1976-06-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion.
Yesterday, the Quebec Minister of Communications stated that if this government continues to centralize everything, it could, if it remains in power a few years, bring about the split-up of Canadian federalism and Quebec separation.
Since the statement made by an official representative of the Quebec government shows a growing concern among Quebec authorities and consequently among Quebecers generally, and recognizing also the centralizing position of this government which daily threatens the objectives aimed at by the BNA Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey):
That the House unanimously instruct the Prime Minister to call a meeting between the Quebec government and the federal government to reassess the legitimate objectives of the Quebec government within Confederation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion to which I hope the House will agree. It is of urgent and pressing necessity so far as many persons are concerned. The delay in the submitting of the report by
Dr. Noel Hall on railway pensions ought not to delay action with respect to the pensions of those who are now retired. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House calls on the government to urge the CPR to grant to its pensioners an increase at least equal to the increase granted recently by the CNR to its retired employees and their survivors.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the Garrison diversion project in North Dakota. As the International Joint Commission will not complete its report until October 31, 1976 on the effects the Garrison diversion project will have on polluting Manitoba waters and on Tuesday, June 15, additional moneys will be requested from the House of Representatives in Washington for further construction of the project, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs contact President Ford and request a moratorium and that no further funds be allotted to the project until IJC files its report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD RECOMMENDATION THAT NO APPOINTMENT BE MADE TO REPLACE MRS. PLUMPTRE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that Mrs. Beryl Plumptre has resigned as vice-chairman of the government's Anti-Inflation Board, and in view of the fact that

June 11, 1976
Oral Questions
her reasons, apart from personal ones, included an obvious disenchantment with the growing bureaucracy of the antiinflation program and the obvious ineffectiveness of the program in controlling prices, and in view of the fact that recently the Minister of Agriculture chided members of this House for not making recommendations to the government for the appointment of a top official of the Farm Credit Corporation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That this House recommends to the government that no appointment be made to replace Mrs. Beryl Plumptre on the Anti-Inflation Board.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the co-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board resigned on the very day that we saw almost a record increase in the consumer price index. Since one of the original reasons for her nomination as co-chairman of the board was her great credibility with Canadians, especially the consumer, may I ask the Minister of Finance what immediate action, after this serious resignation, is the government prepared to take to restore the credibility of the Anti-Inflation Board with Canadians in general and consumers in particular?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there are two questions of fact: in the first place, Mrs. Plumptre was not the co-chairman, but the vice-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board and in the second place the resignation did not occur yesterday. It occurred, I think I am correct in saying, on June 1 or some seven to ten days ago when she indicated in a letter to the Prime Minister that the six month period that had been discussed with her at the time she took on the role, had been reached and for personal reasons she proposed to stand down. With regard to her replacement, there have indeed been some considerations and discussions in this regard and we hope to be able to make an announcement at a very early date.


DATE ON WHICH WAGE CONTRACTS WILL BE REVIEWED- REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON PRICE MONITORING
William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. Since the very credibility of the government is at stake here,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: -is the minister prepared today to give the House a firm date on which the wage contracts before the board will be reviewed, and because this government has been given specific statutory authority to protect the Canadian consumer, will the minister table a thorough report of price monitoring in order to explain the price increases reported yesterday?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, virtually all of those questions were answered yesterday. The price increases were described very fully by Statistics Canada in the release issued which indicated it was the price of beef and the impact of certain provincial budgetary decisions such as the pricing of tobacco and alcohol which had an effect on the consumer price index in the month of May. With regard to the other details of pricing decisions by the Anti-Inflation Board, from time to time the board issues releases. I would be prepared to make a collection for the hon. gentleman and make certain that they get into his hands so that he can review them.
As to the question of the backlog, as I mentioned to his colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West, of course the Board has not proceeded as quickly as it would have liked to in dealing with cases generally, one of the principal reasons being that a number of occasions they have paused to consider fully cases that have raised a lot of public comment, such as the Thompson case. The board has been prepared to go back and talk again to the parties rather than make a final and summary decision. The board will be trying to make its decisions as quickly and effectively as it can. I think the chairman is concerned about seeing that each party who feels he has not been fairly treated will have full opportunity to state his case before the final decision is made.


GOVERNMENT ACTION ON MRS. PLUMPTRE'S RECOMMENDATION FOR NATIONAL FOOD POLICY
William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since Mrs. Plumptre, who resigned yesterday, has on a number of occasions advocated that the government should adopt a national food policy and since in yesterday's price rise, the rise in price of food was a serious consideration especially affecting low income Canadians, will the government now accept Mrs. Plumptre's recommendation to formulate as quickly as possible a national food policy, so that we will not have any other announcements like yesterday's concerning the rise in prices?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the government has accepted the importance and priority of formulating a food policy. I will not say that this, necessarily, was Mrs. Plumptre's suggestion, but we are glad to have her support in this regard. As the Minister of Agriculture has indicated many times, it will be valuable and useful both to consumers and producers in Canada if they can have that kind of statement. That is an occupation on which he is now engaged and has been for some time.
June 11, 1976


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE STUDY OF BOARD'S OPERATIONS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. As both labour and consumers have little confidence in the board because at present their interests are not vigorously represented within the board, would the minister, in view of the necessity of fully disclosing the operations of the board to the public, arrange the immediate referral of the administration of the board to a committee of the House, which would call witnesses and hear evidence in order to assess the board's performance and the resources it enjoys for doing its job? I ask this in view of existing circumstances.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to correct the hon. gentleman with regard to the membership of the board. There are two labour representatives; one is Mr. Ladyman of Winnipeg, whose lifelong career has been in the labour movement; the other is Mr. Chapman, from Vancouver, whose metier as well has been in the labour area. We will be seeking appointees to the board who have Mrs. Plumptre's specific experience in the consumer area; although I would have to say that the membership of the board generally has been sensitive to consumer concerns, as evidenced by the decisions which have been made.
Finally, with regard to the proposal that the members of the board and its staff should be involved in hearings before a parliamentary committee, it seems to me that, following the line taken by several members opposite, it would be much more valuable if their time was spent dealing with the problem of inflation in Canada rather than in conducting another set of hearings.


REQUEST FOR OUTLINE OF PROGRAM FOR POST-CONTROL PERIOD
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the minister's attitude to full disclosure, which I think is surprising, particularly as the board has a mandate to advise on general and structural policy changes necessary to contain inflation after the controls come off. Mrs. Plumptre's resignation having further narrowed the coterie of post-control advisers available to the government, is the government prepared to open up this process and advise the House what options are now being considered and who in the government is doing this important work? Perhaps it will disclose, as it ought to-this is the hallmark of a free democratic society-what is to happen in the post-control period. Or, is the post-control period so far down the road that there is no point in doing it now? Is that the position of the government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the question of full disclosure, the chairman of the board and other representatives have appeared before the standing committee, to discuss their work in detail and in more general terms. If the hon. member feels that was not adequate, then that, of course, is a reflection on his own colleagues rather than on the government's willingness to make these people available.
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: The situation now is different.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of the discussions concerning the post-controls period, we will, of course, be meeting many groups in the community and it will be the government's intention in the coming session to set before parliament and the country the kinds of options and considerations we will have to take into account in the period after the controls come off. We have set ourselves a specific period for the controls program. That period should give parliament and the country time in which to reflect on some of the important changes which may be necessary in the post-controls period.


POSSIBILITY MRS. PLUMPTRE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS ON LEADERSHIP OF BOARD AND ITS PRICE CONTROL POLICY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since the minister said that Mrs. Plumptre told the government six months ago she would only take the job for six months, it is strange that she would call a press conference to say exactly what she had told the government six months ago. Surely this press conference is bound up with the fact that she is not pleased with the manner in which this anti-inflation program has been put into place. Can the minister or the Prime Minister tell this House whether Mrs. Plumptre made recommendations to the government, the Prime Minister or the minister with regard to the leadership of the Anti-Inflation Board, its consumer policy or the control of prices? Did she make any such recommendations during the past six months?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I can say quite categorically there were none with regard to the leadership of the Anti-Inflation Board. My observation would be that there has been a very close, cordial and effective collaboration between the chairman and the vice-chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board. As to what she may say about her reasons for resigning, it would probably be a better idea to let her speak for herself rather than put words in her mouth. I suspect she may have concluded that the personal reasons for her leaving might have been misconstrued by the malicious in some way and she would like to dispel that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS OF FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD
John R. Rodriguez: It is obvious that Mrs. Plumptre intends to go out with a bang rather than a whimper. She has chosen a time when food prices are escalating as well as the bureaucracy of the government's anti-inflation program. Does the government intend to implement any of the recommendations of the final report of the Food Prices Review Board which Mrs. Plumptre has fought for since becoming involved in the Food Prices Review Board and the Anti-Inflation Program?

June 11, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I say again, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is seeking to put words in her mouth. Why not let her speak for herself? With regard to the recommendations under her leadership as chairman of the Food Prices Review Board, these indeed are an important part of the government's consideration in relation to food policy.


SUGGESTION REPLACEMENT FOR MRS. PLUMPTRE BE OFFERED LOWER SALARY
John R. Rodriguez: We are not trying to put words into Mrs. Plumptre's mouth. We are trying to get the government to tell us whether the program is indeed foundering. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether in seeking a replacement for Mrs. Plumptre he will honour the attempt to tighten up the belt in this country and offer a reduced wage in order to attract someone who can better reflect the consumer interests of this country, a wage that is more in line with his attempts to fight inflation?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I find this line of questioning absolutely preposterous. The Minister of Finance has repeatedly said, let the lady speak for herself, which she is obviously able to do. If the hon. member is intimating in some way that the wage is the cause of her resignation, that it is related to our ability to entice other people to the board and that the lady has been overpaid, I wish the hon. member would put that to her directly and see what her answer would be.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RESIGNATION OF MRS. PLUMPTRE-ACTION ON RECOMMENDATION FOR MONITORING SYSTEM FOR MARKETING BOARDS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Since it now appears obvious to everybody but the minister that Mrs. Plumptre's timing exemplifies in a very dramatic way her frustration over her inability to get this government to act on the prices issue, will the minister advise what action the Anti-Inflation Board and the government are taking on one of the recommendations made by Mrs. Plumptre with respect to a monitoring system of marketing boards in Canada and some agreement with the provinces in this regard?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, having been the person who first spoke to Mrs. Plumptre about taking on this assignment, I feel I must at least dispel the suggestion put in the first part of the question. When I first approached Mrs. Plumptre in October, her first answer was negative. I would rather not put these matters before the House because they are of a confidential nature. But in face of two opposition parties which really are fabricating a whole series of interpretations which are completely opposed to the truth, I feel I must say that at first Mrs. Plumptre refused, because of family and personal reasons, to accept the assignment. Finally, she took it on but made it quite clear she would resign within a period of a few months-that she was only taking the job to help in the transition. Wait to hear the results of the press confer-

ence, Mr. Speaker, but I am stating the facts as they happened. She made it clear at the outset that she would resign in a few months. If her resignation now comes as a surprise to the opposition, it certainly has not come as a surprise to the government. The timing, if anything, was favourable to the government because Mrs. Plumptre stayed on longer than she said at first she would. Her letter of resignation was dated June 1, before the figures of the last consumer price index were known, and I therefore repeat that this whole line of questioning, if not malicious, is extremely ignorant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
James Aloysius McGrath: My supplementary question is to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps had the Prime Minister shown a little less ignorance of this subject he would still have Mrs. Plumptre. I would remind the right hon. gentleman that yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister regarding the activities of the interdepartmental committee on food policy, and the Minister of Agriculture and the Prime Minister expressed complete ignorance. Yet, as reported at page 7482 of Hansard for July 11, 1975, in reply to a similar question, the Minister of Agriculture said this:
Mr. Speaker, the committee is active. I can say this: if the hon. member has any constructive suggestions, we would like to hear them.
Can the Prime Minister now inform the House whether there is an interdepartmental study going on with regard to a comprehensive food policy and if so is he prepared to tell us what proposals this committee has made to the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member would refer to the white paper published on October 13 he would see that one of the four lines of attack on inflation concerned the need for structural changes in the area of food, housing and energy. Announcements concerning policies in these three areas have been made and more will continue to be made.


MANPOWER
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Is the minister aware that in some provinces manpower training courses are used to denigrate free enterprise, to promote divorce, abortion, the abolition of capital punishment and homosexuality? Although I realize that the minister may not be aware of this, will he order an investigation and recommend that provinces take action so that the federal funds for manpower training serve the purpose of
June 11, 1976

the emancipation of workers and not destruction and negativism?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am really at a loss for words. But I will take note of the hon. member's vehement representation and try to trace this suggestion to its source.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE REQUEST FOR TABLING OF FEDERAL POSITION PAPERS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question, of which I have given notice, is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to the crucial Conference of First Ministers which is to begin on Monday. I know that members of the press are to be briefed on Monday morning with respect to the federal position papers, prior to the next sitting of the House. Will the Prime Minister undertake to table these papers today so that Members of Parliament may have an opportunity to study the federal position?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to table the federal position papers on Monday at two o'clock. The custom, a long established one, has been that position papers of either the provincial or federal governments for federal-provincial conferences should not be released in advance, and would not be released in advance unless there were agreement from the parties that that could and should be done. Obviously, the federal government acting alone would have no objection to tabling this paper now, but I feel that this would be somewhat of a breach of faith with the custom established with the provinces.
In fact, my office has received representations from at least four provinces following a partial leak which I understand occurred a few days ago, from we do not know what source. These representations are to the effect that we should not release these position papers. The premiers wanted to be in a position on Monday to react to them and not be forced to react to them before that time because of the release of the federal position papers. This has been the custom in the past.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. While I appreciate the Prime Minister's reply and understand that position, given that copies of these proposals are already in public circulation and the further fact that the press will be briefed and made aware of them at nine o'clock on Monday morning prior to the tabling in the House of Commons, would the Prime Minister undertake to canvass the provinces again on this matter to see whether or not their agreement to tabling these documents later today could be achieved?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I doubt whether between now and four o'clock it would be likely that we would reach every premier and get his consent to do this. I do not
Oral Questions
see what great advantage the opposition would get from having them at four rather than on Monday. What was leaked to the press-and I have not seen it-certainly could not be the final document, which was worked on until very recently. So, therefore, let us assume that the premiers will have first look, at I believe 9.30 on Monday morning, at what is to be the final version of the federal document. I would certainly agree at that stage to give copies to the hon. lady and to any other members of the opposition who would want to take cognizance of it before the document was actually tabled in Parliament at two, presuming that the House would not object to our releasing it to some members before it was tabled in the House as a whole.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, may I address my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister state whether the installation of the underwater power cable to Prince Edward Island has run into unforeseen delay and, if so, what is the cause of the delay; and can the minister also say whether there is still any possibility of this cable coming into service on schedule?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, indeed we are having a small problem which I trust will only be temporary and will not cause too much delay in the installations of the cable. Some time in the last few days, a small incident occurred when the manufacturer of the cable was getting ready to load it in Sweden for shipment to Canada. The cable was damaged but technical teams are now evaluating those damages and how long it will take to repair it before shipping it to Canada. It may be that this will cause some delay and, for the time being, we are not sure how long that delay may be and whether it will affect the laying down of the cable which was to go into operation in the fall. Within a week or two I should be in a position to say more specifically what effect the incident in question will have on the installation of the cable.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister say whether any additional cost involved will fall on the Swedish contractor or on Canadian taxpayers?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, if any costs are involved at the production level so far as fixing the cable and keeping the cable in good shape is concerned, no doubt such costs will be borne by the producer of the cable.
14410

June 11, 1976
Oral Questions



CONNAUGHT LABORATORIES


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of continuing concern expressed about Connaught Laboratories by a former employee, Dr. Andrew Moriarty, regarding the quality of vaccines and other biologicals produced by that firm, and recognizing that Connaught is owned by the Canadian government through the Canada Development Corporation, can the minister assure the House that the government, through the health protection branch, holds Connaught Laboratories to the same high standards, regulations and controls as other pharmaceutical manufacturing companies?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would indicate to the House what action is being taken to verify or deny the validity of Dr. Moriarty's reports, and with particular regard to the effectiveness of various viral vaccines produced by Connaught, is anything specifically being done to test them in view of the charge that perhaps the polio vaccine which we have is not as effective as we all thought it might be?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, Connaught Laboratories are in exactly the same situation as any other firm in Canada, subject to examination and control by the health protection branch of my department.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I presume that the minister has seen and probably read a report prepared by officials of his department and the Department of National Health and Welfare recommending that subsidies be paid to Indians on the English-Wabigoon river system to provide protein substitutes for mercury polluted fish which is still being eaten for lack of any substitute in the area. Would the minister either make a statement now, or if he has not had time to look into the matter fully would he make a statement at an early date in the House, stating what the federal government proposes to do about this suggestion, either in consultation with the provincial government or on its own, so as to deal with this serious threat to the health of those affected?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the report contains several recommendations; for example the program to provide alternate fish by fishing for them in the lakes themselves rather than having them flown in from other cen-

tres; the institution of subsidies; and programs for economic development. However, the first point that the report made was to strongly recommend that none of these programs be instituted without full and complete consultation with the two Indian bands directly involved and with the provincial government. That is the step we are now taking; we are discussing the contents of the report with the Indian people and the provincial government.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is going through this process of consultation would he report to this House what this government proposes to do?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to make that information available.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is posed to the Minister of Transport, and in doing so may I express to him my sincere thanks for taking time out of a very busy schedule to visit the port of North Sydney to meet with union reps and others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: I am sure he now has a much greater appreciation of the facilities that we have there. Can the minister advise the House whether Clarke Steamships Limited have applied for an increase in subsidy beyond the over $7 million that they have now received to carry freight to St. John's, Newfoundland through the ports of Halifax and Montreal, to the detriment of the port of North Sydney?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would want to check to see whether this could be classed as an application. I am sure there were explorations of possible increases; however, there has been no decision to grant any such increase.


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that by providing government subsidies from taxpayers' money to private shipping corporations that apparently cannot operate on a profit basis on their own merit, when at the same time East Coast Marine Ferry Services, a CN subsidiary, has ships lying idle, the government is contributing to an already unbearable unemployment rate on Cape Breton Island, where our stevedores are walking the streets and our work force has been reduced?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the situation. Of course, the hon. member ought not to ignore the very significant sums of money by way of subsidy covering losses which are paid on the North Sydney-Port-aux-Basques line.


An hon. Member:: That's why you should run your own ship.
June 11, 1976


Otto Emil Lang: The question of alternate subsidies really came up as part of the effort in the battle of matching one subsidy with another, a general policy which I have stood against, but which is not necessarily easy to reverse when it involves a matter of a constitutional arrangement.



INDUSTRY


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and in his absence I trust his parliamentary secretary will handle it. The question is urgent and pertains to the Canadian textile industry which is now in a severely depressed state because of the damaging importation of offshore low-costs imports. A major recommendation has been made to the minister by the Clothing and Textile Board with regard to polyester yarn and filament. This recommendation has been in his hands now for five weeks. The minister promised to table it in the House and give his answer within 15 days of the time of its receipt by him. Can we be assured that this will be tabled soon?


