. Yet the railway is still the best means of transport, or at least it would be if we could have adequate and dependable rail service.
We hear today that with the airlines also, freight service is increasing at a faster rate than passenger service, and most airlines are using combination passenger-freight aircraft. In fact even some of the jumbo jets, designed for passenger services, are being converted into freight carriers.
This morning's Globe and Mail featured a story on its front page telling of how passengers on Air Canada flights to Toronto were landed in Montreal and abandoned to their fates. They were not fed, nor were they given any assistance in getting to the destinations for which they had bought tickets. It seems that the Air Canada officials felt that, as long as they landed their passengers somewhere in Canada, then they should be satisfied.
This diversion was made necessary because the runways at Toronto International Airport were covered with snow, and the runway cleaners were on strike. A spokesman for Air Canada was reported as saying that Air Canada could not accept responsibility for passengers whose flights were interrupted for reasons beyond Air Canada's control. It was also reported that passengers bound for Toronto on CP Air were fed when they landed at Montreal, and were afterwards sent on to Toronto by bus.
The government-owned airline seems to have the same attitude toward people as the government-owned railway, and this can only be explained as a lack of government transportation policy. It could mean also that the government-owned airline is more interested today in hauling freight than in serving passengers. Whatever the reason, let me tell the House that if I ever buy a ticket on Air Canada for a certain destination and get dumped in some other place, then I shall be talking to the minister or to the Air Canada officials about it.
I do not know whether the Minister of Transport will even get the point of what this opposition day is all about, but I do know one thing; we in the opposition will not fail to let the minister and the government know, on a day-today basis, that the Canadian people are getting fed up with not having a national transportation policy. They are fed up with being treated worse than cattle and grain when they travel on our railways and airlines. People deserve better, and if the minister does not feel that he can create some order out of the confusion in his department, I suggest that he do the decent thing and resign.


Hon. Otto E. Liang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is a great pleasure to join in this debate on the extremely important question of transportation, and particularly to follow immediately the observation of the hon. member opposite that "we are very concerned about the need in Canada for a transportation policy." Those words are very interesting. How often do members of the opposition use those words, and then immediately point to what they mean by them by indicating that there is a clear need for an additional airport runway in the village Podunk in

order to make Canada's transportation policy perfectly effective.
The members of the opposition express their interest in transportation matters by asking the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) about things such as that-an individual runway here, a particular subdivision there, and the line of a report some place else. I suppose this is a fairly classic opposition tactic, to attempt to make it seem that the minister should know about each of these small details, matters that in fact are only suitable for the order paper.
The fact of the matter is that such individual details cannot and should not be in the forefront of the mind of the Minister of Transport, who is attempting to formulate and develop an over-all policy for transportation in Canada within federal jurisdiction. The concern of the opposition about these petty and minor matters distracts from some other rather key issues.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) pointed out today what I think everyone should recognize, and that is that with our tremendous geographic problems, problems that make transportation an important, indeed essential element in this country, we have by and large been reasonably successful with our transportation system. Our criticisms of the system are really related to our desire for a better system, rather than contrasting how the job is done in other countries.
At the present time the opposition are concentrating on individual, minor issues. They are trying, as they have tried before, to make something strange out of the fact that because of my responsibility for grain and connection with the grains group, and because of my role in which I work closely with the Minister of Transport regarding the handling and transport of grain, both the Minister of Transport and I are interested in the same important subject matter.
I say it is an important subject matter; about one quarter of the ton miles of freight hauled in Canada is of grain. We have seen the railway perform this task extremely well during the past several years. While we have had labour troubles and have encountered other difficulties in trying to achieve internationally new and record goals, we have none the less achieved these goals.
I should remind hon. members that in the year 1972-73, notwithstanding significant closedowns because of labour and other problems, such as cold weather and difficulty getting through the Rockies, the railway system in this country moved over 800 million bushels of grain for export and in total close to one billion bushels of grain were transported, an amount never before achieved.
We have also made great improvements to the rail system in the matter of grain handling. Things like hopper cars, the block system and co-ordinators at terminals are all part of trying to make the system work more efficiently. Hon. members should be aware as well that one of the reasons transportation is such a massive responsibility, one that cannot be within the knowledge and purview of the Minister of Transport to the last detail, is that in this country we have developed a transportation system where we rely on the individual responsibility of the various parties to, and parts of, that system. It is not for the
March 10, 1975

Minister of Transport to endeavour to try to run the railways or to run Air Canada. It is not as though he should be involved in every one of the system's facets. The system must always run with reliance placed upon the responsibility of the various individuals throughout the system; and the role of the government, and therefore that of the minister, is one of over-all co-ordination and development of planning to see that all goes well.
Under the present Minister of Transport development of planning and policy has been moving forward like never before. Here, of course, is a major area where the opposition has an extremely legitimate and useful role to play, namely, in putting forward to the government major policy considerations. I think it has, too, the responsibility and opportunity to repeat to us time and time again the promises and pledges we have made regarding a major overhaul of the transportation system. It is therefore not surprising that the opposition wants at this point in time to show impatience at the kind of job being done.
The important thing to remember, Mr. Speaker, is that as those promises are carried out and as those pledges are implemented, our national policy will show its new form in terms of developing the kind of transportation system that we need. That is what the work of transportation is all about at the present time. It is a matter of major planning, of such issues as the control of rates in this country for freight, and of determining a new technique. We are not satisfied with the technique of the past.
Let me remind hon. members that no one in the House should treat this matter as though it were a simple and easy one. We cannot expect solutions to be found and implemented overnight.


