1977-03-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, that matter being the apparent decision by the Minister of Agriculture to restrict in the next few weeks the importation of agricultural herbicides and pesticides from the United States. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the restriction be on a selective basis, not include the more commonly used products, and that the chemical companies involved appear before the Standing Committee on Agriculture to explain their position on this most important matter.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of S.O. 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion of urgent necessity concerning fire insurance on buildings.
Considering that three years ago, insurance companies agreed to create a monopoly to establish the assessment basis and premium rates; that since that time, the rates as well as the assessment increased threefold, at least in Quebec; that the assessment is based on the replacement value; and finally that for all those reasons, 70 per cent of small property owners and businessmen cannot afford insurance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government take action, through its anti-monopoly legislation, or by setting up an insurance board, or a State insurance, in order to help small property owners who are left defenceless in front of this monopoly.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Ren£ Matte (Champlain): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the importance and seriousness of the accusations voiced by a member of the Senate as to the allegedly partisan intervention of Radio-Canada employees, accusations which I feel are unfounded and filled with bitterness, passion, bias and irresponsibility; considering the chain reaction they are likely to start among those who resent the decision Quebecers came to on November 15, and also the unfounded speculations that may be levelled at employees who are doing an objective job, and because Radio-Canada's mandate is to reflect both the Canadian and Quebec realities, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That a special House committee be set up to investigate the allegations of partisan action on the part of Radio-Canada employees.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to 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.

March 1, 1977
Oral Questions CONSUMER AFFAIRS


REQUEST FOR CONFERENCE TO ACHIEVE UNIFORMITY OF GASOLINE PRICES IN QUEBEC-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a very particular motion of general interest.
Since gasoline consumers in Quebec are upset by the fact that the price of this product differs from one region to another, a difference which may range from eight to ten cents a gallon, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House urge the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to call a conference with the Minister of Natural Resources in Quebec to try to achieve uniformity of gasoline prices throughout Quebec and thus do justice to all consumers in that province.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I should like to put my question to the Prime Minister. As figures released yesterday by Statistics Canada show that not only is the growth in our economy static or even declining, but that inflation rose 9.4 per cent last year, an increase higher than that anticipated in the last budget and an increase of a whole four points higher than that in the United States where there are no controls, would the Prime Minister indicate why we have had so much higher inflation than was anticipated in the last budget and so much higher than the United States, which is an unbelievable situation in a year with negative growth?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would inquire where the hon. member got his statistics.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the statistics come from yesterday's release from Statistics Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They indicated that the implicit price increase in Canada was 9.4 per cent last year. I would ask the Prime Minister again if he could indicate why we had such high inflation last year when the last quarter of the year actually had a negative real growth?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will check the Statistics Canada release, of which I have a copy here, but my recollection is that the A1B reported that the year-over-year inflation in the first year we brought in the guidelines was more in the order of 6 per cent than 9 per cent.


INCREASE IN GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES-GOVERNMENT POSITION AS TO FURTHER RESTRAINT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. As the largest price increase occurred in government expenditures last year, whereas the implicit price index grew by 13.4 per cent in that year, and since current federal estimates for these expenditures-and 1 emphasize current expenditures, as opposed to transfer payments-are set at over 14 per cent more for the coming fiscal year, would the President of the Treasury Board indicate if he has made further overtures to his colleagues in cabinet and his counterparts at the provincial level for more restraint than has been shown to date?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my statement to the House a week or so ago, current expenditures of the federal government, budgetary and non-budgetary, including all final supplementary estimates for 1976-77, will be below the 14 per cent committed to one year ago, that is, below the total dollar figure committed to. Forecasts for the expenditure year 197778 show an increase, year over year, of only approximately 7 per cent.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I was referring to expenditures.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct some supplementary questions to the Prime Minister about the poor, indeed weakening possibilities for investment in this country in 1977? According to a Statistics Canada preliminary survey it can be concluded that private and private sector investment in 1977 will decline by 1.7 per cent, in real terms, and private sector investment alone will decline by 2.8 per cent. I point out that the decline forecast is slightly greater than that projected by the Conference Board. In view of that confirmation of the seriousness of the investment situation, will the Prime Minister state whether he is concerned about future investment plans, particularly in the
March 1, 1977

private sector, and can he say when he expects the outlook to improve?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is that we hope it will continue to improve after-


Mr. Paproski:: After the next election.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -the budget has been brought down.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Considering the effect the A1B has had on private investment, does the Prime Minister expect private investment to improve while the controls remain in force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad the Prime Minister is being explicit this afternoon. We are all concerned about the direction in which this government is going. May I ask the Prime Minister this final supplementary question: As the level of investment has a direct bearing on job creation, does the Prime Minister regard new business investment as an essential part of the strategy to reduce unemployment, and will the budget reflect this concern?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR EARLY BUDGET WHICH WILL CREATE JOBS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In his address to the United States Congress a week ago today, the Prime Minister referred to the necessity of accommodations being made to maintain national unity in this country. Considering that the decrease in the gross national product in the fourth quarter of 1976 came at a time when more than one million Canadians were unemployed, and since a major instrument for achieving national unity is a national government which is perceived as meeting the real human needs of the people of Canada, will the Prime Minister give the House the assurance now that we will have a budget soon whose prime purpose will be the creation of jobs in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister gave us a welcome yes. 1 hope that in replying to my second question he will elaborate and perhaps tell us if it is to come down within a few days, a couple of weeks, or when it is to be. My second question is this: is the
Oral Questions
Prime Minister aware that 50 per cent of the new unemployment which occurred in Canada last year occurred within the province of Quebec? If so, is he not concerned, as a Prime Minister who is concerned about national unity, about the need to create jobs specifically, but by no means exclusively, in that province and to do so soon?


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is free enterprise.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member used the word "soon". My answer is yes, that it will be soon. On the latter part of the second question, 1 think he expressed it well, that we have to ensure that jobs are created in Quebec but not specifically for Quebec.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Broadbent for leader.
[DOT] (M20)


UNEMPLOYMENT-SITUATION IN CAPE BRETON-OPERATION OF SYDNEY MINES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance may I direct my final supplementary to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance a question about the need for job creation, this time in Cape Breton, a part of the country that is also experiencing some fall-off in terms of its attitude toward Canada. Does the Prime Minister know whether, in the interim between yesterday's sitting and today's, the government has decided to make the advance orders that are necessary for rails in Canada in order to keep Sydney steel in operation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.

[ Translation]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
As there is more and more talk about energy, I feel it would be timely to set, once and for all, the prices that should apply to the energy we use in daily life. Now, although gas prices are normally set at the provincial level, the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that it might be that the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources should have consultations with the provincial ministers with a view to setting prices that are just and reasonable. Here is my question:
Has the minister had the opportunity to discuss with the Quebec Minister of Natural Resources the possibility of setting up a uniform price for gas throughout the province and so allow all users of cars and trucks to budget their expenses for the coming year and costs bearing relation to consumer needs?

March 1, 1977
Oral Questions


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member addressed himself to a very important question. I understand the concern of his constituents and others in the province of Quebec about the difference in the price of gasoline from one community to another. Unfortunately, this is not an area of federal jurisdiction. The federal government is not in the position to declare what the price of gasoline should be in any one community. Our policy is to provide for one price with respect to crude oil in Canada and then place the problem before the AIB to ensure that no more than the normal costs of refining, marketing and those additional crude oil costs, whenever there is a price increase, are passed on to the consumer. Market forces, along with transportation-but primarily market forces-are the major determinant of gasoline prices in various communities in the hon. member's province.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, on a
supplementary.
I thank the minister very kindly for his very clear and specific answer. I already was aware of the provincial jurisdiction in that field, but in view of the difficult times we are now living, 1 merely wanted to express an opinion, hoping to find out whether it might be possible for the federal government, jointly with the provincial ministers responsible for the matter, to come to an agreement on setting a uniform price.
I therefore repeat my question as follows: Has the minister held consultations with the new Quebec Minister of Natural Resources with a view to coming to an agreement on the price of gas so that its price can be uniform throughout a given province such as Quebec, and equal chances are given to the consumers regardless of the area because at times there is a differences of 7, 8 or 10 cents a gallon from one village to the other?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have not had discussions on uniform gasoline prices with the new minister of natural resources or the new minister of energy for the province, for the reasons that I gave in my first answer. I can assure the hon. member that I shall be discussing with the new minister of energy a number of other important questions with respect to oil, natural gas, and perhaps gasoline as well, in his province. I will convey to him the representations made by the hon. member.


FINANCE
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since it has been established this week that food prices continue to soar at

an intolerable rate, affecting low income families in particular, and since many producers have not received an increase in their prices for almost two years, how does the minister explain the unacceptable increases in food prices at the present time? Further, apart from indexing family allowances, what immediate contingency plan does the government have to meet this situation?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: At this season of the year much of the increase in prices of fresh food in Canada relates to imported food products, and I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the difficult production situation which has existed in the areas which are Canada's traditional suppliers. I think we can expect, not only in relation to prices of imported food but with the recovery of food prices in Canada, that there will be some increase in this part of the consumer price index. It is because of the expected recovery of food prices that we have to be more than ever certain that in the other areas on the non-food side, particularly in the area of services, we should continue to restrain the growth of inflation in Canada.


AGRICULTURE
William Heward Grafftey: 1 would simply comment that we on this side of the House do not accept the theory that imports alone account for the increase in food prices. My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the situation described in my earlier question, one which especially affects low income Canadians, is the federal government now ready and willing to discuss with the provinces a school milk program to be implemented immediately?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if a school milk program were to be initiated immediately, it would be done through the Department of National Health and Welfare. We have an assurance from our farmers that they would supply the milk if someone wants to pay for the program.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. It is prompted by a statement made in Montreal yesterday by the chairman of the CRTC to the effect that no complaints had been lodged by anyone with the CRTC following the serious charges of unbalanced reporting by Radio-Canada. My question also relates to the ruling made on February 24 by the CRTC with regard to charges of unbalanced programming at radio station
March 1, 1977

CFCF in Montreal in the course of a series of programs on Bill C-22, which had this to say:
The licensee's right to freedom of expression must not supersede the public's right to receive programming which provides a reasonably balanced opportunity for the expression of differing views on matters of public concern.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: In view of the serious charges made by members of parliament from Quebec, members of the cabinet and, indeed, by the right hon. gentleman himself, has he instructed the Minister of Communications to lodge a complaint with the CRTC and ask them to monitor Radio-Canada? If not, will he do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On a minor point, I am not sure to whom the hon. member is referring when he refers to members of the cabinet. I get the sense of the question, though, and I think it is a very constructive one. I undertake to follow it up in consultation with the minister responsible for the CRTC.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday and last Friday the right hon. member for Prince Albert raised the question of an agreement signed by the Minister of Transport with the city of Prince Albert having to do with the improvement and renovation of the airport there. The minister replied that no submission had been received with respect to this expenditure. In order that there might be no question that expenditures to honour the agreement by the Minister of Transport will we allocated, would the minister now indicate his firm commitment to this funding?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, until there is a submission to Treasury Board I think I would be totally irresponsible to make such a commitment. The hon. member should really address that question to the Minister of Transport when he is in the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain how agreements are signed by ministers of the Crown which indicate that expenditures of substantial moneys are to be paid before obtaining Treasury Board approval; and will the minister henceforth have his colleagues sign agreements only when they are able to carry out their intentions?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, my understanding, which was confirmed to my satisfaction, anyway, of the wording of the question of the right hon. member for Prince Albert was that he was alluding to the possibility of such an agreement. I cannot elaborate beyond that.
Oral Questions


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. There was an agreement which left the distinct impression with the people of Prince Albert that they were going to get these improvements. Would the minister tell the House whether that particular type of commitment will in fact be honoured, if it was made by a minister of the Crown, or will he at least instruct his colleagues to get Treasury Board approval before leading people astray and giving them false impressions?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think the judgment that any minister has led these people astray is certainly not at all established.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It arises out of the request of the public accounts committee that the Treasury Board determine how many Crown corporations and agencies the government have created in this country, and out of early rumours or reports that in this search for the number of Crown corporations as many as perhaps a thousand have been discovered. My question is this: Is it the policy of the government to permit existing Crown corporations to create subsidiary Crown corporations or subsidiary agencies without receiving order in council approval from the cabinet?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, investment in subsidiary companies, which does not always involve the creation of a Crown corporation thereby, is in some cases the decision of the Crown corporation, and other require government approval. One would have to define it in terms of the Financial Administration Act, and we are looking at that very problem. We are aware of the fact that there has to be a much more complete list of Crown-owned corporations whether totally controlled or not.