Mr. Marcel Roy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the situation in the textile industry is now undergoing a complete review at the hands of an ad hoc committee which was set up five weeks ago at the request of textile industries. A report will be tabled on the matter by the end of June.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr.   Jean-R. Roy@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Finance try to determine from the Vice-Chairman of the Anti-Inflation Board how she has managed to seduce to her support the very opposition parties and members who were violently opposing her appointment last October?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



TRANSPORT


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, now that the rabble has quietened down I would address my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that hearings on existing passenger rail services in Canada are being held, will the minister tell the House whether the ministry has any intention of examining presently abandoned passenger rail services in areas of Canada which
Oral Questions
could possibly sustain passenger rail services, in order to determine whether they should be revived?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it will be our intention to look at potential rail passenger services as well as going through the present exercise, which is examining passenger services in place. They are separate exercises, of course, but certainly it is our view that as passenger rail services demonstrate themselves in various locations there will be new possibilities of renewed services in areas where they no longer exist.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that statements made thus far would indicate that hearings are being held only on existing rail services, and in view of the fact that the minister has received representations from unions, from this member and others that the Kettle Valley line be reviewed, how does this particular decision that rail services in Kettle Valley not be examined at this time square with the minister's statement that they are proposing a total examination of Canadian rail passenger services? In fact, will the minister assure the House that the Kettle Valley line and the people concerned will have an opportunity to provide the Ministry of Transport through the transport committee with input?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member must have missed my earlier answer in which I indicated that these two things will be done but they are separate exercises. The current exercise is one of looking at existing services to determine which of them should, indeed, be retained. I am, indeed, pleased to receive representations from many sources about various services which are now being studied, and also those which are not in existence and where a case might be made for them.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Last week the minister's parliamentary secretary, after continual prodding on my part-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: -stated that the government is considering the introduction and implementation of stiffer penalties to industries and municipalities which continue to dump excessive pollutants into our rivers and lakes, and I was specifically referring to the Great Lakes. In view of the fact that the very costly cleanup of these lakes has fallen sadly behind schedule, and because of a continuing and alarming increase of large quantities of dangerous chemicals, such as PCB, which incidentally is known to cause cancer, can the minister now advise this House what these stiffer penalties will be, who they will affect and when will they be implemented?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: In general terms, Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member,
9S510-12V2
June 11, 1976

Oral Questions
who gave me verbal notice of his question, for which I thank him, is aware of the press release issued a couple of days ago concerning PCB. PCB will be prohibited in Canada everywhere, except in respect of some electrical materials. There was an exception made for electrical materials for obvious reasons; because a technological substitute for this product has not been found. On the other hand, most of the products which contain PCB for electrical materials come from the United States, and we have to work with the United States in order to eliminate this very noxious material, and that is what we are doing now.



ACTION TO REDUCE AMOUNT OF PCB IN GREAT LAKES

Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, the minister is aware that four times the amount of PCB from electrical uses gets into the Great Lakes from the air. Therefore, I wonder whether his department has given any consideration or thought to further research on the matter, and where does the department stand on this situation as far as the United States is concerned? In other words, when can we expect some steps to be taken on the electrical question, which is primarily the reason for PCB pollutants in the Great Lakes?


Jean Marchand: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the question is not limited to PCB, but all other pollutants in the atmosphere and in the water. This was discussed with Mr. Train when he visited with me about two or three weeks ago. In July we are supposed to meet with the Great Lakes committee and with the Minister of the Environment for Ontario to see what other steps we can take to reduce PCB, mercury and phosphates, and generally clean up the Great Lakes as much as possible.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, on June 8, as recorded at page 14269 of Hansard, I directed a question to the Minister of Public Works, asking whether there was governor in council authority for the activities of Mr. Gallacher in the Pickering area. I am wondering whether he can now advise that this authority exists?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the action taken was under the Expropriation Act which authorizes the minister to issue notices and documents of this character in connection with expropriation proceedings, and does not require an order in council.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the delay in the submitting by Dr. Noel Hall of his report on railway pensions is disturbing to many pensioners who had hoped that by now something would have been done for them, and in view of the fact that the CNR has granted a small increase in the pensions of its retired employees and their survivors, will the minister have a serious talk with the CPR to try to persuade that organization that it should at least match what the CNR has done?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to carry the hon. member's representation forward, and I am always willing to draw to the attention of the CPR the example of the CNR and ask them to do as well.

[DOT] (U50)



TRIBUTE TO MR. FERNAND ARCHAMBAULT UPON RETIREMENT

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before continuing with the remainder of the question period I wonder if I might borrow a minute from the schedule, which I will repay to hon. members at 12 o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With interest.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members will allow me to take some time to indicate to them that today marks the last day in the House of Commons of one of our distinguished and devoted official stenographers, Mr. Fernand Archambault.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: After 15 years of loyal and valuable services, Mr. Archambault will enjoy a well deserved retirement. I am confident that all hon. members in the House join me in expressing our gratitude and wishing him a very pleasant retirement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of the Environment and it relates to the PCB discharge into the
June 11, 1976

Great Lakes. As the minister knows, this chemical, like mercury, is toxic and cumulative as the discharge is released gradually into the water. What is the estimate of his department of the length of time when PCB would be reduced to an acceptable level, presuming the immediate cessation of the PCB influx into the Great Lakes? In other words, how long would it take for the Great Lake PCB content to reach an acceptable level if we could stop dumping this chemical immediately into that body of water?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think only one thing is sure so far as PCB is concerned, and that is to control the sources of PCB. So far as the presence of PCB in the environment is concerned, I think it will be a matter of years before it is reduced to an accepable level.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROPOSED MEETING OF PRIME MINISTER WITH MR. BOURASSA TO SOLVE PROBLEM OF CENTRALIZATION

Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to disturb the right hon. Prime Minister, but I have an important question to ask him. I know he will give me a good answer.
Considering that the president of the Quebec Liberal Party was startled Tuesday by a statement from the Minister of Health, and that the Quebec Minister of Communications stated yesterday that in the current regime there is no doubt that this government could trigger separation, I think it is important in such circumstances to put a question to the Prime Minister. Recent polls prove, considering the circumstances-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member proceed immediately to ask his question?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, in view of those statements from both sides which cause profound concern to Quebecers, I ask whether the Prime Minister would agree to meet his Quebec counterpart to find solutions which might better correspond to the aspirations of Quebec. I do know it is an objective which the Prime Minister would like to achieve as much as I do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not without knowing that I will meet my Quebec counterpart Monday and probably Tuesday. If he has suggestions to make or discussions to open, of course, they would be welcome.
I cannot comment on the statements which the hon. member claims to quote because I do not know whether they are correct. I know the premier of Quebec never expressed such opinions and in all likelihood the hon. member is unknowingly quoting comments by a Quebec minister. Ah, he is showing a page of a newspaper, Mr. Speaker; that is always the ultimate response of those who spread unsound rumours and gossip. However, let me add that I am encouraged by the fact that the hon. member of the opposition is so concerned about communications be-
Oral Questions
tween the provincial Liberal party and the federal Liberal party. If that interests him so much, he should come over and join us and we can discuss it.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
I do not know if the Prime Minister understands my concern for Quebecers, since on one hand the two political parties are contradicting themselves, and on the other hand the Minister of Communications, who still is an official of the Quebec Liberal Party, said yesterday he wished this government would be defeated as soon as possible in view of its centralizing attitude. Would the Prime Minister like to comment on a similar statement reported in the press-and I think it is accurate-for the benefit of the Quebecers who are also concerned? I believe the Prime Minister should make such a statement.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement. Someone in authority should make a statement, but the point is who it should be. If a minister of the Bourassa government did state that he wished this government would be defeated, I am convinced Mr. Bourassa will disown him very quickly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Are you sure?



ENVIRONMENT AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Certain aspects of it were raised as a motion under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. It has to do with the Garrison Dam project in North Dakota and the possible effects on the Manitoba waters. I am wondering whether or not the Minister of the Environment has communicated to the United State government or to North Dakota officials the uneasiness and apprehension that Manitobans feel with respect to the continuing progress on the Garrison Dam, regardless of the stand and the effect which the International Joint Commission may have on the final outcome. If there had been discussions, could he inform the House of the nature of the discussions and what reply was given by the U.S. government?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to give a clear cut answer because, as the hon. member knows, this problem is before the IJC. I expect a report very soon. I discussed the matter with Mr. Train. They are well aware of the fact that we will resent any action on the part of the U.S. which will have a negative effect in Manitoba. This is all I have to say today while I await the report of the IJC.

June 11, 1976
Oral Questions



GARRISON DIVERSION-SUGGESTION UNITED STATES BE REQUESTED TO DELAY FURTHER CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING

A. Daniel McKenzie: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As IJC will not complete its report on. the Garrison Diversion project until October 31 and it is my understanding that moneys for further construction are to be appropriated before October 31, will the minister request that the U.S. delay further construction or funding until alternatives to the project not resulting in a treaty violation are found? It is my understanding that requests for further funding will be made on Tuesday, June 15, in Washington.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I recall, Mr. Train told me they would not do anything before the report is presented. I will make sure that this is the position of the United States. I will be seeing Mr. Train early in July. I do not think they will do anything in the meantime.



FINANCE


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. On May 21 I brought to the attention of the Minister of Communications that Master Charge and Bank America of the U.S. were test marketing a primitive precursor of an electronic payment system. I tried, somewhat unsuccessfully to determine whether or not the minister was following the introduction of the system in the United States and whether the government was aware of any plans to test market a similar system in Canada. Since that time I learned of the responsibility of the Minister of Finance for government policy in this respect, and I wonder if he can indicate whether he is following the developments in the U.S. and, if so, could he also tell the House whether or not there are similar plans for test marketing even a primitive form of an electronic payment system in Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman is quite correct. The government now has underway a careful study of a payments system that will be an historic change in many respects from using negotiable paper instruments to operating, in effect, by a kind of credit card system, and electronic transfer of funds. For this purpose the government has established a number of working groups made up of federal and provincial representatives and representatives of the private sector to define the necessary changes which will be required in our law of negotiable instruments and banking for this purpose and also to define the circumstances under which it will come into effect. I anticipate that it would be a

number of years before we would do this, but the preparation is now under way. I think it is not unlikely that for the purposes of experimenting with the system, once it has been determined for Canada, we might want to do a trial run marketing.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Perhaps I could address my supplementary question either to the Minister of Finance or perhaps the Acting Minister of Justice. One year ago on June 25, 1975 the then minister of justice was asked if a special study was being set up on legal and consumer issues arising out of the increasing use of electronic technology in the payment system. I wonder whether the minister could indicate whether a preliminary report has been received from that study group as yet and also whether he can tell the House when a final report is expected from that study group?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A final report has not been received. I do not know if the hon. gentleman has had the opportunity of examining the document-I think the title is "Towards an electronic payment system"-which is the principal document available at this point. A general summary of work of the various committees is that they have the work in process, but they have not as yet produced any documents for publication.



ANTI-INFLATION BOARD INQUIRY AS TO LIAISON OF BOARD WITH DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance, and it deals with the expertise now possessed by the Anti-Inflation Board as opposed to the tribunal activities of the AntiInflation Board. Does the AIB have an input into the Department of Finance and the government regarding the problems it faces, apart from making its decisions public, and if so, what kind of liaison is there, and what results are obtained?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there has been a close liaison, particularly between the staff of the board and officials of the Department of Finance and other government departments. The most extensive liaison at the moment is for the purpose of producing the new regulations with respect to the profit and pricing rules. I understand that the board will be in a position to publish draft regulations early next week dealing with these areas.
June 11, 1976



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a copy of the reference from the Anti-Inflation Board to the Administrator, under the act, of the collective agreement with respect to the International Nickel Company of Canada, in Thompson, Manitoba.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 4,126, 5,269, 5,404 and 5,449.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Do members of the Cabinet receive a yearly car allowance and, if so, in each case, what was the amount for each year 1965 to date?
2.	For the same years (a) what provision was made for the use of an automobile by members of the Cabinet (b) who purchases the automobiles (c) in each case, how many have been purchased (d) what is the cost of operation of the automobiles including chauffeurs, etc.?
3.	Is such allowance in addition to the use of a car supplied by the government?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: 1. Provision was made by statute in fiscal year 1930-31 for $2,000 per annum motor vehicle allowance to each minister of the Crown and the Leader of the Opposition (see Senate and House of Commons Act).
2 and 3. See replies to questions 321, Sessional Paper 255, dated December 9, 1968, and 1,037, Hansard 99, page 5839, dated February 24, 1969. Also see the Minutes of Proceedings Issue No. 52 of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for April 5, 1976 pages 52.8 and 52.9.

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government prepared to review the periodic refusals of the Secretary of State to furnish information to Parliament concerning the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation with words contained in answers to various questions: "It has not been customary to require the CBC to supply such details of its internal management and administration" and (a) if so, will the government consider making requests for legitimate information concerning the CBC available to Parliament (b) if not, what are the reasons justifying such continued secrecy being applied to a publicly owned corporation?


Mitchell William Sharp: No. See reply to question 2,530 (Debates No. 200, dated November 6, 1975, page 8913).


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since the implementation of the National Welfare Grants Programme, how many grants have been allocated to each province?
2.	For each year, what amounts have been allocated to each province?
3.	What was the number of projects approved in the Constituencies of (a) Temiscamingue (b) Abitibi (c) Villeneuve and, in each ease, what was (i) the aggregate amount allocated in grants to each Constituency (ii) the name and purpose of each project?


Marc Lalonde: 1. Newfoundland, 14; Nova Scotia, 45; Prince Edward Island, 23; New Brunswick, 28; Quebec, 87*; Ontario, 161; Manitoba, 34; Saskatchewan, 29; Alberta, 47; British Columbia, 65; Northwest Territories, 13; Yukon Territory, 6; National Organizations, 108.
*It should be noted that Quebec did not fully enter into the program until 1968-69.
2.	See table below.
3.	Two projects (a) Temiscamingue (Rouyn) (i) and (ii) Projet de Developpement Social du Nord-Ouest Quebecois, 2554-1-11, 1970-1974. ($244,263.87) To encourage the residents of northwestern Quebec to become aware of their community and to establish the machinery that would give them a growing influence on the decisions that affected them through popular participation in local and regional activites. (b) Abitibi-None (c) Villeneuve (Val-d'or) (i) and (ii) Pro jet: Centre de Reference et d'information, 19721974 ($20,423.36) To aid persons with various types of financial problems, to furnish information on types of social assistance available and on welfare rights, and to provide help through advocacy of individual claims.
Province	1962/63	1963/64	1964/65	1965/66	1966/67	1967/68	1968/69Newfoundland	11	9	21	43	8	4	-Nova Scotia	8	20	61	91	93	115	108Prince Edward Island	-	-	1	11	36	23	35New Brunswick	12	10	15	32	12	16	37Quebec	-	6	22	30	36	47	66Ontario	57	154	242	463	549	302	359Manitoba	23	33	77	112	110	184	197Saskatchewan	18	22	43	61	39	107	131Alberta	9	21	40	81	48	56	118British Columbia	19	66	113	196	239	283	299Northwest Territories	-	-	-	-	28	39	31Yukon	-	1	-	12	19	20	20CANADA	-	-	.-	-	62	345	300
June 11, 1976
Order Paper Questions

Province	1969/70	1970/71	1971/72	1972/73	1973/74	1974/75	1975/76Newfoundland	16	15	10	27	29	101	27Nova Scotia	107	191	173	291	290	553	320Prince Edward Island	22	27	27	80	70	67	218New Brunswick	27	31	86	126	88	68	77Quebec	233	504	489	567	607	999	1,021Ontario	310	267	309	704	643	548	528Manitoba	179	213	180	134	78	48	-Saskatchewan	59	100	127	213	248	139	137Alberta	139	122	96	187	239	367	199British Columbia	232	243	238	264	268	318	333Northwest Territories	60	45	19	-	11	6	5Yukon	15	-	-	-	-	-	-CANADA	263	343	268	110	109	285	546


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Is a fence being erected at Victoria International Airport and, if so (a) what is the amount spent to date (b) what is its purpose (c) is the project completed and, if not (i) how much fencing remains to be built (ii) when will it be completed (d) what is the total estimated cost?
2.	Is the purpose originally intended for this fence being served as matters now stand?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes. (a) $161,664.85. (b) To meet the requirements of the National Airports Policing and Security Program to separate aircraft operating area from public access at developed areas near terminal building, (c) (i) The project is complete, but should a deterioration in the (ii) security climate occur, consideration to completely fence the airport would involve a further 9,000 feet of security fencing, at an additional estimated cost of $72,000. (d) Total estimated cost is $161,664.85 to date.
2. Yes.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 5,346 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the name and location of each Department of Transport operated airport?
2.	What is the official DOT policy on abandoned vehicles at such airports?
3.	For each such airport, how many abandoned motor vehicles have been reported since January 1, 1975?
4.	Do such vehicles fall to the Crown and, if so, in what manner are they disposed of?
5.	Has the government received any revenues from the disposal of such vehicles and, if so, in what amount?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot) moved:: That this House questions the application of the Department of Transport's "user pay" concept as it applies to "mature and immature" regions of Canada and to different modes of transportation, and urges the minister to clarify the guidelines for implementation of the policy and to explain any alterations contemplated in it.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving this motion I really welcome the opportunity to discuss one of the main obligations of the government, such as governing the country of Canada. Transportation has historically played a very important role in the development of this country. In the last two or three years this government indicated to us that it was going to do something about transportation. Over and over again the government stated that it had a concept which would greatly assist Canada in its development, namely rationalization of our transportation policy. Some years ago, a former minister of transport said that the transportation policy of Canada was in a mess. We all agreed with him, acknowledged his frankness in admitting that, praised him for admitting it and hoped that he would come up with a solution. During the election campaign in June, 1974, the Liberal party pranced across the country suggesting that it had some solutions, and the Prime Min-

June 11, 1976

ister (Mr. Trudeau) said they were not idle election promises but they were promises to do something about Canada's transportation problems.
In the Speech from the Throne in 1974, the government indicated its desire to see transportation used as an instrument of policy designed to achieve broad national, social and economic objectives. Well, we are still wondering. In fact, on the question of transportation policy today we could ask where we are going. In western Canada, the Stavely commission is studying the cost of moving grain. Also, in western Canada the Hall commission is studying the question of rail line abandonment and the rationalization of trackage. The CTC is travelling across the country hearing briefs with regard to passenger traffic. We wonder where all this is leading us.
As late as June, 1975, the government announced a new transportation policy. The government and the then minister said the principal advice on transportation policy would be in the hands of the government and they were really going to take over much of the role played by the CTC until that time. Now we are in June, 1976, and what have we seen this government actually do? We have a new Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). He has bought the line handed down by, I suppose, the civil service which said that we must work on a "user pay" concept. I have always felt that transportation could serve the people of Canada a great deal better if users had a little more say before they were asked to pay.
Members of the transport committee travelled to Vancouver. One of the things they learned was that the federal government's policy had held back the development of that port. Nearly everybody concerned with the question of transportation into and around Vancouver harbour seemed to admit that. The committee then travelled down to Seattle and saw Canadian produce moving in and out of that port both to and from Canada when much of the goods should have been coming in through Vancouver. Our port facilities and transportation policy on the movement of goods into the port from the centre of the country and the prairies have not kept pace with the need which has been demonstrated in our trading policy with the Pacific rim countries.
What are this government and the Minister of Transport going to do about it? There are numerous commissions studying conditions, of course. We have a country concerned with transportation and productivity, because transportation plays a great part in our economy. It can keep inflation down and increase productivity, or increase costs; so it is important to know which direction the minister is taking. The only conclusion I can come to is that the minister seems bent on increasing freight rates, increasing the cost of air passenger travel, increasing the cost of rail passenger travel and, recently, increasing the cost of shipping.
An article in this morning's Globe and Mail reported that Nova Scotia was complaining about this government's actions in regard to Bill C-61 which will increase the cost of shipping in Canada. Shipping costs went up on the Great Lakes last year, and we have seen rail costs and freight costs go up. All this makes it more difficult for our
Transportation Policy
produce to get to world markets because of a poor and ailing transportation system. We want to know what the government is going to do about it. How are they going to apply the "user pay" concept?
In June, 1975, a policy was announced which spoke of "mature and immature" areas. What does that mean? What are "immature" areas? At various times in committee the minister stated that subsidies would have to paid in immature areas, but in areas where competition had matured, competition would take care of the cost and no subsidy would be necessary. The government did away with some of the subsidies for the maritimes with regard to the movement of freight, so I suppose they consider it a mature area. I am sure it is not considered that way by many of the people living in the maritimes and attempting to do business there. This government has failed to clearly enunciate what they mean by "user pay" and what they mean by "mature and immature" areas. I hope the minister takes the opportunity to explain to the House and to the country what he means by the use of those terms in the national transportation policy.
It is not good enough for the government to suggest that they are going to do something about rail passenger service, or to think that giving $30 million to the CPR is going to bring about any great improvement. We know that 3.4 million people travel in what is commonly referred to as the Quebec-Windsor corridor. In 1974 the government had a grandiose scheme to set up a transportation authority for passenger traffic, something like Amtrak in the United States. But they have not done it. Instead, they proclaimed loudly that the $167 million subsidy for rail passenger traffic was too high.
They say they are going to adopt the "user pay" concept and that people who use a certain mode of transportation will have to pay for it. They do not mention that the government operates something like 86 airports and loses $243 million in maintaining them. Some time ago the minister suggested that under the "user pay" concept landing fees would have to be increased. If fees were increased for all the smaller planes using airports, that would in no way pay for the cost of maintaining those airports.
When he announced the new transportation policy, the minister also stated that the government was going to increase competition with Air Canada. In November, 1975, I asked him if this meant that the 25 per cent formula that controls CP Air would be done away with. Earlier this spring I asked the same question in the transport committee, and the minister replied that they were trying to find a way of removing the 25 per cent formula and allowing CP Air to grow. But we still have no clearcut explanation of how this will come about.
In 1965 we had a regional air policy that was designed to promote the growth of clearly established regional airlines. We have five regional airlines in Canada and have built up a huge number of primary air carriers, sometimes referred to as third-level carriers, but as yet the government has not announced any policy with regard to them. All this uncertainty with regard to freight rates, air passenger traffic and costs is cause for a great deal of apprehension to the users of our modes of transportation. Is the "user pay" concept going to apply fairly to all modes of transportation?

