1975-03-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-10, an act to amend the Feeds Act, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


TABLING OF REPORT ON URANIUM ENRICHMENT, DATED SEPTEMBER 3, 1971
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table copies in both official languages of a September 3, 1971, report on uranium enrichment.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, regarding the continuing problems with the Seafarers' International Union. In view of a response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacGuigan) on December 19 and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) on December 16, 1974, that the Minister of Labour was prepared to consider amendments to the Canada Labour Code in respect of any matters prejudicial to union members which could give the men protection, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That Part V of the Canada Labour Code be immediately referred to the appropriate parliamentary committee so that recommendations may be forthcoming to better protect members of unions who are being abused by their own executive as appears to be the continuing situation with regard to the SIU.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
*  *


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the Canadian Wheat Board's decision to discontinue movements of grain from country elevators as of today, and the serious repercussions of that decision on western producers and the Canadian economy generally, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the President of the Treasury Board to make a statement on motions later this day, explaining the exact nature of the government's offer to the grain weighers and samplers- part of the general labour and trades group-and the prospect for an immediate resumption of negotiations.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (ino)


HOUSING
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to bring up an important and very urgent matter.
It deals with the $500 bonus to first-time home buyers. This matter is very pressing because the bonus will apply for only 12 months and we are already in the fifth, and

March 7, 1975
Metric System
also because it affects 90 per cent of new owners of mobile homes located on rented lots. As Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation requires that new owners have a five-year lease on their rented lot, as indicated in the letter I received on February 17, 1975, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to take steps immediately to allow the eligibility for this bonus of owners without leases on rented lots or, at least of those who have leases, by reducing the five-year requirement to one year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition with regard to abortion signed by about 2,000 constituents of mine in which they humbly pray that your honourable House may take such steps as may be expedient in order to provide that the relevant provisions of the criminal law shall be interpreted in a manner which is consistent and with the will of Parliament as set out in Chapter 38 of the Statutes of Canada 1968-69.


WEIGHTS AND MEASURES
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under Standing Order 43 to present a motion which asks that consideration be given to a matter which I believe is reasonable. I even believe that the government is prepared to give consideration to it. I hope there will not be the usual Pavlovian response.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House asks the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to give consideration to the establishing of Metric Commission regional or provincial offices at various centres across Canada to facilitate the handling of inquiries respecting metric conversion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This motion proposed under Standing Order 43 cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the consideration of a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Since cold stores now contain incredible stocks of unsold turkeys and that as of February 1, 1975, they had more than 10,300,000 pounds of turkey while normal inventory is five million pounds and since consumption of those products has fallen because people cannot afford to buy them, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamouras-ka (Mr. Dionne):
That the House consider the possibility of subsidizing consumption of food products such as turkey, fish, chicken, through a consumer compensated discount whose main effect will be to bring those prices more within the reach of all.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I understand that the talks have resumed with the GTL union, and that is encouraging, but I would like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that the services designated as essential to the safety and security of the public are not being maintained, in violation of the law, what he is doing to avoid a tragedy that might occur any day as the result of services designated as essential to the safety and security of the public being illegally withdrawn?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, when public servants holding positions designated as essential do not report to work and are on strike, they are violating the law. We are collecting data to submit as evidence and we have decided to prosecute in each case. Evidently, the directors of the programs involved will take the necessary steps to maintain security and if there is no staff, they will take the necessary decisions to protect the public.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: May I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether his assertions about taking measures to examine cases in which these services are withdrawn is not in fact all talk, and that he is doing nothing effective to ensure that essential services are maintained? Granted that this parliament has given the right to strike, is it not equally the law of this land that services designated as essential to the safety and security of the public be maintained, and has the minister any measure to put forward in this regard which is not totally ineffective?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we cannot compel public servants to come back to work. The departments concerned will take the necessary steps to assure public security. All departments have let us know that they have occasionally suspended some services because they did not have full staff. As for us, we are taking all legal proceedings at our disposal to penalize the individuals who have been violating the law. As I said, in no circumstance will we withdraw the proceedings lodged before the courts, because we feel that all civil servants must obey the law.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO SETTLE
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. With the grain shipments in the country being blocked, the postal service in virtual chaos and the law of this parliament sponsored by this government being broken with impunity to the danger of the public, will the Acting Prime Minister as head of this government do more than simply reaffirm the faith of the government in collective bargaining will he start governing this country, or is he prepared to sit back and watch the country drift into chaos?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the President of the Treasury Board has given every assurance that the law of this country will be enforced. It is the law of this country that people do have the right to strike. It is the law of the country that certain designated employees who are essential to public safety and security should work. My colleague the President of the Treasury Board is saying that he is accumulating evidence. There are procedures provided in the law for dealing with such cases. He is follow-
Oral Questions
ing those procedures, and I do not think that he can go any further than to enforce the law itself. It may be that this parliament will want to reverse itself and deprive strikers of the right to strike, but that is a decision for which we would have to take responsibility if the time comes for that action. In the meantime, I believe that we should support the law as it now stands.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-APPLICATION TO STAFF RELATIONS BOARD FOR CONSENT TO PROSECUTE THOSE WHO STRIKE ILLEGALLY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my first supplementary to the President of the Treasury Board and ask him if, in connection with the investigation and the accumulation of evidence with respect to illegal activity in the present difficulty, he has as yet made an application to the Staff Relations Board for consent to prosecute where there is clear evidence of illegality.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as soon as the evidence is provided to my ministry by the different departments, we will proceed to go before the board to get permission to prosecute under the law, as members of parliament have written it. I am very surprised that at one minute hon. members tell me that I am too tough and the minute after they tell me that I am not tough enough. Since the first day I have been consistent. Everyone who is acting illegally will be prosecuted, and there will be no withdrawal of any cases to buy peace. If it is the wish of this parliament to change the system and any hon. member is so bright, their ideas can be brought before the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate studying the Finkelman Report.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE NO INTERVENTION BY MEMBERS OF ARMED FORCES IN LEGAL STRIKE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the question is not whether this parliament has given certain rights with respect to the collective bargaining process. That is not the question in front of us at all. The minister should not try to dilute a very serious issue with his offhand, casual remarks.
My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Defence, and I hope that the President of the Treasury Board pays some attention to it because part of our difficulty arises out of this. Can the Minister of National Defence and his colleague assure us that they have taken steps to reinforce earlier instructions to base commanders at Canadian armed forces bases across Canada to prevent members of the Canadian armed forces from undertaking work activities normally carried out by employees who are legally out on strike. Shutdown of service is occurring not only with defence; I think all hon. members realize in other areas of public service total shutdown of service has come about.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can give the assurance that the Canadian armed forces will be used only to maintain

Oral Questions
essential services. In the case of illegal strike activity, the forces will only become involved in carrying on those essential services. They will not be involved in strikebreaking. They will not be involved in interfering in any case where the personnel concerned are legally on strike.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE OTHER GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES WILL NOT INTERVENE IN LEGAL STRIKE
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary. Can we have some assurance from the Acting Prime Minister that where similar situations prevail, employees who are designated or, are not members of the bargaining unit that is legally engaged in the strike, will not intervene and carry out work or provide services normally provided by people who are legally on strike? Would he also consult with his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, with respect to the application for consent to prosecute where illegal activity is taking place.


Mitchell William Sharp: There have been extensive consultations on this subject in cabinet, Mr. Speaker. As a result of these consultations we are enforcing the law, and I would like to emphasize what the President of the Treasury Board has said, and repeated on a number of occasions, that prosecutions will take place where people are not reporting for work when they are required to do so.
As for the other question, of course this government is not a strike-breaker and does not intend to be.


STRIKE OF GENERAL LABOUR AND TRADES GROUP-CURRENT WAGES OF GRAIN WEIGHERS AND SAMPLERS-GOVERNMENT OFFER
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. The immediate and serious problem is the stoppage of grain shipments from western Canada which has absolutely nothing to do with the illegal strikes but everything to do with workers who are legally on strike. Since this issue is important not only to farmers in the west but to people all over the world who need our grain, can the minister inform the House what the current wages of grain weighers and samplers are and what is the government's offer and the rationale behind it?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there are 19,000 people involved in those negotiations and it is difficult for me to remember the salary of every one of them. They are involved in the GLT strike and the parties have resumed discussions this morning. I hope they will find satisfactory grounds for settlement. It would not be advisable to negotiate the level of salaries in the House of Commons.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. My question to the minister did not pertain to the 19,000 but to a much more restricted number, the grain weighers and samplers. If it is not the government's intention to impose a settlement through arbitration or some other means that is not acceptable to the workers and would therefore lead

to wildcat strikes and other kinds of work stoppages, can the minister tell the House, so that we can reach a fair-minded judgment on the issue, what the guidelines are for the government proposal to the specific categories of workers involved in the strike?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even if the minister were prepared to attempt to answer that type of question, it seems to me to call for much too general an answer for the question period. Perhaps the hon. member could be a little bit more specific.


REQUEST FOR NAMES OF GROUPS WITH WHICH GOVERNMENT WILL BE NEGOTIATING WAGES OF THOSE GROUPS AND GOVERNMENT'S WAGE POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will come to my third question then, and if the minister will answer that he will be answering the second question I asked. In view of the strikes that are taking place and the strikes that are distinctly possible in future because of all the contracts that are due for negotiation, will the minister assure the House by Monday of next week that he will make a statement on motions to inform the House, and therefore the public, of what groups will be negotiating with the government in the near future? Secondly, will the minister provide a breakdown-which he could get on the weekend-of the wages and salaries that those groups are now receiving? Most important, would the minister indicate to the House the government's general position on wages and salaries? I ask this in view of the fact that he said in committee yesterday that certain civil servants are being paid too much. It seems to me that he should justify to the House and the public the government's rationale for its wage policy.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member could have taken the trouble yesterday morning to come to the committee and ask me those questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was at the meeting at 9.25 yesterday morning and until ten o'clock there was no NDP member present. He could have asked me those questions there. I have 80 different unions negotiating with the Treasury Board and this means 155,000 people. I do not think it is fair to ask me for, or have the House listen, to these details. If there is a question on the order paper, I will be happy to table the information.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a question of privilege with reference to what the minister just said. I asked my question precisely because a member of the New Democratic Party was at that meeting yesterday-


An hon. Member:: How long?


John Edward Broadbent: -and heard the minister make the statement to which I referred in my question this morning. I repeat, what he said in committee to a limited number of members of the House is not sufficient in terms of providing a general statement on the government's
March 7, 1975

policy on wages and salaries, which is what I requested him to provide in the House on Monday, at the latest.


Mr. Saltsman:: Mr. Speaker, may I speak on the question of privilege? I was at that committee meeting yesterday and I pointedly asked the minister that question specifically. I asked him what the guidelines are and how he intended to view the statement he had made about being tough, in light of the request made to the committee to allow more money for supplementary estimates. At no time during that committee meeting did he give us any definitive answer or any indication that he was prepared to answer those questions.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege,
I was specific. I said there was nobody of that party there before ten o'clock. I was there alone for 20 minutes, waiting for the quorum. Do not blame me for that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There seems to be an interesting point of debate, but not a question of privilege.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister responsible for the CRTC.
It has been reported that representations have been made to the Canadian Radio-Television Commission by a certain organization known as the Quebec Liberal Party following the last program of the "Format 60" series on the CBC.
Can the minister tell the House if such representations have been made and what is the position of his department in this matter?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give an answer to the hon. member. I am not aware if representations have been made as the event is too recent. As for the position of the department, it is of course to respect the independence of action of the CRTC, which is a quasi-legal organization which acts on its own authority as concerns complaints such as the ones mentioned by the hon. member.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary.
Could the minister tell the House whether, if such representations are made, he will make a statement in the House on this matter?


Gérard Pelletier: I cannot promise to make a statement, Mr. Speaker, because I do not know if such a statement will be timely. I believe that if the CRTC receives a complaint it considers serious and decides to investigate, it will be up to the CRTC itself to form its own judgment. This is what the CRTC has done in the
Oral Questions
past without the department being involved or invited to intervene in any way.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. As a former vice president of the Seafarers' International Union of Canada yesterday called for a public inquiry into what he calls serious irregularities within the union, such as beatings, ballot stuffing, do-not-ship lists and threats against the lives of some union members, including his own, and as on February 28 the minister said in reply to a question that the government wants to be thorough before reaching conclusions about conducting an independent inquiry, can the minister now advise the House if he is sufficiently convinced that this inquiry must be held. If so, can he tell the House when it will be initiated by the government.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, officials of the Department of Justice and the Department of Labour have been working together on this matter to this date. While we have been pursuing additional information, there has been no indication of any justification for an inquiry. Some investigations are still going on and my colleague, the Acting Minister of Labour, will have something further to say on that.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Acting Minister of Labour. Last December I twice raised the matter of improvements and amendments to Part V of the Canada Labour Code, to protect union members from discrimination and improper treatment by their own executive. I now want to ask the Acting Minister of Labour what progress if any has been made in this regard, since it is obvious that the SIU has continued repressive and unfair practices against many of its members.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Acting Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can accept the conclusions advanced by the hon. member. So far there have been no clear cut indications following the various investigations, to indicate that there is reason to believe that criminal activities exist. I bring to the hon. member's attention that there is evidence of two criminal cases related to one assault which should be pursued by the police departments involved, but this does not justify an inquiry. I remind the hon. member, and I am surprised he is not aware of this, that there is a tribunal especially established to deal with such allegations as he raises. That tribunal is the Canada Labour Relations Board. People

March 7, 1975
Oral Questions
who have reason to believe that there has been a violation of the act or that they have been discriminated against can come before the board and be heard.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. I am perfectly aware of the tribunal to which he refers but remind him that there is a cumbersome, time-consuming and impractical prerequisite which must be met before people who wish to be heard by the board may have the opportunity to be heard. I request that the acting minister do something to change the legislation in this regard.


ABORTION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. Can he tell the House if the former minister of justice consulted him before making his public announcement that he feels abortion should be taken out of the Criminal Code and left to the conscience of the individual.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously, a question about when and how ministers talk to one another is itself extraordinary.


POSSIBLE REMOVAL OF PROVISION FROM CRIMINAL CODEGOVERNMENT POLICY
Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Can he clarify whether it is the policy of the government to reinforce existing laws, which apparently is the view of the Minister of Justice, or whether the Minister of Finance, in his statement, touched more closely on the policy of the government.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the government is agreed upon the enforcement of the law.


Paul Yewchuk: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the response of the Acting Prime Minister, can he say if the Minister of Finance was expressing intended government policy which we may soon see in the form of new legislation.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when the government intends to introduce legislation, it gives lots of notice.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and concerns

meetings he and his officials had on Wednesday with representatives of the agriculture industry, particularly with potato growers of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. I think he recalls those meetings vividly. In view of the request for emergency aid which is so badly needed by potato growers in both those provinces, has the minister arrived at a decision? If so, when will he make an announcement? I ask this, as time is pressing.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we only received the request from the farmers last week. We met them this week. We hope to have some kind of mutually agreed on assistance program to announce by the beginning of next week.


POTATOES-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION OF MARKETING STUDIES
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Some time ago the minister referred to studies which had been made into aspects of marketing which disturbed him and his officials. He indicated he was prepared to make those documents available after he had met with officials of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick earlier this week. Has he made those documents available to them, or will he do so shortly?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the studies concern actual incidents taking place in connection with the marketing of potatoes or incidents which have taken place in the past as well as suggestions for programs. The farmers made some new suggestions this week for our consideration. We will make the studies public as soon as we have put all these factors together.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. I gave him notice of it. With respect to the Urban Transportation Assistance Program, what steps is the minister taking to ensure that the words "commuter system" will be defined so as to include municipal transit systems, so that, for example, the Northeast Rapid Transit Line of the city of Edmonton will qualify for federal assistance, that is, for 100 per cent of the cost of vehicles and 50 per cent of the cost of stations and platforms?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member is right, but I did not receive notice of his question. I should like to have received it to enable me to answer his question, but I did not get the notice.


Douglas Roche: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thought, because of our postal difficulties, that I would have the question hand delivered. This I did three days ago. I sent the minister notice of the question. I am sorry he did not get it.
March 7, 1975


SUGGESTED GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEMS TO CONSERVE ENERGY
Douglas Roche: May I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. What action is the minister taking to translate appeals to the public to conserve energy, such as appeals being contained in national advertising campaigns, into such concrete measures as federal financial support for rapid transit systems within municipalities to cut down on the energy wasting confluence of cars in highly urbanized areas?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is clearly a direction, not only to the advantage of land use but also energy conservation, in which we will be moving. It is with that motive in mind we are developing policies with the Department of Transport in that direction.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, there is a question I wanted to direct to the Minister of State (Fisheries), but since he is away to carry out official duties in Vancouver, I shall direct it to the Minister of the Environment who is working in close contact with the former in this area. Considering that people within our society and governmental agencies are seriously concerned, whether justifiably so or not, about the seal possibly becoming extinct, has the minister received from his field officers any report as to the number of individual seals which are on the ice fields off the Magdalen Islands in the Gulf of St. Lawrence?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: In
spite of the close relationship which exists between the Minister of State (Fisheries) and the Minister of the Environment, I have received to date no definite information as to the seal population in the gulf, although I have heard unofficially that they are quite numerous this year.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question.
In view of the minister's answer, when this answer will be official, does the department intend to increase the quotas? To dispel the preconceived ideas that exist on that matter and the false notions members might have, on both this and the other side of the House, I would ask the minister to organize immediately, or as soon as possible, a trip to the ice banks of the Gulf of St. Lawrence including the Magdalen Islands, so that members might see that the seal is not dying out.


Jeanne Sauvé: I am sure such a trip would be very rewarding for everybody and would enable members to see how seal hunting is done and to draw their own conclusions. As
Oral Questions
soon as reports are available on the number of seals, the Minister of State for Fisheries will determine the quotas for this year.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the very strong position taken by the minister in a speech he made last October 31 in Toronto wherein he called upon Canada to face up to the problem of poverty and inequalities in distribution, and in view of the ghastly picture portrayed this week in the report published by the National Council of Welfare on children in poverty in Canada, can the minister say whether he views this as a serious matter and whether he is now prepared to take action to provide for a guaranteed income level for all Canadians, especially for the 1,600,000 children who are deprived because of the inequalities in our economic system?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, there are numerous elements in that report on which I agree entirely. Regarding the second question of the hon. member, he just has to consider the positions adopted on the whole question in a consistent way by the government during the last two years. I would have been pleased had the hon. member's colleagues in the provinces shown as much consistency as the federal government in that field. We would have made more progress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that at the recent federal-provincial conference most of the provinces were prepared to agree to amendments to the Canada Assistance Plan and other legislation to move forward in this matter, when is this minister and this government going to give some leadership with respect to this very crucial problem?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre must have the same source of information as his leader. I am afraid they are both wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in terms of sheer investment, does the minister not agree that it would be worthwhile to invest in these 1,600,000 children whatever is needed to give them the opportunity of becoming first class Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to know that the hon. member endorses what I have been saying for the past two years.