James McPhail Gillies: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the President of the Treasury Board tell the House whether or not the government is now discovering that it has perhaps as many as a thousand subsidiaries, Crown corporations and agencies; and would he also tell the House whether or not he is convinced or satisfied that all these agencies have been effectively audited and that effective financial controls are operating on these agencies?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I would not join in the guessing game as to the number up to a thousand; 1 have not seen the final reports that have been requested.


Walter David Baker: Is the number too low?

March 1, 1977
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I am not party to the same rumours as the hon. member, but in any event it will all come out in the wash when we go through this.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon.   Herb. Gray@Windsor West: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. There have been reports that the British Columbia broiler marketing board has been attempting to prevent certain supermarkets in Vancouver from selling at low retail prices broiler chickens imported from the United States, and this has led to court action in British Columbia. Will the federal government intervene in these law suits to maintain federal jurisdiction over international and interprovincial trade and to prevent a provincial body from seemingly attempting to control imports into a province, in light of the importance of this issue to consumers in British Columbia and across Canada?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the hon. member's question in the sense that these are matters of great importance. Normally we do not intervene until such cases reach a higher level than the trial, but 1 will examine the particular cases to see whether there is a proper intervention by federal authorities at the present level of trial.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I join with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe in expressing our welcome to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are glad to see him back in the House and looking so well. Has the minister had an opportunity to look at some of the questions which were asked in his absence and at some of the motions which were proposed under Standing Order 43, and in particular may I ask him about the rate of the 100 per cent disability pension. Since this rate has fallen behind the rate that was established in 1972 in relation to the composite of five public service groups by more than $500 a year, will the government take the necessary action, even if it means legislation, to correct this imbalance and to restore the 100 per cent disability pension rate to the value it had when it was established in 1972?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, may I say I am quite familiar with the Standing Order 43s which were presented in the House and also with the questions asked by hon. members. With regard to the legislation pertaining to pensions, this matter is presently under review by the department. I would remind hon. members, as they know, that a consumer price index has been established and has been in effect for a long period. The other matter is under review and we intend to bring it forward at a later date.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the question relates to closing the gap because only the consumer price index has been applied to the 100 per cent rate which was created in 1972, may I ask the minister whether he will be prepared to discuss this and other issues in detail when his estimates come before the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: I see no reason why we cannot make some reference to it, Mr. Speaker, at that time.


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO IMPROVE PENSIONS OF WIDOWS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Further to the question asked of the minister's parliamentary secretary as to whether legislation was under consideration to provide increased pensions for widows receiving less than 48 per cent pension, and in view of the fact that figures show there are 65,000 disability pensions between the range of 5 per cent to 50 per cent, when is the minister going to take definitive action with regard to introducing legislation to overcome this hardship which has been caused these widows?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, widows' pensions are also under consideration by our department, and when we have something noteworthy to report I will bring it to the attention of the hon. members.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar relative to the agreement already signed by the local authorities and the Minister of Transport for improvements to Prince Albert airport. When such an agreement is entered into in good faith by the local authorities and executed by the Minister of Transport on behalf of the Crown in right of Canada, is such agreement binding on the federal government even if it has not yet received Treasury Board approval?

March 1, 1977


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary has been briefed on this matter and is out of the House getting something for me which I will need at three o'clock. The agreement to which the hon. member refers was not only entered into in good faith by the people of Saskatchewan but also by the Minister of Transport who is also from Saskatchewan.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. My question related to whether the agreement is binding on the Crown in right of Canada if it has not been approved or moneys have not been allocated by Treasury Board for such expenditure. Is it legally binding on the Crown in the absence of Treasury Board approval?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that would depend upon what is in the agreement, and I have not yet read it.


POSSIBLE TELEVISING OF BUDGET PRESENTATION
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, before posing my question to the Minister of Finance I wish him, on behalf of everybody, a thumping good day on this, his birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. O'Sullivan:: I also wish to express the hope that as he approaches the mellowing of age-and I speak from experience, knowing the effects of that-it will be reflected in his budget. I want to ask the minister, in view of the fact that the House has recently passed a resolution allowing the televising of the proceedings of the House of Commons, whether in the important event of a budget being brought down the minister would be prepared to have the reading of the budget and the ensuing debate televised so that the Canadian people might see whether or not the economy is in full recovery.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I thank the hon. gentleman for his good wishes since it has been suggested in some quarters that I have succeeded in passing from adolescence through to senescence without passing through any intermediate stage. May I say that personally 1 would be delighted to have the opportunity of presenting the budget on television and indeed witnessing the statements by other representatives on this question. The televising of the budget procedure would have my very full support. I would be glad to co-operate with members in all parties to bring about this objective, if we can.


An hon. Member:: When?
Oral Questions


POSSIBLE TELEVISING OF BUDGET PRESENTATION-REQUEST FOR EQUAL TIME TO BE AFFORDED OPPOSITION SPOKESMEN
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the government House leader who is in the chamber, but perhaps he would like to resume his seat for a minute. 1 knew it was a birthday; I did not know we would have musical chairs. Would the government House leader give the House the assurance that should the budget debate be televised, spokesmen for the opposition will be given equal time so that the proper economic policies might be presented to the Canadian people?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question, although enticing, is none the less hypothetical.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION COMMISSION ALLEGED PREFERENCE RESPECTING STATION CBUFT, B.C.- REQUEST TREATMENT BY CRTC BE UNIFORM
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Now that we have moved into the era of accommodation and revision, 1 would like to ask him a question about the future of television in British Columbia. According to one of the employees at CBUFT there are times of the day when there are as many employees in the studio as viewers watching the station, and yet the CRTC seems bent on giving that station one of the best and most clear channels on the dial. Would the Prime Minister make representations to the CRTC to see if it would change its opinion on that matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, that is clearly a representation as opposed to a question.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Two Nova Scotia companies have worked out proposals with Spanish and West German interests to have foreign caught fish from within the new 200-mile fishing limit landed and processed in Nova Scotia. In view of the present unutilized Fish processing capacity of about 30 per cent in Nova Scotia, and a large number of shore workers who are unemployed, when can we expect an announcement from the minister indicating the approval of Nova Scotia's joint venture proposals?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, there are a certain number of proposals made by various companies that have been submitted for different species. They are being examined in terms of

March 1, 1977
Oral Questions
benefit to Canadians. In fact, my principal adviser on this issue is in the Atlantic area today, and tomorrow I expect a report from him. These proposals will be decided in due course.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the fact that joint ventures would utilize the processing capacity of the province and, in addition, would serve to provide the Nova Scotia fishing industry with exposure in the use of freezer trawlers and the catching of certain species now declared surplus to Canada's needs, would the minister indicate the type of policy he plans to implement which will assist Canadian fishermen to catch their share of the quotas allocated to them on the Hamilton bank and in other far northern waters?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the phrase "joint venture" which would imply foreign capital is not an accurate one in these Canada foreign arrangements, because we do not see the need for capital. In relation to Canadians getting a larger share of the quota which is available to us, I really look at the economics of this industry and do not see that investing in trawlers costing up to $15 million for what would be essentially a very short season would be a wise move. I think some of the companies have come up with good proposals, and I hope that down the road they will be looking at charters with Canadian crews with the possibility of some gear technicians from other countries. There are vessels available for charter right now.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that an exemption from income tax is allowed to people who are blind, confined to a wheelchair, or bedridden, amounting to $1,420, but that that exemption from income tax does not extend to other people who are totally disabled, would the minister give consideration to recommending the broadening of the parameters of the definition of the word "disabled"?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to take note of the hon. member's question and to raise it with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, in the preparation of the budget.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister any plans to extend the levy to deal with the disposal of surplus industrial milk to cover fluid milk producers and cream shippers even in those provinces which did not contribute to the milk surplus, or if there is to be an extension, would the levy be based on surplus industrial milk?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I know of no intention at present to increase the levy to cream shippers. If anything is to be decided, as mentioned yesterday by the dairy organization, there is to be no levy on cream shipments at all. But there has been a suggestion that the levy be extended to all fluid milk producers in Canada because they all share in the markets one way or another and they are all affected by the total program. So I do know it is under discussion among the dairy farmers themselves and with our dairy commission.


William Gordon Ritchie: Can the minister say whether the discussions have progressed to discussions with provincial marketing boards which deal with fluid milk producers?


Eugene Whelan: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I had a discussion in Winnipeg last week with the Manitoba Farm Bureau, and the head of the Dairy Producers Organization attended that meeting and expressed a view that if it were extended, it would not affect them at all because they are now contributing to the over-all production.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Would the minister tell the House whether his department has taken any specific steps to get into communication with Canadians living in Uganda and would his department eventually be able to ensure their evacuation?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, this is a rather uncertain situation in terms of information. However, we have determined that there are approximately 85 Canadians living in Uganda, and that number of Canadians have registered with our high commission in Nairobi. Most of them are missionaries. Should the need arise-and to date there has not been any request-a member of the Canadian High Commission in Nairobi will be sent to Uganda to provide whatever consular assistance will be possible. In an emergency situation
March 1, 1977

the French embassy in Kampala has agreed to assist Canadians pending the arrival of a Canadian official.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Acting Minister of Urban Affairs. In view of the fact that the federal Department of Public Works has been recommending against the use of aluminum wiring for years because of the potential fire hazard, and in view of the fact that no federal Public Works Department-sponsored building will be built unless copper wire is used, will the minister give an assurance to the House that in the future any housing firm assisted by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will not allow the use of aluminum wiring?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I will transmit this question to my colleague the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and tell him about the concern so often expressed in this House by the hon. member.


ALUMINUM WIRING-REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION BANNING USE
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the lack of responsibility displayed by the Canadian Standards Association, and because of the tremendous fire hazard associated with aluminum wiring, will the minister bring in legislation under the Hazardous Products Act banning its use in all residential accommodations in Canada until his department has undertaken significant studies in this area, and can the minister assure the public that its installation is not dangerous to human life?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I attempted to deal with this question in a similar form the other day. I said that there was an absence of necessary evidence that indeed a hazard does exist in homes with aluminum wiring. I tried to point out, as well, that aluminum wiring in itself cannot be considered hazardous and therefore is outside the purview of the hazardous products legislation. If the installation of aluminum wiring with terminals is in itself hazardous, this is a problem for power companies and utilities under provincial jurisdiction and the question would be more properly directed to them rather than to my department.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rodriguez:: Burn, baby, burn.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. When speaking last week in Vancouver Quadra the minister said that freedom of information legislation is being drafted. He also cautioned that society must balance freedom of information with the right of individuals to privacy. In view of the fact that the present Bill C-25 fails to protect privacy or to provide freedom of information, when is the minister planning to introduce the legislation to which he referred?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the press reports to which the hon. member refers. They obviously arise from an immensely successful and enthusiastic Liberal meeting 1 attended in the hon. member's riding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I don't believe you.


Mr. Epp:: How many showed up?


Steve Eugene Paproski: There must have been at least 15 people there.


Walter David Baker: Did you get them all in the phone booth?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Stop splitting hairs.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I indicated at that meeting that the government is introducing legislation in the form of Bill C-25 to protect the privacy of individuals with regard to government information used for administrative purposes with respect to those persons. I also indicated that there was a twin need for freedom of information legislation and that we would, pursuant to our statement in the Speech from the Throne, be introducing to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments a green paper on the subject. I expressed the hope that that would lead to an information act.