An hon. Member:: Huh!


Mr. Lang:: I remind the House, and the Conservative member who says "huh," that during the term of office of several years of the Conservative government under the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) the only step taken in terms of a transportation policy for Canada was the creation of a royal commission, which itself sat for six or seven years before reporting. That was the sum total of the development of a railway transportation policy from the party that now wants to say that somehow solutions should be instantaneous and implemented overnight. Hon. members will also notice that that party does not propose specific solutions but only agrees that the problem has been fairly stated by the government and that, therefore, solutions have to be found.
It is important that we find an appropriate mechanism for controlling the level of freight rates and relating them in some way to reasonable total costs and not leaving the railways free, as they have been largely under the law up to this point, to be limited only by competition. Where there is competition, and by not very satisfactory rules where there is no competition, rules which do not always hold the charges anywhere near total cost. We are not happy with that. A solution to that is what we are seeking. However, we will not pretend that the solution is easy. I challenge hon. members opposite to find one and put it
Transportation
forward if they in fact think it is so easy. It cannot be done.
These are important issues. And so is our pledge that there should be removal of inequities in freight rates, and we are going about this in the way the complex problem deserves.
If members opposite want to criticize, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) may be doing so much consultation with the provinces upon these issues that he is being that much more thorough in order to bring them along with the matters he is undertaking and studying. However, hon. members know full well if he were doing any less, that would be the front upon which the attack would be aimed. It is obvious he is doing exactly what he ought to in order to bring the provinces along to find solutions, in bringing about fair and equitable freight rates.
Members opposite talk in support of the principles of equity of freight rates. More specifically, I have heard them talk about the importance of and agreeing with the principle in our feed grains policy of producing equity in freight rates between meat and grain. They will say that, but not a word will they say about the manner in which they think it ought to be brought about, the issue that we obviously have to tackle in order to solve the problem.
The only solution of those who think they can do it safely politically is to suggest if there is a low cost freight rate on grain, then obviously a low rate on meat is desirable. However, this will involve further large payments from the treasury in order to support the rail costs that are involved over and above that low rate.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Aiken Lang: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) applauds. I have heard him say that this government ought not to spend so much, that it ought to cut back on spending, yet this would involve hundreds of millions of additional dollars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Aiken Lang: Rather than be concerned about that important issue, they will in their political way attempt to concern people about matters like the challenge to the Crowsnest rate. They put to the Minister of Transport the fact that I made some remarks about the Crowsnest rate. I would just like to say a word about what I did in fact say.
I can first say that no one is threatening the Crowsnest rate. In fact all I said was that in my opinion the rate at the low level was over-valued by farmers compared to receiving the same kind of benefit in a different way.
Let me just use the example of low freight rates for grain and meat as an example because some might think that in itself is a benefit to western Canada. That is not so because rates that are well below cost will still make it more likely that the bulkier or heavier commodity is moved farther than it would in other circumstances at rates that properly reflect costs. Therefore, the very question of the development of a livestock industry and processing of livestock in western Canada may depend upon appropriate rates which in fact reflect costs.