March 7, 1975
Oral Questions LABOUR RELATIONS


STRIKE AT VANCOUVER HARBOUR-SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT OF WESTERN CONCILIATOR
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday last I asked the Acting Minister of Labour if he would approach the two parties in the dispute on the west coast, the longshoremen and the Maritime Employers Association, to see whether both parties would welcome a mediator at this time. Has he made that approach?


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I have effectively advised the employees association and the union president this morning that I had appointed Mr. Bill Kelly, assistant deputy minister of labour, as a mediator to help the parties come to a settlement.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the fact the minister is presently preparing to attend the Law of the Sea Conference, and in view of the uncertainty demonstrated within the past ten days in the Gulf of St. Lawrence as to where Canadian territorial waters end and international waters begin, is the minister prepared, either this morning or on motions next week, to make a clear statement on the stand he will be taking in Geneva on the 200 mile limit or the edge of the margin, whichever outward limit he intends to support?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I should first clarify for him his reference to the waters in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The government of Canada regards these waters as historic Canadian waters. As such, they are internal waters of Canada. The laws of Canada apply to them in the same way they apply to the waters of our inland lakes. That position has been reaffirmed over the years, going back to the early administrations. I believe in 1949 the Prime Minister of the day reiterated that Canadian government position in the House of Commons.
With respect to the second part of the hon. member's question, last week I made a fairly comprehensive statement in that historic city of Halifax on the whole question of law of the sea. I will make it available to my hon. friend, and if following reading he wishes to pursue it further I will deal with it in the House.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for his clarifi-

cation of the Gulf of St. Lawrence problem; I am just sorry that there were not other authorities in Canada who were as clear about the matter as the minister appears to be. The Solicitor General is not here, but there seems to have been some dispute as to the jurisdiction over these waters. As for the statement made in Halifax, I did read that statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member have a question?


Donald W. Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is this. Perhaps the minister would make a statement in the House. I am asking him to make a statement and to define, with charts if necessary for tabling in the House, the exact lines from which his 200 mile or edge of the margin proposals are going to be made.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have restated, and will continue to restate at the Geneva conference, the position of the Canadian government which is to seek sovereign rights, and to have them confirmed in an international convention, to the edge of the margin. As my hon. friend knows, this is particularly so off the east beyond the 200 mile zone, which is gaining considerable acceptance in the international community. I should point out to my hon. friend with respect to our efforts to have our views on the continental margin accepted that we are still having an uphill fight, but the Canadian delegation has been instructed to pursue that objective with vigour at the Geneva conference.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister of manpower who is responsible for unemployment insurance. The minister will recall that last year during the postal strike there was some difficulty experienced by those entitled to cheques which were not picked up at temporary depots, and an investigation into the matter was carried out. It has been brought to my attention that a similar set of circumstances exists in the Toronto area where some one-third are not picking up their cheques at the Wellington Street depot. Would the minister investigate this matter and report to the House his findings?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will look into it. I would remind the House that there were some great exaggerations and misinterpretations of some of the findings made on the previous occasion. There are many reasons why people might not pick up their cheques, such as not even knowing about the facility being made available to them. Therefore, I do not think it is wise to rush to certain conclusions of the sort implied in the hon. member's question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not particularly worried about what the conclusions

were last year. I am now telling the minister that it has come to me through reliable sources that one-third of the cheques at the Wellington Street depot have not been picked up. Would the minister do us a favour by looking into these allegations and reporting back to the House? While doing so, in addition to the Wellington Street depot would he also investigate the situation across the entire country, so that we will know what is happening and whether any abuses are taking place?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Labour. In view not only of what I call the critical situation at the port of Vancouver but a recurring critical situation month after month and year after year, with the port of Vancouver strikebound by two unions, as the House now knows, I want to ask not only what are the government's immediate plans but also what are the government's long range plans to solve the labour problems on the west coast and to ensure a steady flow of grain and other commodities through west coast ports?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have just announced that as an immediate step we have appointed a mediator, Mr. Kelly. I assure the hon. member that Mr. Kelly is a very experienced man in longshoring problems, well known to the parties, and I hope that not only will he assist the parties in settling their dispute but that he will provide a basis for a long-range solution to the problem on the West Coast.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, of which I believe he has notice, and it relates to his address yesterday to the Canadian Fertilizer Institute. During his speech the minister levelled certain warnings and accusations regarding the activities of the fertilizer industry. In light of the fact that certain members of this industry object to these insinuations as having no basis, would the minister take an opportunity early next week to make a statement on motions outlining his position as to the activities of this particular industry?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is referring to an address that I made to this group yesterday in Ottawa. They were holding their annual meeting at the Chateau Laurier and I was invited to go along. Contrary to what the papers said, the timing was arranged to meet my convenience because I wanted to be in this great institution to listen to all the
Oral Questions
speeches of hon. members on the agricultural stabilization bill.
These facts and figures were prepared by the very efficient people in my department. I am concerned about all food production in Canada, and about the people in the developing countries who have to depend upon fertilizer. If fertilizer is not available cheaply in Canada, then how can we expect them to produce food when they have to pay exorbitant prices also in the developing countries? I do not think it is necessary for me to make a statement in the House. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs also outlined what further action the government may take when he addressed this body last night.


FERTILIZER-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF COST ANALYSIS OF INDUSTRY
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, if the minister chooses not to make a statement on motions, then in view of the fact he has been quoted as saying that his department has prepared a comprehensive cost analysis of the fertilizer industry, would he be good enough to table this particular report or study in order not only that the fertilizer industry may see the basis on which the minister delivered his address yesterday but, more importantly, that the farm consumers of these products can see the report?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, that speech was not distributed, and one reason it was not is that I am criticized so much for distributing speeches. If this is what the hon. member is requesting, that I should continue to distribute the talks I give when this honourable institution is not sitting-and 97 per cent of my speeches are made when the House is not in session-then I can certainly comply.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a final supplementary? I am sure the minister did not hear the question or he would not have replied in that manner. I do not want him to table his speech; I got that in the mail. I am wondering whether the comprehensive cost analysis that his department made into the fertilizer industry, particularly into its pricing methods, could be tabled in the House.


Eugene Whelan: That was in a speech, Mr. Speaker, but I will table it. I will have my officials prepare it in documentary form so that it can be used by the hon. member. If my officials are wrong, then the House should know, and so should the fertilizer industry.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Did the Minister of Agriculture reach a consensus yesterday with the fertilizer industry?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, since the leader of the official opposition is asking about the consensus with the fertilizer industry, I would think all he would need do is read some of the speeches that his members put on the record in the last couple of days on the subject of stabilization.

Oral Questions ABORTION


SUGGESTION MINISTER OF JUSTICE CORRECT STATEMENTS IN LETTER TO HOSPITALS AND REFRAIN FROM WRITING SIMILAR LETTERS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and it is somewhat supplementary to the question asked by the hon. member for Egmont. In view of the rather humane and civilized statement that the previous minister of justice made on Wednesday that the subject of abortion should be withdrawn from the Criminal Code, in view of the statement that the Prime Minister made on February 26 that the Criminal Code refers to health as involving many considerations apart from purely physical ones, and in view of the minister's letter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that a couple of days ago I had occasion unfortunately to single out the hon. member to try to get across to him and others the undesirability of having too many preambles to a question. It seems to me that the hon. member said he understood that point, so I am wondering why he does not put his question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I do understand the point, but it is a little difficult to get the minister to understand. The minister wrote to hospitals under his own jurisdiction not too long ago and said that social and economic considerations were not to be taken into account in determining whether a pregnancy can lawfully be terminated. I would ask whether the minister has corrected that statement he has sent to hospitals under his own jurisdiction, particularly in view of the statement made by the Prime Minister in this House and also the very civilized statement made recently by the Minister of Finance?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the statement was completely correct in this context, and was completely consistent with other statements the Prime Minister and I have made on the subject.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he would explain briefly how there is consistency? The second part of my supplementary question is, would the minister at least give this House some assurance that he will quit writing to various attorneys general in this country, and quit writing to various hospital committees, because surely by now we have an acceptable legal interpretation of Section 251?


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that this is International Women's Year, and in view of the undeniably valuable contribution Canadian housewives have always made to the social and economic fibre of this country, would the Minister of National Health and Welfare tell this House whether his

department is seriously considering allowing housewives to be eligible under the Canada Pension Plan and, if not, why not?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, a study has been made by the Advisory Council on the Status of Women and also by the Canada Pension Plan Advisory Committee on this very subject. The two studies have been released and tabled before the Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Welfare and, if I remember well, distributed to this parliament as well. These two studies contain specific proposals which I intend to discuss with my colleagues at the forthcoming conference in April. We will then try to develop an agreement among the various governments on the specific proposals put forward by the two advisory councils on this particular subject, which I know has aroused a lot of interest throughout the country.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. John Reynolds (Bumaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister relating to a statement made in the House yesterday by the Minister of Supply and Services, to the effect that the government allows 10 per cent leeway for Canadian companies when they are tendering. In view of the fact that the Minister of Transport's Department did not allow this 10 per cent, which allowed a U.S. firm to take away a contract from a Canadian firm at the Vancouver International Airport, will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that he will review this contract with the Minister of Justice in order to correct the situation and allow this Canadian company to compete so that this contract might be returned to a Canadian company?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to what my colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, said yesterday. He did not refer to price, he referred to Canadian content. However, the Minister of Transport in his reply laid down the general principles that apply, and that is that the government should take advantage of the cheapest supplier. There are circumstances under which that rule might be varied a little bit, but the Minister of Transport seemed to be satisfied that it should not be varied in this case.


John Douglas Reynolds: What you are saying is that the American company has the Canadian content.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, on a question
of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Order.
March 7, 1975


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, on February 27 the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta asked the Minister of Transport whether he had initiated investigations into dredging contracts in British Columbia, and the minister answered no. On March 4 the hon. member for St. John's East asked the Solicitor General if evidence showed that there were grounds for suspicion in other areas, and the Solicitor General said in part:
-evidence led them to believe that there could be some kind of impropriety in other parts of the country-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question for the minister would he put it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, would the Solicitor General advise the House as to what type of evidence became available to spring this investigation to B.C., and would he advise the House of the company or companies in British Columbia that are involved?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I never said the investigation was extended to British Columbia. I said the investigation in respect of dredging contracts had been extended. I also said it was not in the public interest to announce publicly where and against who the investigation was extended.


An hon. Member:: You said "across Canada".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Is B.C. not part of Canada?


William Warren Allmand: It is not in the public interest to announce publicly-


An hon. Member:: Has the investigation travelled across the land to B.C.?


William Warren Allmand: It is not in the public interest to announce publicly who is being investigated. This would be counterproductive to the investigation.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I would ask again if the investigation into the dredging business by this government has now gone across the country, and are they investigating companies in British Columbia?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have to repeat that we do not announce publicly where the investigation is being made, because this would be really counterproductive to any effective police investigation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You don't even know.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not think I was asking who, I was asking where.


An hon. Member:: He doesn't know.
Oral Questions POST OFFICE


ALLEGED ATTEMPTS OF EMPLOYEES TO SABOTAGE POSTAL CODE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Is he aware of deliberate attempts on the part of postal employees to sabotage the use of postal codes?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am aware of the fact that certain employees recommend that postal codes should not be used, but there is no evidence that anybody is sabotaging postal codes. I am getting a little fed up with 53,000 postal employees being smeared daily by silly questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Who do you think you are?


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have here an envelope mailed recently in London, Ontario, and received in nearby Thamesford, with no cancellation or postmark on the envelope, but which does have the postal code struck out by pencil and replaced with the inscription "ban postal code", would the Postmaster General inform the House what specific steps are being taken to correct this abuse of Her Majesty's mail and the defiance of government policy by postal employees?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, if I were to listen to the hon. gentleman from the Maritimes, who normally is very quiet, but is rather unruly this morning, for reasons best known only to himself, I think the key thing would be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is still waiting for his mail.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I think the key phrase in the supplementary question is that the person got the letter very rapidly and very recently, so I am sure that person is quite content.


SUGGESTED REMOVAL OF SMALL GROUPS OF ACTIVISTS- GOVERNMENT ACTION
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is partly related. In view of the fact that an official in the post office in Toronto has revealed that the recent disruption in services was created by activist groups which go under names like "The Workers' Action Movement" and "The Spartist Independent Society in Canada", and other names of that kind, would the Postmaster General now give us the assurance that these small groups of activists will be dealt with so that the good reputation of the bulk of posties will be preserved and further disruptions of this kind avoided?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the unnamed official is, but I am glad that the hon. member did not include the IRA in that long list.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: If you are tired, get out.
3888

Oral Questions


Mr. Nowlan:: We are getting tired of the kind of service we are getting and the service we are not getting.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Sometime ago I asked the minister whether he had authorized Mrs. Diane Waller of his office to write a letter in which she indicated it would be in the public interest that passenger train service in southwestern Ontario not be restored and the federal government has the responsibility to encourage bus service instead. The minister indicated at that time that he would make a reply the next day. As that was some 132 days ago I wonder if the minister is prepared to provide us with an answer today?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that it was so noisy, not on that side but around me, that I did not catch the first part of the question.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister was related to a question I asked him last fall about the letter sent by Mrs. Diane Waller of his office to a constituent of mine in which she indicated it would be in the public interest that passenger train service in southwestern Ontario not be restored and that the federal government has the responsibility to encourage bus service there. The minister indicated that he would give a reply to the House and has not done so. I am wondering whether he could indicate if Mrs. Waller's letter was authorized by him before it went out and whether or not she was speaking on his behalf.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this whole problem is under study with the government of Ontario and nobody was authorized to make any statement in my name.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wellington on one supplementary.


PASSENGER TRAIN SERVICE IN SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO- REQUEST OF ONTARIO MINISTER FOR STUDY OF INTEGRATED BUS AND RAIL SERVICE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the minister whether the office of the Ontario Minister of Transport and Communications has been in touch with the minister or with his officials to express their dissatisfaction with the conclusions and recommendations of the third report of the Canadian Transport Commission in respect of transportation in our area and has the Ontario minister requested a co-operative study to establish guidelines for an integrated bus and rail service in southwestern Ontario. If such a

request for study has been made did the federal Minister of Transport agree and when will the study be completed and released to the public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we discussed this problem last week in the House I think. I met with the minister, my counterpart in the government of Ontario, and we are supposed to meet with him again. In the meantime the officials are meeting together. I cannot say now what the opinions of the officials are, but I hope soon to be in a position to tell you what the position of the government is.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief but very important question to ask the acting Prime Minister. What is meant by the term "contractual link"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Our Prime Minister at the present time is visiting European countries-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not disallowing the question. The President of the Privy Council showed no interest in answering the question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I shall ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In light of the fact that the Prime Minister is visiting the European countries endeavouring to carry out what he calls a contractual link and when no one in Canada seems to know, and the Acting Prime Minister does not even know, what this means, my supplementary is will the Acting Prime Minister telephone the Prime Minister and ask him to explain for his benefit as well as for the benefit of the people of Canada what he means by contractual link which is very important to our country.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the hon. member that what the Prime Minister is trying to achieve is very important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: It is very important to the achievement of an objective I hope he shares which is the strengthening of Canada's relations with the European Economic Community. Canada has been proposing over a number of years- perhaps my hon. friend has not been following these discussions as he should have-the formation of a link with the European Economic Community which would be in the form of a contractual link, a very important means to establish a relationship under which when issues arise there would be an opportunity for the Canadian government and representatives of the European Economic Community to talk about them before they become serious problems.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
March 7, 1975



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar) moved:: That this House questions the ability of the Ministry of Transport on its past and present record to provide and to run a modern, safe, efficient and co-ordinated transportation system for Canada's national and regional economies, its foreign trade and its social needs-as promised Canadians in the Speech from the Throne; refers to that ministry's repeated failure to provide interim remedies for urgent transportation problems while Canada awaits that promised transportation system; and recommends that the structure, function and performance of that ministry be forthwith reviewed in depth by this House.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to start this debate by saying that we on this side of the House look forward to debating the subject of transportation, certainly in its public form. We feel that transportation has suffered under the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) during the last few years. We hope in our contribution to outline some of the more salient points of the problems so far as transportation is concerned. We also hope the minister will engage in this discussion today and possibly set down some guidelines as to the direction transportation policy in this country will be taking. We feel it is very important and critical that this be spelled out in as clear terms as possible.
Frankly, we are skeptical when the minister says that he intends to introduce a transportation policy in the next few weeks or months. We will not believe it until we see it. I hope the minister will keep on saying this another fifty times until it happens. We believe transportation under this administration, especially under the present minister, has been allowed to deteriorate to a point where it now operates to the detriment certainly of regional development, particularly as applied to the two extremities of the country, the Atlantic region and the western provinces.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a matter of great discourtesy that a member should be speaking to the minister who is the subject of this debate. The point the member is trying to make is that transportation in this country is in a mess and that the speeches made on this matter require the whole attention of the minister.