Walter David Baker: In 1990?


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Since the minister also was speculating on the prospects of the Liberal party of regaining my riding, 1 wonder if he would like to speculate on his own prospects in Vancouver Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 1, 1977
Oral Questions


OLYMPIC GAMES, MOSCOW-INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL INTRODUCE PROGRAM TO TRAIN ATHLETES
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Amateur Sport.
Considering the government responsibility for adequately training our national team in view of the forthcoming Olympic games in Moscow, I would like to ask the minister whether she is prepared to present a specific program to encourage and train our Canadian athletes? What will this program be? How will it be designed? And also what funds are going to be granted to such an organization, in the best interest of our national team?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will be pleased to know that Game Plan at the present time is being augmented. As hon. members know, Game Plan was formerly assisted by the provinces, but the provinces having now withdrawn, the federal government will continue with this program on our own. This is a plan for assisting amateur athletes to augment their skills in the various sports in which they will be participating. This will include the 28 Olympic sports. We will be involved with the Canada Games this summer at St. John's, Newfoundland; next year, hopefully, with the Edmonton Commonwealth Games. In 1979 we will be on the scene at Brandon, and at the PanAmerican Games the same year. This government will be assisting our athletes, and we will be moving on with them in 1980 in Moscow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Did the minister have a colour film made by Crawley Films Limited, or by any film-maker, of 25 minutes duration, or any duration, costing $13,792 or thereabouts, conveying his Christmas greetings to his staff around the world, with 90 prints sent to 110 posts?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure that information can be obtained in some other way.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The minister wants to answer the question.


Benno Friesen: Was it a wide screen?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
(Mr. Clarke.]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture and it deals with imports of pork and pork products from the People's Republic of China. In view of the fact that Canada is looked upon as a food producing and exporting nation, and taking into consideration the proficiency of Canadian pork producers, can the minister explain the necessity of importing pork products frpm the People's Republic of China when we should more rightly be concerned about the exporting of this Canadian commodity?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there is certainly no law against people producing pork in Canada. There is an open and ample market here for them. At the present time we are importing about five million pounds of pork per week into Canada, not because producers are not making money on pork but because they can make more money selling grain. So they have discontinued producing pork. The amount of pork which comes in from the People's Republic of China is .35 per cent of the total amount of pork imported into Canada. We are selling them a lot of grain and many other things, but it is up to the pork producers themselves if they want to provide pork for Canadian consumers.


William C. Scott: In view of the chaos in the beef producing industry in Canada, is the minister not afraid that this same chaos will befall the pork industry and create great uncertainty among pork producers in Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there is legislation provided by this parliament which protects pork producers or any other producers who want to supply the market here.


MANPOWER
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and it relates to the Canada Works program. Notwithstanding the fact that funds have been allocated to status Indians, which are needed for their very serious unemployment problem, I would like to ask the minister why there has been no specific allocation made to Metis and non-status Indians. I ask that in view of the fact that the Department of Manpower and

March 1, 1977

Immigration is fully aware of the serious unemployment situation as revealed by a recent labour force survey which was conducted by the department with the assistance of the Native Council of Canada.


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the regular allocation made under the Canada Works program we have made a special allocation for status Indians on reserves. I did meet with hon. members and indicated in my letter to them that I was looking for other ideas, schemes and plans as to how we might accommodate in the criteria both these peoples in a different approach to the matter. I have spoken to Mr. Daniels, president of the the Native Council of Canada. I indicated to him some ideas I have about how we might change the allocation procedure. 1 think we have arrived at an agreement and I am endeavouring to incorporate that into the second phase of the Canada Works program.


John Robert Holmes: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the minister for his answer. The fact is that the Canada Works program is having a divisive effect on the native community of Canada and contradicts the policy announced by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on May 17, 1976, in which the minister in a letter to the native associations stated:
I am now able to present to you the main elements of a manpower policy designed to help the Indians, the Inuit and the Metis be more successful in the labour market.
I should like to ask the minister specifically if he will consider implementing the policies that were announced in that program of May, 1976, and provide a special allocation for assistance to Metis and non-status Indians.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, rather than opening the floodgate to all kinds of special or different or any other groups, it seems to me, on the basis of the letter written by my predecessor to the Native Council of Canada, that we should see if we can find some method whereby they can be accommodated within the Canada Works criteria so that the approach we have taken is acceptable to the council. When we get all the bugs ironed out, we will be discussing it again with them.
Purpose of contract	Duration
1972-Nil 1973
Providing and obtaining advice on all matters relating to marine mammals and continuing as consultant to Int. Whaling Committee on matters relating to I.W.C. 1 year
Economic Consultant- evaluation of the salmon vessel licencing program and policy	18 months
Name
Sprules, W. M.
Campbell, B. A.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table, in both official languages, a United States department of state note to the Canadian ambassador in Washington dated February 18, 1977, on the Garrison diversion project.

* *


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 183, 343, 1,318, 1,418, 1,556, 1,637 and 1,786.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	How many former senior members of the Ministry of State (Fisheries) were put on contract by the government on their retirement from the Public Service in (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 (d) 1975 and, in each case (i) what was his or her salary at the time of retirement (ii) for how many years was he or she in the Public Service?
2.	For each such contract, what was (a) its purpose (b) its duration (c) its amount and to whom was it paid?
3.	How did the daily rate on contract compare with the daily rate on salary in each case?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Department of the Environment as follows: 1, 2 and 3. See following statement. All other departments and agencies have submitted Nil replies to this question.
Amount	Salary at Retirement	Years of Service	Contract Rate of Pay	Salaries Rate of Pay11,000	25,000-29,000	29	200	1087,705	20,750-23,278	32	150	95
March 1, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Purpose of contract	Duration	NameContinuation of consultation for Minister of Fisheries concerning Law of the Sea Conference.	3 contracts over 3 years	Needier, A. W. H. (former D.M. Fisheries)1974	Editing Scientific publication- Journal of Fisheries Research Board	1 month	Billingsley, L. W.Consultation regarding marine invertebrate investigation.	2 years	Quayle, D.Editing "History of Fisheries Research Board"	2 months	Ricker, W. E.1975	Consultant regarding Scientific Project Proposals	40 days	Ricker, W. E.Consultative services on a Herring Task Force and a Tuna Commission dealing with tuna fisheries of Atlantic Ocean and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean and provide background documentation on fishery trends in Northwest Atlantic for FMS.	1 year	Tibbo. N. S.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	Was a ban placed on commercial Atlantic salmon fishing in 1971 and, if so (a) what has happened regarding the biological stock over the past five years (b) are there any streams in which the stocks have been replenished so that commercial fishing could again resume?
2.	If and when the biological stock reaches a sustained level where commercial fishing is again feasible, what will be done by the Department of the Environment (Fisheries) regarding the (a) number and allocation of salmon fishing licences (b) distribution of salmon yield between the commerical and recreational fisherman?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: I. A five year commercial fishery ban was implemented in 1972 on selected salmon fisheries within the provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Quebec. The commercial fishing ban has been effective in improving salmon stocks within rivers affected. However, while runs have increased, biological predictions indicate that they are not of sufficient strength to support a commercial fishery in 1977.
2.	The whole matter of the status of salmon stocks in the Atlantic coast of Canada including the biological assessment, the number and allocation of salmon fishing licences and the distribution of salmon yield between both the commercial and recreational fishermen has been the topic of a comprehensive review. The review concluded that because of the six year salmon cycle the full benefit of the closure would not be realized until we get the returns of the 1972 spawning. Accordingly, the ban on the commercial fishery will continue in 1977. An announcement of this decision was made on February 4, 1977. By 1978 it is expected that salmon stocks
(Mr. Goodale.]
Salary	Years	Contract	Salariesat	of	Rate	RateAmount	Retirement	Service	of Pay	of Pay39.000 35.000 35.000	26,500-31,500	35	200	1201,000	23,000-27,000	6	35	991,500	25,000-28,000	15	Project Amount 100	4,000	23,000-26,000	28	100	994,800	23,000-26,000	28	120	9915,000	25,000-29,000	25	150	101
will have recovered sufficiently to allow the resumption of a modest commercial fishery. Prior to that, the details of the management plan considered most appropriate to the future well-being of the salmon resource and the particular interest of the user groups will be announced.


Mr. Epp: 1.	Were any government monies granted to Sondra Gotlieb, author of "Cross Canada Cooking" and, if so, how much?
2.	Is any department purchasing the book?
3.	Was an agreement made with Ms. Gotlieb, during the time of negotiations for her manuscript, that a certain number of her complete book would be bought by the government?
4.	What is the number of "Cross Canada Cooking" books bought by the government?
5.	What is the cost of the book's purchase to the government?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Departments of the Secretary of State and Supply and Services as follows:
1.	Under contract to the Secretary of State's Department as author of "Cross Canada Cooking" Sondra Gotlieb received a fee of $13,000.00. She received no other payment for the book from the Department of the Secretary of State, except for an amount of $2,091.00 (travelling expenses-$991.00, administrative costs-$1,100.00)
2,	4 and 5. Secretary of State 300 copies, $1,342.50; Supply and Services 5,000 copies, $22,375.00.
March 1, 1977

3.	No.


Mr. McCleave: With reference to the answer to Question No. 1,069, what is the identity of the further information and the nature of the further engineering studies concerning the Jack's Lake, Nova Scotia landfill site, that the Department of the Environment requires from the provincial government?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The Department of the Environment has requested further information on the design of the proposed environmental control systems, the design of the landfill monitoring program, and the details of a contingency plan to be implemented in the event that leachate escapes untreated from the site and is found to be migrating away from the site within the localized groundwater flow regime. In addition the Department has requested further engineering study of the hydrostratigraphy of the area downgradient of the landfill. This information will be used as necessary to request modifications of the environmental control systems design to ensure that the landfills' impact on the surrounding environment is minimized.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	From January 1, 1974 to date, has the Department of Public Works made any agreements for the rental of space in the Constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and, if so, in what locations?
2.	Is the Department now seeking rental space in the Constituency of Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe and, if so, for what purpose and how much area?


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, at the following locations: Corner Brook, Stephenville, St. Andrews, Rocky Harbour, Port-aux-Choix.
2.	No.


Mr. Coates: What is the total estimated amount in equalization grants to be paid to the Province of Quebec for the fiscal year 1976-77?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The total estimated amount of equalization to be paid to the Province of Quebec for the fiscal year 1976-77 is $1,123,554,000.


Mr. Herbert: For the 1974 taxation year, how many persons declared taxable incomes in excess of $100,000 in (a) Canada (b) each province?
National Transportation Act


Hon.   Monique@: The
information requested is not readily available in the same format or to the same detail. The closest statistics available are for the number of filers with total income greater than $100,000 for the 1974 taxation year, (a) All Canada (including non-residents) 8,117. (b) Newfoundland, 53; Prince Edward Island, *; Nova Scotia, 113; New Brunswick, 53; Quebec, 1,968; Ontario, 4,080; Manitoba, 188; Saskatchewan, 200; Alberta, 549; British Columbia, 850; Yukon and Northwest Territories, *.
Note: Where small in number, the number of filers is not indicated in order to adequately protect confidentiality.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling orders of the day, may I recall yesterday's point of order raised by the hon. member for Don Valley in reference to the remarks of the Minister of Finance. With the permission of the House, I would prefer to reserve one more day before making a definitive announcement on that matter.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Stanley Ronald Basford: that Bill C-33, to amend the National Transportation Act and the Department of Transport Act for the purpose of defining the objective of the transportation policy for Canada and authorizing the consequential rearrangement of powers and duties relating to transport and to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act in respect of freight rates and other matters, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford).


An hon. Member:: Where is Lang?


An hon. Member:: Lang has gone to the Senate.
National Transportation Act


An hon. Member:: Is Otto travelling by train?