March 10, 1975
Transportation
That is a serious proposition I put before hon. members, one we ought to be debating to try to determine the sort of program we should have in developing our transportation policy in this country. Those who want to agitate farmers about the Crowsnest rate should listen again to what I have said. No one is threatening the Crowsnest rate. I said clearly that no change should be tolerated except if farmers themselves see the benefit of the kind of change and agree to what is going on.
What we ought not obscure in this issue is the importance of knowing what it really costs to move particular products and to consider the economic impact upon development in one place or another by allowing that rail cost to be reflected, or hiding it in some form or another. That is the sort of important issue we have to face in trying to determine what kind of railway and freight structure we ought to have.
Hon. members have shown some concern in recent days, and certainly in the previous year, about the question of branch lines on the prairies. To a large extent we have allayed the bulk of that concern by putting into a basic rail network two thirds of the rail lines on the prairies. The remaining one third, almost all of the rest, we have dealt with by giving them protection for a further year. We would be prepared to extend that if the inquiry process we want to take on, region by region, is not in fact completed by that time. It is important that we not lose sight of the urgency of getting on with this job. It is not just a matter of determining which lines are not needed. The crucial issue is the determination and labelling of those lines which not only should remain, but which should be upgraded and built to a standard where they can carry fully loaded hopper cars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Aiken Lang: That is the kind of significant thing we have to bear in mind in looking at this transportation question. Vast sums of money will have to be expended on capital improvements in the transportation industry, not only in air, but remarkably so in rail, in this next little while. The Conservatives did nothing but set up a royal commission that lasted for seven years. Therefore our transportation policy may take some months to develop. What is going to become evident as the Minister of Transport unveils and develops this policy is that it is designed to be a policy to serve all of Canada. The Minister of Transport has certainly shown interest in the area of the country from which I come by spending day after day dealing with the problems of western transportation and dealing with the western ministers of transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Aiken Lang: These are the major issues of policy. We will in fact find a way properly to control freight rates. We will find a way to do what can be done to remove inequities in freight rates in Canada. These are the major issues on which the opposition will press for results. I say boldly and plainly that before very much time has gone by the performance of this government, with this Minister of Transport, will justify to the full the pledges and promises which were made, and will give this country the kind of transportation policy it deserves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to participate in this debate, particularly since we witnessed this afternoon the performance of two lieutenants apparently sent to bail out the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). I thought this was a transport debate. Apparently we are yet to hear from the Minister of Transport, who also spoke last Friday, but his arguments at that time certainly did not deal with transportation. They dealt with everything but the problem of transportation. That shows the attitude of this minister and why we are concerned about how that department is being administered. The minister is not running the department. That is our concern.
We heard a very good presentation by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson). He brought the debate on track. He concerned himself with transport problems. Why could not the Minister of Transport have done the same-after all, he is supposed to have the authority? He is head of the department and answers for it.
From time to time members have risen to question the minister about specific items. There is no point in elaborating upon them all, but I remember being concerned some years ago about the fact that locomotives were not equipped with flashers. I was told that a study was being conducted, but that is as far as I got. I was told that the cost of equipping locomotives with flashers was prohibitive-that it would amount to something like $700 per locomotive. I imagine it would be more like $2,000 today. Anyway, the minister said that studies were being conducted, and that is as far as the matter went. What was the result of those studies? What was the point in conducting them?
The transportation problem we face in Western Canada has already been well documented. Member after member has given an account of what has happened to shipments of cattle from western to eastern Canada in contrast to shipments of meat. As everyone knows, a conference was held in Calgary. It was supposed to seek solutions to the problems which have so long been irking the people of western Canada. The minister was told the nature of these grievances, as if he needed to be told; every year for the last 20 years successive Liberal governments have been told that the basic complaint is the existence of grave inequities in the freight rate structure.
To dramatize his concern the minister called a western conference, in the course of which all these difficulties were once again outlined. At the end of the conference, a communique was issued and the western spokesmen sat back and waited for further developments. The premiers who took part in this conference expected a lot from the minister. They said a break-through might finally have been achieved. From all indications, it should have been. But a minister must do something when an opportunity is presented to him. He cannot just sit on his hands.
I once had a teacher who told us in class, "If you cannot solve a problem, forget it. Otherwise you are like a hen sitting on a rotten egg. You will never hatch a chick out of
March 10, 1975

it." The Minister of Transport just shrugs his shoulders while another minister bails him out. Then the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) has to get involved because he is an authority on justice, an authority on the Wheat Board, and the be all and end all as far as transport is concerned.
One dictator in the cabinet is enough. I do not think we need another. The Minister of Justice has enough problems in his own department. He should leave transportation to the Minister of Transport. Why does he come out with transport proposals affecting Western Canada? We deal in more than agricultural products. There is sulphur, there is potash, there are minerals, all kinds of things. The Minister of Justice takes it upon himself to be the western spokesman. What a mess he is making of it. He himself started the debate on the Crowsnest pass agreement. No one else thought of tampering with it. The man who is supposed to be the western representative in the cabinet proposed doing away with the Crowsnest agreement because of the fact that cattlemen in Western Canada find themselves in a difficult position.
The government says, "Let us take this concession away from the grain farmers and give it to the cattlemen, because the cattlemen passed a resolution at their conference asking for extra consideration on the grounds that if there is a special rate for grain they should get a lower rate, too." Granted the cattlemen have reason to complain, but why take anything away from the grain farmers? For once they are getting an improved standard of living, and now the minister wants to take it away. And there is every indication that he will succeed.
Let us go back into history. There was a commission set up to inquire into transportation, and this commission came up with certain recommendations. That was some time ago. The minister talks about seven years. It is almost seven years now since the freeze was imposed. The freeze was put on in 1970 and it is coming to an end in 1975 by which time, maybe, that study should have been completed. The commission had one specific problem to deal with, and it has taken five years already. Another year is coming up rapidly, yet the minister has told us that a seven year period was too long for a transport study under a Conservative government. Why should we need that extra year? The government should have had a policy ready.
The reason I am taking part in this debate is that we have a block system and the minister has some responsibility for seeing that grain is moved. He says everything is rosy, but the facts are otherwise. Why is not greater use being made of the facilities at the Port of Churchill? Let me give an illustration of what I have in mind. The town of Norquay is closer to Churchill than are many communities in Assiniboia. Nevertheless the railways will not ship grain from Norquay though they are willing to do so from Assiniboia, perhaps as a reward for its electing a Liberal member. There is a shortage of boxcars. Everybody realizes we can transport grain from a large number of communities in Western Canada to Churchill and have the cars back within a couple of days. But they prefer to take the grain from distant communities; the cars take a week to go to Churchill and a week to come back. That is the way the system is being managed.
Transportation
A few weeks ago I asked what was happening about freight rates. In the communities near Hudson Bay freight rates have shot up by 500 per cent, reaching an unrealistic level as far as many Canadians are concerned. We complain about 25 per cent. The government intervened and reduced the increase to 12 Vfc per cent. This time the minister says he does not have the power to intervene. Yet when the increase of 25 per cent was in effect the minister did reduce it. So, what is he talking about when he says he does not have power under the existing act? I suggest the power is there, but there is no drive or willingness on the part of the government to act on these problems.
Let me illustrate what has happened in those small communities. They were getting their wholesale commodities in from Prince Albert. Before the increase went into effect on February 24, I believe it was, fresh meat came in at $1.89 per cwt. Smoked meat and bacon came in at $1.33 per cwt. and groceries came in under third class at $1.05. Then the railways came in with the new regulations. First of all they locked the rates altogether in one class, and then proceeded to impose the new rates. The new rate this time in respect of groceries jumped from $1.05 to $4.97. What kind of a percentage increase is that? This is much, much more than a 25 per cent increase, and no one needs a calculator to figure that one out.
The minister asks what our problem is and why the west is complaining. He says the government is doing everything it can within its power. I would ask the minister if the government is really doing everything in its power? If the government is concerned about western economic opportunities, and development in that part of the country, perhaps it should establish a branch within the Department of Transport which could work very closely with the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
There are possibilities for development in this country, particularly in the west, but we need some co-ordination, and we must have some willingness on the part of the government to tackle these problems. In all the years I have been in this House I have never heard anyone complain when preferential freight rates have been adopted for the Atlantic region. We all know this is an area which requires special attention, and we are willing to give people there that assistance. I think the same thing is true of western Canada.
I suggest that what we are concerned about is when the government gives this type of assistance to that small circle in central Canada, which has a natural geographic preference in any event. The government does everything it can, from every angle, to improve the lot of those people in that small area. The government always looks after them, and I find that this has been true over the years. However, when it comes to improving the situation in western Canada or in the Atlantic area, the government is not quite so willing to act, and I think there is general agreement in that regard among hon. members in this House, no matter which province they represent.
The situation which exists in respect of it being cheaper to ship from central Canada to Vancouver than it is to Regina has been pointed out on many occasions. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion has asked what
3960