Jean Marchand: The hon. member was saying something important.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I have offended the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I apologize. I was speaking to the minister simply to ask whether he intended to follow the member who is now speaking or to speak later in the debate. By the way, I did not receive an answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not wish to comment on this matter other than to say I hope it will be quieter in the House so we can hear the hon. member's remarks.
Transportation


Jack Burnett Murta: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It is indicative of the whole transportation system in this country that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) would have to rise on a point of order. It would seem that the minister and the government do not care at the present time, and I say that sincerely. I was saying that Canada's transportation system so far as can be determined, is working to the detriment of regional development, particularly as it applies to the so-called extremities of the country, namely, the Atlantic region and the western provinces. Each sector of the current transportation system appears to have been developed in isolation from the other sectors. Consequently, there is no integration and the ability to enter into any long-range planning has been virtually nullified. We see the results of that at present.
Canadian travellers have been plagued by increasing costs and an increasingly poor quality of service, as anybody who has travelled across this country knows. I believe that in general the government is subsidizing substantially a transportation system that operates contrary to the public interest and which in many cases appears to be in a shambles. I suppose, that the words of the minister regarding the governments transportation policy will be quoted to him again and again. He said that it is in a mess. More recently the minister stated that transportation in Canada is in even more of a mess than anyone realizes. However, he has consistently refused to do anything about it. In fact, we often find the minister-this has happened in the last two or three weeks-either in the House of Commons, in committees or outside the House, in front of the public, actually making a laughing-stock of his department and of the Canadian transportation system. The election promises made in the 1974 campaign appear to have been lost in a maze of meaningless declarations of intent, and all we have left is a self-confessed mess.
The problem may be better illustrated by an examination of the haphazard framework within which each section of the transportation system is allowed to operate. As I mentioned before, they appear to be operating at times in complete isolation one from another. For example, air transportation at present exists in what must be termed a complete policy void. In November of 1973 the Minister of Transport announced route divisions between Air Canada and CP Air, claiming all the while that his statement was the first of three announcements which would complete the over-all review of air transportation policy. More than a year and a half has passed since he made that statement, with no further policy announcements coming from his department, despite the fact that in March of 1974 he informed us that the transportation system was in a state of chaos.
Air Canada, which will be discussed later in the debate, our national airline, recorded in 1973 a profit of about $12 million. In 1974, as everyone knows, it recorded a deficit in the neighbourhood of $9 million. Between 1973 and 1974, CP Air-which is Air Canada's chief competitor-registered a substantial profit. Admittedly, it was lower than the previous year's, but it was still a profit.
According to the minister's department and the public statements that we have heard, no one seems to know why
28996-41)4

March 7, 1975
Transportation
Air Canada is losing money, nor does its president, Mr. Yves Pratte. Mr. Pratte claims, through the press and in speeches he has made that, on one hand, the deficit was caused by tremendous competition from the air charter companies, when we know that the national airline is the largest charter operator in the country, and on the other hand he claims that these losses have been experienced because of increased subsidization of short-haul routes by longer routes. Yet the five regional air carriers which are confined to short-haul routes all recorded substantial profits in 1974.
My contention is that at present morale in Air Canada, especially among the employees who work with the travelling public, the ones whom you and I see when we go to an airport, is low. But I would point out that I do not believe that is necessarily the fault of the employees. Rather, it is the result of the complete lack of direction by top management personnel in Air Canada. I also contend that Air Canada is top-heavy so far as its management is concerned. This is unfortunate because it is what happens so often in government-owned corporations or agencies. It seems to be an almost built-in instinct of the people in the top echelons of these corporations to appear to create virtual empires for themselves, thus destroying the whole intent of a nationally-owned enterprise.
Another example of the contradiction that exists in our air policy-there have been other examples since-is in the application which was made back in 1973 for an air carrier to service Thunder Bay and Sudbury. Nordair, which is the regional airline operating out of Montreal, applied for permission to operate a service to Sudbury and Thunder Bay. After receiving assurances from the communities involved that Air Canada was not willing to service these areas-that was the basis of their application-an application was made to the Canadian Transport Commission in December of 1973.
Nordair had examined the route in accordance with the 1966 regional airline principles and came to the conclusion that it was within its legal boundaries when applying for the route allocation. Within two weeks of Nordair's application, Air Canada announced its intention to service the Thunder Bay-Sudbury area, having repeatedly refused to do so in the past. Nordair applied to the Canadian Transport Commission, which decided that under the terms of the Air Canada licensing contract established by the Air Canada Act, the national airline can connect any points within the boundaries of its licensing charter if it so wishes. Needless to say, Nordair has appealed this decision.
This is the kind of constraint under which third level air carriers operate, and this is where changes should be considered. Because such situations might arise in the future, the entire Air Canada Act should be reviewed. Spokesmen for the regional airlines contend that if the Air Canada contract states that that airline may pre-empt the application of any other airline, that will have a discouraging effect. I am inclined to agree with them and I think it will create an inhospitable climate for future investment and development.
We must realize that the airline industry depends on what is termed long lead time for planning future development. In the current, non-directional framework that

exists, the only airline capable of any sort of long-range planning-sometimes we wonder whether it does any meaningful long-range planning-is Air Canada itself. This is certainly to the detriment of other sectors of the industry which I contend can operate for the good of the Canadian public as well as Air Canada is supposed to, provided we can introduce the kind of competition that I believe is necessary to make Air Canada a more efficient airline.
Another area of grave concern to the Canadian public is the framework within which the railways operate in terms of policy guidelines. I contend, as I did at the outset of my speech, that we do not have at the present time any policy guidelines. An example of this is the whole question of railroad passenger service. If one considers this year's estimates which the Committee on Transport and Communications will be studying very shortly, he will see that approximately $200 million has been allocated to the subsidization of an uneconomic rail passenger line.
To give the House a little background, these payments are distributed to the railways for continued operation of passenger service in areas where the Canadian Transport Commission has decided that the continuation of service is essential to the interests of various regions. In other words, these payments ensure that through direct subsidization, in some cases an uneconomic rail passenger line will be continued. The system was devised in 1967 under the regulations of the National Transportation Act. In order to abandon a passenger line on which the railway is operating at a loss, the company must apply to the CTC before it can discontinue the service. Then the Canadian Transport Commission conducts a study into the effects the abandonment of the line would have on the region served. In approximately 98 per cent of the cases, the CTC has determined that discontinuation of the service would be to the detriment of the area concerned.
The end result of this process is the removal of any initiative by the railways to improve their services. They are always assured of receiving 80 per cent of what they lost in operating costs and I think it is natural, therefore, that they are neither inclined, nor are they forced, to better their services. The whole question of subsidies for uneconomic lines should be intensively investigated, especially in light of the current circumstances. By "current circumstances" I mean the present situation and also the advancements in technology which have occurred over the past few years. In the past few years the railways have been relegated to second place compared with air and automobile travel. Air transport has been singled out as the answer to our future travel requirements. However, with the uncertainties at the present time caused by the energy crisis and its potential effect on transportation, the railway in many countries, the United States in particular, have been resurrected and restored to a more favourable position.


Jean Marchand: You don't know what you are talking about.


Jack Burnett Murta: If I do not know what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister stands up when I am

finished and informs us what the government is going to do, and does not make flippant remarks. The whole railway system for moving people must be intensively considered, especially in densely populated areas of the country. This question was discussed briefly the other day in the transport committee. In the densely populated areas of the country there is great need for a far better, high-speed rail service to move people around.
I hope the minister will also take regional air services into consideration for the more sparsely populated areas of Canada, such as the west. I think a legitimate question to consider is the aspect of allowing regional air services to play a far greater role in the movement of people in more sparsely populated areas such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta.
Mr. Speaker, grain movement affects a major part of our economy and also a major part of the land area in our country. It is a matter which will be dealt with more fully before our debate is over. In the area of grain movement there is virtually no policy direction by the government. There is virtually no policy to rationalize our grain handling system. A year ago we were talking about exporting a billion bushels of grain per year. At the present time, with the uncertainties in rail transportation and with tie-ups caused by the labour situation, exporting a billion bushels of grain per year is simply a pipe-dream.
The Minister of Transport cannot, and should not, take all the blame for the strike in Vancouver at the present time. He can take part of the blame because he is part of the cabinet which has refused to act in a positive way. He can, and should, take a good portion of the blame for the complete lack of policy guidelines defining what is needed in terms of grain movement in western Canada. We find that the self-appointed spokesman for western Canada, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, has at times been making almost contradictory statements to those of the Minister of Transport.
The most glaring contradictions are in regard to the Crowsnest pass rates. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has indicated that there will probably be a change in what is known as the Crow rate. The Minister of Transport stated the other day in committee that there will not be a change in the Crowsnest pass rate at least for the year 1975. The minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board has certainly attempted to overstep his own jurisdiction. He has muddied the waters as far as the discussion of transportation is concerned in western Canada, because no one really knows where the power lies in regard to any changes which may take place within the government.
In regard to suitable hopper cars to haul grain, there has been no policy decision whatsoever and the railways have stated flatly that they do not intend to purchase hopper cars to move grain. There has been almost complete indecision about rail line abandonment in western Canada, although there has been-giving the Department of Transport its dues-a decision to freeze any abandonment procedures on some 12,000 miles of track in western Canada until the year 2000. But as far as any policy in regard to rail line abandonment is concerned, there has not been a major policy decision.
Transportation
Perhaps the Minister of Transport or his parliamentary secretary will outline this afternoon basically what the government intends to do as far as working toward a solution is concerned. I hope that his department has been in communication with the railways, the Wheat Board, the grain companies, the farmers and farm communities involved, because they all have to be taken into consideration when formulating an over-all rail policy for the movement of grain. The government has had the time to carry on this kind of negotiation. The Minister of Transport stated in committee that he would work toward a suitable grain handling system for western farmers, and we hope that today or in the very near future he will bring forward proposals in this regard.
In connection with strikes which pertain to grain shipments, the Canadian Wheat Board is going to cut off producer deliveries tonight because of lack of box car space. Unless the government sees fit to settle the present grain strike as soon as possible, certainly within the next few days, there may not be much of a grain industry left in western Canada to do very much about.
I am not going to take up the time of the House by talking about the effect of the strike on western Canada and, indeed, on the whole Canadian economy. I should like to say to the Minister of Transport, however, that when the strike is settled the government should seriously consider designating the movement of grain as an essential service so that workers in that industry will know exactly where they stand. The kind of situation that has arisen at the port of Vancouver is critical to the Canadian economy. In the past 11 years, the port of Vancouver has been shut down for 153 days because of strikes, and it will suffer irreparable harm if this situation is repeated. Another area of contention is the western economic opportunities conference as it pertains to freight rates, but I shall leave that subject for my colleagues who will be speaking later in the debate.
At present, the freight rate situation is in confusion, Mr. Speaker. The lifting of the freight rate freeze has heightened and accelerated the anomalies in the system and served to increase the kind of distress and to some extent the stagnation that has occurred in western Canada and the maritime region. The intended and publicly stated purpose of the freeze was to allow the federal government a time-frame within which an effective economic policy could be formulated. The freeze expired, however, void of any announcement whatsoever.
The disjointed policy development in this area is clearly illustrated in recent events concerning the various court decisions as to the legality of post-freeze increases. In these instances, as in others, lack of federal government direction and ministerial control has never been more evident. The decision taken by the Canadian Transport Commission accorded the railways approximately one-half of the 25 per cent increase they had applied for, and the rest on March 1, after a study period. The railways appealed to the Federal Court, which decreed that the CTC did not have the authority under the section of the act used to rule as they did. Consequently, the railways immediately began charging users the full increase.

March 7, 1975
Transportation
The case was referred back to the CTC which, under the direction of the Federal Court, again ruled that the railways be awarded the original increases. The rail representatives have now appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada for a final ruling. As a result of this legal hassle, users of the system have had to operate under extremely confusing and unsettling conditions because from one day to the next freight was subject to different rates; there was no move by the minister or his department to set down any kind of direction.
The effects of greater efficiency in transportation services in Canada are far reaching. But in the absence of federal policy designed to promote and exploit this potential, the consequences for regional development and national unity could be, and are becoming, disastrous. In Canada, it can fairly be said that there is not only lack of transportation policy but lack of long-range planning toward the future development of such a policy. That is why we are skeptical of any policy announcement which may be coming out in the spring. This is a fact which may in future be responsible for the under-achievement of our national goals. In order to promote and encourage a successful economic future for Canada, a uniform strategy, formulated at the federal level and adopted by provincial, regional and municipal governments, is essential. Without the creation of such guidelines, Canadian development economically, regionally and socially will flounder.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I say in all sincerity that we do not believe the Minister of Transport understands the importance of the role of transportation in Canadian life. I should qualify that by saying he either does not understand or does not care about the department. For that reason we are prepared to debate this resolution as strongly as we can because we feel it is important. We certainly hope that before the debate ends we can elicit a positive and meaningful response from the government in regard to guidelines and policy.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, when I follow closely a debate in this House on the pseudo-policy concerning the railways, the economy or regional development I have the impression that I am not facing a political party which is preparing to take over power, which has its ideals, which is ready to apply measures that the other party has not understood or does not want to apply. I have had the impression, not only physically, but also intellectually and morally, that the only interesting speech was that of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta). I tried to see if this speech contained some idea. Did it really contain the least idea of a plan for the whole of Canada? No. It consisted simply of a series of quasi-insults, of badly digested bile, of general statements leading nowhere. It did say: "It's a mess!" There should be trains. First this is full of contradictions. The trains should be economical and self-sufficient, but at the same time, there should be trains in the sparsely populated areas, but nothing is said about this.
Of course, what is important is that they do not have any policy. This is why the Progressive Conservative Party was never taken seriously by the Canadian popula-

tion. What is their policy in the field of transportation? What is their air transportation policy? What is their policy, for instance, as concerns the relations between Air Canada, the Canadian Pacific and the regional carriers? What is the policy for ports, for freight, for water transportation? They have none.
What are we talking about? They are simply telling each other: You know, he is not interested, he does not work, they do not have any plans, they are not interested, but this is not much. They do not even know what is happening in their own constituency when it comes to airports, railway and civil aviation development, nothing at all. It is total vacuum, total darkness. The only argument, the only approach, and I would be quite-


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are just like the Liberals.


Jean Marchand: I am sorry, I am not talking about my friends of the NDP who at least in some areas have well formulated policies. Indeed I understand quite well when some of my friends tell me: I think the solution would be to bring the CPR under public ownership, that is a policy which would give results.


John Douglas Reynolds: You would love to take on the CPR,
wouldn't you?


Jean Marchand: No, no, let us forget that. I simply say they made an effort to try and solve certain problems. Everybody knows, Mr. Speaker, that transports are one of the most complex areas in Canada. It is one of the most complex, all the more so because when a solution is found it cannot be implemented overnight even if there is agreement.
This morning I had a meeting with the railway representatives to see if there is a way to have a faster service. It is not impossible to have faster trains between Halifax, for example, St. John, and then on to Montreal and Toronto. Is it possible to have a better railway system along what is called the Quebec City-Windsor corridor? It is possible. It is a matter of determining the costs, knowing how to get the necessary equipment to the railways in due time, knowing how much steel is available, what manufactures are ready to operate. We thought about all that, and we have plans in that respect. Speaking about the Maritimes, some say nothing was done there.
I know things were done in Halifax, I know things are being done at Rodney Terminal, in Saint John, N.B., for instance, in Sydney and Port-aux-Basques. Two ferries are being introduced in order to give Newfoundland a better service, at a cost exceeding $100 million a year.
We are trying to establish a coherent system of transportation within the Maritimes. We cooperated with those provinces for the development of a subsidy policy acceptable to the companies and to the provinces. A 50 per cent subsidy is granted on all types of cargo going to Central Canada, both by rail and by truck. Maritime provinces are also getting an internal subsidy to help their development. It is suggested nothing is being done in the Maritimes, that we do not care. This is not so! I can give you whole lists of what we have been doing. In British Columbia for instance, the highway is being reinforced from B.C. to
March 7, 1975

Manitoba for very efficient transportation. We cooperated with the Manitoba government to develop the port of Churchill. We are cooperating with the Manitoba government to the development of a regional line, in order to give regional service which has been lacking for some time. We cooperated with Saskatchewan, Ontario and Quebec, in order that concrete solutions be found, not from here in Ottawa, not by simply making meaningless speeches.
We are told that we are doing nothing in the field of transportation, that we understand nothing about transportation. What do these opposition gentlemen understand about transportation? What are their ideas? What stroke of genius is reflected in the proposition put forward? Nothing at all, beyond suggesting the Minister of Transport is either ignorant or unconcerned. But if this is their policy, they are bound to remain in the opposition all their lives.
I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is easy. I am not saying that I will solve the problems overnight; I know the problems are extremely difficult. There are problems, and human problems. Air Canada is mentioned and it is said that Air Canada morale is very low. Why? Is there any proof of that or is this just a gratuitous statement? Whom does he want to favour? What regional carrier? Why attack the national carrier which serves all Canadians, which belongs to the people? Morale is very low at Air Canada, and Air Canada's losses are heavier than CPAir's. For a very simple reason, Mr. Speaker: Air Canada is being asked to maintain routes that CPAir would not take over, and that, because it is a Crown corporation. In other words, some progressive conservatives, are trying to do with Air Canada what they did with the CN, that is, hand over to them all the short routes that are unprofitable. Then, they will say that CPAir is far more profitable, far more efficient. We have seen it in the past.
What policy is being advocated here? Why downgrade Air Canada, Mr. Speaker? We have a national air line; it has its faults, of course. But why claim there is a scandal? They will come before the committee, where they can be questioned. But why make gratuitous statements, broad statements without any sense, without accompanying the with some suggestion however small? As far as harbours are concerned, what suggestions have been made? None whatsoever. And freight rates? What suggestions have been made?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Et le ministre, lui?


Jean Marchand: Je suis le ministre, et je travaille moi aussi; j'obtiens des resultats.
Mr. Lougheed, who could not be accused of being a freshly converted Liberal, said after the Calgary conference: "It's a real breakthrough. Things are at least being done."
Of course, he did not say that everything had been settled, but he said: "Well, you made an effort, and a few interesting things are coming out at the WEOC Conference." What did our friend on the other side say? As for the WEOC Conference, somebody else will talk about it. Everybody knows nothing is being done. There is the whole matter of the development of the Arctic

Transportation


Mr. Mazankowski:: You had better have a bowl of soup.