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
When the new transportation policy was announced in June, 1975, the Department of Transport stated that buses were the only mode of transportation not subsidized. One could argue that buses receive a tremendous subsidy through the maintenance of our highways. In fact, figures released recently suggest that all users of highways only pay for about 67 per cent of the cost of maintaining them. Buses make good use of the highways and they perform efficiently. In the "user pay" concept, will the government step in and ensure it is applied fairly to bus, rail and air traffic?
Ottawa has been the centre of a very recent experiment in the movement of passengers, Mr. Speaker. The government set up an experimental STOL service between Ottawa and Montreal which lost a great deal of money. Although the service is discontinued, we do not know if the government intends to reintroduce it. We have not been told. This leads to uncertainty.
The government wants to set up a new kind of rail passenger service between Ottawa and Montreal, Montreal and Windsor, and Montreal and Toronto, but has not specified clearly what it intends to do. We are entering an era of high energy costs, but the government has not spelled out clearly which mode of travel it prefers or how that mode will be developed or even financed. We do not know the government's direction. If we bound into one volume all the press releases the Department of Transport has put out in the past ten years, we would have an encyclopaedia of the government's good intentions. But the government has done few of the things set out in glowing terms in those news releases.
The minister said quite clearly that Air Canada may lose some of its shorter routes. Apparently, regional airlines, including CP Air, will be allowed to bid on some shorter routes. If it is found that regional carriers need less subsidy to operate such routes, Air Canada will lose them. To me, that will be a step in the wrong direction. As it is, too many airlines are operating in the United States. There has been some attempt to trim the fat off airline operations in that country. Here, in Canada, the government's move may encourage the proliferation of airlines. Instead of dealing with one airline in trouble, some day we may have to deal with six or seven all in trouble.
What is the government's policy on freight movement? The Minister of Transport has created much apprehension on the prairies and in western Canada generally. Many people in western Canada suspect him of being in bed with the CPR and of being in favour of getting rid of the Crowsnest pass rates. Some time ago he said in Edmonton that the Crowsnest pass rates had to go; it was only a matter of time.


Mr. Paproski:: Shame!


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. lady is pounding her desk. Apparently she supports the minister.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The next minister is clapping her hands.


Mrs. Campagnolo:: Someone has to do something for the north.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not mind seeing Liberal members clap their hands when it is suggested that the minister suggested the Crowsnest pass rates have to go. At least that clears the air. We on the prairies, particularly those in the minister's province, want to know the Liberal party's intentions with regard to the Crowsnest pass rates. If we know the government's position, the uncertainty will disappear.
In 1974 the government convened the western economic opportunities conference in Calgary. Western Canadian representatives presented their ideas concerning railway tracks. The government has not acted. We have seen no answers and few results. The government said it would devise a system for grouping commodities with a view to bringing about more favourable freight rates. There was much talk, but that is all. So far as we know the conference brought few results and answered few western Canadian complaints about the movement of goods.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The government does not care.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The minister has said in the past that freight rates governing the movement of goods west should not be greater than those governing the movement of goods from central Canada to Vancouver. But this policy has not been implemented. It still costs more to ship from Hamilton to Calgary than from Hamilton to Vancouver. We have heard much talk but we have seen little action in this regard.
Some time ago the Canadian Transport Commission studied the movement of rapeseed, but its findings were not released. The minister said he would make a decision on the matter. He did, but that decision is not clear. He said certain discrepancies must be eliminated and the rate gap narrowed. But he wanted to move up the bottom rates rather than bring down the top. That did not suit the people of western Canada, who still wonder what the minister's policy is with regard to freight movement. In North America the natural flow of traffic has been from north to south, and vice versa, rather than from east to west. Perhaps that accounts for some of our difficulties.
As we see it, transportation in this country must play a vital role in making our economy sound-and developing the various regions of Canada economically so that, in competition with one another, they will be able to grow and better serve central Canadian-indeed, all Canadian consumer markets. As we see it, also, this government's policies have created much apprehension and solved few of our difficulties. Supposedly, it enunciated a new policy one year ago. It talks a great deal about the concept of users paying for service. I say that users should have more say in these matters.
It talks of certain mature and immature regions, but does not define what those terms mean. At present, shippers and manufacturers do not always know if they are entitled to a subsidy. In this country we have traditional subsidies coming under the Maritime Freight Rates Act in the maritimes and the Crowsnest pass rates in western Canada. But the minister has already said that the Crowsnest pass rates in western Canada are to be reviewed. That
June 11, 1976

has created much apprehension. I suggest that the minister should explain in greater detail exactly what he intends.
Two years ago the government talked of introducing a new transportation act, because the original act passed in 1967 can no longer serve Canada adequately. We are still awaiting that new transportation act, which I suppose would incorporate policies the government announced over one year ago. Perhaps if this session continues another year the government may introduce the bill.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to put before the House some answers to questions asked throughout the country concerning the transportation policy of the government as now being developed. Transportation in Canada is most important. For that reason, what we do in transportation is most important as well. Because transportation is costly, it is a large item affecting the over-all cost of living of Canadians. Therefore, if we manage our transport system badly we shall lose a great deal of money.
I want to talk today particularly about the cost of transportation and where our policy with regard thereto has taken us so far. When my predecessor, the now Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), said several years ago that transportation in this country was a mess, he did not mean that people involved in transportation in Canada were doing their job badly. He did not mean that about the people involved in the various modes of transportation. He did not even mean that about the people inside government departments who work on various aspects of transportation policy and issues. What he meant to say was that the policy was a mess, that the conglomeration of approaches to transportation in Canada which had developed over the years was full of inconsistencies and contradictions, that it had built into Canada tremendous costs in the way of non-productive expenditure that was in fact counterproductive.
He pointed the finger, in the bold way he has, directly at government as having the responsibility, at least today, to put the situation right, even though, clearly, the problem he was speaking about was the conglomeration of problems of governments year after year and over many decades in Canada. In his bold way, as well, my predecessor began the work of putting right the mess in transportation. Last summer he put before the House and the people of Canada the broad outline of the analysis of our transportation difficulties and the broad direction in which we ought to go in order to find solutions. I want to make it very clear that in pursuing this work I feel a complete consonance, a complete "in-tuneness" with my predecessor in the work he has done. I express my gratitude to him for the way in which he began it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I have been saying all across this country that we have to be realistic about our transportation costs. This has been translated into the expression that the user pay. I want to put that expression clearly before the House in the proper context. The proper context is that transportation costs are real and someone must pay them. Those who do not think the user should pay have to appreciate that they
Transportation Policy
are pointing the finger and saying that someone else should pay. If you do not like the expression "user pay", you have to defend the proposition that the non-user ought to pay for transportation costs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: That term "non-user" can, of course, be put in other ways. He can be called the taxpayer. It can be the taxpayer who is supposed to pay part of the cost. However, those politicians who like to make it appear that by fighting "user pay" they are fighting against and eliminating high costs to the great advantage of the country, are deluding themselves and the country. It leads to the continuance of the very kind of patchwork policies, suitable to particular political demands, which created the mess in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Those patchwork policies were frequently devised, and subsidies piled one on top of another, in answer to particular political demands which by themselves were popular in meeting a particular cause of a particular individual. It did not change the cost to the country. It had the impact over the years of unnecessarily increasing the total cost to the taxpayer, building a transportation system more costly than it otherwise would have been. It is to put this right that we are now launched upon the reform of transportation policy.
I want hon. members, particularly on this side of the House, to appreciate that this exercise will not be easy. These particular band-aids went on as political offerings to meet a particular demand for a particular area. There is a good deal of attachment to those band-aids and a good deal of fear about the pain that will be involved, as it will, every time you remove a band-aid.
We will only be able to succeed in improving our transportation policy in Canada, and thereby our transportation system with our dollars, if we are prepared to be strong enough to stand up politically and draw the picture of what we are trying to accomplish in terms of removing the band-aids, not individually but one by one, in order to remove them in total so that the body politic of transportation in the end can be healthier as a result of removing the band-aids rather than covering them over with more political band-aids.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I want to make it clear that there are very good reasons in this country for direct policy action to accomplish particular ends. Direct policy action to improve regional development is clearly an objective that this government asserts. Redistribution of wealth is another objective which this government asserts. However, generally speaking we will be better off if we try to accomplish those objectives directly instead of hiding an apparent accomplishment of those objectives behind a transportation distortion and subsidy program. That is the point I am trying to make.
The point is that these distortions in transportation costs in fact lead to distortions in production and a higher total cost in Canada. For example, it may be effective to the

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
producer of grain on the prairies to have a low freight rate. There is, simultaneously, a more normal cost-reflecting rate on meat which might be produced from that grain. That is a serious disadvantage to the prairie region, in terms of the encouragement of the shipment to Japan and Italy of grain instead of the shipment to those markets and the creation in those markets of a demand for our beef, pork and similar products. The substitution of meat for grain might create jobs in processing and development, the very things that the prairie region wants. Does it, therefore, prefer the shipment of grain because the cost to the shipper is lower by shipping it in that form than shipping it as beef? The important point here is that the cost to the country is significantly greater to move eight pounds of barley from the middle of Saskatchewan to Vancouver than it is to move one pound of beef. The rates may be lower, but the cost to the country is higher. Therefore, there may be an inducement to that kind of movement. Indeed, if they are much lower than the real cost reflected rate, they tend to that artificial result.
Not only do we defeat our broad purpose of being productive by producing where it is best, ideally, by economics to produce, especially when that is an area where we want to develop population, jobs and secondary industry in processing, but we end up spending more money on transportation than we would have to spend if we went about the system correctly and in a balanced way.


An hon. Member:: You have not created any markets for beef.


Otto Emil Lang: The hon. member says we have not created markets for beef. We have not. That is because of this very kind of disincentive which has stood in the way of real encouragement to production.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: I wish to make another very complicated point as clear as I can. I am referring to the value of the Crowsnest pass rates which I have been, obviously, discussing with regard to the low rates on grain. I want to say something about that and some very special arrangements in this country, such as the arrangement entered into with Newfoundland at the time it joined confederation when a particular and special treatment was accorded that province with regard to the movement of goods between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. That may indeed, in that sense, be rather sacred. The sacredness of the constitutional agreement with Newfoundland obviously stands. The sacredness of the tradition with regard to the Crowsnest pass is well known. But the point I am making-and I have made it in the west-is that if we have to do these things in accordance with our obligation to a region, it should be open to us to consider whether we can do them more directly rather than indirectly in the area of transportation. I have, therefore, said with regard to the Crowsnest pass rates that if this benefit were conferred more directly, and if we did not pin it on the rates, we would not only benefit the region as much in terms of dollars, but a lower-cost over-all transportation system would be brought about because we would be shipping the goods which it makes more sense to ship, instead of goods which

are shipped because of the artificially lower rate upon those goods.
In the west this is understood-only they refer to other matters. They say the low rates on ores and the higher rates on finished products are disincentives to the refining of those products in the west. Obviously, that is true, and it is exactly the kind of case I am making. It is exactly the approach which leads us to say that by and large in this country, we would be better off if the rate to which a person is exposed when facing a business decision is as close as possible to real cost. He then has to take into consideration the real cost of moving the product he wishes to move.
I do not see the advantage of taking coal out of our ground and shipping it at a certain cost to the shipper when, if we weighed all the costs to the country, including the real cost of the freight which is not being charged, it might not be a benefit to move that coal into some other market, or abroad. Why should we move it if the costs, when taken into account, are not adequately met by the gains we get from the product which is moved?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: That is the realism I ask to be brought to the transportation system. When we talk about bringing this approach to mature transportation systems, we are, of course, talking about transportation systems in which the loading factor, the use of the system, is sufficient to make an approach which balances costs an appropriate one. I say this because I will always accept the need on occasion to take a transportation system into a remote area or to go in well in advance, for national purposes, of development which will eventually sustain that transportation system, or to connect remote areas so as to provide for the movement of people by some mode to the more settled centres of the country. When only a few people are there, it may not be possible to charge enough to meet the total cost. What we really mean when we say the user should pay is that there should be a logical cost transportation system, a low-cost transportation system, and this will most likely result if the user knows the real cost and makes his decisions accordingly.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) says that if there is "user pay", there should be "user say". To that, I say "bravo". Increasingly as we move toward the implementation of costs which are real and reflect the investment required, more and more of the people involved in the marketing of that service will have a say in the kind of service provided. I have told the airlines, for example, that I welcome input from their customers on the question of the style of facilities which are legitimate in our airports from a marketing point of view.
In the passenger area one finds one of the best examples of the problems which arise when we are prepared to distort the real cost. The papers published in connection with the 1975 study of our transportation system have been before the House and the people for a very long time, essentially unchallenged by those who have read them. It is true they have been challenged by some who have not
June 11, 1976

read them. Some of those figures are out of date now, but in my view they are still instructive.
Based on those studies, it is said that the person who travels by bus essentially pays his own way. The analysis even concluded that a fair share of the total road cost was defrayed through the gas taxes and licensing system to which buses are subject. The automobile was seen as receiving a subsidy equivalent to half a cent per passenger mile. The air passenger was seen as receiving a subsidy equal to 2 cents per passenger mile. In the case of the railroads it is higher, at 6 cents per passenger mile.
I ask hon. members: What kind of particular public purpose is there which would lead us to say that a person who travels by bus should first of all pay his own way and then, through sharing in the tax system, pay part of the costs of those who travel by car or by airplane? I ask what justification there is for that. I ask whether it is not better, if we have income distribution in mind, to face this situation straightforwardly. I do not think we would then end up taxing the bus rider to pay for the airplane traveller. If we have something else in mind, I would like to know what it is. I can see no justification for it.


Mr. Nowlan:: What about the St. Lawrence Seaway?


Otto Emil Lang: To every example hon. members would like to raise, I say the same logic should apply. As far as I am concerned, we should move with that logic in any particular mode, and as time goes on we should move as close as possible to recognizing real costs except where there is justification in terms of development, remoteness or some other clear reason which we can state. What we ought not to do is pretend in one area that a particular subsidy is kept for good political reasons, and then try to get people in other parts of the country to ignore the fact that there is an adverse impact upon them by virtue of the subsidy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If you followed that, I would agree. But you don't follow it.


Otto Emil Lang: With respect to air, bus, rail and automobile, I ask about the need for the subsidies which have been in place, and of course we have unveiled a progressive move toward a policy of reflecting those costs. Serious discussions with the key users involved are under way. There may be some good arguments about how much, in fact, the cost amounts to and how much ought to be debited to the particular mode. We have taken some steps-for example, in the air business-to collect more from those who travel, because I do not see why we should put a subsidy of a particular amount on the table and say, "You can only benefit from that if you fly between Ottawa and Montreal. If you go by bus or in some other way, you cannot have any part of that subsidy." I do not see any justification for that.
All we do by inducing people to fly when it is not in Canada's economic interests or in their own economic interests, is end up having to build more airports to service the additional facilities. We will still need a lot of airports, let there be no doubt about that; but we have already adopted the principle for our major airports, those at Toronto, Montreal, including both Mirabel and Dorval- the key international airports-that those airports will be
Transportation Policy
paid for by the users. Those who land at or leave those airports will be paying over the years ahead.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Atl-East rate is another example of an occasion on which we embarked upon an artificiality. I say again: unless one is really embracing a principle of using a teaspoon to dig ditches by way of maintaining employment in this country, we ought not to preserve systems which lead to absurdities in terms of total cost.
The Wheat Board told us yesterday in committee that even at the Atl-East rates it costs seven cents a bushel more to move grain from the prairies to Halifax and Saint John than if it were moved by the water mode. That seven cents was worth their while to pay in order to have grain in position over the winter months for delivery when the lake and seaway system was closed. Of course, the cost to the country was much greater. This led to the result that we took grain from a farm by truck, put it in an elevator, then it was taken out again and put on a train to Thunder Bay, unloaded there, put in an elevator, cleaned, loaded into a vessel, taken to a port along the bay or lake, unloaded there, put into a terminal, then in due course loaded on a train, taken to Halifax or Saint John, and then unloaded into the final terminal.
Because of the subsidy, no one in that period of time had any incentive to look at a reasonable alternative, such as taking it from an elevator which can clean grain on the prairies, putting it on a train and taking it by unit train movement direct to Halifax, Saint John or Montreal, which can be done at very little more cost than by the water route, if all the truth be known-if we can get the truth, in terms of a real rate, from the railways, and we are trying to do that exactly these days. Those costs, unnecessary for that purpose, were thrown away. The examples go on and on, Mr. Speaker. That is the theme that we would want to develop as we examine all aspects of our transportation system.
I must say this to the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), that when we are looking at the seaway, rail and a road running side by side, it makes no sense at all to be paying a specific subsidy or part payment of the cost if the grain go by water, making a different payment if it goes by rail, or some other payment if it goes by road. There is no justification for that at all. All that does is distort economics and it leads in the end to the construction of more facilities that are subsidized, even though that may be the more costly way of moving the product. This is what we are going to try to put right.
I want to say a few words, since the hon. member for Crowfoot did, about a couple of other issues rather than this broad, philosophic one. For instance, we are moving forward with our passenger rail examination in Canada, and we intend, as we have said, to put under one management and operation passenger rail service in this country so that it can be marketed effectively and run in a cohesive way to make maximum use of joint facilities and the interchange of track wherever it makes sense to do so. This is our firm intention. We have asked the companies to

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
move in that direction and we are prepared to take whatever action is needed to make sure that this result is accomplished.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is just one more band-aid.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting at this stage that we can necessarily approach cost recovery in all our passenger service routes which are retained, but that is consistent with what I have just said. Our problem is that we start with a transportation system that was built on certain patchwork principles, and therefore there is a certain amount of preference for some modes over others. In particular, we have without any doubt favoured, in terms of subsidy, the automobile mode over other public modes of transportation.
I am prepared to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this country there is a real chance that passenger service can be made more attractive, that with new equipment and upgrading of lines it can be made attractive to passengers. The only way we are going to demonstrate this is by having faith in this thesis, going out and building the system and proving that it can work. We therefore propose to maintain some rail passenger services where it will not be obvious that it will be possible in the early phases to accomplish full cost recovery. We believe, of course, that we ought to discontinue those services where perhaps lack of demand is so great that the losses will be inordinate, and where alternative modes of transportation, such as a bus running alongside an unused rail passenger service, is available to the people. In those cases we ought not to spend the money; we ought, indeed, try to save it.
We also propose to continue to attempt to support public transportation in the cities of this country. When we implement the commuter policy of making some money available for commuter services, we recognize that we will only be doing part of the job that we have to do for urban transportation. We believe that it is right at this stage to support urban transportation with federal capital assistance, for much the same reason as I have described in relation to rail service. These have been in large part underused and undersupported because of the quite unnecessary and unjustified subsidies, although politically band-aid subsidies, which have been given by governments all over this country in support of the automobile, particular in regard to urban transportation.
That is a patchwork problem that has been created in large part by governments other than ours. Nevertheless, I believe we will have to try to take the lead in trying to get a change, a revolution in thinking, in favour of public transportation and away from the subsidized automobile which is so common in our cities.
It happens, of course, that both in the case of rail across the country and in the case of urban transportation system within our cities these may be modes that look particularly to the future, as we face a Canada that is becoming more and more concerned about pollution of the atmosphere, noise, and the cost of energy. Therefore, we may want in many different ways to encourage the use of these systems and certainly to avoid the use of the costly systems employed in each of these modes.
I have, Mr. Speaker, touched on some of the issues with which we will be dealing. We have, indeed, laid before the