March 10, 1975
Transportation
the members and the people from British Columbia will say to preferential rates for the prairies. I suggest this does not have to be the federal policy. It would be all right for provincial governments to take this stand in order to improve the economic environment of individual provinces, but I do not think it should be federal government policy to discriminate deliberately against any region. Even if the government moves only one-half a step at a time toward resolving these discriminatory rates, that will be a move in the right direction.
The cost of shipping freight from central Canada to Regina should at no time be higher than the rate to Vancouver, but that is the situation that exists today. Even if the cost were the same it would not be fair, but at least then we would be removing half the discrimination, and instead of having a half a dozen burrs we would have only three.
I could go on to describe what is happening in general transportation policy so far as Churchill is concerned. Several years ago there was an item in the Blue Book in respect of development at Churchill. Everybody got excited because certain funds were allocated for this purpose. Because of a squabble that began between the officials of the department and some members of the Hudson Bay Route Association, that development never proceeded.
We now may well have a similar situation in disguise, but unless the government intends to proceed with its announced intention there is no point in fooling the people. A tremendous savings could be effected through the use of Churchill as an export port. There is a railway in existence at the moment that could be utilized. The CPR should certainly be allowed running rights by the CNR, and the CNR should be forced to make use of this line. We should always follow the shortest route to the port requiring the shortest period of travel time. I suggest there is no need for a duplication of services or the abandonment of many of these particular rail lines.
After five years of study what did this government come up with? It has put a freeze until the year 2,000 on abandonment in relation to some 13,000 miles of rail line. There is still some 6,000 miles of rail lines in question. We are not concerned about the 500 odd miles on which there is agreement for abandonment. Those are not the lines that one should be concerned about at this time. Nor should we be concerned now about the 13,000 miles that will be frozen, but it should be of immediate concern to hon. members that 6,000 miles are still in question.
What should be our immediate priorities in respect to this proposed rail line abandonment? I suggest the government must indicate to the communities concerned what is planned. There certainly must be co-operation between the federal government, the provincial governments and the local communities. The government must make known its intention in respect of upgrading these lines.
This involves another matter. No one has ever proven to me, or to many of the people involved, that there was ever anything wrong with the roadbeds in question. I suggest that the railways over a period of time have allowed those roadbeds to deteriorate, always keeping in the back of their minds the desire to abandon certain lines. Do hon. members know what transpired during the last five-year freeze on rail line abandonments? I suggest all this did