March 1, 1977


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on rising on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), to propose second reading of this bill, it is with great pleasure that I inform hon. members opposite that the Minister of Transport is in Vancouver attending a conference on economic transportation-


An hon. Member:: How did he get there?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Did he get there by train?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -which led last night to an important statement being made by the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Outside the House.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The minister met in Victoria with his provincial counterpart, Mr. Davis, and Premier Bennett on questions of west coast transportation which I am optimistic will lead to a resolution of the problems that 1 and my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), and others have been so actively involved with in the last few weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why is she blushing?


An hon. Member:: She is too busy playing football.


Iona Campagnolo: I do not blush.


Stanley Ronald Basford: When the major elements of government's transportation policy were announced in this House by the former minister of transport in June, 1975, we stated that the federal government should play a positive and selective role to ensure that the over-all system develops in an effective way to meet national and regional needs.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the election promise in Cornwall.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about Stewart, B.C.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We are going to come to Stewart in a moment.


An hon. Member:: We will leave you there, too.


An hon. Member:: What about the longshoremen in Prince Rupert?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I have a very long speech.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It had better be a good one.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]


Stanley Ronald Basford: I fear for the opposition. If we are going to have all these interruptions, the long speech may become needlessly long.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: It is needless anyway.


An hon. Member:: Is it necessary?


An hon. Member:: How much did it cost?


An hon. Member:: Who wrote it?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that hon. members opposite regard transportation as such a light-hearted matter when in fact it has been-


An hon. Member:: Where is the minister?


An hon. Member:: Who is light-hearted?


An hon. Member:: The minister is not concerned.


Walter David Baker: The minister had to hire a lawyer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I think in courtesy to the House and all hon. members we should hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford). He has the floor.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The general objective of that policy is to provide a transportation system that effectively supports the achievement of national and -regional, economic and social objectives, is efficient and ensures a high degree of accessibility and equity for all users.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Where?


Stanley Ronald Basford: We also emphasized throughout the new policy that there should be an efficient integration of the various modes of transportation by each service so that the best level of service is provided at the lowest possible cost.
The new policy recognizes, contrary to some elements of the 1967 National Transportation Act, that transportation in Canada is a mix of services, varying in the degree of development and maturity and in the degree of competition.
Our view is that the role of the government should vary according to the nature of the services and region concerned. Those services which are well developed and mature should be operated on a commercially viable basis within a general policy and regulatory framework provided by the government. Hence, in those cases where there is effective competition, rates and services should be determined largely through the forces of the marketplace. Yet in other regions or in other parts of the transportation system where services are required in the national or regional interest, but cannot achieve commercial viability or the required degree of technological development, the federal government is prepared to provide active support and financial assistance.
March 1, 1977

It has sometimes been suggested that our policy involves competition between the two concepts of commercial viability on the one hand and, on the other, the use of transportation as an instrument for the achievement of economic and social goals. The government does not see these concepts as conflicting but, rather, as complementary and mutually reinforcing. Because there appears to be some public misunderstanding on the point-a misunderstanding on the part of my noisy friends opposite-I should like to take a little time to explain how we see the relationship between those two objectives. The starting point is the proposition that it is the responsibility of government to see to it that the national transportation system-


An hon. Member:: Who wrote the speech?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -to the extent practical-


An hon. Member:: How much did it cost?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -provides freight and passenger services which adequately and efficiently meet the economic and social needs of Canadians.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: No wonder Lang isn't here.


Stanley Ronald Basford: This is true whether or not the users of each individual service can reasonably afford to pay the full costs of providing that service. There are, and probably will always be, some services which are required in order to meet legitimate economic and social needs such as regional development or access to remote communities but for which the particular users cannot reasonably be expected to pay the full costs. In such cases government support in the form of direct or indirect subsidy is necessary and reasonable. Government support of this kind to ensure the provision of necessary transportation facilities which cannot be commercially viable represents the use of transportation as an instrument for the achievement of economic and social objectives. But the resources available to government for these purposes are necessarily limited and should always be used for maximum effect because the legitimate claims upon them are extensive. It is therefore important, Mr. Speaker, that available resources be conserved for application to those situations where they are most needed, and not dissipated in support of transportation services which may only be convenient but not necessary or of other services which are necessary but capable of commercial viability without subsidy.
Subsidies so often distort the picture and hide real costs, so that more is spent in total on transportation than would have been without the distortion. That is waste; this is not cost effective. Wherever we can, therefore, we shall make decisions based on real costs. Where even the lowest cost is too high for someone to pay we should help him, if we see his needs, to have the service. Most often we should help him but leave him free to find the lowest cost and most effective transportation.
Given that policy approach, my purpose today, on behalf of the Minister of Transport is twofold: first, to give what is more or less a progress report to the House on several of the major
National Transportation Act
initiatives which the government has undertaken or is about to undertake to implement that new transportation policy and, second, to introduce proposed amendments to the National Transportation Act, the Railway Act, the Transport Act and the Department of Transport Act in order to implement the new policy in areas that require changes to existing legislation. For the first purpose it might be useful to outline our activities in freight and then in passenger transportation.
Over the past few years we have undertaken a number of initiatives, often with the provinces, carriers and industries concerned, to move freight more effectively and efficiently within, to and from Canada. Some of our efforts have a regional orientation, others are more national in scope. In western Canada, various developments are under way or are in an advanced stage of planning. First, we are involved in a number of activities to improve and increase the capacity of the rail system to move commodities within the region and to export markets. These include the improvement of the CN and CP main lines through the Rockies and the prairies, the development of the northern British Columbia rail system and an examination of the possibilities of joint track usage.
Second, we are taking various steps to change and modernize the grain handling system, including the purchase of hopper cars, investments in new or improved terminal facilities, and recommendations of the Hall and Snavely commissions. Third, we have or will be adopting measures to add to the capacity, efficiency and annual throughput of port facilities in centres such as Prince Rupert and Vancouver. Finally, we are making investments in the primary highway networks of the prairies and in the development of highways in the western northlands.
In central and eastern Canada a similar range of freight transportation efforts is under way or planned, including port expansions and improvements at such centres as Quebec City, Saint John and Halifax; capital investments and essential research and development to increase the utilization of the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Great Lakes through lock and channel improvements and through the development of marine shunters and air-cushion icebreaking vehicles; and measures to increase efficiency and capacity in the railway system and in ferry freight operations and the highway network, particularly in the Atlantic region.
Northern Canada has historically also had unique transportation problems and needs. We are dealing with these through increased funding for air transportation infrastructure, continuing support for the Northern Transportation Company Ltd., improved Arctic resupply services, joint industry-government investment in the MV Arctic bulk carrier, and the analysis of future marine investments for the north, including perhaps a larger polar icebreaker to assist in the exploration and development of Arctic natural resources. Each of these efforts is aimed at meeting the development needs and potential of each region of the country by ensuring that the basic freight transportation system is there to accommodate and, where necessary, to stimulate industrial and commercial growth.

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
Besides these regional thrusts, freight transportation initiatives more national in scope are under way or planned. Soon the government hopes to table in this House legislation to establish largely autonomous port commissions at 20 ports of national significance and to improve the co-ordination and direction of all transportation port activity through the creation of a Canadian ports commission within the Department of Transport.
The methods of regulating freight transportation as well as passenger transportation are in continuous need of change and improvement as freight movements grow in quantity, variety and complexity and as traffic flows shift from one mode to another or from one trade area to another. The CTC has made a number of determined attempts to improve the efficiency of its regulatory process, especially in the area of rail transportation. The new legislative proposals which will be outlined shortly should help in freeing scarce resources in the CTC, enabling it to focus more exclusively on its regulatory functions. The proposed changes should also provide a more effective legal basis for rail freight regulations. While for a variety of reasons the federal role in truck regulation has never been clear since 1967, the government is hopeful that as a result of current discussions with the provinces and industry we will be able to fashion a more effective federal-provincial partnership in that important regulatory area.
A final freight transportation matter of broader national implication is the systematic analysis of various direct and indirect freight subsidies and assistance programs. These range from branch line subsidies through grain freight rate assistance and St. Lawrence Seaway deficits to Atlantic region freight rate subsidies. Most of these were implemented when the economic and transportation needs of the west, Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces were significantly different from what they will be in the coming decade. Some of these programs, however well-intentioned and effective years ago, now actually inhibit the development of certain regions and of parts of the transportation system. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport has proposed changes in a number of these assistance programs. We think that these changes will lead to a more efficient, effective and productive transportation system.
Another important element of the new transportation policy is the recognition that passenger problems are every bit as real to the country as freight transportation problems and that the challenge of moving people in the most effective and efficient manner increasingly calls for a multimodal approach; that is, an approach which emphasizes that every mode, whether it is air, rail, bus or car should be encouraged where it is likely to be the most effective. In the context of that approach the Minister of Transport announced last January a policy on rail passenger services. In the light of unacceptably high financial losses and deteriorating services in recent years on rail passenger operations, the government's objectives are to revitalize those services which are essential and potentially effective and encourage other modes to replace rail services which are no longer justified.

The Canadian Transport Commission recently issued a summary report on transcontinental rail passenger services following extensive public hearings on this subject. It is currently giving priority, as directed in the rail passenger policy statement, to the development of a plan for transcontinental and regional rail services in western and central Canada. As service is improved and subsidy per passenger decreased, it is the government's intent to increase its subsidy from 80 per cent to 100 per cent of losses. We are also negotiating with CN and CP for the establishment of a Canadian rail passenger corporation that will operate, manage and market the improved service across the country, Via Canada.
To demonstrate the possibilities of improved rail passenger services the government has chosen the Quebec-Windsor corridor. The first phase of the corridor improvement project, affecting the Quebec City-Montreal segment, has already begun. Over the next three years the government will spend approximately $30 million on this segment in order to acquire modern, high-speed trains and to improve rail lines, signals and maintenance facilities. Let me stress that it is also our aim to make improvements in several rail services in other areas of the country. Following completion of the CTC hearings, the remaining transcontinental and regional rail passenger services in every part of the country, not just in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, will be improved.
The broader multimodal approach to transportation has also caused the federal government to focus more closely on interprovincial bus transportation, the role of the automobile and the future need for urban transportation. We are working with the provinces to consider ways and means of improving bus transportation in certain parts of the country; the Atlantic region is one example. While there may never be enough financial resources to meet all needs for urban transportation, we believe that we have launched a number of positive steps, through the rail relocation, grade crossing and commuter rail programs, to improve public transportation in urban areas.
It has been the view of a number of Canadians, and perhaps even some members of this House, that in its approach to passenger transportation the federal Department of Transport has historically been unduly oriented toward the air mode at the expense of bus and rail. Certainly, the rail passenger initiatives I just mentioned should alleviate that concern. But it should also be kept in mind that the demand for air transportation has grown in leaps and bounds over the past two decades and, despite some cyclical slowdowns, is likely to continue to increase substantially in the future.
Hence, new facilities and services have been and will continue to be provided wherever necessary and desirable. Yet at the same time I would like to inform members that additional measures have been implemented recently to ensure that airports and air services are developed and approved, where the case is sound, with standards and facilities which the air industry and Canadians both need and can afford. In some way, our air services and facilities have been so good that we
March 1, 1977