House and the country the blueprint of a philosophy that we will be adopting, and we will continue to do this. This helps individuals to know where they may be going and to calculate what the costs to them may be in the future of various options for a transportation system. What I should like from most users, therefore, is the general conclusion on their part that if they make a mistake in examining a future course of action, looking at rates on an artificial basis instead of costs that are real, they will be looking at the wrong thing.
As far as this government is concerned, productivity in this country will be improved by this rational approach to transportation and the lowest cost alternatives being selected. Productivity will also be improved as users of transportation, both businessmen and entrepreneurs looking at business possibilities, face the real cost to this country of what they are trying to do and of what is being done, and not at artificial rates based on some band-aid, political opportunity subsidy. Those subsidies we will want to remove, and that will be our task.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, before lunch the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) used an analogy and likened the transportation system of our country to a band-aid policy or band-aid program. He said that now he is taking these bold steps in removing the band-aids, it is going to hurt. I am glad he used that analogy because I always think of a band-aid in terms of it being used to cover a sore or a wound, the purpose of which, of course, is to protect that wound or sore from infection and to allow whatever it is you are covering to heal. The premature removal of a band-aid would, in fact, result in further harm, especially if you have not done anything to heal the wound or sore.
In fact, that is what we have here in terms of transportation in Canada. We have the minister removing these band-aids without having put anything in their place to correct the problem. Indeed, the very things he is doing- and we have analysed what he is doing in respect of giving the CPR $30 million for railway passenger services between Quebec City and Montreal-constitute another band-aid program; he is starting a new brand of band-aid program.
We in this party have always held the view that at the beginning of Canada, transportation was used as a binder; it was used to bind this country together, bringing its peoples closer. The railway system was specifically built for that purpose. It was to repel what was feared to be an American invasion from the south, and really to connect the country from coast to coast. Of course, with the improvement in telecommunications, that original purpose has been lost. There is a new role we in this party have always felt, and still feel, that transportation ought to be
June 11, 1976

playing. We feel it ought to be used as a tool by the government to eliminate regional disparity. In other words, it ought not to be considered in terms of profit for the railway companies or in terms of the phrase "let the user pay" which the minister uses so often, but, rather, to eliminate regional disparity.
I congratulate the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) for having chosen this particular motion to put before the House, giving us an opportunity to debate it. A few years ago the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Mar-chand) who was minister of transport at the time, had some interesting ideas about transportation. We heard that transportation in this country should serve the country, and that our transportation policy should be used in conjunction with other policies to improve the lives of Canadians. Specifically, the minister said:
What we are proposing states that the transportation system should be accessible, equitable and efficient, rather than economic, efficient and adequate. The notion of efficiency is not lost, but the emphasis is on service to Canadians.
That is a far cry from what we hear today. Today we hear the Minister of Transport trying to throw the country back 100 years with his concept of "let the user pay." Mind you, this "let the user pay" concept is pretty selective. It is pretty clear that some users will be paying a much higher percentage of the cost than others. It is also clear that some parts of this country are going to pay a lot more for transportation than others. I am not just talking about the dollar cost of taking a train, nor am I talking just about the dollar cost of shipping material from one place to another; I am talking about the cost of unemployment in parts of Canada, both in social and economic terms, and the destruction of the potential for job-producing secondary industry.
If this government was really concerned about these problems, it would present this House with a comprehensive transportation policy. The government would present us with a policy which we could debate, analyse and legislate on. It would show the people of Canada exactly how parliament intended to use transportation over the coming years and what could be expected across this country because of it. Instead, the government is surreptitiously making changes in a "half-fast" way which masquerades as a transportation policy.
For example, the government announces a cutback in transcontinental rail service by sending the matter to a committee of the Canadian Transport Commission, giving the committee instructions that can only result in the choice of alternative cutbacks. For example, this government chooses to change freight rate arrangements at a time when commissions are already studying the subject. While this goes on, low-income Canadians and the poor regions of Canada continue to suffer from policies aimed at keeping them in their place.
In northern Ontario particularly, where I come from, freight rates for years have played a major role in preventing the growth of secondary industry. Relative to Ontario as a whole, northern Ontario suffers from stagnant population growth, a lack of growth in employment, a high rate of emigration and low levels of per capita income. As a result of that emigration, northern Ontario will lose one federal seat in this House, dropping from 12 to 11.
Transportation Policy
The fact is that the economics of transportation are such that they tend to favour the transportation of materials in their unprocessed state to their final destination. This has pretty obvious implications for areas based on the production of prime products, such as northern Ontario. We do not have a great deal of information on this subject, for the very reason the minister gave in the House earlier today: he said the railway companies have never provided us with their freight rate structures and the costing of their rates.
Why can the government not act on behalf of Canadians and demand from the railway companies their freight rate structures? This is a veritable jungle, and if the government cannot get that information from the railway companies, how can it plan any kind of program? How can it put into place any kind of transportation policy, when it does not have the facts? It seems to me the government should obtain these facts before it takes all the little band-aids off all the little sores across the country.
Over the years we have gained some information. Here are some examples I was able to get my hands on in 1974. These examples amply illustrate the discriminatory manner in which present freight rate structures discriminate against northern Ontario and areas like ours. It costs about $9 to ship a ton of iron ore pellets from Copper Cliff, which is in my riding, to Pittsburgh, a distance of 800 miles. But it costs about $90 to ship a ton of fertilizer, a manufactured product, from Toronto to Sudbury, a distance of 242 miles. A 500-pound shipment from Kirkland Lake to Toronto costs $95.20 a ton for a distance of 398 miles. The same sized shipment from Winnipeg to Udora, Saskatchewan, a distance of 394 miles, would cost only $55.20 a ton. Using another example, shipments of plywood from Hearst, northern Ontario, to Eugene, Oregon, cost $74.80 a ton. But similar plywood can be shipped by rail from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, to Eugene, Oregon, for only $60 a ton-despite the fact that Dartmouth is 1,000 miles farther from Eugene than Hearst is.
Here is another example. A shipment of forest products from Kapuskasing to Green Bay, Wisconsin, must travel a circuitous route via Detroit, travelling a total distance of 1,449 miles. A shorter route via Sault Ste. Marie to Michigan would mean a journey of only 625 miles, but the railways will not authorize this. It is pretty clear from information like this that those rates and routes unreasonably discourage the growth of primary and secondary industry in the north. This is discrimination which the present national transportation policy is supposed to eliminate. Yet the discrimination exists because this government will not institute a rational transportation policy for this country based on service to our citizens rather than based on corporate benefits.
If anyone doubts the effect this has on the north, all one has to do is to study the latest census data comparing northern Ontario with Ontario as a whole. In Ontario 22.3 per cent of the work force is involved in managerial, administrative and clerical work. In the north, the figure is
15.1	per cent. But a better example is in the area of machining, product fabricating, assembling and repairing:
12.1	per cent of the Ontario work force is involved in those jobs, but for northern Ontario the figure is only 8.3 per cent.

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
In Sudbury, for example, when the world price for nickel is buoyant and the two levels of governement, federal and provincial, are threatened into bribing INCO and Falcon-bridge to produce there rather than at their branch plants abroad, there is a boom in employment in the north. But in the bust, when the lay-offs come, my area faces severe unemployment. When this happens, the community begins to disintegrate as families drift away to other locations in search of work. The economic base of the community fails as taxes decline and the community as a whole suffers. And do not think the companies do not know the power they hold in that part of Ontario.
Secondary industry in the north would break the strangle-hold of those companies by providing alternative employment and by broadening the economic base of the community, thus minimizing adverse effects in any slowdown in the resource sector for whatever reason. But this situation is not peculiar to northern Ontario alone. The people of western Canada have for years experienced development problems directly related to the lack of any national and comprehensive transportation system. The people of western Canada have traditionally opposed the railway monopolies which sought to make enormous profits off their backs, and over the years they have won some fights. The result of one of these fights was the creation of the Crowsnest rate arrangement which guaranteed fair prices for the shipping of their products.
It was MP Reynold Rapp who in the early sixties introduced a bill in this House whereby rapeseed would be included under those rate arrangements. This allowed rapeseed to be delivered in the east or the west at the lowest possible rates. These rate arrangements meant that western farmers could move their grain to market at reasonable costs, and in return the railway companies got other considerations.
But now the minister wants to give the companies more than the healthy profits they already enjoy on freight. In fact, commissions have been set up to study this whole problem. But the transport ministry has prejudged the outcome of the Hall commission and the Snavely commission, presently examining this problem, by his recent actions on rapeseed products freight rates and his proposal for increased seaway tolls. The Minister of Transport talks about consultation, but it appears he has already made up his mind without consulting the provinces. The order in council of April 13 removing rapeseed oil and meal was made only five days after mailing the latest cost information to the provinces, which they view to be inadequate and inaccurate.
The federal government is reneging on its promise at the western economic opportunities conference in 1973 to support further processing of raw materials in the west. Compensatory rates for movement of rapeseed products places the total western rapeseed crushing and processing industry in jeopardy. It will increase the anomaly in favour of crushing rapeseed in eastern Canada over crushing it in western Canada.
The minister's "the user shall pay" policy will wipe out any hope of transportation being used to achieve broad national, social and economic goals. People will be discriminated against because of where they live. The freight

rate structure which discourages processing in western Canada will only worsen regional disparities.
According to successive Liberal and Tory governments, westerners are not supposed to be able to process their own products in western Canada. They are supposed to grow the raw product and send it to central Canada for manufacturing, then buy it back. This latest freight rate controversy on rapeseed products has caused a great deal of disappointment among western Canadians. It is quite clear that the federal government has abandoned its promise to eliminate the freight rate discrimination on processed western products in favour of having the processing done in eastern Canada. The further suggestion to solve this problem by increasing the freight rate on unprocessed rapeseed is another attack on the Crowsnest rates before the results of the Hall and Snavely commissions are completed. The work of these commissions and of the people who appeared at formal hearings is being ignored by the rhinister who has already made up his mind.
The minister has been playing around for two years with feed grains on the open market. The producers have shown a distinct preference for dealing through the Canadian Wheat Board rather than the open market. Now the Wheat Board will be required to offer feed grains at prices competitive with those of U.S. corn. Reducing the feed freight assistance will mean lower feed grain prices to western producers. This feed grains policy will also put the western livestock producer at a disadvantage with respect to the eastern livestock producer. In western Canada, as in northern Ontario, Canadians are being treated as hewers of wood and drawers of water. The Minister of Transport is perpetuating and intensifying this problem through policies which discriminate against the establishment of secondary industry in the prairies and northern Ontario. Recent attempts to raise costs for the use of the St. Lawrence Seaway is another example of a change in our transportation policy that will cost our western farmers plenty, without any thought for the social and economic costs beyond the crass concept of "let the user pay".
Now let us turn to Atlantic Canada. The Atlantic provinces are in the same boat as the west and northern Ontario. The specific example I have chosen to exemplify the transportation mess in Atlantic Canada is Bill C-61. The theory behind Bill C-61 is that it will give Canadian shipping a boost, and to a lesser extent the Canadian shipbuilding industry. The bill makes it mandatory that ships sailing from one Canadian port to another Canadian port must be of Canadian registry.
Canadian shippers and the SIU strongly agree with this bill, for their own reasons. The SIU is hoping for expanded membership, and the Canadian shippers, a relative handful of companies, would have no foreign competitors. There is an exemption clause in Bill C-61 which is very germane to this particular transportation problem, and which will allow firms to ship with foreign flags if there are no Canadian vessels available. This clause is vague and subjective. The government could veto shipping contracts if a Canadian shipper offered a vessel, no matter what the cost difference. Companies are not going to expose themselves to such a hazardous proposition. Already one firm has claimed that it will not build in Cape Breton because of the
June 11, 1976

proposed changes. This was in regard to iron ore. It will be cheaper to send the iron ore to Rotterdam, in Europe, than from Ungava to Cape Breton for processing.
Canadian shippers, perhaps in anticipation of the bill, have drastically raised their fees, forcing marginally profitable firms like SYSCO to switch to commonwealth ships. If this measure passes, the maritimes will be at the mercy of these shippers. For this law to work, this government must build a Crown-owned merchant marine, but unfortunately the government makes no such guarantee. Hence, we may inherit the worst of both worlds.
Presently, shipping rates are having the effect of keeping down rail and trucking rates in coastal areas, because if there is a significant difference firms will shift business to the cheapest of the three means of transport. If this bill is passed it is sure to cause a rise in shipping costs. Transport minister Jack Davis of British Columbia, for example, estimates that this measure could mean increases of 30 per cent for rail and marine shipping. Salt from Nova Scotia mines will be put at a comparative disadvantage, for example, with Rumanian salt. Worst of all-and this could be disastrous for Cape Breton-it could mean a cancellation of the steel complex for Cape Breton because of increased shipping costs and the fact that it will be cheaper to process Canadian ore abroad rather than in the Atlantic area.
What about rail passenger transportation? If the government was really interested in presenting this country with a useful transportation policy, now is the time to call for hearings to find out what the people of Canada want and need. However, instead of having people involved in planning a new transportation strategy for Canada, we have them reacting to a three-page outline by the Canadian Transport Commission on alternative cutbacks in passenger service from Montreal to points west. We are offered no supporting papers which deal with the social or over-all economic costs of these measures. There is nothing at all. These are hearings held in a vacuum.
In the meantime, the railway companies are allowed to cut back services. The CNR is dropping one of its transcontinental trains this summer, when the Olympics will be on and when people will need to be moved across this country. While waiting for the government to develop a policy, the Minister of Transport has ordered the companies not to purchase any more rail passenger equipment. The CNR is retiring 50 passenger rail cars, which will amount to 15 per cent of its passenger capacity. When it comes to improving Canadian rail passenger service, all this seems to come under Professor Parkinson's third law which states that delay is the deadliest form of denial.
In my opinion, policy formation is the responsibility of the people's elected representatives, not the role of appointed individuals in the CTC, and even when the government does decide to improve rail service it does so in the most absurd way. For example, let us look at the recent government decision to give the CPR $30 million to upgrade its service between Montreal and Quebec City. Canadian Pacific has never indicated any interest in rail passenger service in the corridor between Quebec City and Montreal. It is the CNR which has shown the people of Canada that it is interested in passenger service. The CNR
Transportation Policy
has shown an interest in improving rail passenger service, but the CNR did not get the $30 million.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), but his 20-minute time allotment has expired. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I just say that you adorn the chair very well, and you appear to be a person with the impartiality we in this House would like. Of course, we have received that from Mr. Speaker, but you seem to fit into that chair very well and I am glad to see you sitting in that place.
In view of the fact that our time is limited, I would like to start off my remarks by complimenting the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) on the very important motion he has brought to the attention of the House. This motion is of great concern to a good number of people in our country, dealing as it does with matters relating to transportation, a most important topic in a country the size of Canada.
I am sorry that the minister is not able to be here this afternoon for this very important debate, but I see that his parliamentary secretary is here. I am sure that in his usual way he will take notes and relate all the information which comes from this side of the House to the minister in the hope that it will have some effect upon him. I am sorry to say that during the time the minister has been in his portfolio he has not taken advice or had the consultation which I think is expected of a minister of transport in an area which has been referred to-and was referred to again today-by the minister's predecessor, as being a mess.
I listened with great interest to the minister's comments today relating to his theory and his concept of transportation in Canada. Much of what he said is quite true. I say that in the spirit of attempting to have a dialogue with the minister relating to transportation matters in Canada. I think it is most important that this matter be dealt within a non-partisan debate. It should be dealt with in a debate without partisan consideration, in which there could be consensus throughout the land. I commend that attitude to the minister.
I hope the minister will change his present attitude with respect to developing transportation policies in Canada, because the evidence we have before us is that he is making, not only piecemeal decisions before coming to any firm conclusion with respect to transportation policy for Canada, but he is doing so without the benefit of full consultation with those involved in transportation. I think the example of transcontinental rail passenger service, mentioned by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), is a good one. That is an area in which the minister has not carried out discussions across Canada. Rather, he has given a directive to the CTC with respect to a policy to be implemented, an irreversible policy, and he has sent the CTC out under the guise of consultation when everyone knows that the die is cast in that regard.
I am not alone in suggesting that the minister is instituting a transportation policy of his own which is on a piecemeal basis. A very respected spokesman for western agriculture, in the person of E. K. Turner, president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, saw fit to put out a press

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
release recently in which he pointed out that the minister has in fact been instituting his own transportation policy. He has not done so in any co-ordinated way but, rather, on a piecemeal basis and no one knows for sure whether one part will fit with the others. Mr. Turner condemns the government for operating in that fashion. Therefore, I hope the minister will heed some of the criticism from very responsible people across Canada and give a little more thought to getting some advice from people who have knowledge and expertise in the area of transportation, as well as from people who are affected by changes in transportation policy.
In concluding this part of my remarks, I want also to remind the minister that, as I understand it, he made a commitment to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that the committee would have the full responsibility of investigating national transportation policy. As I understood the minister, he would not be introducing any policies with respect to transportation until the committee had had a full opportunity to investigate the subject. I am sorry to say that what we have had in committee has been, almost exclusively, representations and submissions by officials of the department. On a limited basis we had a number of opportunities to deal with certain aspects of transportation, notably through a trip to the west coast recently.
Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary seems to indicate another position, but I am sure he will have an opportunity to make a speech this afternoon. I have to make a confession, Mr. Speaker. It is an awful thing to have to say, but I must bare my soul. The parliamentary secretary is a former student of mine. To paraphrase the Prime Minister's remark: Where have I gone wrong?
I want to address my remarks primarily to the area of rail passenger service. Here is an example of the kind of ill-considered policy that has been rammed down our throats without full consultation and an opportunity to consider its implications for the people of Canada. I find that policy incredible for any minister of transport, but particularly incredible for a minister from western Canada. I have referred to the fact that the former minister of transport, now the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), referred to transportation in Canada as being in a mess. He was not kidding, Mr. Speaker. I do not think the extent of this mess was revealed to us in the statement made by the present minister about the federal government's new rail passenger policy at the end of last January.
In introducing the policy, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) said that although Canada has extensive rail passenger services, they have been allowed to deteriorate so that Canadians no longer have a fair incentive to use them. He added that this was in no way due to any fault on the part of those who operate the trains, but to a combination of management and government policies which could only produce losses and worsening service. Losses, according to the minister, amounted to $167 million in 1974 and are increasing. He went on to say that losses may amount to $400 million by 1980 if changes are not made.
This sounds like a very ominous forecast. But what are the facts? The Department of Transport, in my estimation,
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.l
seems to have a bias against passenger rail. Like bees to honey, they swarm around glamour projects such as STOL, the short take-off and landing aircraft. The government has spent over $150 million on STOL, the heavily subsidized "new baby", only to have Mr. Kirkwood, the senior assistant deputy minister, inform me and my colleagues on the transport committee in February that they have no idea what to do about STOL now that the demonstration project is over. What we are witnessing is another hydrofoil case which involved a loss to our taxpayers of $52 million spent on a vessel designed to carry passengers over water at fast speeds, the Bras d'Or which now sits propped up and dejected on the shore at Halifax as a very expensive wallflower.
The Minister of Transport states that rail passenger service does not pay its way, therefore rationalization is needed. In the department's terms, "rationalization" is defined as "reductions". Why is it that a government which sinks $400 million into the Pickering airport and then suspends its construction, gags over a $160 million loss on rail passenger services? There are many examples of areas where the federal government picks up losses and deficits with respect to essential services. For example, the government picks up the $26 million annual deficit incurred by the Canadian National cargo and ferry service on the coast of Newfoundland.
A research study shows that Canada lags five years behind the United States, ten years behind the United Kingdom, and 20 years behind France in new rail passenger service concepts. The same study shows that passenger trains in Canada are "almost always late" and that rail operations in Canada are "more dangerous than other systems", recording, in 1972, 12 times more derailments and three times more collisions per train mile, twice as many passenger deaths and 17 times the number of rail employee deaths and injuries than France, for example.
Although the federal government is just beginning to admit it, the Canadian public has been aware for years that our railway passenger transportation system is in a state of deterioration. Certainly, during my time in parliament we in the opposition have been pressing the government to develop a national transportation policy, including rail passenger service-a policy that would be integrated, less costly, workable and fair to all parts of the country. In June, 1975, the former minister of transport stated in his overview of policy proposals that transportation should be an instrument of economic and social development.
With special reference to rail transportation, section 18(1) of the Canadian National Railways Act states that the railways of the Canadian National Railways "are hereby declared to do works for the general advantage of Canada". The Minister of Transport, in a letter dated April 5, 1976, to His Worship Mayor T. J. Cavanagh of Edmonton, Alberta, stated that the rail passenger policy was put forward in explicit recognition of the key role that railway passenger services play, not only in the direct provision of transportation services but also in terms of employment, tourism and many other facets of the economies of all regions of Canada.
But the government's response to this date has been to submit the country to policy reversals dazzling in their frequency and continued ineptitude. Premier Alex Camp-
June 11, 1976

bell of Prince Edward Island has stated that the new policy statement on rail passenger service left him cold and confused. He found that the notion that the transportation system can serve as a development tool contradicted the idea that it could also be self-sufficient.
The government's entire transportation policy seems to be devoted to, and the Minister of Transport seems obsessed with, the "user pay" concept. This, I suggest, is one of the problems we face with this government: they only see things in black and white and have no flexibility in their approach to a transportation policy. There is absolutely no room for any deviation. Once the minister has in his mind that it is going to be a "user pay" concept, that means it will be a "user pay" concept whether it hurts or not.
The minister has referred to band-aid measures. He was trying to make us believe that the government is a brand new one and is going to cure all the woes of past years which got us into this mess by applying band-aids. Once you take them off, of course, it causes pain and suffering. Once the sores are exposed, they are susceptible to a kind of gangrene. That is what could happen to the transportation policy. It is the government's responsibility to act in a responsible manner, and not impose black and white concepts on us as these will have serious economic consequences.
I do not disagree with the "user pay" concept in the right circumstances, but what bothers me about the minister's approach is its inflexibility. The principle of "user pay" must be weighed against what I consider the more important policy principle-the principle that transportation is an instrument of national policy and a tool of regional development. In my view, the geographical distance of Canada makes residents of the different parts of this country remote from each other and an exception to the objective of commercial viability is necessary to allow rail passenger services to fulfil the role of linking this country. The previous minister of transport agreed to let the standing Committee on Transport and Communications review recent government studies.
I hear thunder outside, Mr. Speaker, and I know He is with us as well, bringing lightning down on the heads of the government.