was give the railways time to allow a few more lines to deteriorate to the point that they should be abandoned. That is all that came out of the last freeze.
A study in respect of all these problems should have been carried out and completed by now. All these communities should have been asked to state their problems and how they think they should be resolved. They should have been asked how they think the railways could meet the proposed highway programs which will have to be met if the railways are to discontinue this service. These people should know what facilities will be available for servicing their communities, but nothing like that has ever been indicated.
The railways have held general meetings at certain central points, at which a fast talking public relations man has attempted to illustrate to the few people who were able to attend, perhaps 100 miles from the community affected, that everything is going to be all right, just give the railways the opportunity and they will prove it. It has never been proven that the service has been improved as a result of the abandonment of any rail line. That has never been proven to the satisfaction of the people involved; those people have had to live with the situation.
We are talking about 6,000 miles of proposed rail line abandonment. That is a lot of line, and a lot of people are affected. This is the type of irritation that must be corrected. Transportation has been a very important factor in the development of the west. Transportation can be made to work for the west and for all of Canada, but we need a minister and a government that are willing to come up with solutions to the problems and act on them.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to limit my remarks to 15 minutes or less, partially because I would like to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) have an additional five minutes to defend his position and that of his department. I think he is going to need every minute he can get tonight to defend that position in view of the record of that department.
I had intended to begin my remarks with a reference to the statement by the minister in this House on Friday. I might say that there are 5,000 French Canadians living in my riding in British Columbia. Having listened this afternoon to the very constructive and statesmanlike address to this House by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), I have changed my mind. I do not think it is useful or necessary to dwell on that subject when there are a number of people in this House who can conduct themselves in that manner and who can avoid this issue. I wish the Minister of Transport were one of them because I suspect the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe spoke not only for me but also for my party, and I think for many members on the other side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Since I came to this House I have always wondered why British Columbia was prosperous. I agonized about this until this afternoon when the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley) told me why.
March 10,1975

It is not difficult; it is because of the policies of the Minister of Transport when he was Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. That is what happened.
It was because of all that wonderful industrial development which came about. I should like to tell the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas that the province of British Columbia in 1973 received one per cent of the amount of DREE money that went out from Ottawa. Out of an amount of $450 million we received $4 million. Between 1969 and 1973 the total amount received by British Columbia in DREE grants was $16 million while the federal government was spending $500 million a year. Many people talk about separatism in this country. I agree that there is a lack of understanding between one part of the country and the other, but it is a two-way street. When I hear a member from Ontario talk about that it seems to me that he has less understanding of my province than I have of his.
I also listened with great interest to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) most energetically and eloquently defend the Minister of Transport tonight. In fact he was so eloquent and energetic that I suspect he is preaching for a call over there. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I would not be unhappy with that switch. Today the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) suggested that we need time in which to develop these policies. He said we require time in which to look at it and to do something about it.
I wish to give this House a brief history. There was something called the Darling report, which is a pretty significant part of the minister's responsibility. This report came out in 1970. Back on May 26, 1971, in this House the then hon. member for Saint John-Lancaster asked the Minister of Transport of that date, the present Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), a question on this matter, to which the minister replied:
I agree that it is a 'Darling' report. We will do our very best to implement as quickly as possible those parts of it which seem to have public favour.
Then again in respect of the same report on June 8, 1971, the minister gave this reply to a question:
Just as soon as we have these views, government policy will be formulated along these lines. X would hesitate to give a time frame, but perhaps by the autumn of this year might be a reasonable expectation.
Those were the answers by the minister in respect of the Darling report at that time. That is the kind of action we received from the previous minister. I can understand his defending this Minister of Transport so vigorously because his record is not much to write home about. As we move through this time frame we come to the present minister.
In respect of the Darling report, in 1973 the present minister had some comment to make. I cannot find his comments in my papers but I know he said something in 1973 about bringing down government policy very shortly. The reason many of us are concerned about the Darling report and its implementation-and the minister has indicated his interest in seeing it implemented-is that we have lost control of our shipping for a very long time.
If that report were implemented 40,000 jobs would be created in this country, at a time of rising unemployment. There is no doubt this is one of the specific things that
Transportation
need not wait for an over-all study and could be undertaken quickly, but this has not been done. That is one of the criticisms by the opposition. It not only would create 40,000 jobs but would give some impact to the Law of the Sea Conference. We are now going into this conference and there is a fairly good chance that we will have a 200-mile limit. What will Canada do in terms of coastal shipping? We will still have foreign navigation bottoms off our coast carrying Canadian goods. The implementation of the recommendations contained in this report is long overdue. We now have a second Darling report in respect of deep sea shipping. Will it take as long a period to consider this report before we will have a Canadian merchant marine? I expect this will take even longer.
Another aspect of the minister's policy is that it is easier to buy a ship in this country if you do not buy it for Canadian purposes than it is if you are a Canadian user of that vessel, because under the Export Development Corporation the terms for the borrowing of money are much more advantageous. The Darling report pointed out that this is a major failure in terms of our policy.
I wish to refer briefly to another phase of transportation. I refer to the ferry system in this country. Under the present ferry system most of the ferries are subsidized in one way or another by the federal government. The Trans-Canada Highway begins where I come from, on the coast of British Columbia. The only gap is across the Straits of Georgia. Not a dime has been received from the federal government in the form of a subsidy in respect of that ferry system. There are construction subsidies but there is nothing in terms of a subsidy for operation or for the building of terminal facilities. I know the answer of the minister is that because it is not an interprovincial ferry it does not come under federal jurisdiction.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: You never asked us.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Yes, I have. The ferry running between Tobermory and South Baymouth is heavily subsidized by the government. A large amount of money is spent in this country in the subsidization of ferry systems, but not a dime is spent on the largest ferry service in the country.
We have more ships in the British Columbia ferry service than there are in the Canadian navy. We need a little help in order to have decent transportation, and we are not receiving this from the minister or from the department. Separatism works both ways. The mountains become very high when the people find that it costs $5 to go from Prince Edward Island to the mainland, and costs $10 to $15 to go from Vancouver to Victoria on the coast. There is no reason for that kind of discrimination in a country where we are trying to keep together, in a country in which we are trying to have one side appreciate the other.
In conclusion I should like to say a few words about small harbours. There has been a new impact in terms of harbours. People are now interested in ensuring that our rivers are clean, that we can fish in them, and that we can use them for recreational purposes. Yet the sole interest of the harbour commissions in this country-and that is certainly true of the one where I came from on the Fraser river-is in harbour development for commercial pur-
3962