Jean Marchand: I still have something to
say.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this morning I dealt with some of the achievements of the department which we are trying as much as possible to integrate into a comprehensive philosophy. I talked especially about the Maritimes. I only referred to a few of the ferries in the Maritimes, but there are other ferry services we looked after, for instance, as soom as a problem arose between Digby and St. John, I contracted the Canadian Pacific without delay to have the service restored.
When we had a problem between Yarmouth and Bar Harbour, I immediately got in touch with the province of Nova Scotia to solve that problem. We are trying to find a permanent solution so that under an agreement with a Swedish company, we can provide an efficient year-round service. In the Maritimes, we have the problem of a deep water harbour. There is also the problem of connecting Halifax and Montreal, the problem of Saint John, New Brunswick, the problem of ferries to Prince Edward Island, where a new shuttle service will soon start at Wood Island, and that is extremely important. It is a pity that the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is not here, but we are going to build his control tower at Charlottetown, which means that Air Canada will have flights to Charlottetown. There will therefore be landing facilities in every Canadian province, including Prince Edward Island.
Of course, we have tried to solve every problem; it is a slow process. All those agreements are reached jointly with provinces, not just at Ottawa. We defend ourselves, we meet them, we have talks together, we try to settle problems. I had discussions with British Columbia and some other western provinces with respect to freight rates and the rates proclaimed under the bill which, by the way, has just been passed in Committee and should eventually be studied in this House. We settled the matter of railway rate grouping. We discussed the matter of ferries between Vancouver Island and the mainland.
There were discussions with Western Canada about the ports of Churchill, of Prince Rupert, of Vancouver, on the matter of the Western region carrier, Canadian Pacific Western Airlines. Now I have yet to hear the opposition put forward a policy on that matter; however, when a province takes hold of a carrier, it really is a serious matter... We are now formulating a comprehensive system, a third level of regional carriers.
This morning, I heard my friend, the hon. member for Lisgar, saying: Even regional carriers make money. Air Canada knows and says it. But do they know why? It is

March 7, 1975
Transportation
precisely because they do not operate on a regional basis, they are mainly interested in chartered flights. They organise such flights to the Caribbean Islands, to Europe. It means that those companies, created to service small areas, have finally become companies with international interests and DC-8's and L10-ll's. Thus, they make money of course, because they have customers of a superior level. Then, of course, our national companies have to take travellers when it is not profitable. He forgot to tell us those things, probably because he did not know about them.
We tried to solve the problem of railway cars of which there was a shortage last year. They are used for carrying lumber, wheat and other commodities. We appointed a supervisor, and distribution has improved. Of course, when things are not moving, it is not the supervisor who is to be blamed, but the strike. If the opposition tells us that they are against the right to strike, we are quite prepared to discuss that matter in the House. If not, they should not hold us responsible for the consequences of the right to strike.
Then, we discussed the maximum rates, for example, in the field of freight; we discussed road-beds tracks, overpasses. We discussed the Ashton-Clinton pass in British Columbia, which is so essential to speed up traffic to the ports. We discussed the national parks, crossing rates which have already been eliminated. There have been discussions about tracks relocation and legislation on that matter has already been passed. There have also been discussions about the doubling the tracks, so as to avoid, in some circumstances, passengers trains being delayed by freight trains.


Mr. Woolliams:: What about that election promise that you made?


Jean Marchand: All this is part of the policy. Even the Calgary airport is part of it.

Mr. Speaker, I have merely stated a few problems which were discussed with the provinces. I do not refer to the Richmond Hill case which is extremely important for Ontario. I do not refer to the agreement concluded with the Ontario government for the establishment of a regional airline in northern Ontario. I leave that aside. We have settled it but all those matters are integral parts of a policy of mutual understanding which one of these days, I hope, will be submitted to the House as a cohesive whole.
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? We on this side understand very well that it might take you two years because he will not be easy to replace. I have great respect for the leader of the opposition. Mr. Speaker, I do not balk at hard work, at difficulties to overcome or even at criticisms, but I find myself facing such a vacuum in the opposition, such a lack of contribution, such nothingness-All right name one! Name just one contribution other than an irresponsible

statement. They say: "Let us lower all freight rates!" That will go over big and people will flock to our side. We know very well that someone will pay for the railways, the Canadian people will. It is then a matter of distributing the cost so that the burden will be borne equally by all, even the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield)- Mr. Speaker, I think-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You have 102,000 people in your department. What about them?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should be allowed to complete his remarks. Other members may wish to make contributions later.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I find this funny. Why? Because of the shouts I hear from hon. members opposite, and I feel this must be truly their policy, for they have none other. Shouting is the only thing they are good at when they do not agree or when they hurt, instead of coming forward with new proposals.
Can we take a chance on a linear traction train service between Montreal and Toronto, or between Ottawa and Toronto, unless it has been made perfectly safe for passengers? Ontario put it to the test with Kraus Maffei. I do not want it in Ontario, but officials soon realized that the technique was not perfect yet and said: We had better wait. Our responsibilities are the same. We must find the best techniques, so as to ensure the best possible service to the Canadian people as a whole.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Jean Marchand: No. They say that they have the technology, that they know what to do with a train running at 300 miles per hour on railways designed for 90 miles per hour speeds. The Canadian people know that, but they do not believe them.
We have done that with Manitoba, and whatever the provinces, I do not care whether they are conservative, liberal or NDP provinces. I want to work with all provinces. I work very well with the province of Manitoba. We have agreed on several things, and I think we can agree on several other realizations. I will not change their political ideology, it is their own, and that is their own business. I think that has nothing to do with everyone's political objectives.
As concerns air agreements, Mr. Speaker, one has been concluded with the United States. Of course, some are not satisfied because most routes have been granted to Air Canada. There is a reason behind that. If some day there is a debate on that matter, I will explain why we have done that; it is not necessarily because we wanted to destroy CP Air, but rather because it is our national carrier and, at the beginning, it was supposed to be Air Canada territory.
Agreements have been concluded with China, Germany, Spain and Italy. For instance, Canadian Pacific Air Lines is allowed to land in Milan. In terms of international development, we have opened a great many new markets which will be beneficial to Canada. Why? One could very
March 7, 1975

well tell me, Mr. Speaker: It is true that you have done all that, but you should have developed other markets. For instance, you should have tried to get Thailand, that would be very important. I could discuss this but I won't discuss with people who can only yell or make catcalls. A study has been conducted on that, Mr. Speaker. I can yell just as loud as anybody. I have also been trained for that when I was young.
Mr. Speaker, it was important to conduct a feasibility study about building a railroad in the Mackenzie Valley, in the northern part of British Columbia. Obviously, the railway is not built yet. It has not been decided yet if it should be a pipeline, a railway or some other means. We must agree with Mr. Barrett, the British Columbia Premier, who has his own concept about oil or gas transportation from the North. We are ready to discuss. It cannot be done in one day. He is not ready himself to do it in one day. I went there three times but he wasn't there, with good reasons. I do not blame him. I certainly do not blame him for it because you will not find me at all times in my office.
Mr. Speaker, what is a transportation policy? We do not have all the answers. This is what we are trying to develop. That is why a great number of technicians are trying to find the best and most economical means of transportation for our freight.
For instance, in Canada, there is more and more emphasis on transportation from North to South with regard to the development of natural resources, whether it be the tar sands of Alberta, coal, sulphur, whether it be the natural resources of northern Ontario or even of Quebec. The attraction of the South is so strong that it is threatening the great line designed by Sir John A. Macdonald across Canada from East to West. It is a problem.
Now I shall put before you a very simple problem. We are presently extracting coal in Alberta and moving it to Ontario by railway. Now, it might be a better idea to produce electricity in Alberta and transmit it to Ontario. It is the best solution. Is someone in this House ready to give me an answer? A number of people have been working on this for several weeks and they have not found an answer yet. We do not know yet what is the most economical solution. We try to have a consistent and integrated transportation policy so that Canadians will have the best possible service.
Mr. Speaker, I have no objection. There are so many factors involved in transportation matters that I understand quite well why the opposition is criticizing this government. It does not bother me. On the contrary, I find it extremely interesting.
We are very much interested in that because the government needs this contribution.

There is no need for blowing the horn, Mr. Speaker. The Ottawa Journal published an article yesterday, and I quote:

"Only Marchand is amused"
Transportation

I shall not dramatize about what happened to our friend, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro). I have probably been closer to him for some time and this for several reasons. He has been my parliamentary secretary and I tried to help him as much as I could in his predicaments. In reading such an article I told myself that if I were at a meeting of workers I would express my disgust at its author. Purely and simply out of respect for hon. members, I shall not do it but certainly not out of consideration for the newsman involved.
A reporter, not known as a Liberal-he does not eat little red peas every day-Michael Barkway, has written an article. I would invite hon. members to meditate upon it seriously. However violent our discussions may get it is not important if we are really seeking the truth and not trying to destroy somebody else. He says this:

In any other era it would not be worth noticing the petty attempts to find something scandalous about a gift to embellish the Prime Minister's residence. But in these times I think they are symptomatic of a more general nastiness. They represent a hunt for corruption which itself corrupts.
Perhaps Watergate has given the public a taste for wrongdoing in high places. It has fostered a wave of cynicism about all positions of trust and responsibility. It has certainly encouraged publicity seekers to scour every closet in hope of finding a skeleton-or at least a few dry bones.
Press, radio, TV and opposition politicians have found a new relish in their proper duty of exposing wrongdoing. Sometimes they forget that they have an equal duty to discriminate between what is wrong
and what may be made to seem so.
The cause of public morality is not served by stirring up moral indignation on specious or trivial grounds. It is degraded into a pervasive smog of suspicion which (as John Wesley might have said) will eventually choke the godly and the ungodly alike.

Mr. Speaker, when I came here, the atmosphere was stifling. I shall not go much further this afternoon. I shall wait for another occasion. I can give you names, I can name those involved. I know the names given by the opposition and I look how they are named and in what circumstances. I ask you one thing in the name of the country: do not go on this way because you will not win. If I am prepared for an attack on the transportation policy, let them tell me: "Listen, Marchand, you are wasting your time; we do not believe you." It is the role of the opposition and it is natural. I do not want to be praised but I do not want this feeling of suspicion to return, this racism which developed in many cases-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Jean Marchand: Let me finish; I am not talking about my hon. colleague.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on, for God's sake. Get off that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: There is no racism here.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: That hurts.
3896

Transportation


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That is unfair.


Jean Marchand: This is not unfair.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: It is unfair. The minister is unfair in his accusation. There has been nothing said about racism in this debate, and I have listened to every word since it started. The minister is unfair in saying that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, to be fair I must say that I am not referring to my hon. colleague behind me nor to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: You are a weak sister and you are using a weak pretence to cloud the issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: There was no racism.


Jean Marchand: What about what your friend said?


An hon. Member:: His time is finished.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: He is finished anyhow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: That was as unfair remark and he should withdraw.


Jean Marchand: You are just trying to kill me, and you are not going to.


An hon. Member:: You are killing yourself. Just keep talking and you are dead.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You go down to Nova Scotia and state that kind of nonsense and you will be dead.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hope hon. members will give me the chance to point out that the minister's time had expired but because of the important point he was making I did not intervene. Before this is prolonged any longer, I should bring to the attention of the minister the fact that his time has expired. If hon. mem-
bers want to let him complete his remarks or pursue this line, he will require an extension of time.


An hon. Member:: Five minutes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps we should solve one problem at a time. Is it agreed that the minister shall be allowed to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister has consent to continue for a reasonable length of time, and I am sure he will not abuse that privilege.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member was justified 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-I have been attacked by some of my friends and I never held it against them, on the contrary, I believe we remained good friends. We should all agree, everytime 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.


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might pose one little example for the minister. He suggested that we should not draw skeletons from the closet, yet this is exactly what he has been doing. He has been stirring up racism within the country. I believe these two conflicting statements are another example of the policy he is portraying to the Canadian people.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. member is expressing an opinion.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am in no position to out-shout the minister. Loud shouting will not be sufficient to enunciate the policies of the government. I agree with the minister's statements concerning the official opposition in the context of their not saying what their policy is. I think he paid a backhanded compliment to the New Democratic Party in saying that we at least have advocated alternatives to what is being done by himself and his government.
I also want to caution the minister that every time the Minister of Transport receives criticism about the government's policies or lack of policies, he should not be so sensitive and attempt to construe this as some kind of racism. That has to be a strawman, a sign of desperation

and anger; but the minister must control his anger. He quoted two opposing views of the press and mentioned Mr. Fisher. I defy him to show us where at any time Mr. Fisher in his comments has been racist in respect of the minister or anyone else.
The minister should be prepared to take it, even if he does not like it. If he cannot stand the heat, he should get out of the kitchen, to quote Harry Truman. We in the New Democratic Party, for many years-certainly for the past three of four years-have been trying to persuade the minister, and I believe he has been persuaded to some extent, to accept our position. But he should recognize that his worst problem is within his own cabinet and the government. He has colleagues who insist on acting on nineteenth century concepts in respect of transportation. I am glad one Conservative applauded.


An hon. Member:: One more than the NDP.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This probably means at least one of them is not still in the nineteenth century. They pick on picayune questions. Their expertise tells them that anything which belongs to the people is bad. Air Canada-and the minister is right this time-compared to the CPR is terrible because the CPR shows a profit, and the CNR is terrible because the CPR shows a profit. Let me warn my friends to the right about the nineteenth century views which they have. The minister's colleagues have the same attitude. They have this glorious free enterprise concept. Transportation is a public utility which everyone must use. They continue to try to operate it in the way it was operated by the railroad barons of the 1890s. This is the type of attitude to which members of the Progressive Conservative Party and colleagues of the minister in his caucus still adhere.
Let me illustrate how good the CPR is in respect of public transportation and private enterprise. I know this may be difficult for free enterprisers to comprehend or accept, but the people of Canada have paid for all the profits of the CPR through subsidies in most years. In 1969 the CPR had a net operating profit of $31.4 million from its railway operations after fixed charges and income tax had been deducted. Their subsidies from the taxpayers of Canada that year amounted to $35 million. Had it not been for the subsidies by Canadian taxpayers in that year, the CPR would have had a loss of $3.6 million. In 1970 the CPR had profits amounting to $28.8 million, and received subsidies in the order of $30 million from the people of Canada. Without the subsidies, the CPR would have been $1.2 million in the hole in that year.


An hon. Member:: On the railway operation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Of course on the railway and ancillary operations being trucks, hotels, telecommunications, ships and airlines. In 1971 the CPR showed operating profits, after fixed charges and income tax, of $38.6 million and received subsidies from the people of Canada of $40 million. We have been paying for this company even though we do not own it. We have been making sure there are dividends for the shareholders of $1.70 or $2.70. We have done this through subsidies.
Transportation


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Socialism for the rich.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Private enterprise must have more profits even if it means using the taxpayers' money. The minister is justified in complaining about the official opposition, but what the official opposition, the New Democratic Party and the people of Canada want is his policy, not the Conservative policy or the NDP policy. We are not the government. What is the minister's policy? He wants the Conservative Party and the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board to tell him what he should do. If that is the position he is in, he should quit. If the minister is so bereft of some backbone, determination, imagination and political muscle in his own group that he must rely on the Progressive Conservative Party to tell him what their policies are so that he will know what to do, then he should quit.
The minister, who has worked very hard to solve these problems, has allowed events to occur over the past few years which have made the problems worse. I ask the minister how long he intends to sit back and allow one of his own colleagues to make statements, announcements and to start investigations, and so on, which have to do with transportation. This should be the minister's prerogative and responsibility. Who makes announcements and statements about branch lines? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang). Who makes statements and announcements about the Crowsnest Pass rates? The Minister of Justice. Who makes announcements and sets up transportation committees under the Canada Grains Council? The Minister of Justice.
I ask, where the heck is the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand)? If I were Minister of Transport and one of my colleagues was doing that to me, I would say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), "Look here; either he shuts up or here is my resignation". How long is the Minister of Transport going to sit back and take that nonsense? The Minister of Justice, if he gets his way, will be the architect of the further destruction and alienation of western Canada and of rural Canada in particular.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski), the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and myself want to support the Minister of Transport on a transportation system that will allow us to live together as a country, that will preserve rural Canada and enable the grain producers to get their grain to the market.
The Minister of Justice announced what the government will do with the Crowsnest Pass rates. I will repeat, for the benefit of the Minister of Transport, what I said before the Minister of Justice, if it will help strengthen his position in the cabinet. The other night the minister said in the committee that the Crowsnest Pass rates are not like the Bible. I want to tell the Minister of Transport that he and his colleagues would have a better chance to amend the Ten Commandments that they would to amend the Crowsnest pass rates. Those rates are the one decent and fair deal our grain growers have had in our transportation
28996-42/4

March 7, 1975
Transportation
system. Yet the Minister of Justice is trying to destroy that agreement. How much longer will the Minister of Transport stand for that nonsense?
With regard to the freight rates, I read again the communique put out at the Calgary meeting a week ago last Monday. The Minister of Transport said to his counterparts in the provinces that he will propose a legislative amendment to reduce rate differential anomalies between raw and finished products, and in the interim will consult the provinces and take measures necessary to correct urgent anomalies. He has consulted the provinces umpteen times since he became Minister of Transport and he knows what the anomalies are: they have been pointed out by the people of western Canada for the past 50 years.
If the Minister of Transport needs another couple of months to bring in his legislation, why does he sit back and allow the railroads to compound those inequities? It would only take two phone calls, one to the president of CNR and one to the president of CPR, telling them, "You will not increase any rate until we bring in this legislation". Instead of that, all the discrimination, the anomalies, the inequities and the absurdities in our freight rates structure are being compounded by increases in these rates.
To illustrate, let me refer to Burns and Company which are phasing out their meat packing plant in Prince Albert. Why are they doing it? Because the minister and his government sat back and allowed across the board rate increases that increased the spread between the cost of sending dressed beef and live cattle to central Canada. But the Minister of Justice supported the railways in the Supreme Court. The difference in cost between sending dressed beef and live cattle from Saskatoon to Montreal used to be 91 cents per 100 pounds. Now, as of March 1, it costs $1.17 more to ship dressed beef.
What does that do to our meat processing and packing industry in western Canada? It kills it. But the minister sits back and allows it to happen. All we have are the platitudes in his communiques telling us how he is going to correct these anomalies. He has been saying that ever since the day he became Minister of Transport-but he has yet to correct them. It is time he led, instead of waiting for the Conservatives, for members of the NDP and for the provinces to tell him what to do.
If I owned the Burns plant in Prince Albert, I would shut it down also. I would not want to own it either privately or publicly. Our freight rate and express rate structure make it economic suicide to try to operate a meat packing plant in Prince Albert, Saskatoon, or Regina. There is a perfectly logical reason for that. Any good management of a packing plant would close it down when the minister sits back and allows freight rates to be increased. A large part of the production of packing plants relies on the shipment of the product in small lots to hundreds of communities within several hundred miles of the location of the plant. What does the CNR do? Under our present transportation policy, the CNR cannot operate any differently from the CPR. It is told to be competitive and to make a profit: It is not told to provide service and to meet the transportation needs of Canadians no matter where they live.