An hon. Member:: You mean "she".


An hon. Member:: Hitler said the same, with a thick German accent.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I know some hon. members opposite are more expert than I am about what happened in other countries. I am merely pointing out the inadequate policies introduced by the government. The promise of the previous minister has not materialized. There has not been a full review on the part of the committee. It was my impression that the new policy was to be instituted only after the committee had been given the opportunity to conduct a full investigation. Then, before the committee was able to complete its consideration of a national transport policy, the present minister, on January 29, made a statement about passenger rail service. The minister's statement was a dramatic reversal of the government's rail passenger
Transportation Policy
policy as enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on June 18, 1974, at Cornwall. I see the hon. member from Cornwall present in the House. He may remember the Prime Minister's glowing remarks which were instrumental, no doubt, in the hon. member's being elected to sit on the government side.


Walter David Baker: Now the Prime Minister's words are a millstone around his neck.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: On that occasion the Prime Minister did not mention any form of physical removal of passenger rail service: he promised, instead, as the hon. member no doubt remembers, additional services. A Canadian passenger corporation would be established by the government to operate all intercity passenger train services and to set up transcontinental excursion trains to supplement the existing cross-country services. That was quite a speech. I see the hon. member smiling, no doubt as he fondly remembers the Prime Minister's promises. The Prime Minister said that there would be increased provision on the transcontinental services of piggyback carriage of private automobiles so that persons taking the excursion runs could use their own cars at their destination.
The backtracking came quickly. To the Speech from the Throne of 1974, and the tabled statements on rail passenger policy, was added the sneaky proviso that transportation policy would be implemented within the means of the financial resources of the federal government. During the last federal election campaign the Liberal party did not mention in any way that transportation policies would be subject to financial restrictions.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that transportation is a top priority which should not be hindered by financial restraints or rationalization. I will not dwell on the discrepancy between government promises in the last election campaign and the reality of government transportation policy, but will add that the Prime Minister himself said during the last election campaign that Liberal promises would not be "pie in the sky." Now, on the minister's instructions, the Canadian Transport Commission is holding public hearings with a view to reorganizing the rail passenger system by 1980, dropping some duplicate services and improving operation in the heavily populated Quebec City-Windsor corridor. I contend that the government's true intention is not so much to reorganize our rail passenger service as to reduce substantially the service in some parts of the country or wipe it out completely.
The Minister of Transport's new rail passenger policy has created great apprehension throughout the land. To cite just one example, in his own city, Saskatoon, the city council passed an emergency resolution expressing disapproval of any proposal to reduce transcontinental rail passenger service. It expressed particular opposition to the reduction or discontinuance of any such service passing through Saskatoon.
The new, so-called self-sufficent policy announced by the Minister of Transport has run into considerable opposition, particularly in the maritimes and the west which will apparently feel the brunt of the new policy. I hope it is only a coincidence that the only area of Canada promised new initiatives and expenditures in rail passenger travel, the area between Quebec City and Windsor, is an area

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
largely represented by members of parliament supporting the government.
The minister says he must phase out non-profitable rail passenger service because too few people use trains and they are not paying their way. I disagree with the statement presented to the Canadian Transport Commission earlier this year that passengers have deserted the railways. I believe passengers were driven away by government policies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. Unfortunately, the time allotted to him under the Standing Order has expired.


Mr. A. C. Abbott (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I join other hon. members in appreciating your presence in the chair this afternoon. This day's debate is particularly interesting as it deals with the difficulties parliament and the government can encounter in bringing about needed changes and in changing old ideas. Of course, change runs counter to Tory philosophy, perhaps best expressed by a Tory in Great Britain, whose name escapes me, who said, "Any change at any time, for any reason, is to be deprecated."
The minister has taken on a massive job in looking into the history of his department. He is examining a mass of regulatory sacred cows and is determined to change at least basic principles, even if some things are not to be changed overnight. He has suggested that the cost of this enormous transportation apparatus should be borne fundamentally by users unless a good case can be made to the contrary. This does not mean that there are not instances throughout the country, possibly in every constituency, calling for subsidy and assistance. But the basic argument proposed by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is unassailable, I suggest.
The minister asks, "Why should someone be given a free or a subsidized rate, at the expense of someone else, if that situation can be corrected without endangering the fundamental economic viability of the area in question? He suggests, also, that it is more sensible to subsidize directly an area in which the assistance will do the most good. These policies show the minister to be tough but farsighted. If Canadian transport policy is in a mess, as has been alleged, or in difficulty, the surest way to create order is by applying the kinds of solutions he has recommended.
Numerous examples respecting the transportation question have been cited. I think the most graphic one drawn by the minister showed that bus travellers pay for their service entirely; automobile passengers are subsidized at the rate of .5 cent per mile; air travellers at 2 cents per mile, and rail travellers at 6 cents per mile. The minister asks, "Is it fair to ask the bus traveller to pay his fare and a portion of the train traveller's fare as well?"
Let me say a word about airports. There is a major airport in my constituency. Airports are extremely costly facilities. The government has been criticized for allowing airports in the past to be built without considering, first, efficient use and convenience of passengers who must use them. Too often, airports have been built as large entertainment centres, where people see travellers off or greet them. This has created enormous parking problems.

The "user pay" principle, as far as it relates to federal government airports and related aviation facilities, is aimed at placing a fairer share of the cost of the burden on the shoulders of that section of the Canadian public which benefits most from the use of any particular transport facility. For instance, it is well known that only between 10 per cent and 15 per cent of our population actually use our aviation facilities. The cost of building and maintaining these facilities has increased at an incredible steadily growing rate in recent years. At the same time, the government is keeping well in mind that the cost of certain aviation facilities, such as those in the Arctic, should continue to be borne by the public, or the taxpayer. In that category also come such things as government support for airport development and improvements which may be part of a regional economic development program, the provision of airport facilities and services for remote regions and other, similar regional and national undertakings.
The framework for user charges was provided for in the National Transportation Act of 1967 in which it was stipulated that each mode of transport in Canada, as far as was practicable, should bear a fair proportion of the real costs involved in providing that mode of transport. It can be shown that in 1976 or 1977 the Department of Transport's air transportation administration will be seeking parliamentary approval of a non-budgetary appropriation totalling some $385 million, as well as approximately $75 million in increased loan authority to support the international airports at Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Therefore, the total air program will be around $460.7 million.
The deficit in the next fiscal year has been estimated at $225.3 million. Because of the burgeoning costs of operating our aviation facilities, a number of user fee charges have been introduced this year. These include a 30 per cent increase in national fees and an increase from $33 to $50 per flight in respect of using North Atlantic facilities. I will not go into further detail. I do not think this is of particular interest beyond stating that it is a specific major example where, notwithstanding an increase in user fees, the Canadian taxpayers, 85 per cent of whom do not have anything to do with flying, are paying a very large proportion of this cost. Those of us who travel regularly by air are the beneficiaries. What the Minister of Transport is saying is that as a basic, underlying principle of policy, the user should pay in full for the product he is using unless it can be demonstrated that a wider public interest dictates otherwise.
In the United States, many major airports have been built, with the airlines being obliged to subscribe to the bond issues that finance the construction. The price that they pay is high, but this is compensated by the fact that they can dictate to a large extent how the airports will be laid out and how they will be most efficiently utilized. In this country we have a different procedure. I am gratified to find that in this area and in others citizens who use the facilities, or those companies who ship the products, must be prepared to pay.
We see throughout government that one of the problems is that history may have baked our cake, as someone once said. We in this parliament must be prepared, not in this area of government alone but in many others, to consider
June 11, 1976

that while the programs as formulated were adequate and proper at the time, they may require change. We should not build up sacred cows, unchangeable objectives, and rebel when positive reform is offered. If we run up large annual deficits in this country, a good proportion of them are borne by projects which have served their purpose and are now in need of reform and scaling down. This is true right across the board, whether it be unemployment insurance, health costs or transportation. If we are wedded to programs, we will not make the reforms or changes which would deprive the people for whom they were designed, but will make them more efficient and reduce the cost to the taxpayers.
I fail to see why every time a policy is proposed to parliament which has as its objective saving the taxpayers money without impairing the program, the Tories in particular turn on the minister who brings them forward, even though they would reduce the impact and burden of government financing, freeing moneys for other purposes.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Wrong.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: It is true, and it is not true on only one side of the House. I think all of us resist change. We are all tempted to say that if it was good enough for grandfather, it is good enough for me. I do not think it brands one, despite the comment of one of my colleagues, that as a Conservative there is a need to change something. There are many programs which have been designed, all of them by Liberal governments which this country-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Your modesty is overwhelming.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: It is the truth. There has not been a social program provided in this country, on a national basis, that has not been provided by Liberals, over the opposition of Conservatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Liberals are equal to the challenge of saying that we do not regard these programs as written in stone. We are prepared to make changes because we want to allocate the resources of this country in the best possible manner. In transportation, as in many other areas, there are only so many dollars to spend. Now that we have tough, capable ministers who are ready to face the music and reform the programs under their administration, all of us can have confidence in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) reminds me of a secretary who once wrote speeches for a politician.


Ralph Goodale: Now he is Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Fred Alward McCain: He took quite a promotion. Wait until the next election. That is the one we are waiting for.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: When that politician was stuck for a source of fact, he always had a phrase in his speech which was,
Transportation Policy
"Grisdale says". That was his source of reference. Grisdale was a man who had a great capacity for knowledge and was famous for many sayings. The hon. member for Mississauga, in his reference to the Tories, was using a "Grisdale". He was not using a Tory, nor was he quoting directly from anybody; he was merely attacking-and that is his prerogative.
Every member of this House recognizes that there must be change. It is not simply the characteristic of the government, the Conservatives or the NDP. Every person, regardless of his political philosophy, recognizes that our transportation system, which literally built this country, must now be adapted to fit what it built. Change we must support, but change must make for the better. It must not add to the confusion. This is what a multitude of Canadians fear as change is proposed at this moment in time in the transportation structure.
The policy as outlined this morning by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is purely theoretical. Scientists may sit down and rely on the law of gravity. They may rely on the laws of mathematics and may be accurate in the conclusions as they calculate solutions to the problems that face them, because those laws are inflexible and continuous; they are dependable. However, when one starts to deal with something such as the laws of economics and modes of transportation, one finds oneself in an entirely different situation where a single, simple formula does not fit the needs of the people to be served. Such in the case in the field of transportation: it is theoretical; it is not realistic.
Let me cite an example. The minister stated this morning that we should not be moving grain by rail in Canada; we should, instead, be exporting beef. Theoretically, this is a perfectly good statement; but in fact we are not competitive, in world markets, in beef. Most of the time we are not quite self-sufficient in beef products. It is therefore ridiculous to discuss the idea of turning corn into beef to sell, for example, to Italy, a country which could not afford to pay for it anyway.
Our farmers could not possibly live on the return for beef which the world market would bring us. I can envisage, too, that if we entered this trade our competitors would cut the price under us. On the markets of this continent, yes, our producers could survive although they have gone through hard times, but on the markets of the world we are really not competitive.
If we were to follow the pattern the minister suggests we would certainly dislocate a number of the economic structures which exist in this country, not only in the West and in the Atlantic area. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), the economy of certain areas depends to a very large extent on the system of railway rates presently in existence. The existence of these arrangements allows those sectors of the economy to remain in business, whether it be the apple growers of Nova Scotia, the wheat farmers of the prairies, or those who grow vegetables in central Canada; they depend upon their ability to get their goods to market at reasonable cost of transportation related to the weight and value of the produce.

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
The minister's theory breaks down because he fails to take into account the aspect of competition and the abnormalities which exist in the rate structure. I could give a number of examples, but again I will refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Nickel Belt. He pointed out that far too many rates are now based on what the traffic will bear; they are in no way related to compensation for the service rendered.
The mess which was described by a former minister of transport is one which was created by the party which has been in power in Canada virtually uninterrupted for 50 years, so when the present minister referred to band-aid solutions he was referring to the band-aid solutions applied by his predecessors. When he referred to decisions taken for political reasons he was referring to decisions taken by his predecessors-and in somewhat uncomplimentary terms. The policy which is in operation today is not a Conservative policy nor is it an NDP policy. It is a Liberal policy, and it has been for 50 years.
There is a fourth reason why the minister's suggestion that transport be placed on a user pay basis will not work out. I defy him to say to the urbanites of Montreal, Ottawa or Winnipeg, "You will pay the full cost of transportation in your city." It simply would not work. And just as it would not work in the urban areas, it would not work in the rural areas and all points between. No government anywhere has been able to make an airport pay for itself. There will be subsidies.
Let me turn to the Seaway. The minister spoke in deprecatory terms with respect to subsidies and those who rely upon them-it was the phrase "those who rely upon them" which some of us found offensive, and I might add that the objections did not all come from the Atlantic area. There is, by legislation, a subsidy paid to the maritime region under a measure known as the Maritime Freight Rates Act. Relate this to the Seaway.
The Seaway was opened in 1959. The fee structure was established in such a way, we were told, that not only would it pay for maintenance costs but it would amortize the cost of construction and, in the end, not cost Canadian taxpayers a nickel. Mr. Speaker, I submit that if the total investment in the Seaway were added up today one would find that this undertaking owes the Canadian people a billion dollars, and if this were to be financed in today's terms the amount of money paid to the Atlantic area would be less than 25 per cent of the interest charges alone on the amount of money the Seaway owes Canadians. Is the minister prepared to say to the City of Montreal, for example, "You will pay the actual cost of operations on the Seaway?" Try that one on for political size.


An hon. Member:: What about Saint John?


Fred Alward McCain: We will come to that, all in good time. Here are at least three instances in which the user pay concept could not possibly be applied to the nth degree, even politically.
There are other instances which might be mentioned. Sacred cows? Political realities? They may be more than that. There may be economic realities, and they may in the end be in the interest of the nation. I do not really agree with the idea that the federal government should be paying subsidies to any part of Canada. But if there are not

to be subsidies, let me point out right away that the anomalies in freight rates which we were supposed to get rid of long ago, according to the former minister of transport, still exist. For instance, there is the $90 rate to Nickel Belt referred to a little while ago, as compared with the $45 rate for iron pellets to Pittsburgh. These are anomalies we cannot afford. Cannot we obtain rational rates which relate to the ton-mile cost, or the cost the shipper or the consumer can bear? Let us change the system by all means, but change it in a way which will bring about a better transportation structure, one which will be of benefit to the total economy.
Criticism has frequently been expressed about what is happening to passenger service. In the past 50 years or so the government never paid serious attention to the service which was being rendered by the railroads as passenger service was being phased out. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, have had the same experience as I had when I waited three hours in the bowels of the station in Windsor in trying to get a connection between the passenger service of the CPR and the CNR in Nova Scotia. I have waited overnight in the City of Saint John to get from train to boat although both are operated by the same company. I have driven my car-something the minister deplores- because I knew I would not be able to get to Saint John by the passenger service provided and complete my business without having to stay in that city overnight. With that timetable, Mr. Speaker, the operation had to fail.
One of the factors which contributed to the disappearance of express and passenger service was the removal of mail contracts. This has proven to be a sorry decision as far as the effect upon mail delivery is concerned. In former times mail to the east was often delivered over night. It is a rare occasion now, under the present airmail system, for a piece of mail to be delivered over night to my constituency. And so it has been during that period of 50 years under the Liberal administration that this system has gone downhill in every aspect, whether it be freight, passenger or express. It is the only system, Mr. Speaker, in which government has permitted excessive charges for deteriorating services. And the government opposite sat back and watched it happen.
Not too long ago the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) moved a motion in the House with respect to the conditions of the railways in Prince Edward Island. There are no other means of transportation services leaving that island other than rail services. Yet the railroad is in a condition which is unacceptable, deplorable, and incapable of giving proper service to the area. That has happened under 50 years of Liberalism, with a little interruption under the guidance of a Crown corporation. It is no use government trying to avoid the responsibility.
Let me come back to another user pay concept. Bill C-61 has been proposed by the Government of Canada. It is a notable bill and I for one support the principle that Canada should have a merchant marine. No matter what I may say in criticism of that bill, Mr. Speaker, bear in mind that this is my principle and my objective just as much as that of any person inside or outside the House. However, we come back to a theoretical position on the bill presented to the
June 11, 1976

House; we have ignored the practical situation that exists in the economic world in which the act would take effect.
Let me remind the House of some of the comments that have been made but whose authors have not been given the opportunity of presenting their case before the committee or the House. I have before me a telegram from the Atlantic premiers conference, signed by Mr. A. B. Campbell. I wonder who he could be? I think he is the Liberal premier of the province of Prince Edward Island. I will not quote this telegram in full because I do not have time, but it says this in part:
Existing industry and future industrial development in the Atlantic provinces will be seriously affected if this bill, and those regulations of which we have been made aware to date, come into effect.
That telex was dated May 26 last and was directed to the Minister of Transport. Has the telegram been acknowledged, Mr. Speaker? There are those who do not know whether it has. In any event that is the position of the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. MacFarlane:: How do you know this telegram was received?