March 10, 1975
Transportation
poses. It is high time we amended the legislation to allow either for elections or appointments to the boards.
I do not wish to take up any more time of the House, and I am sure that this will not make anyone unhappy. Let me just say that in terms of an over-all transportation policy it is no excuse for the minister to say that he has not had time, or that he knows that the problems are difficult but he will come to them because, Mr. Speaker, we have had an election on this issue, a very interesting election.


An hon. Member:: And you did not do very well.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: One of the reasons we did not do very well was the kind of promises that were made to the Canadian people by my friends in the government. They promised a policy, they promised some action and some leadership. In the speech from the throne in the twenty-ninth parliament they went so far as to promise an improvement in the total transportation system so basic to overcoming the problems of distance. In the twenty-ninth parliament, on February 27, the minister promised that steps would be taken to end discrimination in freight rates.
Then, on March 7, the minister said in the House that transportation is a problem so important to the future of the country that we should at least look into each others eyes and say what we really think about this matter. Finally the minister told us that he really thought on January 22, 1975, when he said that we have no over-all policy, that it is still in a mess and more a mess than we think.
What kind of a reaction can members of the opposition have to such a statement in the House? I appreciate the minister's frankness, but where is the leadership? That is what we are looking for, Mr. Speaker. It is all right to say that things are in a mess, but you must try to do something about that. That is what we are going to get in the next election, another promise.


An hon. Member:: There will be 16 less NDP members after the next election.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Anybody who counts those chickens before they are hatched is usually in a good deal of trouble, and has an element of self-confidence which is entirely unjustified.
In any event, that is the record of the minister and of the government. At least we have an acknowledgement of the mess, but no acknowledgement whatsoever that anything will be done about it.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes tonight to answer my colleague the hon. member for Saint-Hyacin-the (Mr. Wagner), just to make sure that facts are recorded in Hansard. As for the rest, I intend to talk about transportation problems, and not deliver a Sermon on the Mount.
There is one thing I never heard in the hon. member's speech, namely the word "transportation". I entirely agree with him on the principles put forward, but I wish to make sure that there is no misunderstanding; if you refer to Hansard, to what happened last Friday when I talked

about racism, you will notice that I was mentioning an article published in the Ottawa Journal under the title "Only Marchand is amused", as if I was amused to see my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro), and Mr. Kerr who resigned in Ontario, as if I found it funny. That is something extremely nasty. I believe every opposition member should agree with me that I did not do any such thing.
I did not. I talked about a journalist who was being racist, but I will come back to that later, I do not want it to be the topic of this speech.
Mr. Speaker, for the information of hon. members, and since that is what the speech of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe was about, here is what I said, and I shall quote the English version to make things probably easier;

This is on page 3896 of Hansard of March 7. I said:
Mr. Speaker, to be fair I must say that I am not referring to my hon. colleague-
I was talking about the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).
-behind me nor to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).
Then, later on I went on to say:
Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member was justified-
I was referring to the hon. member for South Shore.
-in responding as forcefully as he did because he could have felt he was attacked. In that case, I apologize. I am not talking about hon. members but about this article written by a person named Fisher, who is often in the gallery. That does not concern you, therefore I simply say that people may discuss the transport policy, may attack me. I never feel-X have been attacked by some of my friends and I never held it against them-
I was looking at my friend, the hon. member for Vegre-ville (Mr. Mazankowski), at that time.
-on the contrary, I believe we remained good friends. We should all agree, every time racism is exploited, to proscribe it everywhere in Canada, because this country is worth living in. There is no racism where people do not tolerate it.
This is what I said. I accuse no one in the House, and I apologize if I was not well understood. I think that with regard to the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), if I had said what he said I said, I would agree with him, but I did not say it. This is in Hansard, and I think that as a former judge he should consider as a piece of evidence what I just produced here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister accept a question relating to what he is reported to have said outside the House? What he said outside the House is something to this effect. The minister says look where the questions have been going during the last month. I have been putting a lot of those questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), and to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien). Why did the minister say that, if he did not mean to indicate that the Official Opposition was attacking ministers because they were French Speaking? Is that not what he intended to convey outside the House?
March 10, 1975


Jean Marchand: I think that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) is honest. The only one I accuse of racism is the newspaperman who was in the gallery. He is the only one, and I was referring specifically to that man who told me personally that I should not be a member of this cabinet because I was not fluent enough in English.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Oh, yes, and I know that, so you have no reason not to believe it. I think that I formally excluded all hon. members of this House, including the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield). Perhaps I should not have approached it that way. You may say that it is a bad way of approaching such a problem, but I never accused the opposition of racism in this debate on transportation, and I do not believe it exists. I think that hon. members have tried to deal with the transportation problem because they are concerned about it. I do not accuse anyone. I am accused of not apologizing, but I did apologize to the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) if he thought that I was accusing him of being a racist.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this is an important question. It is important to the minister, and it is important to me. I asked the minister whether in fact he said outside the House what he was reported to have said in relation to the questions being put. Did he say, in effect, look where the questions have been going in the last month? Did he ask who has been under attack? Did he say it was the Minister of Transport, the President of the Treasury Board, and Mr. Pratte?