What does the CNR do? Our own national railroad tells the retailers in Hudson Bay, Saskatchewan, and it tells Burns and Company in Prince Albert-only about 180 miles away-that they can ship, for example, 22 pieces of processed, packaged meat, or 610 pounds, which used to cost $21.80 or $3.57 a hundredweight, at a new rate of $33 or $5.40 a hundredweight. That is an increase of 52 per cent. Yet the minister allows these inequities to continue and to be compounded. I insist that all it takes is two phone calls, with the backing of the Prime Minister, of the government and of parliament, to the presidents of our two railways telling them that they are not to increase the rates at present. But the minister does not do it. Instead, he asks the Conservatives for their policy, as if that would be of any help. How desperate can you get for a policy if you have to ask the Conservatives? I am surprised that the minister is not a little more erudite than that.
I should like to make some comments about grain movement in the present situation. Everybody says that the workers have the right to strike. I give the minister full credit for standing by the right to strike, but he and the government have yet to make any significant move to remove the causes of strikes. Like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), they say that the lowest paid public servants must show restraint. At the same time, they give an increase of $8,000 to $10,000 to deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers. Increases are given to economists running around here who have Ph.Ds in the sex life of date palms. No restraint is required of them, they do not even have to bargain for increases: the cabinet and Treasury Board pass them through.
However, the lowest paid public servants are told they should show restraint. And the minister wonders why they shut down Vancouver harbour! He should have known that was the only result he would get. I want to propose something to the minister, something he has heard from me many times and with which he agrees, I am sure, in his heart and mind. He needs help and support in his own ranks. He must put a stop to the machinations and the dinosaur mentality of the Minister of Justice if he wants to succeed with a really national transportation policy in this country. As I said earlier, transportation is an essential public service; it is a public utility; it is something everybody has to use. Since that is the nature of transportation the minister must say in his new policy-which I hoped we would get today-that the major portion of the transportation system must be publicly owned and controlled. Consider any other country in the world, whether capitalist, communist, socialist or whatever: their transportation systems are publicly owned and publicly controlled. I spent a week in London the year before last; they know how to move people and goods.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Right into a tunnel.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The first fundamental change the minister must bring about in transportation policy is the elimination of competition and profitability as the prime criterion for the operation of our railroads, airlines or other modes of transporation. The priority has to be service and making transportation systems available to meet the social and economic needs of our country, whether or not
March 7, 1975

they make money or lose money. It is as logical to have two competing railroads as it is to have two competing highway systems or two sewer or water systems.
If the minister would bear with me for a few more minutes, I will go into a little more detail. Given the principle of public ownership and control, given the principle of priority of service in meeting the transportation needs of this country and that competition and profitability take the lowest priority, it must follow that by integrating all modes of transportation each mode is assigned to its most sensible use. It is nonsense for trucks to be hauling loads from Toronto to Vancouver. It is uneconomic, it is inefficient and it flies in the face of everything all of us believe in regarding the consumption of energy and reducing pollution.
The minister proposes to put up about $157 million to improve the highway systems to take bigger load limits. That proposal flies in the face of all good sense about energy, pollution, safety and a decent, civilized community. It is equally nonsensical for a 100-car train to make short hauls of small lot shipments for 50 miles, 60 miles or 100 miles. That is the place for trucks. It is stupid for DC-9 and DC-8 jets to fly between Ottawa and Montreal: it is inefficient, wasteful of fuel and, again, flies in the face of all the things hon. members from all parties have talked about in this chamber for years.
Whether moved by bus, train or plane, our freight rates and passenger fares should be all-inclusive. Can the minister visualize somebody travelling from Ottawa, Ontario, to Peggy's Cove, Nova Scotia, buying one ticket with three coupons on it and going by train from Ottawa to Montreal, plane from Montreal to Halifax and bus from Halifax to Peggy's Cove, all of those modes being included in one fare? Each mode of transportation must be put to the best, the most efficient and the most sensible use.
Something must be done about the equalizing and/or subsidizing of fares and rates. We discriminate against people in our country because of where they happen to live. Will the minister face up to the fact of our geography, our climate and our people being scattered over 5,000 miles? It should be possible to fly from Toronto to Inuvik for the same price as from Toronto to Winnipeg. An equal-ized-subsidized system of freight rates would put an end to this mess in our freight rate structure. The minister needs to do something more than just talk about harbours, about $10 million in the estimates for three years in a row for the port at Churchill-and they are just now getting around to spending it. Again, the government has the imagination of a doorknob. For the port of Churchill $100 million is needed, not $10 million.


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


An hon. Member:: Let him finish.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is there agreement that the hon. member should continue his remarks?


Jack Burnett Murta: I would caution the House that we have a number of speakers this afternoon who are prepared and wish to participate in the debate. The House will adjourn
Transportation
at five o'clock. If the House agreed to let everyone exceed their allotted time, we would be unable to finish.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I agree with the general position taken by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), but I wonder if there could be some latitude extended to the first speaker for each party. I think after that the cut-off should be absolute.


Jack Burnett Murta: I agree.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) be allowed to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and I thank my colleagues for their generosity and courtesy. I promise to be only five minutes and I think I can live up to that. I wish to continue with habours and terminals. Why do we need to put another one or two terminals in Vancouver? The place is so badly congested now that there is not enough room for a waiting ship to turn around. The shore space available for tracks and yards and warehouses is almost used up. What about another terminal in Prince Rupert? Even with the present facilities in Prince Rupert we could double the grain movement with one additional train per day for 42 weeks. For ten weeks of the year, when there are large snowfalls, rainfalls and slides, those trains do not run; but for 42 weeks an additional 11 million bushels could be moved into Prince Rupert and half a dozen of the ships in Vancouver could be loaded there. The same thing applies at Churchill. It can, and should be a six-month or seven-month a year port instead of three months. The allocated $10 million will not scratch the surface. Policy is needed in the area of integrated rail, air and bus transportation.
The dismal history of regional air carriers in this country is one of obtaining a franchise, sucking off a couple of lucrative routes from Air Canada and then telling us how they are going to serve a whole region. Then within a matter of months, or a year or two, they are begging for subsidies. All the time they are operating, the ability of Air Canada to provide service to people in the country, no matter where they live, is further decreased. If one were to add $1 to the fare of everyone who travels between Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto and Winnipeg, for example, one could fly from Toronto to Vancouver or Halifax for the same price. We would stop discriminating against people in this country because of where they happen to live.
Why do we need five or six airlines? It is inefficient and wasteful, with duplicate management. The regionals and the private carriers want the lucrative routes. They have forgotten that the purpose of transportation is to serve the needs of people. All they want to serve is their own interest, which is profit. This parliament and this government has to make up its mind about which comes first, people or profits.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to Air Canada.

March 7, 1975
Transportation


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The people of this country, if their transportation costs them money over and above the cost of passenger tickets and freight rates, will pay it. They do not expect their Post Office to make a profit, and never have. No post office that I know of in any country in the world has ever shown a profit. They do not expect their sewer, water and highway systems to show a profit. In 1967 we subsidized cars, trucks and buses to the tune of over $400 million. In the same year we subsidized the airlines, both public and private, to the tune of $170 million. In both cases that is more than the direct subsidies paid to the railroads.
Until the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) wins this battle in his own caucus and in cabinet he does not need to worry about what Conservative or New Democratic Party members say. Why does he keep asking conservatives for their policy? How desperate can you get? How bereft is the Liberal government? As soon as the minister makes a fundamental change in the direction and purpose of our transportation system then we will be able to move toward building a system that is integrated and efficient and, most of all, one that ensures that the social and transportation needs of the people of Canada will be met, no matter where they live.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to take part in the debate on the motion before us. I noticed on reading it that the wording was rather provocative, and I am not surprised that this debate took a stormy turn for a while. In any event, I did not have the pleasure to hear any of the speakers I heard, although there may have been good things said, raise the basic problem which is the cause of most of the difficulties we have to overcome in transportation.
First of all, what with the famous debt in each of those transportation areas? I wonder why we do not further analyze that matter to see if we might find some kind of solution to the problems of transportation services which are indebted and spend most of their revenues paying back interest.
I have with me a report for 1972. The net revenue of the CN amounted to $48,257,000; the interest to $66 million; the deficit is $17 million. Obviously, how could it be possible to improve a system with such a deficit due to interest on an almost priceless debt.
The St. Lawrence Seaway administration has a net revenue of $1,817,000; interests amounting to $22 million; and a deficit of $20,885,000.
Air Canada, which can definitely be termed an "in" service, had operation benefits of $45 million, a debt interest of $32 million; a net benefit of $8 million; and since 1963 the amount of interest paid is $199 million.
That is a very interesting side issue. Most members should spare the time to check and try to find some process, some form of payment, a type of loan which does not get them into endless debts, which they cannot ever

repay, all the transportation agencies and systems. That is why I felt it advisable to point out this situation at the beginning of my remarks.
However, when looking at the situation, it is easy to note, and I have explained the reasons first, that there are many contradictions in Canada's transportation system which is in a mess. That situation has been prevailing for quite some time, and there is nothing new to it. Federal governments, one after the other, recognized in principle that Canada needs a rational transportation system. By that, they mean a system through which the basic needs of the population in every part of Canada should be met by the most efficient and inexpensive means of transportation.
The MacPherson Royal Commission of inquiry was supposed to recommend the rationalization of the transportation services in Canada which compete each other and 'which are duplicated. The new Transport Act of 1967 wTas supposed to implement policies for the achievement of this aim. The new Canadian Transport Commission was supposed to have been empowered to implement that legislation. Unfortunately, it can be noted that the transportation situation has not improved sufficiently.
However, I must point out that the new Ottawa-Mont-real highway is greatly appreciated by drivers. All signs point to a reduction in the number of accidents. It is an improvement which is worth noticing. For the Ottawa-Montreal return trip, one can use a CN or CP train; one can also use the bus, or fly Air Canada. The yachtmen can even sail up the Ottawa river. However, it is not advisable to do so, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has already capsized, after hitting a submerged log. It is not a mode of transportation which can be recommended.
Which of these modes of transportation is the fastest, the most efficient and the cheapest? Undoubtedly, the train could be so, but the reduction of services and the increasing rates are going to make the train less attractive to potential travellers.
The more one examines the federal government's transportation policy, the more confused it seems. These various agencies compete each other, launch contradictory plans which have nothing in common except that they all cost millions to the taxpayers.
We have on the one hand the Canadian National, a Crown corporation, working at the systematic destruction of its passenger services with the wholehearted encouragement of the Canadian Transport Commission. Imagine, the federal regulatory body! But while the CTC lets railway companies get rid of their passenger trains, another government body, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is paying half the cost of a $2.5 million project to manufacture a high-speed passenger train.
During that period, the federal Department of Transport felt transportation services between Ottawa and Montreal were not sufficiently diversified. So they granted millions of dollars in subsidies to an undertaking named Air Industries Association of Canada in order to have another intercity transportation mode, called STOL-short take off and landing. Let us hope that service will prove satisfactory to the people, without reaching enormous costs.
March 7, 1975

It must be admitted that railway passenger service did not always get the kind of encouragement needed from all quarters, and this is due to a number of factors. It may be worthwhile to state a few. I shall mention schedules. They are frequently changed, without taking into account the needs of different regions.
The people in charge of Canadian National passenger services in particular, because I know them better than other services, should maintain more frequent consultations with train conductors to establish schedules one year ahead. Those employees, conductors and engineers, know the problems. Unfortunately they are not asked for their views. Consultation is a one-way proposition. Decisions are taken to stop here or stop there, but not elsewhere. Finally, people take the bus or other means of transportation.
I have here an article signed by Maurice Huot in the newspaper Montreal-Matin of November 29, 1974. It sums up the situation pretty neatly. Present circumstances warrant that the article be quoted in parts. It states:
The battle to revive railway passenger services was dealt a hard blow by former federal Liberal Minister of Transport J. W. Pickersgill.
According to a Canadian press dispatch from Ottawa, Mr. Pickersgill stated at a Carleton University seminar that if passenger trains disappear in Canada, in less than one year, no one in the country would be bored. In Mr. Pickersgill's opinion, the taxpayer should not be forced to pay for a few rich middle class passengers who use passenger trains between a few big cities. According to him, this money would be better spent if it were used to improve the freight service.
We are also reminded that the Transport Act passed in the House of Commons during the sixties created the transportation commission of which Mr. Pickersgill was the first chairman.
Indeed, Mr. Pickersgill had prepared a job for himself at a very interesting salary.
... It is under his administration that the commission allowed the railways to eliminate certain passenger train services while others were maintained with the help of federal grants. On the other hand, Mr. Jean Marchand blamed this act for the unfortunate situation of train transportation. For his part, Mr. Marchand wants to improve the passenger train services.
Of course, this issue is complex. It is certain that in Canada and the United States, train service is more popular with travellers. Should we not allow the travellers to have the choice of taking the train, the bus, or the plane for their business and pleasure trips?
In order to preserve oil energy, would it not be appropriate that more passengers take railway transit systems linking major cities? Is it not also by stimulating passenger railway transportation that the railway companies will make more profits from that means of transport and that the subsidies and grants will be decreasing?
Railway transportation is still very popular in Europe as well as in Asia for passengers, thanks to the improvement of tracks allowing higher speed. We do not quite understand why Mr. Pickersgill has intervened, given the present economic, technological and social situation.
In 1971, railway transport experts maintained that railways were not profitable in any country, except Switzerland. Recent statistics indicate that Japanese railways were operating in the red. And yet the railway service there was very good, as it was in France and Germany. Contrary to Canada those three countries decided once for all that railways had a social role to play in public transportation. This is what we must consider: a railway transit system, a genuine social service. We must provide the
Transportation
Canadian people with a passenger service because railways are quite safe and that they can run despite bad weather, when other means of transportation are paralyzed in certain circumstances.
We must think of the social role of a passenger service. Even though we will have to engage more public money, we know what has been the cost up to now. But if such a service could be improved we could then build up a good transportation service to accommodate all Canadian people, ensuring that in almost all occasions, except in a very few exceptions, public could enjoy a good service.
So I believe that Canadians would be satisfied with decisions of that sort and the railroads could be used with greater advantage than it is the case now.
The question is not whether the Canadian Pacific is more willing than the Canadian National or conversely, to attract business. The thing is to know when the government will finally say when it intends to provide transportation services more suited to the Canadian people.
Following the passage of the new 1967 Transport Act, the government is prepared to subsidize transport companies in respect of their losses, but one must stop and think that a subsidy is not a transportation policy. Other means must be sought. Recently, the disparities in freight rates caused great prejudice to a great many manufacturers, particularly those in my area, because I received representations to that effect.
Adjustments would have to be made because manufacturers in my area had to layoff people because freight costs were too high in various provinces, even if orders are waiting to be shipped. Once again, I hope the minister in co-operation with his colleagues can find a formula better suited to the needs of Canadians.


Jack Burnett Murta: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, it has been agreed that, because time is short and many members want to participate in the debate, we should limit speeches to 15 minutes. I think the NDP and the other party agree to this.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that, from now on, speeches shall be limited to 15 minutes?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed; and there is to be no overtime.


John Douglas Reynolds: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on transportation. This morning and early this afternoon I listened to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) give one of his great performances in the House. His hands were waving, and his delivery was faultless. But I remember hearing a similar speech before. He put up a wonderful show, and did it very well.
What he did reminded me of something I saw last Wednesday night. I was sitting in a movie theatre and just before the main feature came on they showed a cartoon which reminded me of the Minister of Transport. The cartoon was about a character known as the Roadrunner, who runs around at great speed, says "beep, beep," and

March 7, 1975
Transportation
really does not do much else, although what he does is very entertaining. He reminded me of the Minister of Transport. He is very entertaining, but he seldom says anything worthwhile.
What disturbed me about the minister's speech were his comments on racism. Madam Speaker, I have been here for three years and, to me, it always seems that allusions to racism come from the other side of the House. The people of Canada are tired of hearing them. I do not know what they have to do with transport policy in this country. Our criticism of the minister does not involve racism. We criticize him because he is incompetent, because his department does not know what it is doing, and because the people of Canada are fed up with the government's lack of policies in transportation.
At the beginning of his speech he took a shot at the Conservative party. He said it lacked policies and is lacking physically, intellectually, and morally. I wonder how the Minister of Transport could make a statement like that, after running around the country during the last federal election campaign and telling the people what his party would do for urban rapid transit, to make trains run and to build airports. So far we have not seen any legislation which would implement the policies the minister talked about in the last election campaign. I wonder how he can talk about a moral position.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Especially as the Liberal party is morally derelict.


John Douglas Reynolds: During the election campaign he spoke about an urban rapid transit policy. To my amazement, many of the things he said were taken right out of the policy pronouncement prepared by my party over one year before that. Some actual sentences were taken from my party's policy pronouncement. So, what is the minister thinking when he talks about my party's intellectual and moral qualities?
What is the government's attitude on the manufacture of aeroplanes in this country? The government paid de Havilland in Ontario, the builders of STOL aircraft, tens of millions of dollars in aid. Now the parent company, Hawker-Siddeley, wants the government to buy the de Havilland Aircraft because it does not think it will be successful.
Throughout the minister's 40 minute speech he kept asking for suggested solutions from my side of the House. Now he has left the House, just as we want to suggest solutions.
I draw the minister's attention to Dominion Aircraft Ltd., formerly of British Columbia. My party, and members of the minister's party were in favour of giving aid to that company to help it build STOL aircraft. The government refused. Now that company is in business in the state of Washington, south of British Columbia, employing people to build an aeroplane which should have been built in Canada.
Consider also what has happened to Trident Aircraft Ltd. of British Columbia, which has developed a float aircraft. The government gave the company $1.5 million as a PAIT grant. The individual owners of the company put up $1.5 million of their own capital. Now the government 
is telling these people that it will not put more money into the company, and the company may need to close down unless it is given assistance. These examples illustrate policies which people in my part of the country do not accept, and which the people of Canada will not accept.
I want to talk for a few minutes about airports in British Columbia. In 1966, the then minister of transport, J. W. Pickersgill, said:
The Department of Transport intends to acquire all of Sea Island eventually. The statement freezes the real estate market and subjects Sea Island to a de facto expropriation.
In 1973, only seven years later, there was still the same problem. All the homes have not yet been expropriated. The Hon. Jack Davis, then minister of the environment, said at that time:
No special environmental impact-study has been made on the effects of the airport expansion.
What kind of transport department comes up with these types of answers seven years after announcing an expansion of an airport, stating they have not yet come up with any environmental studies to let the residents know what will be the effects? The Hon. Jack Davis also said:
Expropriation on Sea Island is in line with Ottawa's decision years ago to clear the island of all private homes.
Since that time we have had government assurance that they do not want to go into all areas of Sea Island. We have asked for other studies of the area. We cannot get any answers. What kind of government comes forth with these kinds of policies?
The minister wants to talk about moral intellectual decisions of the Conservative party. I wish to read a letter sent by the Liberal party during the election campaign. It concerned the people of Sea Island. The letter was addressed "To the concerned Sea Island residents". Copies were delivered to people in the area and the media. I quote from it as follows:
The following is a statement released after several days of telephone negotiations with Ottawa and Mr. Ron Basford's office, through Liberal candidate Joan Wallace, Burnaby-Richmond-Delta:
Mr. Ron Basford has promised to sit down with Joan Wallace regardless if she wins her riding or not, to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement of the Sea Island expropriation and renters' problems. In addition, Mr. Basford will initiate the appointment of an impartial, new mediator to act on the discussed issues. Mr. Basford initiated this commitment on the premise that it will be accepted on an unbiased and objective level by the Sea Island group. The commitment was also made after repeated assurances by Joan Wallace's campaign manager that all parties involved in the preliminary discussion to date have been completely serious on ending this very serious problem and that the new mediating body would be respected in their judgment if empowered under the act.
No further clarification of what the new mediating body's form will be, i.e. one, two or three impartial people but the names as suggested during our meeting on Sea Island were put forward to Mr. Basford for
serious consideration.
It was pointed out that Mr. Isadore Wolfe will not be involved in the negotiations.
We believe that this is a major step forward and a very constructive one. Joan is very optimistic a compromise can be achieved very soon.
The preceding statement was negotiated through the office of Ron Green of the B.C. Liberal party headquarters.