have perhaps come to expect too much; we may have to lower our level of expectations unless we are prepared to pay more through increased government expenditures and, hence, increased taxes.
While on the subject of government expenditures and taxes for transportation purposes, I might once again tell hon. members briefly why this government is so concerned about the need to increase the level of cost recovery from transportation services. As we all know, most Canadians are worried about rising government expenditures and about growing government involvement in almost every aspect of Canadian society. There is a general desire-sometimes I wonder whether it is shared by members opposite-to limit government spending and government involvement, and that desire applies to certain aspects of transportation as well. Where possible, the growth in government expenditures should be reduced and activities left to the individual, to the local community or to private enterprise.
Federal transportation expenditures have increased rapidly. For example, over the past five years the combined budget of the Department of Transport, including Transport Canada Financing of Crown corporations, and the Canadian Transport Commission has almost doubled from $834.5 million in 197071 to $1,646.6 million in 1975-76. In this latter year our deficit for the provision of air services across the country totalled $448 million; ferry subsidies, largely in the Atlantic provinces, accounted for another $110.5 million; freight subsidies, east and west, were $118 million; rail passenger subsidies, $160 million; while the current debt of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and its 1975-76 operating and maintenance losses are $817 million and $17 million respectively. Besides accounting for more than one half of our total 1-975-76 budget, these deficits and subsidies are increasing at a very rapid rate. For example, it has been predicted that without the positive government initiative 1 referred to earlier, the 1980 subsidies for rail passenger services alone would be approximately $400 million as compared with the 1975-76 figure of $160 million.
These subsidies also often distort the choice by users and consumers of the most economically efficient transportation means and have in the past led to real or imagined regional discrimination. For example, while in 1972 governments at all levels subsidized rail and air passengers by five cents and two cents per mile respectively, the bus passenger received no subsidy at all. Surely we should not bias the passenger's choice among competing travel modes in this way. This is particularly true in cases where the bias is counter to other important objectives such as environmental quality or energy efficiency.
In freight transportation a number of bulk commodity movements are currently subsidized through such mechanisms as the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the Crowsnest pass rates agreement. Finally, certain regions of the country often voice objections, many of them valid, that the direct or indirect subsidization of freight and passenger movements in one region inhibits the necessary development of industries and communities in other regions. Hence, our transportation deficits and subsidies are not only large and increasing rapidly;
National Transportation Act
they are also often unfair and discriminatory. In addition, subsidies frequently tend to encourage inefficiency; the more one subsidizes a service, the fewer are the incentives to remain or to become efficient.
In light of these facts I think all members will agree that the federal government must ask whether the present variety of expensive subsidy programs and deficits is providing Canadians with the best possible return per dollar spent on transportation and whether they should be allowed to increase at such a rapid rate. Unless we can control our transportation expenditures, and unless we insist that whenever possible the users of these transportation services pay a greater proportion of the actual cost themselves, the taxpayer will simply have to pay more taxes or the government will have to increase its deficits. And as my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), has pointed out repeatedly, that is simply not realistic in times of economic difficulty and in light of the general desire of most Canadians for fiscal restraint by all levels of government.
It is within this context that the agreement proposed, and discussed with many formally and informally, a policy of cost effectiveness; that is, to see how our deficits and subsidies can be reoriented to make them more effective, more equitable and as inexpensive to the taxpayer as possible. The policy basically implies that whenever national or regional, economic or social ends do not justify a transportation subsidy, then the user of the facility or service should pay. This certainly does not mean that all transportation services should be fully paid for by their users, regardless of circumstances. If that were the case, many necessary services such as air connections to remote northern communities or maritime ferry services, to mention a few obvious examples, would simply disappear.
That certainly is not our objective. If only for this reason, we have no doubt that government subsidies will continue to play a significant role in our national transportation system. Yet surely it makes sense that users should pay the cost of transportation services where it is economically practical for them to do so. Then the limited funds available for subsidies can be reserved for those special situations where necessary transportation services cannot earn sufficient revenues to cover their costs and can only be provided with government assistance.
These subsidy funds can and will be used to stimulate slow-growth regions and to provide essential transportation services. In the Atlantic provinces, the minister has discussed with the provincial premiers different alternatives for reallocating transportation funds to assist regional air, bus, rail and highway improvements. In the west, the federal government has helped in the strengthening of prairie highways and is implementing programs to encourage prairie air services and the movement of rapeseed products. I am somewhat startled at the ruckus we have seen in the last few days against my colleague, the Minister of Transport, sitting down with the mayor of Saskatoon and working out a general agreement for the improvement of the airport and the development of plans

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
to enhance our services. When the opposition talks so much about the need for improvement in transportation services I am startled at the ruckus they have created during the last two days during the question period.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We want to make sure it happens.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In British Columbia we are studying the future development of transportation infrastructure for the movement of regional resources, especially coal. In other words, by changing existing subsidy programs that are not totally effective we can reallocate scarce funds for more essential development purposes.
Mr. Speaker, I think the initiatives I have mentioned so far demonstrate the government's intention to adopt the positive yet selective role envisaged in our new transportation policy. But I want to stress that this role has not been exercised unilaterally. We have been, and intend to continue, planning and implementing changes in consultation and often in conjunction with the provinces, the carriers, industry, labour and the public at large. For example, over the past few years we have established formal federal-provincial committees for each of the western, Ontario, Quebec and Atlantic regions so that at both the ministerial and officials level there will be regular contact, dialogue and co-operation on major transportation issues. We have also improved our consultative mechanisms with the major carriers such as CN, CP, Air Canada, CP Air, with the regional air carriers and with carrier associations and industry groups too numerous to list in full today. Suffice it to say here that the list includes such carrier associations as the Dominion Marine Association, Canadian Trucking Association, port groups, the Air Transport Association of Canada and the Canadian Motor Coach Association, and such industry groups as the Canadian Industrial Traffic League and the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this quick progress report has been of some assistance to the House in informing the members, if only in a general way, about the approach to and main elements of our transportation initiatives. It will, I hope, also help to set the stage for the second subject which I wish to address today: the main elements of the transport policy legislative proposals which the Miniser of Transport would like to introduce for second reading. There are three main elements of the legislation: first, proposed changes and additions to the transportation policy objectives and principles under section 3 of the National Transportation Act; second, proposed changes and additions to the National Transportation Act and the Department of Transport Act relating to the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission; third, proposed amendments to the Railway Act, the National Transportation Act, and the Transport Act, relating to the legislation governing the regulation of railway freight rates.
The proposed revised statement of objectives and principles under section 3 of the National Transportation Act reflects the new policy thrust outlined in June, 1975, by the former minister of transport in his statement to the House. The
(Mr. Basford.)
amendments now being introduced have been discussed with provincial governments, the carriers and other interested parties. The government's intent, in proposing the revised statement of objectives and principles, is to retain those elements of the National Transportation Act which continue to be relevant to present requirements. At the same time, the changes and additions in the proposed legislation are significant. Our main proposals consist of four basic points: first, a statement which establishes that it is the objective of the transportation policy for Canada to achieve a transportation system that is efficient, is an effective instrument of support for the achievement of national and regional social and economic objectives, and is accessible and equitable. The concept of efficiency in the present act is not lost, but more emphasis is placed on service to Canadians and on the support of national and regional objectives. When this is referred to committee, the minister will propose, once having completed consultation with the provinces, some amendments to the transportation policy objective which will further strengthen the government's commitment to link transportation with the achievement of national and regional objectives.
Second, the recognition of the need for co-operation between the different levels of government, as well as consultation with the public in major aspects of the development and economic regulation of the transportation system. It certainly is our intention that no major policy initiatives will be put forward unless there has been a full and frank process of consultation with the provinces concerned. While, of course, this has to be a two-way process, we are firmly of the belief that by doing so we will have more effective policies and a better transportation system.
Third, a principle establishing the explicit goal of over-all commercial viability for the transportation system, yet allowing for financial assistance by the government when necessary, especially when the achievement of national or regional objectives requires it. Here, too, my colleague will propose an amendment in committee to ensure that the achievement of national and regional objectives is an overriding objective relative to the objective of commercial viability.
Fourth, the recognition that where effective competition exists, transportation rates and services should be established by the market place, but where it does not exist, rates and services should be regulated so as to give users the same protection they would have if effective competition existed.
These principles have the most immediate relevance for domestic transportation, but they also have relevance for the international shipping on which Canada's well-being as a major trading nation is highly dependent. By reason both of technological change and the policies which other countries are adopting to meet their national aspirations-policies and aspirations with which we have no basic quarrel-the competitive nature of international shipping is changing. In light of that change, Canada's own international shipping policy, which is basically one of reliance on free competition to provide adequate and economic services for our shippers, may require adjustment. This whole area is under review and it is already
March 1, 1977

clear that we require legislation to enable us to work constructively with countries which prefer not to rely entirely on free competition to assure the carriage of our bilateral trade.
A second main element in the package of legislative proposals being introduced today involves proposed amendments to the section of the National Transportation Act which states the responsibilities of the Minister of Transport and of the Canadian Transport Commission. As early as 1973, the then minister of transport forcefully expressed his concern at the lack of authority which the minister has under the present legislation to ensure that adequate transportation policies are developed and implemented in the national interest. The amendments that are now being proposed can be viewed as part of the government's adoption of a more positive role in the provision of an effective national transportation system, which at the same time maintains the essential role of the CTC as a regulatory body.
Hence, the proposed changes and additions to the National Transportation Act include first, clarification that it is the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to undertake the necessary measures to achieve the objective of the transportation policy, consistent with the proposed revised statement of principles which 1 have just discussed. This involves the addition of the proposed section 3(3) of the act which specifies the responsibility of the minister. Second, the amendment of section 22 to transfer a number of policy advisory functions to the department. The commission would retain the regulatory powers it has relating to licensing, authorizing or requiring the operation of and controlling the rates and tariffs for those modes of transport under its jurisdiction.
Third, the addition of section 3.1(1) to permit the governor in council, by order, to transfer to the minister any powers, duties or functions conferred or imposed on the Canadian Transport Commission by this act or any other act; this section would not authorize the transfer of any power, duty or function relating to the commission's regulatory responsibilities for licensing, authorizing or requiring the operation of and controlling the rates and tariffs for any mode of transport.
Fourth, amendments to sections 3 and 22 which would permit the minister to transfer powers to the commission to be exercised on his behalf, and request the commission to undertake research and investigation that would be of assistance to him in the exercise of his powers.
Fifth, addition of section 3.2 to permit the governor in council, on the recommendation of the minister, to issue general policy directives to the Canadian Transport Commission; this section stipulates that each such directive shall be without specific reference to any particular matter before the commission.
The third main part of the government's transport policy legislation proposes certain amendments to the legislation governing the regulation of railway freight rates. Under the National Transportation Act of 1967 the Canadian railways have been generally free, with the important exception of the
National Transportation Act
statutory grain rates, to set railway freight rates without regulatory approval so long as the rates are filed with the Canadian Transport Commission. The existing legislation under the Railway Act does include a minimum rate provision to prevent the railways from providing services on an non-compensatory basis, and a maximum rate provision to give some means of relief to shippers who rely exclusively on rail. However, these provisions in the Railway Act have been largely inoperative, and the so-called "public interest" clause-section 23 of the National Transportation Act-has given rise to frequent complaints from shippers about the costly and protracted nature of the regulatory process.
The rate-making freedom of the railways has been of concern to a number of provinces and shippers. Many firms are still largely dependent on rail transportation and often on one particular railway. In the case of bulk commodities, market competition has often been successful in reducing rates, but this success has been much less apparent in the movement of the more highly manufactured goods, especially those from central Canada to western markets. Our proposals to amend the legislation governing railway freight rates are generally intended to promote a greater degree of fairness, both regionally and to shippers, while taking into account the financial need of the Canadian railways. The government envisages that Canadian railways should continue to exercise considerable freedom in establishing freight rates where competitive forces can be expected to protect the public interest. Nevertheless, because of the importance of the railway system to the national economy, and the continued existence of some railway monopoly power in certain markets, it is proposed that the maximum and minimum rate provisions of the Railway Act should be strengthened.
The government acknowledges that maximum-minimum rules for regulating railway freight rates cannot be effective without a measure of railway costs which is accurate and which can be efficiently administered. Consequently, we intend to defer proclamation of the proposed amendments governing the establishment of new maximum and minimum rate rules until the Canadian Transport Commission has reviewed the 1969 railway costing order and has revised it through the public hearing process under section 330 of the Railway Act. We believe that the costing order requires revision in light of the economic and technological changes which have occurred since 1969.
Once a better costing system is developed, the government proposes that the present rules under the Railway Act should be amended. The principal amendments would be as follows: first, implementation of a more effective maximum rate provision which would grant discretionary powers to the governor-in-council to vary or eliminate the present "key weight"-of 30,000 pounds per carload-and to reduce the maximum add-on from the present 150 per cent above variable cost down to 100 per cent above variable cost. It is also proposed to make the maximum rate provision available to all shippers, instead of the present limitation to "captive" shippers.
3530