Fred Alward McCain: There are none so blind as those who will not see. Let us just see, Mr. Speaker, how all this began. We are all fully aware of the Darling report. A multitude of people in the Atlantic area made representations to the group that made the report. Their objections did not appear in the report, nor were they given consideration in the economic conclusions that the report reached.
A meeting was held in camera in Halifax between federal and provincial officials and industry and labour representatives in regard to the Darling report on July 18, 1973. Here is a list of the people who appeared. First of all the provinces made an appearance and their representative said it had been agreed with the then minister, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand), that no action would be taken until the regulations were approved by the provinces.
The Sydney Steel Corporation said the Darling report would hurt them. The Canadian Salt Co. did not favour it because it would hurt them. Dover Flour Mills suggested that they might have to close. Gulf Oil Company were going to have problems. Labrador Linerboard said they were threatened with loss of business. The Maritime Cooperative Services spoke on behalf of the farmers and said that the increased cost of farm requirements would be severe, and they objected. The Atlantic Provinces Transportation Commission presented a brief rejecting the principles as outlined. Smith Brokerage, which deals in grain, said the cost of the proposals would affect the Atlantic area, and they objected.
The pertinent part of the minutes of this meeting is as follows. Labour union opinion-I understand this came from the SIU-was this:
The two representatives expressed their agreement with the recommendations of the Darling report. Noting: the lack of a real national transportation policy; that the government should provide the vessels that are required to move the cargoes-
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that when the corporations complained about the costs that they feared and anticipated, the union recognized, as well as the corporations, that such an act without subsidy would be nothing but detrimental
Transportation Policy
to the manufacturing and shipping industries of the Atlantic area. I repeat that I favour the formation of a Canadian merchant marine, but it must not be a theoretical thing of the sort the minister talked of this morning; it must be practical in every sense of our economic world. One shipper suggested to the transportation committee in Vancouver that if the government would offer tax incentives or other incentives comparable with those given to ships of foreign registry, it might be possible to have in Canada a merchant marine that could operate and have a chance to profit; but the government has said it would not care to do this. I want to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the union representatives recognized fully that this could only happen with government assistance or through incentive of one form or another, even if it supplied the ships to the shippers.
The Halifax Chronicle-Herald for May 19 said that financial incentives are required to encourage a Canadian flag fleet. The Gazette for Tuesday, May 25, carried the headline, "Atlantic Provinces Concerned Over New shipping Act Changes". I could go on to read these editorials, Mr. Speaker, but there just is not time.
Let me come back to the user pay concept. Again the Chronicle-Herald has an editorial from which I wish to quote briefly:
With major markets in the centre of the country, producers in the east and west are placed at a competitive disadvantage .. .
Government simply is determined that there are two classes of users and that one class is to have preferential treatment.
The currently popular policy favours the heart of the country and greatly strengthens the Ontario economy. The price is paid by the west and the east.
That is where the political clout is which the minister was talking about this morning. I should also like to refer to the Halifax Chronicle-Herald for Monday, May 3, 1976. I want to quote a name familiar to the government of the day, Premier Regan, who in this article criticized the program. Then I want to refer to another chap who is familiar to the government of the day, Mr. Jack Davis from B.C. According to the article:
Mr. Davis said last week that the amendments would force shippers to wait for a Canadian flagship to carry his goods if one were available immediately. Premier Regan said if Mr. Davis ran the B.C. transport department the way he ran the federal fisheries department "it's quite possible he could be mistaken."
I like that little comment.
The Gazette for Tuesday, May 25, carried this headline: "Merchant Marine Policy-Cost-Benefit Focus of Study". I want to refer to an article dealing with what members of the committee and those opposed to the act asked for consistently, and to which no one would respond until after the committee had risen and this little snippet appeared in the Gazette:
A key element in forming the recommendations will be a series of cost-benefit studies now under way-
This has neither been acknowledged nor denied by the government in regard to Bill C-61.
-Roland Murray, a senior adviser to the federal transport ministry, told a meeting of the Naval Officers' Association of Canada Montreal branch.
.. . Murray, who heads the board's working committee, said there can be no policy recommendations to the transport minister until the board sees the conclusions of 20 studies it has commissioned covering such

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
areas as international agreements, labour, shipping rates, and shipping in the Arctic.
Despite this statement by a high ranking official in the government, only as recently as last Wednesday the government was trying to rush this bill through by June 30. I suggest that we need the kind of change called for by the hon. member for Mississauga. Above all, one of the things we need is a change in the way policy decisions are reached, as well as a change in the way legislation is framed so that people may be guided in what they do. This Marine Code Act, including its most recently suggested amendment, is enabling legislation. It has "mays" and "mights" and permissions throughout both the act and the regulation. For this reason it leaves the people at the mercy of government policy at the moment in time at which a decision affecting industry is to be made. If that policy at that moment is unfavourable then industry will suffer the consequences.
I want to give one assurance to the minister while I am in the process of these remarks.


An hon. Member:: Where is the minister?


Fred Alward McCain: I do not know, but he is not in Halifax. They had a transportation week down in the Halifax area and the minister was to be the guest speaker. He advised certain people in the Atlantic area that he was sorry he could not be there because there was an important vote in the House of Commons. I want to assure the minister that anytime he has an important transportation meeting anywhere in the Atlantic area which is to the benefit of that area, he can count on me or any other maritime member on this side of the House to be his pair. He will not be hurt as long as it is beneficial to the Atlantic area.


An hon. Member:: You better talk with your party whip.


Fred Alward McCain: I do not have to talk to my whip. I do not worry about getting his permission in circumstances like that because he, Sir, is a generous and trustworthy individual. I just want the minister to know that when he wants to make an announcement we will protect his vote, even though I do not believe in pairing.


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I have some rather specific points to make with regard to the subject of this opposition day.
One of the major transportation problems of our country is the establishment of a rational, efficient, and flexible system for the shipment of grain from the prairie provinces to Canada's ports and then overseas to our export markets. While this is an issue of interest to all Canadians, it is of particular concern to those of us in the western part of this country, whether in the prairie provinces where the grain is produced, or in British Columbia where we haye had, at the same time, the most attractive and effective delivery system, and the greatest problems in making that particular system work.
Over the past eight years the volume of overseas grain exports shipped through west coast ports has fluctuated between 37 per cent and 57 per cent of total Canadian grain

exports. On the average the three western grain ports, Vancouver, Victoria, and Prince Rupert, have handled 45 per cent of overseas grain exports, yet these three ports have a total storage capacity of under 27 million bushels while the 30 terminals in eastern Canada have a capacity of over 141 million bushels, that is, five times as great.
I point this out to hon. members not only as a tribute to our current system of western grain exports and to the men and women who make it work, but also as an indication of what can be done if this western system is properly rationalized and suitably upgraded. Two steps in this direction, which I am pleased to note have recently been taken, are the Canadian Wheat Board's program to expand significantly west coast grain storage capacity, and the visit last month by the Transport and Communications Committee to western Canadian communities to study at first hand problems such as those being outlined here today.
One of the visits by the transport committee was to the port of Prince Rupert where members met with a number of local representatives, including Mr. Joe Scott, chairman of the Prince Rupert Port Authority, and the city of Prince Rupert grain co-ordination committee represented by Mayor Lester and Dr. William Hick. I am confident that the members of this committee have returned from their western trip convinced, as I am, that the key to the rationalization and expansion of the western grain exporting system is the port of Prince Rupert.
The problems of shipping grain through Vancouver are numerous and have been discussed in this House on more than one occasion. The advantages of Prince Rupert, however, are just now beginning to be realized. The current single grain elevator in Prince Rupert is owned by the Canadian Grain Commission of the Department of Agriculture, and is currently undergoing a three-year renovation and structural upgrading program. In addition, a facility study is currently being conducted to determine the possibility of increasing the storage capacity of this particular elevator. This study, I am certain, will bring back a positive report.
What is needed to rationalize western grain shipments is a greater utilization of lower volume rail lines; better usage of existing port facilities; an increase in storage capacity in areas where rail congestion and land prices do not make such a step impossible; a more wisely regulated pattern of ship movements; a full recognition of the strategic location of B.C. ports and their relative closeness to Pacific markets; and full co-ordination of the plans and activities of the several federal government departments and agencies involved in the western export of grain.
The first five points can all be facilitated by an increased use of the grain exporting facilities of the port of Prince Rupert. The sixth is already becoming a reality under the more than capable stewardship of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan).
As the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) has indicated by his motion today, it is after all not really a grain problem that we are discussing. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I am indebted to the hon. gentleman for raising this exceptionally relevant topic of interest to every Canadian, and I think particularly relevant to those who are regionally
June 11, 1976

disadvantaged. As a representative of such an area I feel it is important that this sense of regionality be communicated in this House.
In utilization of the ports in my area and, ports not being the only subject, also the utilization of present rail and other transportational infrastructures, we are an adolescent part of the world. Although we are mature in years, utilization has been, to use the minister's word, immature. Ever since the original building of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railroad, which was finally joined in 1912 with the "last spike" at Fort Fraser, in the centre of the constituency of Skeena, our northern half of British Columbia has been overwhelmingly concerned with transportation, and we have been eternally cognizant of the unequal battle that must be waged not only west to east but, similarly, north to south, as we have seen a giant concentration of traffic funnel first to the east, and then an even greater volume south through Vancouver and its environs.
Our CN northline-Edmonton to Red Pass, Red Pass to Prince George, and Prince George to Prince Rupert- seemed to languish, only partially utilized, although it has been acknowledged over and over again as economic and even superior in assessment of coal shipping potential-in fact just the other day I observed an article by an expert on unit trains who said it was possible to deliver grain at $10 a ton to only two ports in Canada, and I am sure the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) will be as happy as I am to know that one of those ports is Halifax and the other is the port of Prince Rupert.
In the transportation of minerals, for instance, the capacity of a rail route from mine to port is gauged by the "ruling grade"; that is, the most severe grade a train must pass on a given line. In the case of all southline traffic from Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia to southern ports, severe grades in the mountains require up to ten 3,000 horsepower locomotives to do what four can do on the CN northline. In addition transport over these reduced grades permits a significant increase in the tonnage that is carried.
In 1976, the CN has scheduled a $100 million capital budget for the mountain region alone. This represents 25 per cent of all capital outlays planned, including equipment, in the whole country. Part of this is for expanded terminal facilities in Vancouver and Edmonton, including two 12-mile sections of double track on the southline. CN anticipates an 80 per cent increase in tonnage in Canada over the next five years. Where will that put us? Double tracking becomes necessary above 35 trains per day. We are certainly a long way from that at the current rate of five trains a day. Estimates are that by 1990 Prince Rupert to Prince George traffic will be up to between eight and ten trains per day, and Prince George to Red Pass will be somewhere between 15 and 19. Now let us take a look at what those trains are or may be carrying in the future.
In the two years between 1972 and 1974 Canada's exports to Japan rose from $957 million to a record $2,220 billion. In imports, Canadians purchased $1,427 billion in producer goods, consumer durables, and non-durables including trucks, motorcycles, and the ever present Japanese cars. As well, a surprising new non-commodity trade is showing
Transportation Policy
strongly as a projected 85,000 Japanese tourists visited Canada in 1975. Eighty per cent of these visitors spent more than 24 hours in this country-and spent money! And they used transportation-air, train and cruiseship, as well as highway travel.
Development between us and our pacific neighbour is the most dynamic element among Canada's trading patterns. British Columbia, the Yukon and Northwest Territories have combined to lead exports with an amount of $1.18 billion in 1974, of which $462 million was copper and $309 million was forest products; these two commodities alone accounted for more than one third of all Canadian export earnings in Japan. A further 53 per cent of Canada's total exports to Japan in 1974 was from the two territories and B. C. You will note that I did not mention coal, which accounted for $229 million in that export basket.
Until the development of northeastern British Columbia coal properties by Utah mines, Dennison, Minolta and Quintette, coal is still mainly a southern B.C. product. Access is coming though to the new Alberta coal field developments such as those I have just mentioned, as well as Coalition Mining, Sukunka and Teck Corporation, and if they are proved viable and economic there will be further access required under the transportation policy.
Last November the government completed an agreement regarding northern railway transportation which would have seen the access improve considerably because of the necessity for resource transportation. I say "would have seen" because this agreement is stalled, even though it generated considerable heat and light-not much light- last December during the B.C. provincial election. We now have the minister of transport for B.C.-whom many members of the House will remember, and whom indeed I remember very well as being the first to quote widely the $1 per ton saving in shipping coal through the CN northline-now seeming to do another about face and seeing in BCR access to Squamish another possibility. I can only hope that we northern British Columbia citizens will not have to live through another protracted political battle with the B.C. railway port of Squamish, and that economics and good sense, and not just politics, will prevail.
The proposed BCR Dease Lake sharing, which would have seen the federal government pay British Columbia $117.5 million in return for a one third sharing of the cost of construction of the CN northline from Terrace to Sus-keena, has met with rejection from the new B.C. government, and so it is back to the drawing board again with a recommencement of negotiation. These transportation linkages are essential for and inseparable from the economic enhancement of northern B.C., and I am pleased to note that the federal Minister of Transport will soon meet with his opposite number in B.C. All I can say to Jack Davis is, "Your new government is now six months old and it is time to get on with the job." We await provincial planning priorities and we await impatiently in northern British Columbia the infrastructure that the north lacks in order that we might become equal partners with the south of our province.
The precedent has been established in Fort Nelson where millions of DREE dollars have been invested in municipal services, notably in sewer systems to the betterment of the community and enhancement of back-up services to indus-
14434

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
trial expansion. If we cannot get B.C. "off the pot" in a reasonable amount of time, then I say, scrap the present agreement, formulate a new transportation and regional development co-ordinated federal policy and go it alone, if we must, to allow regionally deprived areas to survive these troubled times. I say, please do not keep the northern half of this country waiting any longer. Regionally deprived areas need transportation access in order to survive in troubled times, and in my view there are some towns and villages which cannot continue to endure without the implementation at an early date of the subsidy assistance in transportation mentioned by the minister today.
What are we as a nation selling? What does Canada move to market in exports? We export agricultural products and we have a rising market in pork. We export coal, aluminum, zinc, iron, fertilizers, and manufactured goods, furs, radar equipment, power driven hand tools, perfumes, cosmetics, art, antiques and collector's items, and do not forget our tourist trade. We provide ski trips to the Rockies and other western trips which are becoming increasingly important. I remind hon. members that tourism is a labour intensive finished product and a renewable resource, as well as a non-environmentally damaging industry. Quite apart from visitor traffic, there are new transportation linkages and the general cargo terminal at Prince Rupert now awaiting phase three final finishing with a target date for opening in November of this year. Neptune terminals is presently proving the viability of the bulk loading facility at Ridley Island near Prince Rupert which will have further impact on western trade opportunities.
Northwestern British Columbia is not just Prince Rupert. The potential of Kitimat as a complementary resource oriented port is seriously being investigated by other private investors. Recent Kitimat development oriented proposals included a Nippon-Kokan steel mill, and presently Trans-Mountain Pipelines Limited and the Ashland Oil Company are proving the viability of a mid-province oil pipeline. This is one that brings a great deal of concern for a well balanced environmental approach, but in addition to that a very healthy concern that the economic benefits accrue to the area affected by the development of the pipeline. It really does not matter whether it is a pipeline or a grain elevator. The area which is providing the resource has a need to receive the benefits from such a development. These areas require the support of the engineering arm of this government, namely, the transportation facilities.
To the north above Kitimat and Prince Rupert, adjacent to the start of the Alaskan panhandle is the once bustling gold town of Stewart, a place where it is reported that once some 4,000 people lived when it was a gold town. This border area now includes less than 750 souls whose destiny is tied to the illusive price of copper. It is another port probability, another area which is mature and historic but which could benefit mightily from the sensitive administration of the policy the minister has so clearly enunciated today of subsidization to areas as yet undeveloped which are developmentally in need of transportation access to reach maturity and add to the productivity of this nation.
There is another hinterland in the northern part of B.C., the tenth National Harbours Board port in Canada for

Kitimat and Terrace and their untapped resources at this time. These future port, rail, road and communications linkages will, hopefully, bring the Yukon on stream again so far as Canadian transportation is concerned, bringing us back to greater utilization of our own facilities rather than the present practically economic and easily accessible Alaskan gateways of Skagway and Juneau. I look forward to the linking of Prince George through Watson Lake with the Mackenzie Valley as a development which common sense tells us must happen at some point in the not too distant future.
To perceive the world of the Pacific rim in all its variety I ask hon. members, this late Friday afternoon, to imagine a mathematics compass with Hawaii as your centre point. Inscribe a circle as broad as the world's biggest ocean. This Pacific circle has Alaskan and Russian shorelines to the north and west; there are China, Japan and a wealth of emerging and re-emerging small nations; further south are Australia and New Zealand, our Commonwealth neighbours. Then wing over to Antarctica, and eastwards up the coast of Chile and her southern hemisphere neighbours, Peru and Equador, to Central America, Mexico, the United States, and on to our home turf, the long coastline of British Columbia. This is the geography of future trade opportunities, each as potentially rewarding as the one we currently pursue with Japan.
To return to the specifics of mid-northern Canada and our B.C. requirements for greater transportation and communications access, the federal Department of Transport, under the leadership of the Minister of Transport, has initiated two areas of study which I predict will soon become household words in business and labour circles in every part of our nation.
Pacific Rim access is being studied first by the Department of Transport's policy planning and major projects branch to assess the effectiveness of transportation systems which carry exports to and from Pacific Rim markets. This MOT project affords a focus for three levels of government and the widely diffused array of Crown corporations, private entities, and agencies which comprise our access to the buyers of our goods and services.
Second, a task force is screening the gamut of transportation policies and has specifically delineated the need for alternate means of access to the west. This review forms part of the broad Pacific Rim access project and will profoundly affect us, particularly in western Canada, when completed.
Transportation and communications access are, in my opinion, the cornerstone on which our area's new economics must be built. We require a flexible system for the efficient shipment of grain; a fair recognition of third level air carriers and required subsidies, no matter where they operate in this nation; utilization of existing rail lines on economic rather than political bases; and regional transportation as an engineering arm of economic enhancement.
Reciprocal running rates are still being negotiated between the BC Railway and the CN and will have an enormous impact on the northern part of British Columbia when completed. The presently stalled CN line north from Terrace has received important impetus with the historic
June 11, 1976

commencement of tripartite land claims negotiation in the Nass Valley when the Nishga Tribal Council, the government of B.C., represented by the hon. Allan Williams, and the Government of Canada, represented by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan), committed themselves to resolution of the Nishga's 111-year-old land grievance. This matter is now out of the hands of politicians and into the realm of professional negotiators. Progress on this front will signal the release of a log-jam of discontent which will make possible responsible development in the northern half of my province. Make no mistake, the Nishga people are not opposed to development; they simply seek to ensure their just participation in it, with benefits accruing to them from such development as it does to the non-Indian sector of our society.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow me one more minute.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is seeking one more minute to complete her remarks. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Iona Campagnolo: Thank you. With all the problems, in an extraordinarily difficult country, to co-ordinate a systematic and sensible transportation plan, I for one have every confidence in the ability of this minister to replace band-aids with a healthy, economically sound system of access.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate today on the user pay concept in transportation, and I would like to refer in my remarks to our national airline, Air Canada. I note that its president recently stated that he is going to be seeking a fare increase, so that the user is probably going to have to pay more to travel on Air Canada in the future. However, I am going to oppose this fare increase, and I have written Mr. Benson to notify him about the financial fiasco at the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg and the disastrous debt it is running up. Until this mess in Winnipeg is cleaned up there certainly should be no fare increase allowed for Air Canada.
There are other problems at the Air Canada finance branch, and these problems have been with the finance branch for over three years. One of them is a labour problem, and this related to job descriptions and overtime pay, and has nothing to do with poor accounting or auditing procedures.
For the last couple of months I have been asking that the Auditor General be directed to carry out a complete audit of the Air Canada finance branch and to establish a proper auditing and accounting system. This was recommended first by the Independent Review Committee which called for all Crown corporations to be audited by the Auditor General, and in the report it states:
The Auditor General should audit the financial accounts of all Crown corporations whose expenditures directly affect the budgetary accounts of Canada.
The budgetary accounts of Air Canada are certainly affected because I notice in Air Canada's annual report
Transportation Policy
this year that the federal government is giving Air Canada a donation of $5 million to build a hangar in Winnipeg. This is apparently a new procedure. In the past Air Canada had to build its own hangars, but now the government is contributing $5 million for a hangar in Winnipeg.
In addition, the Estey inquiry was established by the government to look into a $100,000 travel agency payment which Air Canada made. It was an improper payment, so the government had the Estey inquiry carried out at a cost of $400,000. If we are going to spend $400,000 to investigate a $100,000 payment, we should certainly have the Auditor General move into the Air Canada finance branch and carry out an audit there to investigate the fact that millions of dollars are going astray. I will get to that problem in just one moment.
In the Estey report it is stated;
As we have seen, the auditors of the Corporation are appointed by Parliament and are the same auditors as those appointed for the CNR. By Section 67 of the Financial Administration Act the Auditor Generral is eligible to be appointed as the Auditor or joint Auditor of the Corporation but such has not been done in the past.
So, the Auditor General has every right to move into the Air Canada finance branch to conduct an audit and to establish a proper accounting system.
In the Estey report it is stated that the market facts study was a bona fide research job but that the costs ran out of control as a result of a lack of monitoring by Air Canada personnel. All through the Estey report it is pointed out that there have been unauthorized disbursements, and a number of recommendations for improvements at the Air Canada finance branch are made.
I am sorry that the minister is not here today. I find it rather strange that on a transportation opposition day the minister is only here for a short period.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He gave us his lecture and then left.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Yes. He gave us a lecture and then left. Some lecture. However, the parliamentary secretary-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: You can't do as well.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Wait until I get going, Joe. The parliamentary secretary is well aware of the problems at the Air Canada finance branch, as he has debated these problems with me on a number of occasions during adjournment debates. However, I have received no satisfactory answers from the parliamentary secretary, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with regard to the problems there. All I have been able to get out them is that Air Canada should not be run from the floor of the House of Commons. I certainly agree that Air Canada should not be run from the floor of the House of Commons, but when problems of this magnitude are brought to the attention of a member of parliament he would be derelict in his duty if he did not raise them here.
95 570-13%