Yours very truly,
for Joan Wallace, Campaign Office Sandy McLeod Campaign Manager
The people of Sea Island respected that statement made by the candidate in the last election and by the then Minister of State for Urban Affairs, now Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Basford). What happened after the election? The results were not as they wanted them. The people of Sea Island sent a telegram to Ottawa. They received back the following telegram:
Mr. W. Charles Johnstone, General Counsel, Sea Island Ratepayers Association.
I have your letter of July 11. No statement was enclosed but I presume you refer to a statement dated July 6 issued by Mr. Sandy McLeod. Mr. McLeod must be in error in that I have made none of the commitments alleged. Mr. Wolfe is special adviser to the government in this matter and your proper course is to deal with him.
The Honourable Ron Basford, Minister of State for Urban Affairs That was a complete reversal of what the government promised the residents of Sea Island. Nothing has been done to date. The residents of Sea Island are still there, waiting and wondering what is going to be done in their situation. There is a court decision. The residents finally had to take the government to the Federal Court of Canada to plead their case so they would not be kicked out of their homes. I will quote from the decision of that court so that we will know what the judge had to say after listening to both sides of the situation. I quote:
With reference to the Canadian Bill of Rights the learned counsel for respondents stressed that due process of law had not been followed in the present instance because the minister had not given proper assistance to seek and obtain alternative premises and had stopped negotiations as soon as actions were instituted for additional compensation.
In my opinion assistance has to be given if section 24(5) is to be meaningful, otherwise it is wholly optional to the minister to give or not give assistance. That subsection 5 of section 24 reads as follows:
(5) For the purposes of subparagraphs (3)(b)(ii) and (4)(b)(ii), consideration shall be given to the time and circumstances in which a former owner was allowed to continue in occupation of the land after the Crown became entitled to take physical possession or make use thereof, and to any assistance given by the minister to enable such former owner to seek and obtain alternative premises.
As per the evidence the assistance was not worthwhile.
That is a judge of the Federal Court saying that this minister and this government have not given proper assistance to the people of Sea Island. Until proper assistance is given, the problem will not be solved. I might mention that most Liberal members from British Columbia agree with the people of that area. They have met them and I think they have great sympathy for their problems.
The minister asked for solutions. I will give him a solution to the problem in that area. I want to talk about interest payments that have had to be made. They amount to over $700 a day. The government has paid over $250,000 in interest. That is money the government owes those people.
I want to compare the situation of the people of Sea Island with those in Pickering, Ontario. The original estimated cost in Pickering was $70 million. An additional 10 per cent payment made in August, 1973, increased the original market value across the board by $7 million. Agreement not to take possession until January, 1975, did
Transportation
not limit a final home for a home evaluation. That is a program which the people of Sea Island do not have.
In 1969, 88,000 acres were expropriated at Mirabel, Quebec. Of 3,180 owners, all but 112 were settled by March, 1973. However, in November, 1973, the government reopened claims and grants with a $16 million across the board adjustment. Why would they do that when only 112 claims were not settled out of a total of over 3,000? The government undertook arbitration of land values across the board on all claims, and revised the original estimate of cost per acre from $210 to $500.
In other areas of Canada where the government was considering building airports, it gave the people of those areas extra consideration. It has not given that consideration to the people of Sea Island. If it had given those people what they are asking for and what a judge of the Federal Court and a private appraiser says is reasonable, the problem would have been solved a long time ago. That is a solution for the minister. I hope he will consider it seriously and do something about it.
I do not have much time left. However, there are two other topics I want to mention. One is a motion which I presented to this House on April 16, 1973. It reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of transferring the Crown lands, commonly known as the Canadian Forces Station Ladner or the Old Boundary Bay Airport, together with buildings thereon, to the municipality of Delta and, in co-operation with the municipality, develop the areas as an industrial-recreational complex of pollution-free secondary industries, parkland, ocean beaches and sports stadia for the benefit of Delta, Richmond and the Lower Mainland and as an example to other medium-sized urban and suburban communities of the value of such a complex.
NDP and Liberal members spoke in favour of that motion. They thought it was a good idea. However, as of this date we do not have any report or study from the government. That was over two years ago. My latest letter from the minister's office is dated February 14. It states:
I will look into the matter you have raised and will be back in touch with you as soon as possible.
That motion was presented two years ago. If the government were serious, it would have solved the problem a long time ago. Studies in that area would have been completed and the people of that area would know what will be done with the land. It is just sitting there. It is vacant and an eyesore to the whole community.
When talking about transport and the awarding of a contract by the minister in the past few days to an American owned company, we raised some questions in the House. When talking about content, we still get conflicting answers. I say to the minister that content is the ownership of the company. If there is a Canadian company, it should have the advantage over an American company when a tender is being considered. Many members opposite agree. I hope the minister will reconsider his answer of this morning and look at the situation carefully. There are people in my area who are out of work because of the switch in the contract. All the profits will be going across the border. I do not see that as the proper way to have things happen.
I will complete my remarks on the subject of air routes. The minister spent a lot of time talking about CP Air and

Transportation
Air Canada and all the benefits of a government-owned airline over the the privately owned airline. As long as this minister is Minister of Transport, CP Air will continue to be at the low end of the scale. CP Air has suffered ever since this minister took over his portfolio.
The people of western Canada and Liberal members from British Columbia agree that CP Air should have been allowed the new routes into southern California. I know they had a meeting with the Minister of Transport to plead the case of CP Air with regard to those routes. It made a lot of sense for CP Air to have them rather than Air Canada. What did the minister do, Madam Speaker? He walked out. He would not even listen to his own members. If he is asking for positive suggestions, then I suggest he listen a little. The problem with the minister is that he does not listen. Not only does he not listen to the members on this side of the House; he does not listen to the members on his own side of the House.
Until I see a replacement sitting in the minister's seat in this House, I can see no solution to the major transportation problems. We need a minister on that side who is serious about the transportation problems of this country and who works full time on finding solutions to them. I should like to see one of the newer members on that side, perhaps one of the members from British Columbia, placed in the cabinet and put in charge of transportation. British Columbia only has one minister on that side, and that in itself is a slight on a province that elected eight Liberal members. In the last parliament there were four British Columbia Liberal members, and two of them were cabinet ministers. I am not including the member who went to the Senate. He was not elected by the people of British Columbia but was appointed to that place by the government.
I should like to see the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) made minister of transport. She is a hard working woman, and it is International Women's Year. My final word is, "why not?" appoint the hon. member for Skeena minister of transport? Then perhaps we will be able to solve some of the transportation problems in this country.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, I should like to congratulate the minister on his explanation to the House this afternoon of the difficulties that he has encountered in his department, on his sincerity in bringing these problems to the attention of the House some time ago, and on the positive steps he has taken to solve these problems.
At the same time one is left with the impression that his explanations to the House always seem to fall on deaf ears, or else the opposition turn their heads around and do not listen. Or they do as they did a few minutes ago, make catcalls, yelling across the House and not really listening to what the minister says to them. I am sure many of them even do not take the time to read Hansard the following day. That is obvious from the comments they have been making.

Another reason why it is obvious that they do not understand is that they continually make representations in the House on transportation matters, but repeat the same comments time after time. Each member of the opposition speaks as an individual on the problems of transportation in his own constituency. No real policies or concrete suggestions are put forward as to what they would do if they were in a position to do it. The role of the opposition is to put forward good, concrete criticism, not to indulge in personalities or to criticize individual members. It is constructive suggestions that will solve the transportation problems of this country.
I can assure hon. members opposite that the minister is not going to wait for them to make suggestions any longer, since they are all speaking as individuals. They do not come to grips with the problems. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) spoke of the problems in his own constituency. Another member from the maritimes spoke of transportation problems in the maritimes, forgetting to tell the House, as the minister pointed out this afternoon, that in all phases of transportation, whether land, sea or air, the maritimes are subsidized to the tune of 50 per cent on all goods delivered. No member on the other side mentioned that because they are afraid it might hurt individual interests in their own areas.
What Canada needs is what the minister says it needs, a national transportation policy for the entire country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I am sure the parliamentary secretary does not mean to misrepresent the position taken by the minister, but the minister did not say what the parliamentary secretary has just said.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, if the minister did not say it I should like to tell the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that I am saying it. He does a heck of a poor job on the other side, and I am saying that too. At times I wonder how he can live with it when he hears all his members speaking as they do. He must have a lot of patience to sit on the front bench and take it all in, but they do not even have the guts to get together and criticize the minister. They do not get together as a Conservative party, a loyal opposition, to tell the House what ought to be done and to make concrete suggestions.
I wish I could continue, Madam Speaker, but my time is also short and I should like to put a few things on the record for the sake of the opposition. I hope that the Leader of the Opposition, along with the members of his party, will continue to listen to me in the manner he did a little while ago. If they do they will realize we have made progress in regard to the meeting which took place in Calgary in 1972. They will know that we are having dealings with all the provinces of western Canada and that some of these current problems will be solved. They cannot be solved in five minutes or immediately after one has made a speech, but I do believe we are making a lot of progress. However, the opposition are blind because they want to be blind. They do not want to see progress. They would like to go the other way instead of up. They are always talking gloom and doom and nothing else. They
March 7, 1975

love gloom and doom; it is all they ever think of, Madam Speaker.
The main speaker for the Conservative party commenced this debate today. The hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) is a very good friend of mine, but he said nothing in his speech, from beginning to end, although he took 40 minutes over it.
As the Minister of Transport has said, I too find it most difficult to understand why the opposition gets such pleasure from hurting the domestic and international image of our country's flag carrier.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that, Joe?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I did. Air Canada is not only the top notch international and domestic air carrier, but perhaps more important, it is an air carrier which has been, and continues to be, responsive to the needs of our people. Providing service on uneconomic routes, Air Canada has been a major instrument in maintaining the unity of our country.
In addition, Air Canada has played such an integral part in the development of Canada's transportation system that we often take it for granted. It is such a part of the national psyche that people tend to forget that there is indeed a lot of work behind the scenes, a lot of planning to keep the entire system viable, efficient, safe and economical.
But, Madam Speaker, as in everything else, we cannot implement changes overnight. Hon. members may remember-they often refer to this-what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in Winnipeg before the last election, namely, that Air Canada would build a new hangar at the Winnipeg airport. Since that time both Air Canada and the government have been implementing this project. Plans are well in advance, and construction should start as soon as the site is selected. The current discussions are centred around the fact that the Ministry of Transport's airport people in Winnipeg and planners in the city of Winnipeg are reviewing the impact of other considerations regarding the location of the Air Canada hangar. A decision will be taken soon.


An hon. Member:: Equilization in Canada means locating everything in Winnipeg.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If what the hon. member suggests were the fact I would receive that with open arms, and at least we would do better with it than they have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would support me wholeheartedly on that.
An airline's performance should not be gauged on whether it provides one or two rolls for breakfast along with coffee or whether stewardesses wear mini-skirts or slacks. Air Canada has a record of introducing direct services in this country as soon as it is possible to do so. The airline will be introducing more frequent service as
Transportation
warranted by traffic volume. New points will be introduced this summer in the United States and Europe. These will implement international bilateral agreements reached with foreign countries.
Awhile ago the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta made reference to certain services that were given to Air Canada and other lines instead of CP Air. I would remind the hon. member of an answer that was given this morning by the Minister of Transport to the effect that there was an agreement reached between CP Air and Air Canada relevant to those services.


An hon. Member:: You mean dictated.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: They were not dictated, they were agreements. At the same time I would ask the hon. member if he thinks that we should not give anything to Air Canada, the people's airline, or how we could give it to a better service instead? I would point out to everyone that because there was an agreement reached between CP Air and Air Canada we now have an understanding between the two airlines. There is no reason at all for the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, or anybody else, to criticize the airline. Anyone who does offer criticism should have better communications with CP Air and Air Canada before making statements like this.


John Douglas Reynolds: Would the hon. member answer a
question?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Speaking as a westerner, I am pleased-


John Douglas Reynolds: On a point of order, Madam Speaker-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: He can ask his questions after my 15 minutes are finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) rising on a question of privilege?


John Douglas Reynolds: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. parliamentary secretary has asked a lot of questions. If he wants to give me a couple of minutes, and I guarantee him I will not take longer, I will give him a clear and to the point answer, which I think is apparent in-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The hon. member knows very well this is not a point of order.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I will answer his questions after my time is completed.


John Douglas Reynolds: What you have suggested is false.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: What I am saying is not false, but you like to make the people of this country believe that it is.


An hon. Member:: It is.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: We have to tell them the truth, and the truth is that there was an understanding between CP Air and Air Canada.

March 7, 1975
Transportation
As a westerner I am pleased to say that there will be a new service from Winnipeg to the John F. Kennedy Airport in New York, and there will also be a new service from Calgary and Edmonton to San Francisco.


An hon. Member:: If they are still flying.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Air Canada's safety record, which I would like to touch on, is unquestionably unparalleled by any other airline in the world.
The safety record of Air Canada is similar to the safety record of the CNR, which does have the best safety record of any railway in the world. It is often the case that members of the Conservative party, like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), seem to get some kind of sadistic satisfaction from continually accusing the airline in respect of its safety performance. What amazes me is the fact that people like that hon. member continue to paint the worst possible image of our country's flag carrier when he has not even taken the time to accept an invitation to inspect Air Canada's servicing facilities and to question on the spot the people responsible for servicing the aircraft.
I cannot and will not accept this as constructive criticism, and I certainly cannot accept it as a means of furthering our aviation interests around the world. If the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre finds, for some reason, that he must continue to decline invitations to visit and be briefed on Air Canada's maintenance facilities, then I suggest he should read the magazine called "Aircraft Engineering" of last November, which had a seven-page article about Air Canada under the heading "The Airline That Knows What Maintenance is All About".
Air Canada's transport air safety division is currently working on some 60 safety research projects. These range from wake turbulence from large jetliners to fire resistance of aircraft interiors. This has enabled the ministry to feed back to the aviation community the information derived from these studies, investigations and research. Such feedback has met with some strong favour from commercial and private pilots in Canada.
Air Canada has an inspiring flying record of safety, a record which matches our strict and stringent regulations. When it comes to air safety, this is one case where we put all our eggs in one basket. We are not scrimping on this one; we are not looking for ways to save a dollar here and a dollar there. Safety is expensive and it must be, because we want the very finest navigational aids, the best equipped airports and the best trained pilots. I am almost finished.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It would take too long to enumerate here all the projects and all the money being spent in this country-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -to promote, upgrade and maintain safety standards-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Madam Speaker, keeping in mind his own statement that "transport is in a mess" in this country, I think it is time a number of specific questions were asked of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand). Answers to these questions will likely be few and far between if we are to judge by previous standards.
The whole realm of transportation could easily be said to need scrutiny, but I intend to limit my inquiries almost entirely to the problems of rail transportation. How the minister can allow a railway system which literally built this country to deteriorate in prestige, as it has, is beyond me. Even given the best of management, the government-owned railroad, the CN, cannot function without a clearly defined transportation policy. Railroads which are not government owned, such as CP and others, while not as reliant on this policy are also finding it extremely difficult to operate.
I have heard in the few years I have been here constant references to our transportation policy. Not yet, however, have I been presented with a single document which might possibly be construed as this proposed policy. Even a single step in the right direction might be cause for some hope. Just determining where to start may be, I suppose, a major problem. Another major problem I suggest might be whom to start with, as never have I encountered so many department heads, experts, chiefs, deputies, or whatever as were in attendance at the standing committee on transport yesterday. Even at the rate paid to MP's, and I am sure it easily exceeds that, it would cost well over $1,000 for the one hour that committee sat.
Some of my most serious questions to the minister over the past few years have concerned safety. Each year as the reports come to us from the Canadian Transport Commission the incidence of derailment increases. Going with this, hand in hand, are the frightening statistics in regard to deaths and injuries at level crossings of various kinds. Some of these are necessarily the result of outright carelessness on the part of pedestrians and motorists. What is of importance is the fact that a fully responsible transportation policy would eliminate all such crossings. Only in this way can we prepare for high-speed trains, such as the Turbo, that are surely essential in Canada. Realizing this, one would expect and hope that this simple portion of the policy might be presented. This and several other minor portions of policy would provide a glimmer of hope for things to come. How can we have any hope so long as these easy items are left unattended.
I have questioned the minister also on other types of accidents. Some of these involved fatalities and other serious injuries. To repeat all of them now would take far too much time. I only wish to make a few simple suggestions. Let us have some direction from the minister to the proper departments with regard to the basic standards acceptable in the maintenance of way. Let us have some direction from the minister with regard to safe levels of axle loadings on freight cars. Let us have some direction from the minister with regard to employee training and standards of conduct.
Only this one brief reference will I make to the report of the CTC of Tuesday last. Very seldom is a report such as
March 7, 1975