Jean Marchand: I was speaking of exactly the same person.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I apologize because this is a little irregular, but it is very important, Mr. Speaker. Did the minister say outside the House what I have just summarized? If he made these remarks relating to the question period and to the questions which are put, how can he expect us to put any other interpretation but that he has suggested outside the House that we have been deliberately attacking ministers in the House because they are French speaking?


Jean Marchand: I think that the hon. Leader of the Opposition is an honourable man. He will take my word that I never referred to the House. On the contrary, the only place where it is clear is here, and it is in Hansard. When I was talking outside the House-and some day I will say it openly-I excluded the House and I excluded the whole opposition, and I say that the debate did not take place on racism. I regret, but I do not think hon. members have the right to make an accusation of that kind. I do not believe that the hon. member is a racist.
I wish to talk about transportation, and I do not feel that I was dealt with justly on this matter. I wanted the situation to be clear, and I tried to clarify it.
I have been accused of having recourse to my friend the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), the former minister of transport, to help me out this afternoon. I did it first because he is intelligent. He knows
Transportation
something about transport, and as I had already spoken on Friday, I thought perhaps there would be a better balance this way. I know that I have shortcomings, but I do not think that fear is one of them.
I do not think it will be a big problem for me to talk for another ten minutes. I can do this if you want to sit and listen. This is not the problem. The problem is a problem of transportation. We promised during the election that we would transform the system; we were not satisfied with the system, we are not yet satisfied with the system. But the main opposition complaint-and during the debate I understood that I should have been more careful about this-is that I have not kept the House sufficiently well informed about the kind of work that is being done in my ministry. This is something that the opposition could not have found out by themselves without being told. I will think about that to see to what extent it is feasible to remedy this.
I think it would be interesting for hon. members to know of all those who are at work right now on very specific problems, trying to find solutions so that we can have a national transportation policy. Let us call it transportation policies for Canada because there is no doubt that the policy for the Maritimes is not the policy for the Arctic, it is not the policy for Quebec, it is not the policy for Ontario nor for the west, and it is not the policy for British Columbia. This means that we have to find solutions to each of those problems, and I am working on them.
Hon. members say that it takes a long time, and they are right, but just look at the history of this department-not only this department, but almost everything we have ever done here in the House. Just think how long it took-and I remember my hon. friend from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) asking when we would produce the act-to create the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. I think that is the role of the opposition and I do not complain, but the MacPherson report took seven years before being tabled in the House, and we waited about ten years, or not far from ten years for Mr. Justice Bernier in Quebec to complete a report on pilotage.
If there has been a mistake I think this is where it is; perhaps I could have kept the House better informed, not of results but of what we have been doing. When it is said that nothing has been done, I do not believe it, and the opposition does not believe it. That is probably the right way to attack the government, and I would probably do the same thing.
We have done a lot of things in the field of transport in British Columbia. My hon. friend opposite suggested that we look at regional development because he considered that too much was being given to eastern Canada and not enough to the west. Do not forget that British Columbia has had things the maritimes did not get. Just remember Roberts Bank; just remember the money we spent on the harbour in Vancouver, and the development of the harbour in the north, Prince Rupert, the opening of roads, and so forth. If we are going to have a balance sheet in this country in order to know which section of this country is getting most from the federal government, if we are going to try to do that we will kill this country because everyone profits in this country, but not all in the same way.

March 10, 1975
Transportation
Of course in the maritimes they have the subsidy of 50 per cent for all westbound goods.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Not all.


Jean Marchand: Not all, excuse me, but on a large number of goods, by truck or by train. We still have the intra-subsidy, which of course is being phased out. The Port of Halifax is being developed faster than ever before. The average income in Halifax is now higher than in Montreal, and that is true also of Saint John, New Brunswick.
Certain things have changed, but I do not claim that we have changed everything. We have the problem of the ferries in the maritimes. We have been working with the government of Newfoundland and we are going to have two new ships, and a new ship for Wood Island and Prince Edward Island. We have brought back the boat that goes between Digby and Saint John because the CP refused to operate it effectively. We are solving the problem of the ferry between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor in the United States. We have done a lot of things for that region, Mr. Speaker.
We have worked with provincial ministers and officials and have accomplished a great deal. We are working on highways, amongst other things. In Quebec the Mirabelle airport will be open in a few months time. Of course some people do not like airports, but there is nothing I can do about that.
I was listening to the speech of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) and I should like to tell him that one month from now Air Canada, at the request of the government of Saskatchewan, is going to produce a plan for a regional air carrier. He did not know that, but I know it.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. minister permit a question in that regard?


Jean Marchand: I am talking about Saskatchewan, but it will join Brandon too. That is just to tell you that we have been working with the prairie provinces on the question of our national airlines and air carriers.