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
I find it very strange that the Minister of Transport has not given any constructive answers with regard to what he is going to do about these problems, and I hope that after today I can receive an answer from the parliamentary secretary as to what action will be taken to correct the problems at the finance branch.
The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) this week asked the Minister of Transport when Air Canada will be appearing before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, and I hope we can receive an answer today.
I would just like to go over some of the problems at the finance branch. I raised this matter with the Prime Minister on May 21.1 said to him:
I should like to point out to the Prime Minister that, since there are no longer any enforced controls on travel agents reporting ticket sales and, as of October, 1975, there were an excess of 96,000 unreported travel agent ticket sales, which represents a minimum of $2,208,000 unpaid for transportation,...
That is just one example, Mr. Speaker. If we can have the Estey inquiry because of a $100,000 transaction I think we had better get a little action on a missing $2 million. As I pointed out earlier, the President of Air Canada stated that he is going to need a fare increase. I hope the government will make sure that no fare increase is granted until the financial mess is straightened out.
I drew to the attention of the government that Air Canada's own internal auditors endeavoured to audit the refund bank drafts account in 1975. This account is not less than $2.5 million per month, about $30 million per year. They finally gave up and that account remains unaudited since 1972. Therefore over the past four years a $120 million account has been in question. When I bring matters like this up what do I get-"Do not talk about Crown corporations on the floor of the House." That is a lot of nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The government is obligated to take action when it has a mess like this on its hands.
I pointed out that a debt of $186,000 of Electronic Associates Canada Ltd. of Toronto had been written off. How could that be possible, Mr. Speaker? How could it be possible to run an account that high? You would think they would be alerted to it at about $20,000 or $25,000 and not let it go any further. I understand that all tickets have not been accounted for by this company and the debt could run much higher still.
I have pointed out that in the past Air Canada has broken IATA rules and regulations. They issued buyer vouchers to Tourist Mount Koyal, of Quebec, to the tune of $27,384. All that Air Canada collected from this travel agent was $9,445; they wrote off $17,938, Mr. Speaker. Under IATA rules and regulations this is illegal and the Auditor General should certainly look into it.
I also reported a letter from Harveys of Bristol (Overseas) Limited of London, England. They are continually complaining to Air Canada because they persist in paying the incorrect amount. Certain bills are overpaid and other accounts are not paid at all. As I pointed out, In the past the Air Canada Heathrow office in London has been threatened by the gas and light companies that the gas and

light will be shut off unless they pay their bills. Mr. Speaker, this is all because of the finance problems of Air Canada in Winnipeg, and it is another reason why the Auditor General should clean up this mess.
Another of Air Canada's strange practices is that of contracting out their work. The billing is being distributed to Office Overload in Vancouver, Montreal, and Toronto, and exorbitant sums are being paid for the work done which is coming back with a 50 per cent error factor. That means that they get into deeper trouble. The sooner this mess is straightened out the better. Most employees of the finance branch sit around doing very little work so it is strange that all this work is being contracted out. The minister should investigate the situation and find out why Air Canada is contracting work out, and put a stop to it. The cost ranges anywhere from $5,000 to $9,000 per week to individual companies.
I pointed out too, that there are in excess of 180,000 tickets which have been used but in respect of which there is no record of sales ever having been reported to the finance branch. At a dollar a ticket this represents a lot of money, but when one considers that the lowest charge on Air Canada flights is $23 there is cause for concern to the tune of a possible $3,843,000. Can anyone explain how many hundreds of thousands of ticket sales have been reported but in respect of which the fares collected are insufficient to cover the cost of transportation?
At the end of April this year Air Canada had a net loss of $141/2 million, about $l'/2 million over last year's deficit. We can see the direction things are going and why the government should get the Auditor General in to find out exactly what is going on. This should be done before Air Canada is brought before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. As was pointed out earlier, the Auditor General has authority to go in and conduct a survey.
Another area I should like to touch on is security at airports. We have reports that Air Canada has been warned by police that security is lax. An example is the gold robbery at the Ottawa airport. Air Canada was warned repeatedly by the Gloucester township police that there was no proper security. The gold theft a couple of years ago amounted to $175,000. To my knowledge there has been little or no improvement in security.
Another example is a group of Air Canada employees in New York who were arrested for alleged gold theft. I have been in touch with them and they tell me that security was removed a number of years ago and that they were in charge of large gold shipments themselves. These employees were arrested and charged with gold theft. They were eventually acquitted as they had nothing to do with the robbery, but they were left with legal fees of $18,000 which they had to pay themselves. This makes Air Canada employees or any airline employees very vulnerable. If there is any theft at any airport and employees are charged, Air Canada immediately dismisses them. They have to pay their own legal fees. I do not know why security was removed from these airports a couple of years ago, but the Minister of Transport should be looking into it. Apparently as an austerity measure Air Canada removed the guards at some of the airports. I fail to see the logic in that.
June 11, 1976

If an Air Canada employee is arrested the judicial system is so slow that his case could drag on for months, with legal fees mounting. They do not have any financial support from Air Canada.
In the few minutes remaining, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary would tell the House what action the government will take regarding the Air Canada finance branch and if he would comment on the matter of airport security.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley).


A. Daniel McKenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the parliamentary secretary could give an explanation why he will not give me an answer to the two questions I asked?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale) will speak when he is recognized by the Chair. This is not committee of the whole so he cannot answer questions. If he used his right to speak to answer the hon. member's questions now, then he would not be authorized to answer other questions afterwards. He will do it by his own choice at the end of his speech, and only after being recognized by the Chair.


Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to compliment the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) for bringing forward this motion today. I think it is the first time in the House of Commons that we have had an opportunity to discuss the user pay concept which is very important to all Canadians. They must have a full understanding of what the government is trying to do.
I heartily endorse the concept of the importance of transportation to regional disparities. I think it is most important to apply the cost-centre concept in letting the people of Canada know the purpose for which funds are to be used. If moneys are to be voted for regional disparity programs, let us account for them under such programs and not bury them in transportation estimates. It is important to eliminate the patchwork solutions to problems which are not aimed at eliminating problems but are designed to meet political situations. Put in simple economic terms I suggest that, by and large, it is better for the people who use the service to pay for it. I commend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and his predecessor in that portfolio for having the political will to do what is right and to ignore political expediency in preparing our national transportation policy.
In any consideration of a cost effective, efficient transportation system you must remember that, if rates are low because of hidden costs, there will be greater use of expensive modes of transportation than there would be if fares or rates reflected real costs. That entails a loss to all.
This afternoon I should like to discuss the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. First, let me make a couple of com-
Transportation Policy
ments. I am continually surprised because members of the opposition, who preach government restraint and less government intervention in the private sector, want to maintain the present subsidy system and not make our transportation system self-sustaining, which is what the user pay concept advocates. These remarks also apply to the business community.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made his statement during the Christmas holidays on television, the business community was upset about his comments concerning the free market system. But when the business community discusses, for example, increased tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway system, it wants the tolls to remain the same. It does not want government intervention on the one hand, but likes the present subsidy system on the other. I remind the business community and the opposition that they cannot have it both ways.
Let me now speak about the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. It seems, because there has been so much talk of government restraint and so many questions about the effectiveness of government, that the press has not noticed something that happened in connection with the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. When the chairman of the St. Lawrence Seaway appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications I took note of the fact that administration costs in 1976 were lower than in 1973. In the past two years Seaway costs for maintenance, operations, and administration have risen only 12.8 per cent. I doubt if any government department, federal or provincial, any corporation, public or private, can boast of such a track record. That fact endorses, I think, what the Minister of Transport said earlier this afternoon. When the former minister of transport talked of the condition of this country's transportation system he was not referring to the managerial ability and effectiveness of those who operate this country's transportation systems.
It is important to reflect on the intent of the St. Lawrence Seaway Act, passed in 1951. It is also important to note that there was no opposition to certain clauses of the bill which were included at that time. For example, let me allude to section 17 which reads:
The tolls that may be charged by the Authority shall be fair and reasonable and designed to provide a revenue sufficient to defray the cost to the Authority of its operations in carrying out the purposes for which it is incorporated, which costs shall include
(a)	payments in respect of the interest on amounts borrowed by the Authority to carry out such purposes:
(b)	amounts sufficient to amortize the principal of amounts so borrowed over a period not exceeding fifty years; and
(c)	the cost of operating and maintaining the canals and works under the administration of the Authority, including all operating costs of the Authority and such reserves as may be approved by the minister.
Clearly, parliament's wishes have not been met. Some moments ago the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), a member of the transport committee for whom I have the greatest respect, commented on the government's band-aid approach. I remind him that in 1962 the Conservative government then in power eliminated tolls on the Welland Canal. That was a grandiose example of a band-aid approach to difficulties in transportation.
In 1959 the initial year of the Seaway operations, a tariff of tolls based on estimates of future traffic was established by agreement between Canada and the United States. Its

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
purpose was to obtain directly from the users the revenues required to cover operation and maintenance costs for this joint facility, as well as interest on loans and repayment of capital over a 50-year period.
From 1959 to 1973 combined revenues on the two sections had more than covered operation and maintenance costs but they were never sufficient to cover full interest or to enable any capital repayment. Since 1973, however, these costs have not been met and the annual deficit has been increasing steadily.
The main reasons why the original financial expectations were not fulfilled arise from circumstances which were not foreseen at the time the Seaway Authority's financial structure was established. Seaway tolls on the Montreal-Lake Ontario section have not been increased since the Seaway opened in 1959. Toll reviews took place in 1964 and 1967, but recommendations made by Canada to increase the level of tolls failed to obtain agreement on the part of the United States. Tolls on the Welland section of the system were suspended, as I said earlier, after an announcement in 1962 by the prime minister of the time.
The result has been that the Seaway's debt at the end of March of this year stood at $818 million. The difficult financial position in which the Seaway finds itself obscure, unfortunately, its true value to Canada as well as its operational success and over-all economic viability. Over 17 years of operations it has experienced a substantial growth in terms of tonnage. Long range forecasts of the traffic growth indicate a 12.5 per cent annual average increase during the next 15 years.
Many other benefits, including lowered transportation costs particularly on such key commodities to Canada as grain and iron ore, the development of increased international trade, and the impact on the labour and industrial sectors of the St. Lawrence River-Great Lakes area, have clearly established the Seaway's role as a vital element in our economy. Cabinet agreed some time ago that in principle the financial structure of the Seaway should be revised so as to provide the authority with a realistic financial base related to reasonable expectation of future revenues. The Minister of Transport has indicated his intention to recommend to his cabinet colleagues a revision that will have the added objective of providing a foundation for a new tolls policy.
Allow me to substantiate the benefits of the Seaway. Hon. members commented earlier about the importance of the Seaway with respect to the distribution of wheat. I remind hon. members that in 1958 the toll cost per bushel of wheat was 1.3 cents. In 1975 that cost, at 1.3 cents per bushel, remains the same. In other words, Mr. Speaker, between 1958 and 1975 the toll cost per bushel of wheat did not change. In addition, other costs during that period were increased.
The toll costs are not the reason for the increase in the price of wheat or other bulk products shipped through the Seaway. If I am not mistaken toll costs represented about 10 per cent of the sale price of a bushel of wheat in 1958. In 1975 those toll costs represented approximately 3 per cent of the sale price. Therefore tolls are an insignificant factor in total transportation costs, and form an insignificant part of the value of the merchandise when it finally reaches the consumer. The same may be said of coal and iron ore. The

toll costs for iron ore in 1965 represented about 9.5 per cent of the total transportation cost. In 1975 the proportion of tolls was reduced to 5.3 per cent, or almost half the previous amount. This again demonstrates the insignificance of the increase in tolls.
A moment ago I talked about the situation in the United States. Incidentally the situation in that country is the basis for the argument used by the business community and the opposition for the government's not increasing tolls. It is logical for our American Seaway counterparts not to want an increase in tolls. In 1970 Congress and the President of the United States enacted laws whereby all interest, both past and to be incurred in future, was to be written off. Consequently surpluses which the American authority had been able to generate were applied against some of the debt it had incurred. Let us consider the statement, made both by the American and Canadian authorities, that both countries benefit from the Seaway equally. We must assume that the Canadian government is picking up the majority of the deficit on the Welland Canal because it is 100 per cent Canadian-owned. What does this mean? It means that we are, in fact, subsidizing the Americans. Consequently the Americans have no incentive to increase tolls.
The cabinet agreed some time ago in principle that the financial structure of the Seaway should be divided in order to provide the authority with a realistic financial base related to reasonable expectation of future revenues. The Minister of Transport has indicated his intention to recommend to his cabinet colleagues a revision which will have the added objective of providing a foundation for a new tolls policy. Personally I do not think the government should write off the debt but change it into some form of equity because the Seaway does have substantial assets. The replacement cost is estimated at between $4 billion and $5 billion.
A policy of freezing Seaway tolls, and indeed an outright cancellation of these tolls, may be looked upon by some as a tool for promoting economic development. A serious drawback from Canada's point of view is that Canada carries more than 90 per cent of the investment and that our country bears a corresponding share of any deficits, while both countries benefit more or less equally from the waterway.
If we are to reach an explicit objective of commercial viability in terms of both the operations of the carriers and the provision of infrastructure, the St. Lawrence Seaway will no doubt have to be given a new financial structure and tolls will have to be increased.
This means that the users of the Seaway will have to pay to a reasonable degree the costs incurred in the operations of this transportation infrastructure. We must use sense and judgment to determine what a proper charge should be. Yes, the prices for transportation services will have to go up, and likely more rapidly than in the past.
It is the government's responsibility that the transportation system be efficiently run, that unjustified price increases are avoided, and that whatever increases are necessary are reasonable and equitable in terms of their impact. I heartily endorse the comments made by the hon.
June 11, 1976

member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to the effect that the onus is on each member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, representing all sides of this House, to participate actively and constructively in meeting the request of the Minister of Transport to develop a new transportation policy for Canada.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in the debate on the motion moved today by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). It attempts to pinpoint some of the fundamental problems of transportation in this country. In particular it deals with the problem of the new concept of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) of user pay as it applies, in his words, to mature and immature regions in Canada and to the different modes of transportation.
Earlier today the minister graced us with some remarks. We are dealing with something that is fundamental to each member of this House, be he from the east, west, or central part of this land. It was rail transportation and some of the problems of transportation that built this country and helped keep it together. Coming from the Atlantic area and having practised law in British Columbia, I know something about the history of the CPR. Members from all parts of the country know how vital transportation is in terms of their allegiance to and identity with this country. That is why there is a very real concern in almost a non-political way when any new minister comes in with a so-called new policy.
When the minister starts referring to user pay, and to mature and immature regions of the country, opposition members, and I am sure some government members, would like to know just what he means. What do his officials mean when they talk about mature and immature regions of the land? Those are the words used in the minister's announcement of the policy.
If the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale) does not know that in the enunciation of the minister's policy the words "mature" and "immature" were used, I can understand why transportation in this country is in a mess. I hope that before time runs out today the parliamentary secretary will amplify, clarifly, or at least state what he means when he says I am misquoting when I talk about the mature and immature regions of this country in reference to the new transportation policy of his boss, the Minister of Transport.
The minister graced us today with an interesting lecture from the podium of the classroom on the problems in Canada and now we must be realistic.-I was going to give some very fundamental and detailed equations and figures with regard to some particular problems. However, when I heard the minister's dialectical exercise this morning I weighed upon the transport committee chairman on this side of the House to ask if I could reply to the minister. When the minister spoke today he tried to define his concept of user pay. In effect he made the brilliant statement that if the user does not pay, the non-user must. We have to be realistic in accepting this proposition. As I say, I am glad the hon. member for Crowfoot placed this motion before the House and that the minister was here this morning.
Transportation Policy
In Atlantic Canada we have had what was called transportation week. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will have something to say about this. Even though the minister said he would be there to amplify on some of the problems of his new policy, unfortunately at the last minute, for whatever reasons, he was not able to be there.


Ralph Goodale: The budget vote.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I hear someone saying the budget vote. I would hesitate to accept that because there is not a minister who cannot be where he wants to be when there is a majority government. With a majority government, ministers go where they want to be. We all know that the vote on the budget the other night was not a vote of confidence in the government.
The Minister of Transport absented himself later today, as he absented himself in Halifax from a conference which had been in preparation for six months. It was pretty fundamental to Atlantic Canada. I do not know what it is like in Saskatchewan. However, for the minister at the last minute to excuse himself from a conference in Atlantic Canada that had been set up for months was a sad reflection of his concern for transportation problems in Atlantic Canada. There was great concern in Halifax when the minister did not show up. It is the same type of disappointment, but to a lesser degree, that the minister is not here today. There may be a legitimate reason for that.
Rarely in Atlantic Canada has there been such concern about where we are going in transportation. That is primarily because of the rehash of some of these new or old ideas that the minister has been talking about. I am going to come to that.
The minister says we have to be realistic with regard to transportation. There is not a member of this House who does not appreciate there has to be some realism. However, I suggest to the minister that if there were realism and only realism in transportation, this country called Canada would never have been built.
This type of narrow minded professorial, restricted theory, with no inspiration or imagination in a field that is crying for inspiration, imagination, and new energy, is one reason we have these problems in transportation. In his speech the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley) said you cannot have it both ways. Why should the people of Canada have faith in the Minister of Transport when he says we have to be realistic in our policy, and no longer have band-aids or political expediency in the area of transportation?
Never was the question of transportation more abused in more crass political ways than by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the time of the last election in his politically dishonest attempt to stay in power. Now the Minister of Transport, cloaking himself in the sackcloth of some vestal virgin, wants us to walk with him hand in hand down this little road, ride on the bumpy railbeds, and fly in the planes of this land. He wants us to do all these things and place our confidence in him and not talk about band-aids and political expediency, when the reality is that the government for 43 of the last 50 years has had responsibility for transport. It has had the chance to build rail beds, it has had the chance to take politics out of transportation and get down to basics. That is why we are a little skepti-

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
cal when the minister says everything will be peaches and cream and that the word politics will be taken out.
As far as some of his plans are concerned, the Minister of Transport was the minister responsible for the Wheat Board.


An hon. Member:: He still is.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is unfortunate for the Wheat Board. It was the present Minister of Transport who conceived the LIFT project-lower inventories for tomorrow. And we all know it became lower incomes for tomorrow.