this issued as quickly as this one. Even when such speed is used I have never known of a report like this to be issued prior to a coroner's inquest. Yet in this case it was brought out exactly a week prior to the inquest. One of the most tragic accidents to occur recently is covered in this report. Until the inquest is completed I must necessarily hold my comments and I suggest the CTC might better have done likewise.
I feel that Canadian rail safety standards are years behind those in many other countries and, in my opinion, this situation has been created by a lack of initiative and direction on the part of the federal government. If this same government ever comes up with a reasonable way to ensure that the railways will run for a full year without interruption, that there are enough rail cars to deliver all of the grain and other products we have contracted for, we will surely need to have our safety standards improved to do the job properly.
In addition to the question of safety I would like to spend a few minutes on suggestions, or questions as you will, with regard to rail passenger lines. Again, in a country where a railway was the instrument of birth, we seem to have long since lost any initiative we may once have had. Canadian travellers have been plagued by increasing costs, an increasingly poor quality of service and, in general, are now substantially subsidizing a transportation system that operates contrary to the public interest.
It is common knowledge that the swift, safe movement of people in an economic manner is still best done by rail. Why then have we not high speed corridors, free of grade crossings between our major cities? Why are we continuing to use fossil fuels when the one source of energy Canada has in abundance, electricity, either hydro or nuclear generated, is so obviously a better choice? If the turbo has been proven, why are we not providing more of them for other runs? If not the turbo or perhaps the LRC, why are we not either developing our own technology or looking at foreign examples of high speed transit? With outmoded passenger facilities, poor service, poorer schedules is it any wonder that the lines are not profitable?
We are spending a huge sum of money on the STOL system from Ottawa to Montreal. As an experiment, I suppose I cannot argue, but as a long-term system there is no question in my mind that, given the same funds and backing, the railways could beat it every way-speed, service, economy, fuel savings, reliability. We have seen evidence in the United States of a resurgence of passenger rail traffic under its Amtrak system. That country, with all its industrial genius, is using the turbo and a turbopowered train imported from France, as well as conventional equipment. We do not need to set up a separate operating service. The CN is government-owned and, given proper direction and guidance, is completely capable of carrying out a government policy. Which, of course, brings me full circle.
In Canada we have the need, the desire, the technology, the ability, in fact all of the ingredients to be a leader in rail travel. What is needed, as I have said and I am sure my colleagues will repeat frequently, is a decent transportation policy. We do not have one now and will not have until we have a minister who is prepared to tackle the job
Transportation
properly. In any organization to do this you must start at the top and shake up the whole works. By the time you get to the area level such as Rideau area headquarters in Belleville you will soon find that these people, who are hard working and conscientious, will take their example from above.
My final question begs the obvious answer. Given the example we have seen in the House of Commons recently, is it any wonder that transportation is in a mess?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity provided by the official opposition to discuss transportation as it refers to the maritimes in particular. Before proceeding further I should like to say why transportation is an issue of great concern to South Western Nova. My constituency is probably the greatest distance from Halifax and any other points in the maritimes on a time basis. This is one of the main reasons why we need a good transportation policy. It is absolutely necessary in the southern end of Nova Scotia to have ferries in order to reach our Canadian and United States markets by the most economic and fastest means available. I should like to mention the various industries pertaining to Nova Scotia at this end of the province.
In my constituency the fishing industry is probably the one element that is of prime concern to all of us. We have the highest value of fish landings of any area in Canada. This involves mainly lobster and other fresh fish. There is the problem of getting these products to the Canadian as well as the United States markets. Boats are required in this area. There are five particular ferries.
Before touching the subject of freight rates I wish to point out some of the areas in which the Ministry of Transport has been working in the last few years. I shall mention Digby, and point out that in 1971 a new Department of Transport wharf was built in order to facilitate the loading of boats with front and rear-end loading. Along with this the Department of Transport has maintained another wharf to facilitate the loading of freighters which carry pulpwood and more recently fish. This wharf not only brought a new boat to the area but in December, 1974, the Department of Transport bought the boat from the CPR, and since December 1974 the Princess of Acadia has been under the transport ministry.
I should add at this time that the people of the area are very happy with this take-over. For years they felt that there should be a more impressive service than that which they have had, a service that would be more in line with the cost of fares and in line with the other maritime ferry service. This is one area in which I believe the Ministry of Transport can play a vital role. The department has taken this lead already in respect of the purchase of the Princess of Acadia. I might also point out that the department maintains a wharf which is accessible to freighters which come in there.
Now I should like to turn to the Yarmouth area of my constituency. A new Ministry of Transport wharf has been under construction at Yarmouth since the beginning of this year, with an estimated value of $2.1 million. It is expected that this will be finished and in operation in the spring of 1976. This wharf will help carry the burden of

Transportation
handling the existing three ferries which come into the town of Yarmouth. One of the ferries is operated by the Canadian National under the Ministry of Transport. This ferry, called The Bluenose, is of great concern to the area. The Bluenose has been there for 17 years, and it is hoped that a larger boat might be available to handle the tourist traffic in the summer, and the truck traffic during the remainder of the year. Until now this service has not been quite adequate for the amount of traffic.
Now I would like to make a few comments about the tourist industry. The transportation policy at that end of the country brings a lot of tourists to the maritimes. This is probably the most convenient gateway from the United States, Ontario and Quebec to the maritimes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Coline M. Campbell: I hope the hon. members who are applauding over there will come to visit us and thus help the trade in our area.
I would also like to point out that in my area there is much lumber. Many Christmas trees are cut down to be sent to the United States. For this industry we need a good truck ferry in the area.
Another way in which the transportation policy has been good to our area is in the erection of the DOT building at Yarmouth which was completed in 1972. Also, for the first time, Air Canada has provided a one day service between Halifax and Yarmouth and return, so that now we can go directly to either Montreal, Toronto or Ottawa within about four or five hours, which was once unheard of. If we leave the area at four or six o'clock, we can be in Ottawa at nine o'clock or ten o'clock. It is anticipated that we will soon have a direct route from Yarmouth to Halifax, and thus avoid having to go by way of Saint John. I would like to say that in these areas the transportation policy of the government has been of direct benefit to the maritimes.
Now I would like to say a few words about freight rates and discuss a subject to which I am sure my colleagues will take a negative attitude, which might produce more harm than good in the maritimes. The Minister of Transport has gone on record as saying that the National Transportation Act is not acceptable. We would like to see transportation used to stimulate the economy. It will be necessary to introduce, perhaps through the CTC, some degree of rate control to avoid discrimination in the freight rate structure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Coline M. Campbell: I am sure that opposition members will recognize the fact that that is the policy of the federal government. The government, through the Minister of Transport, is working on such a policy and hopes to unveil it by late spring.
Now I would like to say something about federal-provincial consultations. We have a federal-provincial committee for Atlantic region transportation which the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) set up in 1969, shortly after introducing the Atlantic Region Freight

Assistance Act in the House. I would like to review some of the major recommendations that this committee made to the government, and the government's response to those recommendations.
One of the first major recommendations was for the introduction of a temporary trucking subsidy for intraregional traffic, to come into effect during the phasedown of the intraregional rail subsidy. The basic idea behind this proposal was to place the trucking industry on a competitive basis with the railways while the intraregional subsidy program was being phased out. This recommendation was accepted by the government and has been very effective in strengthening and building up the trucking industry in the Atlantic region.
More recently the federal and provincial governments have worked out a way of extending the westbound subsidy for rail and truck traffic to a level of 50 per cent on a selective basis. This was a first attempt at introducing selectivity into a direct subsidy program, and I think it is a tribute to our consultative mechanism that this was done with a high level of agreement between the government and the provinces concerned.
This program is beginning to show results, and we have seen examples of Atlantic region manufacturers who have attributed an increased penetration of central Canadian markets directly to this program.
I would like to quote from page 2 of the March 4 issue of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. The headline of this article reads, "Transportation Costs 'Are Often Used as Whipping Boy' ". The article reads in part:
The effects of transportation costs on manufacturing industries in a region are "blown out of all proportions" on many occasions, Development Minister George Mitchell told the legislature last night...
The results of the study revealed it is "cheaper" to ship to practically any market in Canada from Sydney, than it is to ship from the Vilas plant outside Montreal, Mr. Mitchell said ...
Mr. Mitchell said such a situation exists due to the 50 per cent rail subsidy that has been successfully negotiated by the government, and "which clearly removed most arguments with respect to freight rates".
Then he points out the differences in prices and costs, and goes on to say that people who have a hasty, unresearched and negative manner sometimes do more harm than good to a province such as Nova Scotia.
Now I should like to return to some of the recommendations of the committee. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion, jointly with the four Atlantic provinces, established a physical distribution advisory service in Moncton designed to help the small shipper solve his total transportation problems, including such things as choice of mode, inventory control, warehousing, etc. So often in the past consultants have come to the area, done a good job, and taken their expertise away with them. We have in this organization the beginnings of a permanent source of expertise which will be of great value to local businessmen.
Again through this committee, a regional position was established on priorities for air services to and from and within the region. This was a significant input to the recent CTC inquiry on that subject.
In terms of total funding, the direct subsidy money paid under the Maritime Freight Rate Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act has increased from $14.8

million in 1969 to $36 million in 1974. The full impact of the new selective westbound subsidy is not included in these figures, but it is expected to add a further $3 to $4 million in 1975.
Now I would like to direct the attention of hon. members to a meeting which was held in the Atlantic provinces in mid-January after the subsidy was dropped and freight rates went up all across Canada. This brought uniformity across Canada, and yet the maritimes retained their selective list of the 50 per cent subsidy on any product going west. At that time the Minister of Transport, in his statement in Halifax, mentioned that perhaps this might result in hardship in the area. However, he allowed for the fact that anyone suffering hardship could approach the provincial governments for assistance.
I hope that the effects of the lifting of the subsidy will start levelling out. Perhaps manufacturers in the maritimes will start filling the containers instead of sending them out half filled. Perhaps the advisory group in Moncton will assist them in this. Perhaps one should ask oneself where the money which previously went for the subsidy will now be directed. Perhaps the maritimes will put it into industry.
Having described to the House how the Department of Transport's policies have helped my constituency in the last few years and having spoken about the freight rate system, since I have some time left I would like to enumerate the major capital projects to which the department is committed. I will just read some of the highlights.
In Newfoundland the government plans to spend $19 million during the new fiscal year. The largest amount, $9.5 million, will be spent upgrading and developing terminals at Port-aux-Basques. The government will spend $2 million at the Goose Bay airport, nearly $1.5 million at the St. John's airport and $1 million toward a terminal at Cornerbrook. It will also spend $3.5 million toward the National Harbours Board terminal at St. John's.
In Nova Scotia the government will spend $8 million; $3.5 million of this will go toward adding facilities at the Halifax airport and another $2.3 million will go toward upgrading the terminal in North Sydney. This does not include, of course, the new wharf at Yarmouth.
In Prince Edward Island the government has earmarked half a million dollars toward the development of a new ferry terminal at Wood Islands. In New Brunswick it will spend $10.8 million during this fiscal year. The largest sum, $4.6 million, will go toward development of the Rodney terminal at Saint John, the estimated cost of which has been set at $37.5 million.
At Moncton the government will spend $2.5 million toward the construction of a new area control centre and related facilities to ensure air traffic safety. It will resurface and rebuild runways at Fredericton to the tune of $1.2 million, and in Saint John it will set up a harbour radar and collision avoidance system.
We are all aware of how important transportation is for the Atlantic region, placed as it is so far from its major markets. One might assume that if transportation had not been working well, there would have been a marked
Transportation
deterioration in conditions in the area over the last few years. Let us, however, look at some of the things which have been happening in the region. Disposable personal income-


An hon. Member:: Order.
And hon. Member: Time.


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


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I want to touch briefly on some aspects of air and marine transport and some of the labour relations factors which in my opinion are hindering the viability of these important sectors of our transportation.
First I would like to suggest sincerely that there are many areas in transport that the government has been less than frank in disclosing to the public, and to hon. members of this House. There are many areas which need to be exposed by means of public inquiries, or at least referred to parliamentary committees, but so far the government appears to be more interested in covering up its own ineptitude than in corrective action.
I want to speak for a moment about Air Canada and the answer of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) to the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) on March 5, when the latter asked about the matter of Mr. Yves Menard's resignation from Air Canada. The Minister of Transport replied in the manner of the late Will Rogers that all he knew was what he read in the papers. He went on to say that the president of Air Canada was making an inquiry into the matter.
We in the opposition would like to know when the president of Air Canada and his capabilities will be the subject of an inquiry in this chamber, in view of the various difficulties facing this once efficient and respected airline.
Since we are speaking about Air Canada and the departure of one of its vice-presidents, I want to raise another matter, and I do so reluctantly, but I want to make it clear that I checked with Air Canada this morning in an attempt to get an answer. I have before me, and I will table it if requested to do so, a confidential interdepartmental letter to Mr. G. J. Kendall, assistant treasurer corporate finance. It is directed to this gentleman and is signed by the treasurer, Mr. H. N. Seath, and it states:
This is your authority to arrange for a cheque to be drawn as follows:
Date: March 11,1974.
Payee: P. J. Chartrand
Amount: $12,110.70.
The letter goes on to say:
This cheque should be charged to suspense and will be cleared by March 15,1974.
The cheque is to cover an advance on a second mortgage transferred from Mr. Chartrand to Morguard Trust Company. Authority for this transaction was provided by Mr. Pratte in his letter of March 14, 1973 to Mr. Chartrand.
This may be a perfectly innocent transaction. I do not know; it may be, but I would like to raise the question in

March 7, 1975
Transportation
this chamber of what justification there is for this sort of accommodation, if that is what it is, to a highly placed executive in our national airline. It may be perfectly innocent, but one has to ask whether this is, prima facie as we say in the legal profession, a good thing and something which would be available to the ordinary employee and, as far as that goes, to other employees in the operational or managerial levels of Air Canada? It is obvious that this type of financial service is not necessarily a good thing, and I would hope that this can be explained, and will be explained by the minister.
I suggest that our airline has become a refuge for many highly paid people who are not really necessary for its efficient operation. It has around 22,000 employees, twice as many, for example, as North West Orient Airlines of the United States, a company of comparable size. However, on the operations level where the work is done, Air Canada is often understaffed and its employees are asked to work longer hours than they would prefer. Its labour relations are abominable.
When the Canadian Airline Employees Association sought, for example, to take action a while ago against Air Canada because of a legitimate grievance, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) sat on CALEA's request pursuant to section 148 of Part V of the Canada Labour Code, for such a long time that the solicitor for CALEA was compelled on September 27, 1973, to write the following letter, part of which I quote:
The application for the minister's consent was filed on May 30th, 1973 and as you will recall, remained in the hands of the minister for a considerable period of time, a formal consent being received in this office on July 27th, 1973. It is perhaps more than coincidental that by the time the consent of the minister was received, the time prescribed by the Canada Labour Code for filing a complaint with the Board had expired.
The attitude of Air Canada from a labour relations point of view is terrible. So is the record. A partial list of labour disputes Air Canada has had in the past couple of years would indicate, briefly, that, in 1968 there was a work to rule; in 1969 there was a strike; in 1971 there were rotating strikes by the International Association of Machinists; in 1971 the CALEA people had a work to rule; in 1973 there was an 81 day strike in the finance division in Winnipeg; in 1973 there were rotating strikes by IAM again; in 1974 there were rotating strikes again by CALEA; in 1974 another wildcat by the IAM.
Also there have been continuing problems with CALPA and CALFA which have not resulted in strikes yet, and I emphasize yet. The situation at the finance branch at Winnipeg, as hon. members on the government side know, is chaotic, to put it mildly. There is approximately 100 man years of labour backlog of work required to clean up the situation, and in the meantime the computer capability of Air Canada is very badly fouled up, to say the least.
I have here a comparative balance sheet of assets and liabilities, another so-called confidential document which will be tabled in due course later, I presume, and there is some very interesting data on this as well. For example, looking at it we wonder why the accounts receivable have gone up from $102,278,000 in 1973 to $127,290,000 in the comparable period in 1974. There may be a perfectly logical explanation for this, but it is $25 million difference. The bank loan, on the other hand, was shown as $26

million in 1973. There is no trace of it in 1974, leading one to assume that it must have been put into the long term funding, which has gone up by over $200 million.
The unearned transportation revenue has gone up from $27,280,000 to $44,402,000. All this is going to make very fertile questioning areas in committee if we ever get these people into committee, and if it is possible that a proper audit can ever take place of Air Canada's operations.
The situation is so bad that it almost defies belief as far as the finance situation is concerned. I have interdepartmental correspondence here which indicates, for example, that there is an account which usually has a balance of $25,000 to $50,000. This is an account usually used in dealings with other airlines and what they call an OAL account. Yet in correspondence between Mr. J. C. Looney, manager of the interline accounting in Winnipeg and Mr. R. F. Kirby, manager of passenger accounting, dated late last year, the following excerpt appears:
This account normally has a balance of $25,000 to $50,000.
However, the letter goes on to say:
Therefore, the average balance in this account in the latter part of 1973 rose by about $10 million and at year end was some $14 million higher than normal.
During 1974, the account balance dropped significantly because OAL exchanges on hand but unprocessed were not accrued until the November 1974 month end.
The letter goes on to say:
This backlog has resulted in significant delays in billing other airlines. The balance in this account was in excess of $19 million in October, 1973 and as at November 30, 1974 was $10 million.
This is the part that is shocking where the letter says:
The cost of late billing is estimated in excess of $1 million using a 10 per cent interest rate ...
That is $1 million that is directly attributable to the deficit that this airline has incurred simply because it was not capable of collecting its accounts receivable. If that would not be cause for the resignation of the people responsible for the situation in the management of Air Canada, I do not know what would, Mr. Speaker. Surely the Minister of Transport must exercise more guidance over the various components of this department than he has done to date.
Anyone who has followed the progress of the SIU-and I am going to speak about the SIU here because it is related to marine transport and is a very important union-as it supposedly valiantly seeks to reform itself, must be disappointed at how long this is taking, particularly in view of the revelations on the front page of the Toronto Sun and other newspapers today. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) recognized that there may have been difficulties affecting the rights of union members from abuses perpetrated by their own union, but it seems to me he was slow to do anything about it.
The attempt by Mr. Gralewicz, president of the SIU, to sabotage a speech given last night by a former vice president, Mr. Lazarus, indicates that perhaps he is not the finest example of a sympathetic enlightened union leader, particularly when one considers the material that is available to document this. It would by superfluous to put on
March 7, 1975