Mr. Epp:: Who will be the carrier?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not know. In many fields the CTC has more power than I do and in this case they make the decision. So we are working-


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Some hon. Members:: No!
An hon Member: Sit down!


Jean Marchand: In my own office we are working hard on this policy. There is a special core group studying all the problems of transportation. The deputy minister has an advisory committee, there is a task force, an interdepartmental participation committee, federal-provincial consultations and consultations with industry,

trucking, railways and airlines. We are trying to put all that together to formulate a policy in order to serve Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, a general statement is made that nothing is done in the area of transportation. When I said transportation was a mess I meant thait coordination was not there. It is still not there for that matter, and that was the work I had to continue when Mr. Jamieson was Minister of Transport.
The CTC is a kind of Crown corporation with enormous independence. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority is a corporation almost equally independent. Air Canada has even the authority to buy houses in Barbados from what I can see, and without my authorization. The CNR is an extremely independent company, and the same goes for the Northern Transportation Corporation. Then you have three great authorities within the department-for air, for land and for sea. I heard a Progressive Conservative member say this afternoon that all that is very funny but I know there are people who put their hearts and souls into trying to find the best system possible for Canada, the one which will make this country even more prosperous. For example, we have the whole far north to develop, we are making plans to build a cargo that will also be an icebreaker and will be able to help develop the whole far north of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have I should like to devote my remarks to Air Canada operations, but first I should like to correct some comments made by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) on Friday, March 7. At page 3906 of Hansard, he said:
The safety record of Air Canada is similar to the safety record of the CNR,... members of the Conservative Party ...
He was referring to me.
seem to get some kind of sadistic satisfaction from continually accusing the airline in respect of its safety performance.
The hon. member for St. Boniface seems to be mixed up. Last February during an adjournment debate he remarked that I was to be lauded for my concern about passenger safety. He changed his mind over that, fast. Then he went on to say that he was amazed at people like me continuing to paint the worst possible picture of our country's flag carrier. He said I had never taken the trouble to accept an invitation to inspect Air Canada's servicing facilities. We have been over all this before, Mr. Speaker, even on April 23, 1974. I have spoken numerous times in the House on the subject and I have travelled to Dorval and reviewed the situation of employees there, many of whom I am in constant touch with, and I do not know why we are bringing this up again, Mr. Speaker.
March 10, 1975

These remarks in regard to safety are not mine; they come from unions, from employees, from newspaper articles. When I spoke in the adjournment debate last week I referred to articles like the one in the Montreal Gazette, a headline story on air safety. These articles do not refer only to Air Canada but to all regional airlines. This is the type of document the hon. member and the hon. minister should be reading.
I have here a document sent to the director of maintenance quality signed by eight shop inspectors at Dorval. They state:
Attached to this letter, please find a submission related to the unit and Support Shops Inspections Functions. It is a critical report presented in the interest of achieving a more effective inspection program and hopefully to create an awareness of an existing low morale condition.
There follow four pages of a condemning attack on Air Canada dealing with all kinds of problems with audits, manuals and what-have-you.
I also have a union document which states that the supervisor's only concern is in trying to run a scheduled operation at all costs. The results of this attitude causes one of their larger problems and one of the most frequent violations of the collective agreement, namely, safety. The collective agreement is quite clear in that management is specifically charged with the duty of initiating and monitoring all practices necessary to ensure the safety and health of employees, as well as ensuring the safety of all equipment. They go to say that because of the attitude of first level supervision and refusal to initiate safety the shop committee is handling the problem.
These are not my comments, Mr. Speaker. These are the comments in a union publication put out at Dorval Airport. This is why we are calling for a full scale investigation into Air Canada. Instead of giving us a series of alibis and excuses as to why the government should not do anything, the minister should go to Dorval and speak to these people.
Let me give another example. Members of parliament are continually receiving telegrams about the air finance branch in Winnipeg.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


A. Daniel McKenzie: In the twenty-ninth parliament we had the same problems with the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg. We are now in the thirtieth parliament and we are still asking the same questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. Is the parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am addressing my question through you. Why is it that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) did not visit Air Canada when asked to do so?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary knows that is not a point of order.
Transportation


A. Daniel McKenzie: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, in the twenty-ninth parliament we were discussing the Air Canada finance branch at Winnipeg. We are now in the thirtieth parliament and still discussing them, and we are still not getting any action. I have received dozens of telegrams and letters, and this is the reason we are asking for a full scale investigation into the Air Canada operation.
Let me discuss safety. I have a report from an Air Canada pilot which he sent to the vice-president of flight operations:
This letter is a letter that I have been trying not to write. However my conscience or possibly sub-conscience will not permit me to do otherwise. I might add that I ran into Capt. Lloyd and was given a little gentle persuasion. You will notice that I have gone beyond the incidents and vented by feelings and opinions of Air Canada today ...


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize you have to put the vote on this matter now, but I simply wish to give notice that at the first opportunity tomorrow I intend to raise a question of privilege with regard to the remarks of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) outside the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order, please. It being 9.45 o'clock p.m., it is my duty pursuant to Section (9) of Standing Order 58 to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House. The question, therefore, is on the motion in the name of Mr. Mazankowski. All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being after ten o'clock this House stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.14 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.


Tuesday, March 11, 1975