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
Second, other legislative changes to ensure adequate enforcement of both the minimum and the maximum rate provisions. It is proposed to establish penalty clauses for the violation of these provisions, with the railways being liable for financial payments in the case of such violations. In the case of the minimum rate provision, this would continue to be based on variable cost, as redefined under the proposed new costing order, with an additional provision under the Railway Act which, if implemented, would require the CTC to annually submit to the Minister of Transport a report on any investigations of railway freight rates which are possibly below variable costs.
In addition to changing the maximum-minimum provisions of the Railway Act the government proposes to amend section 23 of the National Transportation Act in order to establish time limits for the handling of freight rate cases under this section by the CTC at the prima facie stage, while maintaining the discretionary authority of the regulatory body where leave to appeal has been granted. This proposal is intended to expedite the hitherto protracted nature of investigations under this section, while at the same time maintaining due process. The CTC will also continue its general efforts to improve administrative procedures in freight rate cases.
Finally, it is proposed to introduce an amendment which would directly address, for the first time, the problem of long-haul/short-haul rate differentials. The proposed amendment would require the CTC, on the basis of a complaint, to prohibit such rate differentials except where the CTC is satisfied that owing to competition it is expedient to allow such a differential to exist. This proposal is intended to modify an element of railway pricing which has been perceived, especially in the prairie provinces, as an example of unfair discrimination. At the same time, it will permit exceptions where a complete prohibition could place Canadian producers at a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis foreign producers.
We think that the various legislative proposals I have just outlined will accomplish a number of things. The new objectives and principles will allow the government to provide a framework for the longer-term development of transportation policy. The reallocation of responsibilities between the minister, the Department of Transport and the Canadian Transport Commission will produce more effective policy development, program implementation and regulatory processes. The new freight rates provisions will lead to more equitable rates and better regulatory procedures.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would recall the words of the Minister of Transport in the policy statement of 1975 by reaffirming the historic role of transportation as an instrument of national purpose. We in the government believe that the major initiatives which have been taken to implement the new policy, and the package of legislative proposals introduced today, demonstrate clearly our continuing commitment to this historic role. It is a pleasure on my part to move second reading of this bill on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of

Transport, who as I explained is unavoidably absent from the House on important transportation business on the west coast. Naturally, he will be joining the debate on this bill in due course.


Mrs. Holt:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise on a point of order. A national rail policy to unify and serve one Canada has just been introduced in the House, and only two reporters are present, not one of them from the CBC whose mandate and duty it is to unify and report-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Considering the business before the House, I have serious doubts as to whether this can be recognized as a point of order.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat amused by the interjection of the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mrs. Holt). She is concerned about the press. Why is she not concerned about the minister whose obligation it is to pilot this legislation through the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We must reach rational decisions, and if the press reports them, that is fine, and if it does not, that is their loss. How can we sit idly by when the first major amendments to the Transportation Act-which was brought in in 1967 and which a former minister of transport said was in a mess-are brought in? We have endured that mess for four years, waiting for this legislation, but the minister responsible does not even show up.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: He makes some announcement. I go along with the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo) that he should have been out solving that problem on the west coast some months ago. She brought it to his attention, and my seatmate in the House brought it to his attention some months ago. What has taken him so long?


Mr. McKenzie:: He is busy politicking in Saskatchewan.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The problem is that he has lost favour with the Liberal backbenchers, so the government has demoted him and sent him out west because they do not want the backbenchers of the Liberal party to enter this debate, and they felt that if he was here initiating the debate he would antagonize his own members and provoke a discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: So I believe it is an insult to the minister that the government did not allow him to make the introductory speech to pilot this legislation through the House. Certainly I would not blame the minister for feeling hurt. I know that in announcing his Via Canada transportation policy more than likely he took the train to Vancouver.


An hon. Member:: He took "Lang Air."
March 1, 1977


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A Liberal backbencher says he took "Lang Air". I guess he did. They know best. They are the ones who put up with him as their Minister of Transport. In my opinion, this is very important legislation and I think it is an insult to the House of Commons that the minister is not here to pilot it through. I think it is an insult to the House of Commons that he was not here to accept the good wishes of members. He did not have the good grace to announce his new passenger system in the House of Commons. The Financial Post had an article on the new passenger system in its issue of February 12. The minister did not have to go to Vancouver to make that announcement. He was in the House of Commons between February 12 and March 1 when he could have made that announcement in the House and it would have been examined by the opposition parties. Perhaps the minister could have explained it better and perhaps the media and the Liberal backbenchers would have understood it better.
I believe that this legislation takes the government from the mess it was in and puts it in another mess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: It changes the objects of the National Transportation Act. I agree that railway transportation has a very important role to play in the regional economic stability of this country, but it is also the object of the government to create stability, to create an economic atmosphere where there can be some thrust and some confidence placed in the guidelines and rules of the government of the day. The president of CPR said of this bill, at a transportation conference in Toronto recently, "You will have rate-making for political reasons".


An hon. Member:: Good idea.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is like drilling for oil for votes. Now you will have rate-making for votes. The president of the Canadian Trucking Association had this to say about the bill:
Whether there will be instability and uncertainty in transport policy in future will depend on how "political" transportation policy is in future and also on the stability and continuity in the Transport Canada bureaucracy. In this regard, there is not much reason to be optimistic based on recent performance. Not only do we now have ministers playing musical chairs with portfolios every couple of years, but it would seem that senior officials and particularly those involved in policy planning, have taken up the same sport. This means that every two or three years there is likely to be a whole new wave of personalities involved in transportation planning, who for the most part, have little direct background in transportation. It will be these officials who are called on to respond to the political pressures that are exerted. Instead of cranking-up a royal commission or task force every ten years or so to review transportation policy, followed by an exhaustive legislative overhaul where all interested parties can be heard to the point of exhaustion, we will in future have an ultra-streamlined approach to transportation policy evolution so that whatever views on transport happen to be in the ascendancy can be implemented at a flick of an order-in-council. That may be progress-
However, he thinks it is slightly before its time. Certainly it is before its time. One of the points I want to make at the beginning of my comments is to ask the minister to assure the House that after second reading this bill will go to committee where we will be able to call as witnesses the president of the Canadian Trucking Association, the president of CPR, the president of CNR and the presidents of those companies that
National Transportation Act
will be affected by this bill, so that parliament can know exactly what they are doing. I think it is of the utmost importance that we have that assurance, because when I look back to the time when we had a lengthy debate in the House on legislation setting up the Canadian Transport Commission and on the national transportation policy in 1967, I remember all the warnings we gave to the government.
We told the government that competition alone would not be good enough. We said that there should be some kind of review policy whereby the government could have some control over the CTC. We warned the government that it was giving all the power in connection with transportation to a non-elect-ed body. The government paid no heed to us whatsoever, and what we said came true. Rather than the CTC being an independent body and adjudicating fairly, it changed completely. Now the CTC has gone the other way and become a political body which does the bidding of the minister. It will not be looked upon any longer as a fair and neutral authority adjudicating on what is right and what is fair. It will be looked upon as a servant of the political party in power. To me that is a retrograde step.
I believe the ministry should have the authority to command-second guess, if necessary-the CTC but the CTC should be viewed by the industry as a neutral authority prepared to hear both sides of cases, the user side and the supplier side.
It is very interesting .to look back at statements made by ministers in this regard. It is particularly interesting today because the Minister of Justice is piloting this legislation through the House, and the Minister of Transport is away. We never know what ministers are going to say. On February 18, 1977, with regard to Crown corporations being allowed to run their own affairs, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) said the following:
One of the conclusions that we have arrived at-and it seems to me to be a sensible one-is that one should entrust the management of CNR to the president and the officers of that corporation and let them manage.
This bill will hardly let the management of the CNR manage that company. It gives the governor in council power to interfere with the management of the CNR in any way it wants.
In a similar statement about Air Canada on February 10, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said this:
This is a dilemma we are struggling with, and I think in the Air Canada Act which is before the House now we have indicated some of the directions in which we are trying to solve this by giving the government specific authority to issue directives of a general nature to Crown corporations.
Those two statements express a difference of opinion between the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister.
Let us again consider this bill and some of the statements made by the Minister of Transport. In a speech on June 11, 1976, the minister made many interesting statements. He explained what the former minister of transport said when he stated that the transport policy was in a mess. He said:
80010-17%

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
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 counter-productive.
The minister recognized what former policies did, but nowhere in this bill can we see where he will eliminate any of those costs. He is going to create more costs, more insecurity, and more instability.
In that same speech the minister went on to say the following:
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...
He went on to say that we have had a patchwork of policies which have created subsidies piled one on top of another in answer to political demands.
I just indicated what the Minister of Transport had to say about the former transportation policy, and yet the presidents of the trucking association, the CPR and the CNR say that this bill will put them more in the hands of politicians. The Minister of Transport accused the old legislation of doing that. Many see this legislation doing the same thing. In this day and age of user pay, we have to take a great deal of interest in the most efficient mode of transportation and in who is paying the cost.
Before going any further I would like to compliment the research branch of the Library of Parliament. I would like to table four charts which came from the CTC. These charts refer to transport costs and revenues in Canada. They outline very clearly what each mode of transportation costs, the depreciation, the capital, the total costs, the annual revenue each mode of transportation creates, and the percentage of the cost that revenue is. These charts deal with roads, marine services, civil aviation, and railways. With the permission of the House I would like to table these four charts which came from the CTC and which were brought to my attention by the research branch of the parliamentary library or make them an appendix to Hansard because I think they set out very clearly who pays for what, and how efficient is each mode of transportation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to inform the hon. gentleman that there is no provision for tabling such documents. They could only be tabled by ministers of the Crown, and they have to be official documents.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that they be made an appendix to today's Hansard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is acceptable to present them as an appendix to Hansard if there is the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

[Editor's note: For statistical charts above referred to see Appendix.]


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I also thank the House. These charts should be required reading for all those who are interested in and concerned about transportation. They clearly set out that we have a pretty efficient railway system in Canada today. They set out that the users of our railways pay 74 per cent of the cost. They set out clearly that the users of highways pay 64 per cent of the cost of the highways. The users of our civil aviation system, our airports and our airplanes, pay 31 per cent of the cost. The users of our marine services pay 19 per cent of the cost. When the minister says that we have heaped subsidy upon subsidy upon the railroad industry and that these subsidies have lead to inefficiency, we really must examine that very closely to find out in what way we are comparing the various modes of transportation.
I am not suggesting that in every part of Canada the railroads have operated efficiently, but generally speaking I think we can say they have, in spite of the actions of the government. We must also ask ourselves whether this legislation will make them more efficient, and I have to say no, it will not. The government has stated that it does not pretend that they will be more efficient. As outlined in clause 1 the government wants them to be an effective instrument of support for the achievement of national, regional, social, and economic objectives. The bill does not say that the government is prepared to pay or must pay for these social and regional objectives.
I am certain that both railways would like to think of themselves as being good corporate citizens and that they would respect the wishes of the government provided the government clearly stated somewhere in the legislation that it is prepared to pay these costs. Looking at that particularly, a few weeks ago the president of the CNR said, "We are going to sell those things which we manage, which we find a market for, and which we think are self-sustaining". The Minister of Transport made the same statement. But, Mr. Speaker, who will buy something that the government is saying must be operated as it decrees? I do not think that concept and this policy are compatible.
After reading the bill I ask myself where we are going in the area of transportation? Where is this legislation taking us? Will it solve the problems of the Snavely commission, the problems of the Hall commission, the problems of energy use in Canada today? I can only come to the conclusion that the bill falls far short of solving many of the problems that I see in the transportation industry today. It does not in any way set down guidelines which will motivate the government to direct the Canadian Transport Commission to do any of the things the government will have the power to do.
As I look at this great country of ours today I see we are deficient in oil and are likely to be so for many years. According to the Department of Energy, Mines and
March 1, 1977