the record at this time the many newspaper stories detailing particulars of the abuses within the SIU, yet members have to sit here every day and listen to platitudes. One such platitude was advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacGuigan) on December 19 in reply to a matter I had raised. He quoted from the final report of the trustees who had to take over the operations of the SIU a decade ago, as follows:
The undemocratic union practices of the past no longer prevail and the individual rights of seamen are sufficiently well protected both in law and in practice.
What rubbish, Madam Speaker, when well known underworld figures are associated with the SIU, when a former vice president calls for a probe of the organization of the SIU charging beatings, and rigged votes, when the province of Ontario has made a similar request, when private investigators are hired by the union and presumably paid for by union dues to shadow dissident members. It is interesting to know that the price is not right because the SIU recently raised its dues, presumably to pay for the extra overhead. How much longer are the Minister of Transport and the government going to procrastinate before they call for an inquiry into this whole matter?
There is something else I should like to touch on briefly and about which the minister and I have had some dialogue already, that is, the Desjardins report. Madam Speaker, I deplore-and this is only my own submission which I do not suggest has any special weight-the way the terms of reference for Mr. Desjardins were set out. As I have already stated they required, among other things, that the investigation should not be subject to the customary rules of evidence nor evidence taken under oath, and that the investigation should not be conducted by means of public hearings.
I indicated to the minister that I would make some comments about the report itself and there are a few things that I should like to bring to his attention which, if they are true, certainly shock me. Although this report is dated July 30, 1974, the submissions of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority made to Mr. Desjardins do not necessarily follow through on this particular date.
The submissions of the LPA through Mr. Guy Major, were dated August 1, 1974, and supplemented on August 15, 1974, as indicated on page 2 of the report. That is to say these submissions appear to have been made after the report was written.
The submissions of the St. Lawrence River Pilots Association were made on July 30, 1974, and supplemented on August 2, 1974, according to page 3 of the report. Again, it appears submissions were made afterwards. Notwithstanding any observations about the propriety of this course of action, the submissions in support are well out of the time set out in the Pilotage Act, section 14(4), namely 30 days following publication in the Canada Gazette. I would point out that publication in the Canada Gazette took place on May 18, 1974.
These observations are rather disturbing, at least to me, and I hope the Minister of Tranport will consider them in due course because they seem to indicate that the report is not as bona fide as it should be. It is strange that it follows almost immediately upon an identical report under the
Transportation
same terms of reference made by Mr. Marler which came to an opposite conclusion.
One of the big difficulties about Crown corporations which come under the Minister of Transport is that they are reluctant to supply the type of information that is readily available from private corporations. I was told by a very reliable person who was participating in labour negotiations with PWA that they, PWA, are more frank in disclosing certain information than is Air Canada. The anti-labour bias of Air Canada is well known to anyone who has more than a fleeting knowledge of what goes on in it.
What this country needs, is for the government to have enough integrity to look into the obvious sloppy practices, complacency and carelessness that has permeated a great deal of its operations.
It is time that the people running this country made a commitment to honesty, and changed their priorities from doing anything to remain in power to justifying their continuing in office.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I understand that a number of members still wish to speak so I shall co-operate by taking less than half the time that is allotted to me. I rise in this debate on the operations of the Department of Transport to register once again my complaint that the department is so slow in doing something effective about the pensions of retired railway workers, especially Canadian National and Canadian Pacific.
I recognize that in recent negotiations between employees and management the question of the terms and conditions of the various railway pension plans has been put on the bargaining table. But the discussions that take place in collective bargaining regarding railway pensions relate only to pension arrangements in the future for those now working. There is no way in which the plight of those already retired gets to the bargaining table when negotiations take place between railway employees and railway management. In my view that is where the government has to step in, Madam Speaker.
I do not think it is good enough for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), or others in the cabinet, to mouth repeatedly the proposition that the Canadian National must be left to run its own show and that we do not own the Canadian Pacific Railway. These are both public institutions and are responsible to the people of Canada. I think the federal government has an obligation to say this to both these major railways, and to others like the Northern Alberta Railway and the Ontario Northland. The people of Canada want all of their retired railway workers to be given a better deal.
I recognize also that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) some months ago appointed Dr. Noel Hall as a commissioner to go into all aspects of railway pensions. I therefore have reason to believe that when Dr. Hall makes his report he will have something to say about railway pension plans so far as they affect those still working, and also that he will have something to say about the plight of those who are now retired. But somehow or other reports

March 7, 1975
Transportation
of commissions seem to take some time to come forward and I do not think it is appropriate for the government, Canadian National or Canadian Pacific, to stall just because Dr. Hall has not made his report.
Let me say in particular that, after much effort over many years, we were able to convince Canadian National that it should escalate the pensions of those already retired by 2 per cent each year. Last year, in 1974, Canadian National did better and escalated pensions by 4 per cent. But that escalation was still far below the actual rise in the cost of living. So far, in 1975, Canadian National has not escalated its pensions at all. I do not accept the excuse that the Hall report has not come forward. Whatever the Hall report will say will deal merely with matters of detail.
I think Canadian National should now be providing a 1975 escalation in the pensions of those already retired. That escalation should be in the order of at least 10 per cent, which was the increase given to retired public servants, retired members of the RCMP, retired armed forces personnel, and so on. That, also, represents roughly the amount of increase in the old age security pension, the guaranteed income supplement, war disability pensions, war veterans allowances, and so on.
The fact that many of these pensions and allowances which come under the aegis of the government have been increased makes one point clear. The government, having recognized the need to escalate pensions after retirement in those other areas mentioned, should carry that thinking through and say to both railway companies that they must do it, too.
I look forward to the publication eventually of the Hall report. I hope it will be a good one; I dare to believe that it will be. But I submit that action should be taken now to increase immediately the pensions of railway workers already retired.
I shall say another sentence or two, and then sit down. Another issue which must be dealt with in terms of railway pensions is the percentage of the pension paid to the widow. The idea that if the husband lives on, his wife having first died, he can get the full 100 per cent pension, but that if he dies his widow must get by on a 50 per cent pension belongs to a bygone age, to an age which existed before International Women's Year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suggest that the rate of the widow's pension should be increased. It may be too much to hope that the rate will go up to 100 per cent very soon, but, at least, it ought to be increased to 60 per cent or 75 per cent right now. I have time for one more brief sentence. I agreed to keep my remarks brief. I plead with the Minister of Transport to act on the important issue of getting an increase in the pensions of railway workers already retired, and that he do so right away.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer the hon. member who just resumed his seat, I hope, before too long, that we shall be able to take positive action along lines he has suggested. Hopefully, before long, we can bring about improvements in the area about which he is concerned.

I want to comment briefly on the remarks of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay). He criticized Air Canada. He quoted a couple of letters. I suggest that he could obtain his information more readily in the committee considering estimates. He quoted excerpts from two different letters. He suggested that there may be an answer to the points he raised, and then said that there may be an explanation for the fact that the bank account stood at $102 million two years ago, but that now it stands at $127 million. I am sure there is an explanation. The hon. member insinuated that there is no satisfactory explanation. He raised the question but not in the appropriate place. I am sure he is anxious to learn the correct answer.


An hon. Member:: What's wrong with hearing it in the House of Commons?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Most of the matters he raised can be raised in the committee considering estimates. I am sure that he will be able to get answers in committee. I am only questioning the insinuations and the context in which he raised these questions. He, and others, have criticized Air Canada without being specific and setting out the detail exactly of what they find wrong. If people have criticisms of Air Canada, it is about time for them to be specific, to let us know what they are talking about and say what they are criticizing.
We heard similar insinuations and innuendos aimed at this government's transportation policy. I was particularly disappointed and disturbed to hear a western member of parliament, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta)-


An hon. Member:: A western member?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Yes, a western member-launch an unjustified attack on the Ministry of Transport and, indeed, on the minister himself.


Donald W. Munro: That is what this whole exercise is all about.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: No Minister of Transport has done more-


Donald W. Munro: He has done nothing.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: -to deal with transportation problems in western Canada. The minister has done more than any other minister of recent years, including any minister who was a member of the party opposite when it was in power.


Jack Burnett Murta: You are having a hard time saying that with a straight face.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I was disappointed to hear a western member make that attack.


Jack Burnett Murta: When is he going to western Canada?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The minister has been there. The hon. member is well aware of the progress made in delineating and resolving transportation issues in western Canada-


Jack Burnett Murta: Hogwash!


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: -since the WEOC conference.


Jack Burnett Murta: What have you done? Nothing.
March 7, 1975


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I know that hon. members opposite, and on all sides of the House, have a great tendency to exaggerate. At the same time I suggest that they underestimate the complexity of transportation issues in this country. I find it difficult to understand that western members particularly do not know that five meetings have been held since the end of the WEOC conference.


Jack Burnett Murta: Will you repeat this on Monday?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I want to tell the hon. member about the five meetings held by the minister and the four western ministers responsible for transportation. Five meetings have been held in Calgary since the WEOC conference. The ministers met five times officially as a ministerial committee. A subcommittee has been established of officials from all four prairie governments and the federal government. It has met, I am informed, a total of 21 times since the conference.
It may interest hon. members opposite to know the items which have been discussed. They include rail cost disclosure. Some hon. members opposite, I believe, were on the committee which dealt with that. They also include the question of rate groupings, the highway strengthening program signed by the four western provinces since the conference, the western northland highway program, which involves highways going to northern Canada and across the western provinces. Agreements regarding the programs just mentioned have been signed, or in some cases are ready for signature.
The Committee also dealt with the problem of British Columbia ferries, the problem of the development of the port of Churchill-


Donald W. Munro: Were B.C. ferries discussed?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Yes, B.C. ferries have been discussed at various meetings.


Donald W. Munro: They may have been discussed; but what did you do?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: As well, the committee discussed the problem of access to the port of Vancouver, something which is crucial to British Columbia and other parts of Canada. Branch line abandonment in western Canada was also dealt with-


Jack Burnett Murta: That has always been one of our problems.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: I agree. It has been sitting on the shelf all these years.


Jack Burnett Murta: For at least 12 years.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: It was on the shelf when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, and it stayed on the shelf for a number of years afterwards.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And it still is on the shelf.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: It stayed on the shelf because the people involved did not want to get down to business, deal with the issues and find the facts. That has been done.
Transportation
The committee that arose as a result of the WEOC conference is dealing with a formula for examining those branch lines in western Canada. This formula is acceptable to the four provincial governments involved. That is certainly progress when it comes to dealing with that particular area.
The establishment of a mechanism of consultation between the federal government and the four western provinces is one of the key developments of the WEOC conference of a year or two ago.


An hon. Member:: What are they complaining about?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: They are not complaining. You are not hearing complaints from the four western premiers and their ministers insofar as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and transportation policies are concerned. They are sitting down and talking about the issues rather than standing up and haranguing, as members opposite have been doing for many months. Communiques from the western premiers and press statements from them are available to members opposite. They certainly have enthusiastic praise for the Minister of Transport and for his sincere effort to deal with the problems of transportation in western Canada.
I can quote some figures. Members opposite are not paying attention. Obviously they do not want to hear the facts. The northwest rail program in British Columbia involves an expenditure of well over $100 million. The Ashcroft Clinton has already been referred to; there was also the development of the port of Prince Rupert, various terminals on the west coast and a number of other things which could be mentioned to illustrate the fact that progress is being made, even though many members opposite missed that fact.
With regard to the question of air policy, there has been a very definite provincial input into domestic air operations. There have been discussions with the governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan with regard to development of a third level air carrier and third level air service. That information is in the hands of the two western provinces. The federal government has made that information available to those two provinces. I am sure that before very long there will be an air service in operation as a result of federal initiative and assistance.
I referred to the fact that we now have cost disclosure of confidential cost data from the railroads. This was made available to the provincial governments for the first time last year so they can seek to determine the rightness or wrongness of freight rates for various commodities in their provinces. That came about entirely as a result of the WEOC conference in Calgary. Legislation introduced earlier this session confirms that that process is there today. It was not there for 100 years.
Just the other day the Minister of Transport forwarded to the western transport ministers copies of CN and CPR quick cost formulae to enable those in the provincial offices to look at railway costing procedures on various commodities that come to their attention. That is the first time this type of data has ever been released, let alone to the provincial governments. I say again, it is about time

March 7, 1975
Transportation
this was done. It is now forthcoming. Information is available to the provinces to enable them to assess better the kinds of policies and programs the various regions in Canada want to see the federal government bring forward.
The provincial officials have met with the CTC a number of times to discuss the more technical aspects of analysing this cost data. There has been a great deal of progress in that respect. By the same token, the western provinces, and I am sure this will also hold true for other provinces, are now providing the federal government with confidential information on trucking cost data and other material which up until this time has been almost completely within the provincial field. This is the kind of co-operation we have now. This progress has been as a result of the WEOC conference and the federal-provincial committee set up following it.
The entire consultative progress is a very essential first step if we are going to develop a rapport with the provinces, the agencies involved, the shippers, the suppliers and the people using the service. If we are going to develop policies for the various regions of Canada we must have this honest and open exchange of information and, Mr. Speaker, we are getting that.
The third major area of progress since WEOC is in the formulation of studies. I will be the first to admit that progress on some of these studies has been a little slow. However, the mere fact that some of them are being undertaken jointly with the provinces indicates ample progress. Some of these studies will be undertaken before very long. They will deal, for example, with new methods of setting freights rates for western Canada. If they prove worthwhile, they will apply to other areas of Canada. The pricing impact study, rail roadbed cost study and joint track usage study have been talked about for a long time without their feasibility having been determined one way or another.
I wish to refer to the 22 anomalies which were raised not too many days ago in the transport committee. The entire list of 22 anomalies was presented to the federal government. They have been rectified in the sense that they have been categorized. The different kinds of anomalies have been sorted out. These anomalies will be analysed and dealt with. If necessary, there will be legislative changes.
In conclusion I wish to quote from a press clipping that appeared in the February 26 edition of the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. The headline is "Lougheed lauds transport pact". Premier Lougheed is known to many members opposite. I quote:
The accord reached Monday at a meeting of federal and provincial transportation ministers in Calgary was a major breakthrough for western Canada, Premier Peter Lougheed said-
That is what one western government, well known to members opposite, thinks of the progress in transportation policy that has been made by this minister and this government.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the tirade, abuse and nonsense that came from the other side of the House this afternoon are enough to make a member wonder what in God's name he is doing in Ottawa on this Friday afternoon. I might be home if the airplanes were flying.

I wonder what happened to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand). He left the chamber about an hour ago. I am told he went to the hole downstairs to categorize over the French television network the debate this afternoon as a racial attack against him because he happens to be from the province of Quebec.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Who said that?


J. Michael Forrestall: The minister himself. The minister said to offer some solutions. I will suggest some things that should be done immediately, and they will be welcomed by all Canadians.
# (1650)
The government can get on with ratifying the UNCTAD agreement with respect to the new code of ethics for Atlantic conferences, and retain for Canada the $1.5 billion we have already poured into them. All it takes is a signature on a piece of paper.
With regard to equal opportunities between the ports and the National Harbours Board, because the port of Montreal is dying we have a shed rental policy about to be imposed on eastern ports. For what purpose, Mr. Speaker? To remove the difference between the cost of doing business in the port of Halifax and the cost of doing business in the port of Montreal, so that hopefully traffic will be diverted from Halifax and Saint John to Montreal. I say it will not be diverted. Let the government take a corrective step. It will not be diverted to Montreal; this traffic will go to the port of New York. Is that what hon. members opposite want?
We want a firm commitment to identify and charge some department, some departmental group or agency, with responsibility for maritime policy. The statement made a few weeks ago by the minister is not good enough.
I refer to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve). She set up a committee on oceanology policy,4 and the other day we learned that it has not met for six months. Let us set up that committee and get on with it; again all it needs is a stroke of the pen. Let us strike the committee and get on with the steps required to establish a national maritime fleet. Let us announce our position on UNCTAD.
Do hon. members opposite want to know something else they can do with the stroke of a pen? They can bring into the House one sentence in a piece of legislation that will close the Atlantic, the Pacific and Arctic waters north of 60 degrees for passage solely by Canadian ships, with Canadian crews and flying Canadian flags. Save our extractive industries in the north. Do not let Murray River iron ore go into Europe in foreign bottoms; let us save it for Canadian bottoms.
The government can fire Yves Pratte, present chairman of the board of Air Canada, with the stroke of a pen.
We could ask the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) not to be so selective in her quotations. I notice that today she did not bother to quote Professor Wilson of the University of New Brunswick regarding subsidies on maritime freight rates. Do not let us hear too much more unmitigated nonsense about being subsidized in the maritimes on the movement of goods. Of course we are. We have to be. Look where we are.

We are talking about a total program costing $126 million over the last eight years. Last year it cost over $300 million just to pick up the interest and deficit on the operation of the St. Lawrence seaway, so hon. members opposite need not cry to us about how the maritimes are being subsidized. I ask them to make a simple decision. National transportation in Canada requires the will of the government to recognize that it must be subsidized if it is to serve the people adequately from one end of the country to the other. Let hon. members opposite not accuse us of not putting forward constructive suggestions because we have been doing that for the last ten or 12 years.
The other day we had an announcement from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) concerning shipbuilding subsidies, a program we welcomed and which we urge he continued. We are not opposed to it in any way, shape or form. The Export Development Corporation does an extraordinarily good job of enabling Canadian yards to attract offshore business. The other day the minister did not bother to come to the House but gave his report to a few selected reporters, and it was circulated the following day. In that report he removed the word "temporary" and said the program would be permanent, and his flacks at $1,900 a speech patted themselves on their backs and said "What a wonderful job we have done".
If hon. members look at the report very closely they will find another story. The subsidy is to be reduced by one per cent a year until it is down from 14 per cent to 8 per cent; or rather from 17 per cent if you get a matching grant for modernization, reconstruction and upgrading of shipyards. Instead of giving the shipyards notice so there would not be an unnecessary and undue interruption in long-term planning for renewal and modernization, the minister, who believes we are spending too much on them already, starts the reduction next year right in the middle of programming and budgeting for shipyards. Why did he not say that in two years' time, or three years' time-whatever the necessary period is to accommodate present planning-he will start reducing the subsidy by one per cent? He did not do that.
In addition, the minister extended the subsidy to federal shipping, ships built for the federal government, which incidentally must now have the third largest navy in the world, though we still have not got any cargo bottoms to generate new dollars or to save some of the $1.5 billion we are throwing away offshore.
Business of the House
I should like to pose a question to the parliamentary secretary. In the announcement of the extension of the subsidization program to ships built for federal agencies and departments, why did he not announce that it was also being extended to ships built for provincial governments and agencies? Why did he leave out the provinces? I hope it was an oversight, and if it was then with a stroke of the pen he can make a minor amendment, or issue another press release, and correct the situation.
I have referred to five or six areas, Mr. Speaker, but I think the response from the other side of the chamber to the sincere and meaningful points that have been put forward by members from one end of the country to the other is both deplorable and regrettable. The absence of the minister in the last hour of the debate is also deplorable and regrettable. Even the parliamentary secretary for DREE, who still thinks he is the be all and end all in transportation, I notice has left the chamber.
We have welcomed the opportunity this afternoon to draw attention to a number of points regarding the shortcomings in transportation services and the tremendous difficulties being faced by the transportation community in Canada.


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


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the government House leader if he is in a position to tell us what we will be considering on Tuesday and Wednesday.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when I was asked this question yesterday I said I hoped I would have some consultations with the House leaders on Monday and agree on what might be a mutually satisfactory program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being five o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 10, 1975