An hon. Member:: It did not.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It did, because it took hundreds of thousands of acres out of production just at a time when wheat was going from about $1.05 a bushel to $4 or $5 a bushel. The farmers of Western Canada were short-changed by this classroom concept which was promulgated by the Minister of Transport. Because he sometimes wears the cloth of a politician, he sold the idea to the government, and the wheat farmers of the West were the people who lost out. We are afraid we shall lose out as a result of some of the transportation policies envisaged today.
I wish to move on now in a non-partisan way; some of the words I intend to quote were spoken by people who wear Liberal sackcloth from time to time-provincial premiers who are concerned about where the federal government is going in the field of transport and so on. I might point out that the premiers of Atlantic Canada are, one might say, bipartisan-there were two Liberal premiers and two Conservatives. But on the Maritime Council, to which I shall soon refer, there are only three- two Liberals and one Conservative. I would draw the attention of the House to the final communique of the Council of Maritime Premiers issued in Charlottetown on May 26 of this year. With regard to transportation the premiers say;
Bona fide consultation is required between governments to ensure that transportation is used to help rather than hinder economic development.
The premiers also expressed concern that the federal government is increasing cost recovery within some transportation systems without considering the effects on the over-all economy. The communique went on:
Undue reliance upon the user pay concept should be replaced by the vigorous pursuit of cost-effective solutions ...
That expresses the generality in terms of national transportation policy. Coming to specifics, one of them was mentioned by my hon. friend from Carleton-Charlotte who spoke of Bill C-61. I will read two paragraphs because they are so interesting. The one I intend to read first deals with the budget and explains why there is concern in Atlantic Canada about where transportation policy is heading.
It is, of course, easy for us all to say we are in favour of restraint, but there is real cause for concern when expenditure in an area which is so vital to Atlantic Canada, the area of transportation, is cut by over 50 per cent. Need I point out once again that we are talking here about a region of economic disparity, a region where wage levels

generally are lower than they are in the rest of the country, a region which does not enjoy the same extended economic base as other parts of Canada? Those are not just my sentiments. Those words paraphrase the feelings of the Atlantic premiers, as is clear from this later statement in the communique;
The premiers expressed disappointment in the federal budgetary restraint program as it applies to transportation expenditure. Recognizing the need for effective measures to control inflation and restore economic stability they endorse the principle of a restraint program but took issue with the discriminatory nature of the transportation section of the announced program, noting that of a total reduction of $41.2 million for the whole of Canada $21.9 or 63 per cent would affect the maritime region transportation program exclusively.
The communique went on to say;
In view of the present economic situation in the Atlantic provinces and the effect transportation has upon it, the announced transport expenditure reduction would seem to be inconsistent with programs designed to correct regional disparity.
Those words, Mr. Speaker, say it all in a nutshell. I fail to understand how someone could hope to establish a viable program of regional development, while on the other hand making such savage cuts in transportation subsidies affecting the very region which one is supposedly trying to help. It is contradictory. It is one of the reasons why the program of regional economic development has failed to produce the economic results for which members on both sides had hoped when the department was set up several years ago. It is impossible to pursue a viable program of economic development unless it is complemented and supplemented by satisfactory transportation policies. Over half of the restraint measures announced in the federal budget hit Atlantic Canada right on the nose.
Bill C-61 was mentioned by other speakers and I shall not spend too much time on that aspect. As for Bill C-87, fortunately the government House leader has agreed to take another look at it. Some people say it will put an end to exports of grain and flour. These are things which give rise to legitimate concern among people in the region regardless of their political stripe.
I mentioned earlier the comments made by the Council of Maritime Premiers on budgetary restraints which feels, quite rightly, that a cut of over 50 per cent is a little heavy for an area of this kind which cannot stand that kind of cut.
They had this to say about the coasting trade in reference to Bill C-61:
The Premiers expressed concern that the safeguards required to protect regional industries against high transportation costs which would result from the removal of Commonwealth shipping in the coasting trade do not appear to have been adequately provided in either the new act or proposed regulations. The Premiers said that at a meeting of the Council of Maritime Premiers and the Premier of Newfoundland with the Honourable Jean Marchand in September, 1973, it was announced that Canada would withdraw from the British Commonwealth Shipping Agreement and reserve coastal shipping to Canadian flag vessels. At the same time, assurance was given by the federal minister that safeguards would be introduced to protect regional industries against high transportation costs.
The Premiers today are sending a telegram to the Honourable Otto Lang urging him to permit the use of non-Canadian vessels according to the dictates of availability and cost. This is essential to enable
June 11, 1976

maritime industries to benefit from one of the region's natural advantages.
I should also like to refer to the telex of May 26 signed by the chairman of the Council of Maritime Premiers, Premier A. B. Campbell of P.E.I. He is a concerned premier of Atlantic Canada and he had this to say in his telegram:
Further to our telex to you of December 16, 1975, and other representations made to you and your predecessor, we are still deeply concerned about Bill C-61. Recent representations from industry have heightened this concern, giving it a new dimension.
In view of this, we now urge you to take action which will retain for Atlantic industries their access to non-Canadian vessels for the coasting trade without serious impediment in the form of the necessity for either expensive or difficult-to-obtain waivers, licences or permits. Availability of suitable vessels and their cost should be the criteria for the selection of carriers, with the decision resting with the shipper.
Existing industry and future industrial development in the Atlantic provinces will be seriously affected if this bill, and those regulations of which we have been made aware to date, come into effect. This legislation would tend to transform the Atlantic provinces into inland provinces in so far as coastal shipping is concerned without their concomitant advantages. High transportation cost to and from markets is already one of the most serious obstacles restricting growth in this region. By restricting competition, Bill C-61 will increase these costs for water, rail or truck.
We urge you to withdraw or change this legislation as it pertains to coastal shipping and to permit the use of non-Canadian vessels according to the dictates of availability and cost, thereby enabling our industries to benefit from one of this region's natural advantages.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the remarks that have been made today are those not of partisan, political creatures that are worried about band-aids, but of Canadians worried about fundamentals. We want to know how this new policy of user pay as it applies to mature and immature regions of Canada is going to work. Perhaps the definition of mature is that we should remove subsidies or make cutbacks, for some paradoxical reason, in Atlantic Canada, which everyone would admit is an area of economic disability, that this in the minister's eyes will be considered a mature region. He did not say anything about that today. We have all heard about western alienation, Quebec separation, and B.C. isolation. I say that we are going to cry out for our maritime rights unless we get a better deal from the Minister of Transport.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale) would like to take part in this debate before the day ends, so I assure him that my remarks will be very brief and will leave him plenty of time, provided that Mr. Speaker calls on him when I sit down.
I should like to join with others in commending the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) for putting down this subject for debate on this opposition day. Like many days in this House of Commons, it is not a day on which we make decisions or arrive at any conclusions, but I do think it has been one of the better days of debate on transportation policy. Arguments have been presented from both sides, there has been a good deal of philosophy and many suggestions, and I hope that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and his department will take cognizance of what has been said in this day's debate.
It will come as no surprise to anyone in this House when I say that the reason that I ask for the floor for a few minutes is to underline once more what I think is one of
Transportation Policy
the requirements of a transportation industry that serves the best interests of the country. That requirement is good employer-employee relations.
I come now to what might be called my favourite subject. I think that one of the ways to establish and to maintain good employer-employee relations is to have good pension programs. It has been a long struggle to get the pension programs of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to their present level, but there is a tremendous need for still further improvement.
The fact is that nearly two years ago, as a result of one of the distputes in the railway industry, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) appointed Dr. Noel Hall as a special commissioner to examine all aspects of railway pensions. When I say all aspects, I refer to all railways in Canada, to the pensions of those already retired, the pension plans of those still working, and so on. We do not yet have this report. The Minister of Labour has promised it "soon" so often that the meaning of the word is hard to grasp, but I do hope we will get it within a few weeks. The difficulty is that it is taking so long to get the report and that many pensioners who had hoped to benefit from it have died, and others wonder whether they will live long enough to see the benefits of this study.
I have two things I want to say. First, I urge the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour, when they do get Dr. Noel Hall's report, to study it very carefully and if, as I am sure there will be, there are in it recommendations that will improve the pension position of railway workers I hope they will do all they can to see to it that those recommendations are implemented without delay.
The other thing I want to say is simply by way of underlining the point that I made in a question which I put to the Minister of Transport this morning. Although we have been waiting for the Noel Hall report a long time, one can at least say that the Canadian National Railways a short while ago did put into effect an increase, a small one but nevertheless an increase, in the pensions of those already retired or their survivors. It seems to me that that action by the Canadian National Railways should be matched by the Canadian Pacific. The point of my question to the Minister of Transport was to urge that he have a serious talk with CPR about this matter. I appreciated his reply that he would do so, and I simply rise now to make it part of the record at the end as well as at the beginning of this day. I hope this is something the minister will do at the earliest possible opportunity.
I agree with all who have spoken in this House as to the importance of transportation to this country and as to the need for making improvements. But I repeat that we will have a healthy transportation policy if we have happy and satisfied employees, and one of the best ways to achieve good employer-employee relations is to establish and maintain the best possible pension plan. Real improvements have to be made for our railway workers, and they must be made soon.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I was moved to make a few remarks in this debate by the response of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) today which made us more clearly aware of the direction we
14442

June 11, 1976
Transportation Policy
appear to be taking in respect of transportation policy. I certainly am more clearly aware of this than I had been up to this point. I really feel the minister did a remarkable job in describing for us in rather simple terms exactly the direction we are taking. I cannot accept the suggestion we heard a few minutes ago, and earlier today from the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), that in fact the result of the minister's remarks today was greater confusion. The minister's response seemed to me to be a remarkable clarification of the issue, and I thank him for it.
Having regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott), and particularly those regarding the airline industry and its response to the cost factors and arguments put forward by the minister, I feel perhaps some response should be made, particularly in respect of general aviation in this country.
The aviation industry has obviously been a resource assistance to opening up this country. This must be recognized by the minister and his officials who contemplate this idea of cost effect and the user pay concept in the total transportation field. If in fact the airline industry is to be consulted with respect to how airports will be built in the future and what facilities are needed for the movement of passengers, and in respect of runways required for future type aircraft, and those sorts of things, then it seems to me these facilities will also be used by aircraft that do not require luxurious buildings, 10,000-foot runways, and six feet of concrete at the threshold. In fact these facilities will be used by aircraft flying into our hinterlands and carrying small packages on an express basis between cities. In this way we will have facilities substantially over-built for the type of aircraft using them.
I trust and I believe, because of what the minister indicated today, that there is a conscious awareness of this fact when considering the user pay concept. I trust there is to be some realization that a great deal of the time the use to be made of these facilities which are substantially overbuilt will be by these small aircraft, and that as a consequence some reasonable approach will be made in respect of that reality.
I should like to make one further suggestion, and I commend this to the minister's attention, in respect of the movement of passengers by rail and by other means. The minister indicated he really thought it would be unreasonable for anyone to suggest that people should not be moved by bus along an unused railway line. I hope he has in mind the fact that some people may not be travelling now by bus as a matter of preference over rail travel, but rather because of the mode of transportation that is available, the type of facility, etc. Many of them are using this mode of transportation because of the misuse and disrepair of the available mode of transportation.
We have to be careful that we do not impose on the people our position of preference in respect of transportation. We must pay more attention to the fact that people may not rather move by train than by bus, or by bus than by train. Having in mind some of the bus service between Toronto and Windsor and the length of time it takes, I feel certain that most of my constituents would express a preference for rail travel over bus, even if we were able to improve that service.

One must also remember the Bruce-Grey Peninsula where in fact there used to be train passenger service available. That service no longer exists. One would hope that in fact we would not place ourselves in the position in respect of such areas that we will only be looking at the possibility of a bus service as opposed to the reinstitution of train service.
May I also say in respect of the situation in that part of my riding of Peeley Island that the transportation services seem to be deteriorating. There are pockets of people who will never be able to support the type of transportation they need. It would be unreasonable to suggest that the 200 island people should pay the total cost of an air or boat service to that island.
Let me indicate again that after listening to the minister today I feel confident that, notwithstanding the user pay concept, there will be an improvement in over-all transportation policy. I feel that in fact there must be a substantial amount of reasoning behind that concept to be followed by cost effectiveness, with the realization there is still the principle that the taxpayers as a whole must bear some of the costs of transportation. Having pointed out some of the concerns I have, and having expressed my complete satisfaction with the general principle as outlined by the minister, I want to compliment the minister again for a straightforward and clear exposing of this issue today.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: basis of what the minister was talking about today. Such a policy can only work in the context of national priorities.
Let me refer to the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). When he began to speak I thought he was going to get at the heart of the problem, namely, top priority items in implementing a workable transportation policy for this country. He then moved from what I thought was the key issue. He limited his remarks concerning the employees strictly to pensions. Pensions represent an important part of the benefit package of our working force, and I agree with the concern expressed by the hon. member for that segment of the working force involved in transportation.
I stress, however, that there is no point in spending hundreds of millions of dollars on improving transportation in Canada unless we have full and open co-operation from members of the work force who are involved in that aspect of Canadian life. There are thousands and thousands of lost man years of effort in our transportation system due to strikes. If the transportation policy which has been submitted to the thirtieth parliament by the government is going to work, we must first involve the nation's work force in the planning and implementation of this policy. There is no sense in improving the arteries to the port of Vancouver and in building more grain elevators so we can service the world faster and better, if the people manning and operating the system do not have the right attitude toward it.
A fundamental priority in making the new transportation policy of the government work-and I am basically sympathetic to it and I have worked pretty hard to gain an understanding of it-would, in my opinion, be the involvement of the employees and work force of this nation. We can no longer continue to serve this country well and to take our part and place in the world with a labour management philosophy which involves confrontation. We will have to turn to Europe and look at the results of co-determination, look at the results of industrial democratization of other industrial countries and integrate them into our lives in Canada as a first priority to keep us from spinning our wheels in trying to update our great transportation machine in Canada.
For example, I look at such things as the STOL experiment. I can understand $25 million or $30 million being thrown away on an experiment, but I cannot understand STOL when the need is for a high speed railway down the dense corridor of Canada. I notice that my good friend, the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley), was commenting on the St. Lawrence Seaway and pointing out that the administration burden has decreased. That is probably the only example we could find in government agencies where it has. But I should like to put it into perspective. Here we have a $6 million administrative burden for $23 million of revenue which cost $22 million in direct costs and requires a $42 million subsidy from the people of Canada. If that is "user pay", then something has to give.
We in other parts of Canada-and I am very fortunate in coming from the port of Vancouver-have had an excellent track record in having been able to pay for our own facilities. We produce over 54 per cent of the profits earned
Transportation Policy
by the National Habours Board of Canada. We would like to see the port of Vancouver developed and utilized. The port of Vancouver is not just in Bnrrard Inlet or on the Pacific coast, or on the tidemark line. The port of Vancouver starts somewhere up in the hinterland, and I am speaking specifically of the mechanics of the port. If we resolve the problems of that port and utilize it to its full effectiveness, we will have to start organizing the dispatch and utilization of all modes of transport and co-ordinate them. I have had more input from union members out there than I have had from management in the utilization of facilities that already exist there. If we dispatch trains from Kamloops and take away the competitive forces between the grain elevators there, we could increase our ship loadings. We cannot increase our ship loadings unless we have the input and co-operation of the labour force.
Time is running out on me, Mr. Speaker, but there are two more things I would like to say. We are talking about the user pay concept in transport. This means that we will have to start decentralizing the decision-making process because we in the west are just about at the end of our tether about some of the decisions imposed on us by the mandarins, bureaucrats, and so called experts here in Ottawa.
When we were out travelling on the west coast with the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications we visited the port of Seattle and the airport owned by the port. That airport is one of the finest installations that anyone interested in transport could visit. It has satellite stations, and the main terminal is served by a computerized underground railroad. It has fantastic immigration facilities so that people emerging from large airlines do not have to wait for hours. The customs and parking facilities are also excellent. Everything is made for man, as it should be. That airport cost only $150 million. It has two runways. It is financed locally, the interest is paid, it is non-profit and self-liquidating. Then I look at the over building for which we have a tendency here in Canada, and at the $450 million minimum that Mirabel will cost us. There is something wrong with us in Canada. We are a country of 24 million people and we cannot afford this kind of luxury, this nonsense, this over building in the light of examples of other airports on this continent.
The other thing we do in air transportation is to base everything on seasonal demands. We place full page advertising for charter flights to Europe on our national airline. We advertise holidays here and there, we tell people to spend their dollars somewhere else. The demand on our airports is to take care of the peak summer tourist season. Is this the user pay concept? The guy who has to travel back and forth selling and buying goods and seeking orders has to pay the load for the whole. We have to put this into perspective. The regular user of our airline and transportation systems is prepared to pay and wants to pay, but why should we pay for facilities that are over built and over designed for 60 days of the year for the tourist industry? This should be rationally considered in our consideration of the user pay principle.
I should like to say a few words now on Bill C-61. A special committee was called, of which there are no minutes, on Bill C-61, and we have been offered three major amendments to this bill in an attempt to keep it
95570 -14V2

June 11, 1976
Nova Scotia Disaster
from dying before the life of this parliament fades. Within hours of the last meeting I had those amendments telephoned to the west coast and they have been meeting on them ever since. I have just had the results of these meetings telephoned back to me this afternoon, and there is no way that the industrial groups on the west coast can go along with the bill even as it is amended. It has to go back to the drawing board because we have no faith and trust in the government any longer.


Ralph Goodale: You have been listening too much to Jack Davis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have now expired.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, through the usual channels it has been indicated to me that there might be unanimous consent for me to make a brief statement on motions, an announcement which I think is pertinent.


Walter David Baker: That is quite true, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to hear the announcement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We too would like to hear it, and I should like 30 seconds to express appreciation for what I understand is coming.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is my concern. As hon. members know, Standing Order 15 provides the opportunity for hon. members to comment on a statement and even to ask questions. Is there consent to revert to motions for the statement by the minister, and then to see how it goes by consent and agreement?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, as many hon. members know, a disaster recently took place in a community in Nova Scotia called Main a Dieu which suffered from a very severe fire which has caused great damage to the community and the surrounding area.
Among the many unhappy consequences it is obvious that there will be severe unemployment, although I hope it will be temporary. In the face of this, and along the lines of our response last year to the Springhill community disaster, we are going to make available immediately some funds from the Local Initiatives Program to try to provide the necessary resources for clean-up, rehabilitation, and employment. The amount has not yet been determined. That is simply because I have just been apprised of this,

and we have not yet had the opportunity to determine exactly how much will be required. However, that will be settled in a matter of a very few days.
Applications for projects designed to aid the community and employ local people will be considered as soon as they are received. All projects submitted under this special phase of the Local Initiatives Program should be capable of immediate implementation, and they will be allowed to begin just as soon as they can be put into operation.
Project officers will be available to work with local organizations and the citizens of Main a Dieu and to assist them in designing projects. As I say, this is being provided to the community of Main a Dieu in view of the very unusual circumstances involved, and although the Local Initiatives Program is primarily intended to relieve seasonal unemployment, it is also designed to aid and improve local communities. I think these circumstances really do fit, and I hope this will receive the approval of hon. members.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I would like to commend the government for this act of compassion in an area which suffers in any event in terms of employment. I am satisfied that the officials of the minister's department will move with dispatch in processing the applications, and in terms of the bureaucratic necessities which must take place for public funds, I know it will be in the mind of the minister and all his officials to cut those necessities to the very minimum.
I am sure I join all hon. members in the House, particularly my colleagues from that area, in thanking the minister on their behalf and on behalf of the people who will be the beneficiaries of this program.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, first of all I should like to thank the minister for his courtesy in making this announcement here in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We join in the sentiments already expressed by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and express our pleasure that the minister and his officials have been able to move on this issue.
One of the particular reasons I hoped I would get 30 seconds is that a few days ago my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), raised this matter in the House, and in view of his not being able to be here this afternoon, I want on his behalf to express appreciation, but even more so on behalf of the citizens of Main a Dieu.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In my turn, on behalf of my party, I would like to congratulate the minister for making such pertinent use of moneys which could be used for other Local Initiative Programs. We know that when such disasters affect a part of the country, it is important that the federal government be in the position to take steps as quickly as possible to
June 11, 1976

help the victims, instead of deliberating for weeks and months before coming to a decision. Therefore I congratulate the minister on taking such a quick decision. This proves that in many circumstances when a minister makes up his mind to take action, he can do it and we should all commend him for what he did today in the House.
Nova Scotia Disaster


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being past five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2(1).
At 5.08 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, June 14, 1976