Resources, 50 per cent of the oil consumed in Canada is used for transportation. But will this bill direct the transportation industry to conserve oil? In his speech the minister mentioned that we should bear that in mind, but the bill does not give any direction in this regard.
When we examine the user-pay concept we see that the people using the railroad pay the most. Perhaps we should reduce the subsidy to the inefficient users of oil and, if necessary, even increase the subsidy to the efficient users of oil to entice more tonnage to rail movement rather than truck movement. It is estimated that, using the same amount of oil, the railways haul four tons of goods whereas a truck hauls only one. The growth in truck tonnage in Canada has increased by about 17 per cent whereas the growth in rail tonnage has levelled off, or at best is going up only by 1 per cent or 2 per cent. A national transportation policy should give some direction in this regard.
We know that 60 per cent of the oil used in Canada is used by automobiles moving people in and out of the major population centres. Just before the bill was introduced the government announced the election promise of 1974 to spend $290 million to encourage the building of an electrical system for moving people in and out of the cities, a commuter transport system, was to be shelved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It will be resurrected for the next election.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: My hon. friend to my left suggests it will be resurrected at the next election. That would be an interesting resurrection. I do not think it would be believed; if it were, then the voters are more gullible than I thought.
I should like to see some indication in the bill that we are going to conserve energy through a transportation policy which would put us on the right road so that we could see a more efficient use of oil ten years ahead.
In his speech on June 11 the Minister of Transport suggested heavy subsidization. To date the heavy subsidization has been on Mirabel airport which we are told lost $50 million last year. The Minister of Finance tells us that most of that loss was interest charged on money. Mr. Speaker, who has ever borrowed money without paying interest? It is the cost of doing business. Why did they not consult the airlines before building Mirabel? If they had, perhaps the terminal would not have been designed the way it was or public transit vehicles used to move passengers from the terminal to the planes.
Many mistakes have been made in the past, and not by the transportation industry but by the bureaucrats. I have no axe to grind here. Mirabel exists and the best we can do is make good use of it, but I have recommended a couple of ways in which the service could be improved.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, the bureaucrats made most of the mistakes in our transportation policy, not the companies involved in each mode of transportation. Yet this bill gives more authority to the bureaucrats. Looking to the future as one interested in transportation, how can I say with confidence
National Transportation Act
that our system will be better and more efficient? I cannot, Mr. Speaker. If I knew for certain that the game of musical chairs mentioned by the president of the Canadian Trucking Association was not going to continue, and that sooner or later the Minister of Transport would be educated to the problems and adjust to the conditions that he meets in the area of transportation, I might have some confidence. But the musical chairs will continue, Mr. Speaker. The present Minister of Transport will not be minister very long. In fact if he keeps flying around in government airplanes to bonspiels and electioneering in provincial by-elections, his time as minister will probably be shortened very quickly.
As I travel across the country today, Mr. Speaker, I find people are upset and apprehensive about the future. Transportation plays a greater part in the life of Canadians than it does in any other country. In the United States transportation does not cost as much in goods consumed or produced, as in Canada. They have a great inland waterway which lowers transportation costs. We do not have such a good natural system. The countries of the European Common Market have the Rhine River which lowers their transportation costs; we have the St. Lawrence Seaway which only takes goods to half the country. Transportation will continue to play a very important part in the lives of all Canadians.
Instability in the transportation industry deepens the apprehensions we find in Canada today. Millions of dollars need to be spent on transportation-billions of dollars even to keep the present system functioning. Long range planning is essential, but how can we have that and spend the money necessary without any certainty that the policy which exists today will exist tomorrow? That is how quickly changes could be implemented through this legislation.
The governor in council can change that policy with a flick of the finger, and that is of concern to the industry. When we debated the original National Transportation Act in 1967 we said that the clauses having to do with captive shippers and the public interest would be inoperative. Events have proven us right. If a captive shipper faces a prohibitively high freight rate, he ought to be able to appeal quickly the decision setting that rate. The rapeseed case, which came under the public interest clause and which prairie provincial governments argued before the CTC, lasted two years.


An hon. Member:: Four years.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I beg your pardon, four years. The CTC was seized of it for two years, and the government considered it for two years. That long delay did not bring salutary effects. We must establish a mechanism which will allow a more rapid disposition of appeals relating to the captive shipper and public interest sections. Lengthy appeals hurt the interest of those appealing. If the parties were concerned about the situation at the beginning of the appeal, imagine how concerned they were four years later when the matter was concluded. The damage was very great.

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
The Minister of Justice announced on behalf of the Minister of Transport the government's new passenger service policy. What is the government to get in return? Apparently the CPR is being taken off the hook. Part and parcel of the CPR's obligation, in return for its land and money grants for building the railway, is the provision of passenger service across Canada. But the present proposal will take the CPR off the hook, to the great delight of the CPR. What we are to get in return from the CPR the statement does not say. My part of Canada will be greatly interested in the deal, for we want to know what we are to get in return for concessions.
The Minister of Justice said that we are prepared to spend $30 million to improve passenger service between Quebec city and Montreal. I am puzzled about that $30 million matter. 1 have ridden the trains on the north side and the south side of the river, between Montreal and Quebec. I learned, for example, that last year 40,000 passengers travelled between Montreal and Quebec city on the CPR rails north of the river; something like 170,000 passengers travelled on the CNR rails south of the river, but 900,000 passengers travelled by bus last year between Montreal and Quebec. You would think the government would spend money on the most efficient mode of transportation, or the mode which most people choose. Unfortunately the government chooses to help the service which fewest people use. That is where the government will spend the $30 million.
I thought the CPR route must cover the shortest distance. However, on checking I found that the CPR's route between Montreal and Quebec city is the longest. I fail to understand the rationale of the bureaucrats who have devised this policy. 1 only use this example to show current thinking, and one could allude to many more unfortunate examples.
I raise the question of the Via Canada service. The deputy minister, Mr. Cloutier, not long ago said in the transport committee that the CPR is to be awarded the run between Montreal and Ottawa. That statement caused railway workers great concern. The minister's news release concerning Via Canada suggests that unions and workers are to be consulted and their views taken into consideration. But that is not what the deputy minister said when he told the committee that the CPR is to run the service between Montreal and Ottawa. The CPR runs two trains daily between Montreal and Ottawa, and the CNR six trains daily. Why award the service to the CPR, especially since this is a matter of great concern to CNR employees?
The minister suggested that when a Via Canada train runs over CNR tracks it will be pulled by a CNR engine, with a CNR crew; when it runs over CPR tracks it will be pulled by a CPR engine, with a CPR crew. The board of directors of the enterprise will be divided among representatives of the government, the CNR and the CPR. 1 say that conglomerate will not work. You will have jealousies as between both managements and as between managements and the Department of Transport.
Senior employees of the CNR have told me that the Department of Transport wants to run the railroads of this country.

They conclude that the department also wants to be involved in the running of the Via Canada service. 1 therefore say that there will be conflict among the three management groups. If the government wants to provide a rail passenger service, it should consider this matter carefully. It should not run the service under three managements. If it wants to set up a separate Crown corporation, let it set up a Canadian version of Amtrack to run our rail service. The corporation could get rights of way across Canada, and provide passenger service. This should not be done by the conglomerate. I say that its establishment is fraught with danger, jealousy, and anxiety. In this connection I commend to hon. members a reading of "The Wreck of the Penn Central", a book about the problems having to do with the amalgamation of the Central Railroad and the Pennsylvania Railroad in the United States. That amalgamation was unsuccessful. I submit that the proposal of the Minister of Transport will run into the same problem. It will not lead to the provision of the passenger services which Canada needs and deserves.
I do not see why two cities 200 miles apart cannot be provided with good, clean, frequent passenger service which people will use. The people would use a frequent rail service between Ottawa and Montreal. But they will not use it if the railways do not use the right equipment or if the trains do not run at the right times.
I regret that the bill proposes to give the government all kinds of power. Nowhere do I see provision for checks on that power. One cannot say that parliament checks the government's power; parliament has lost ability to control government expenditures. The CNR has not been before the transport committee for three or four years. Air Canada has not been before the committee for five or six years, and the CPR rarely appears before the committee. Our bureaucrats in Ottawa are studying everything, but nobody says in which direction we ought to go, and that is the trouble with the government, and with this legislation. This bill provides no direction for this country. No wonder the people of Canada are apprehensive about the future. The government has failed to provide leadership in all areas of its responsibilities, and this legislation fails in that regard as well.
People on the prairies are concerned about the Snavely commission, the Hall commission, the rationalization of branch lines, as well as the government's intent to raise tolls on the St. Lawrence Seaway. We built the Seaway and it should serve Canada. I agree it should pay the operating costs, but not the capital costs.
Massive expenditures have to be made on rails. This bill in no way suggests how that should be done. The CPR track between Calgary and Vancouver now operates at 100 per cent capacity. The CNR track from Edmonton to Vancouver is in terrible shape. It may be slightly better than the B.C. railroad, but not much.
This bill creates a climate of instability and insecurity. It does not encourage long range planning or capital expendi-
March 1, 1977

tures. I know there are some changes to the Railway Act. It will allow the railway to sell debentures in Canada and pay more than 6 per cent. CN recently sold debentures in Europe for more than 6 per cent. I am sure that if the Europeans knew of the uncertainty that exists within this rail policy, they would not be so quick to buy CN debentures.
I am sure this bill will go to committee and we in the opposition will have much more to say at that time. We will want to have the representatives of the CNR, CPR, the trucking associations, and maybe even of the marine association, appear before the transport committee to ensure us that they can operate and expand efficiently under this piece of legislation.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I begin by endorsing some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner). We have been waiting many years for a significant revision of the National Transportation Act, the Railway Act, and the transportation policy of the government. However, on the day the bill is called for debate in parliament, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is not here. We on this side fully appreciate that he has to be in different parts of Canada from time to time on official business. However, if that takes priority over being in this place to introduce this vital legislation, or announcing the Via rail passenger corporation, the Minister of Transport is being derelict in his duty and has insulted the members of this House of Commons. Like the hon. member for Crowfoot, I suspect he is more likely in and around Saskatoon and Prince Albert messing around in a couple of provincial by-elections.
I want to say on behalf of the New Democratic Party that we will oppose this "user pay" legislation on the grounds that it endorses the notion of commercial viability as opposed to the concept of transportation as a public utility.
This legislation makes user pay the basis of the government's transportation policy. We take exception to the notion that the public interest should be denied in favour of competition and commercial viability. That is what got us into this transportation mess and has kept us there since the early 1900's, the concept of commercial viability and competition in transportation. Now the government restores the very kind of policy that maintains and strengthens the kind of transportation legislation that got us into this trouble.
A policy that relies on those two concepts, commercial viability and competition, will in effect, as it has done up until now, deny national, regional, social, and economic goals that this country should have. It will deny equity and accessibility to people who live in the outlying areas of Canada. It will shift the burden of cost of transportation, previously shared by the nation as a whole, on to those least able to shoulder the burden.
We submit that transportation must be treated as a public utility because it is something that everyone must use. A comprehensive and fair transportation policy should incorporate the following principles.
National Transportation Act
Our major modes of transportation should be publicly owned, operated, and accountable to the people and to parliament. Service to the public should take precedence over profitability. Every member of this House knows that all modes of transportation have to be subsidized. There is not a single mode of transportation that pays its own way. This is even more the case in a country like Canada than those countries which are smaller in geography and have densely settled populations.
In a country like ours which has a large geography, northern climate, widely scattered population, the transportation system cannot function properly when it is on the basis of private enterprise, competition, and commercial viability. The former minister of transport once said that competition does not work in transportation. It was not a New Democrat who said that but a Liberal.
We believe the transportation system must serve as an instrument to achieve national, regional, social and economic goals. I am sure members on all sides will agree with that. In fact words similar to that are in this bill.
We also believe a transportation policy must have equality of treatment and accessibility to the various modes of transportation, no matter where in this country people may live or where the goods are processed or manufactured.
People in this country have always been discriminated against because of where they live. Processors and manufacturers have been discriminated against because of where they have been located. Our transportation system has never provided equality of treatment. Central Canada, with the most dense population, for the free enterprise reasons we have had for the past 110 years, has had the best quality transportation services because that is where the main market is located. Users of transportation in central Canada get the best rates and fares. The rest of the country has been faced with inadequate service, discriminatory rates, impossible fares, and schedules that are unreasonable. This legislation does not provide equity and reasonable accessibility to all Canadians, no matter where they live in this country.
An efficient transportation system should be developed replacing competition with co-ordination and integration, so that the most appropriate mode of transportation is assigned its given task. I realize that some of these objectives are stated in the new legislation, but the government's commitment to these announced goals is expressed in terms so tentative, so limited, and so hesitant as to call in question the sincerity and strength of its conversion.
The National Transportation Act of 1967, based on the MacPherson Royal Commission, assumed that competition would guide the organization of transportation.
The former minister of transport, Mr. Marchand, had some second thoughts about the principles of competition. In his policy statement of 1975 he said:

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
... if you look at the size of this country and the distribution of its population you will see that you cannot have a transportation network which is economic everywhere; you cannot have an economic system of transportation to service the north, for example, or to service those regions of the country where the population is very thin. You cannot have an ecomomic system for regions which are remote from the centre.
In spite of these brave words, the actual policy tabled in June 1975 reflected little change from the policy which Mr, Marchand said in 1974 resulted in the transportation policy of this country being "in a mess".
In the new transportation policy of June 1975 competition and commercial viability remained enshrined as the guiding principles of transportation policy in Canada. Either Mr. Marchand had lost a major battle with his cabinet colleagues, or he was less than sincere in his public suggestions of drastic changes in transportation policies in Canada.
Much of the substance of this legislation is vague and general. Considering the minister's past statements on the Crowsnest pass grain rates and rail passenger service, one might be thankful that there were no specific references to these last remaining benefits. But make no mistake, the minister has specific intentions and this legislation will give him the power to carry his "user pay" policy to the painful extreme.
In his news release of Jan. 27, 1977, the minister said the amendments to the transportation legislation in Bill C-33 will provide the Minister of Transport with the legislative means to implement the transportation policy as announced in June, 1975. The June, 1975, policy states that the user shall pay for transportation services:
Generally, where transportation services are mature, the users should be expected to pay for the costs of providing the services.
As far as I am concerned, this means the people of western Canada can say, "There goes the statutory grain rate!" It also means that those in the maritime provinces can say, "There go the maritime freight rate subsidies!" In my opinion they have already been sold out by the four premiers of the Atlantic provinces-two Liberals and two Tories. I don't know what the minister said or did to them, but to my mind they have sold out; they have sold out their own people.
What are the mature transportation services referred to and for which the user is to pay? The policy states that movements in mature transport markets include: eastern forest products, northern Ontario resources, Quebec-Labrador ore, western bulk products, and B. C. forest products.
What about passenger transport, which most directly affects people? The June, 1975, policy states:
A more balanced approach to passenger service is required giving consideration to an eventual objective of full commercial viability, including recovery of infrastructure costs, except in remote areas, where traffic volumes may be inadequate and assistance may be required.
Carrying the user-pay policy to a conclusion means that only the rich or those on expense accounts will be able to travel. It means that those who live outside the central corridor will pay even higher charges than those who live along it. It means continued discrimination against Canadians based on where they happen to live.
[Mr. Benjamin.)
The bill is bad in principle because it strengthens and enhances the principles which were previously in the policy. There is no fundamental change in that policy. In fact, it is made worse. To apply the user-pay principle in a country such as ours would jeopardize the sale of our grain overseas. It would jeopardize the success of industries which could and should be started up in the prairie provinces and in the maritimes. Our transportation must have a relatively neutral effect upon the cost of travel or freight if we are to compete effectively either in markets overseas or in domestic markets which are far from the seat of production.
Parcelling out the national transportation system into commercially viable operations and those which are not, leaving the parts which lose money on the backs of the taxpayers, means eliminating the opportunity to cross-subsidize. Crosssubsidization is one of the ways of sharing the cost of transportation. Profits from operations in a densely populated area can help pay for losses incurred in a sparsely populated part of the country. But, no. This government, with the support of the Tories, wants private enterprise to keep the profitable part, letting them make all the money they can, while allowing the cost of the unprofitable part to be borne by those who use the services and by the taxpayers generally through subsidies. And the people who own the profitable parts of the system will be able to laugh all the way to the bank at the expense of our nationhood.
I agree that users should help pay for the operations of our transport system. The important question then is, what is an appropriate user charge? It seems to me that two things have to be taken into consideration here; (1) the cost of providing the service; (2) the value of the service to the national or regional interest and the goals of equity and accessibility.
The user charges for public transport should be set at a level to render the service accessible. In many cases this level would be below the cost of providing the service.
I suppose that the government's reneging on the promise of $300 million aid to urban transit is in line with its user pay philosophy in transportation. Clearly though, here is a case where the value of the service should be given priority. The cost benefit of that transit aid would include lower energy consumption, decreased need for new highways, reduced pollution, and decreased burden of automobile accidents.
Freight rates for products of our regional industries should be set at a level to give them access to the larger market of the whole Canadian people instead of the restricted market of the region. In many cases this toll would be less than the cost of providing the service.
The nation as a whole should share the costs of transportation because the nation as a whole benefits from it. It allows Canada through its Canadian grain producers to sell grain outside our borders in competition with other exporting nations which raise their grain close to the sea coast or which have access to inland waterways. Without those statutory rates, Canada ceases to become a competitor in the world market for export grains.
March 1, 1977

When the minister suggests that possibly the benefits of those rates should go to the grain producers in some other way, that is the most nonsensical, stupid, and inefficient method of sharing the cost of transportation that one can imagine. It would be an administrative nightmare, if nothing else. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, officials in Industry, Trade and Commerce trying to sort out all the way bills and each farmer's entitlement to some form of direct subsidy out of 180,000 grain permit holders, several million carload lots or partial carload lots? It is simply outrageous. Surely it is simpler and more sensible to continue to pay whatever is the deficit in the cost of transporting grain direct to the transporters, with the requirement that they maintain their trackage, service and equipment.
I do not believe that either of the railways, singly or combined, have the financial capacity to raise the necessary capital to rebuild their systems. This will require massive capital funding from the nation as a whole. Neither the railroad nor private enterprise and financial institutions will ever be willing, and in many cases are unable, to carry that kind of funding.
I should like to discuss some of the objectives and principles contained in this bill specifically, since we are debating the bill on second reading. We take exception to certain provisions within the bill, specifically the proposed section 3(2)(d), which provides that "competition within and between modes of transport should be encouraged where economic and technical factors permit." It was this very kind of competition which got us into the mess we are in in regard to all this nonsense about DC-9's, DC-8's and 727's flying 120 miles from Ottawa to Montreal. Both Air Canada and CP Air have been losing their shirts on that run during the last three years. It is inefficient and wasteful, particularly in terms of energy costs, to continue to do this. It is no quicker than a fast train. In fact at some times of the day it is not as quick as a fast train. But the government wants to maintain the mythology of competition between modes of transportation. This is what has got us into trouble.
The notion of competition in transportation conflicts with our advocacy that transportation should be operated as a public utility. I want to quote what was said by the former leader of our party, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). In the debate on the National Transportation Act in 1966 he had this to say:
We will be leaning on a broken reed if we depend on competition to keep transportation rates at a price that is fair and reasonable . . . What about the areas where there are no alternative forms of transportation? The areas in the maritimes, in northern Quebec, northern Ontario and on the prairies . .. These regions will not have the kind of competition which would keep freight rates at a reasonable figure ... I greatly fear that the removal of restraints and restrictions on the railways with reference to freight rates will mean that regions of Canada are going to pay the shot, and that some of the burden which heretofore had been borne by all the people of Canada is going to fall upon those areas of Canada which can least afford to carry this burden.
Of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, exactly the same thing can be said. If it were logical to have competing railways and
National Transportation Act
competing airlines, it would be equally logical to have competing sewer and water systems, highways, telephone lines, electric lines, fire brigades, police departments-


Mr. Schumacher:: And post offices.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, and post offices. That would be ridiculous. If anyone seriously suggested that kind of competition, they would be locked up. For the government to suggest that kind of competition in transportation, it too deserves to be locked up.
When we talk about transportation under a utility that is publicly owned and controlled, publicly accountable to parliament, with a public utilities board or whatever method you want to use, it is not some socialist dogma. This is what has been done with transportation systems all over the world in countries of all political persuasions; it is not just some NDP or socialist ideology. Private enterprise governments and several variations thereof did this decades ago. For example, under Conrad Adenauer during the 1950's and 1960's the West Germans reorganized their transportation system. So did the Dutch, Belgians, Scandinavians, and French.
I do not completely agree with the comments of the hon. member for Crowfoot in his comments about the Via rail passenger corporation. The trans-European express is run by a separate corporation which owns all its own equipment. It uses different railroad and crews as it passes through five or six European countries. I suggest we could use some of the ideas under that system because it works very well. They are not all adaptable to the Canadian scene, but certainly we do not disagree in principle with the idea of a national passenger transportation Crown corporation, though it is second best; we would rather see all railroads and air lines brought under a national Crown corporation.
We suggest it is not logical, sensible or efficient to have competition and commercial viability in transportation because this will continue to discriminate against people in this country because of where they live. Competition between modes of transportation misallocates resources and wastes them by making inappropriate use of the various modes. It is just nonsense to have trains stopping every five miles; that is a job for buses. It is equally nonsensical to have planes make 200 to 300 mile trips. We are not using the various modes of transportation in a sensible and efficient manner.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that
3538

March 1, 1977
Divorce
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Transport-Action to improve pensions of railway employees in view of Hall report; the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald)-Agriculture-Provision of additional refrigerated railway cars for transportation of potatoes; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forre-stall)-Regional Economic Expansion-Dismissal of Mr. McNutt, vice-president of MAGI-Government position.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Public bills; Standing Order 19(2) applies. Order No. 12, the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard). Shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.
Order No. 15; shall the order stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand at the request of the government.


Mr. Landers:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there is agreement to deal with Bill C-224, standing in the name of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


DIVORCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood) moved: that Bill C-224, an act respecting divorce, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which I am putting before the House is based upon the substitution, as grounds for divorce, of the concept of the breakdown of marriage in place of the present concept, which is largely dependent upon proof of what are known as matrimonial offences.
There are two major theories on what should be the grounds for divorce. The first is that divorce should be based on fault; that is to say, that a court should determine that one of the parties to the marriage has committed a matrimonial offence, such as adultery, cruelty, desertion and so forth. The second is that when in fact marriage no longer exists for its basic purpose of enabling the parties to live together in harmony and there is no hope of reconciliation, then the marriage should be terminated. That is the breakdown theory which I have advocated. For a long time these two principles have contended with each other. In 1967 and 1968 the Canadian parliament chose the former course, and in substance our present act is based upon the concept of the matrimonial offence, the fault of one of the parties who, if at fault, cannot secure relief himself or herself.
When the matter was discussed by the joint committee of the House of Commons and Senate at the time of the passing of the previous bill, which is now our present act, a minority, which included the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), Mr. Gordon Aiken who was then the hon. member for Parry Sound, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), and myself, urged the necessity for the broader reform, namely, the concept of marriage breakdown to replace the existing grounds of divorce. This proposal was fully developed in a report made to the Archbishop of Canterbury in England by a distinguished group of churchmen, lawyers, doctors and sociologists. Also, it was embodied in a book called "Putting Asunder".
The concept of breakdown of marriage as grounds for divorce was then supported by the United Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada, the National Council of Women, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Canadian Committee on the Status of Women. Now it has received powerful reinforcement by a report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada. I think it is an interim report of that commission which recommends that breakdown of marriage be the sole ground for divorce.
I have incorporated in Bill C-224 the main provisions recommended by the Law Reform Commission and the proposals in "Putting Asunder". Before dealing with the provisions of the bill in detail, I should like to make clear the basic point of view which the proposal sets forth. It is an acceptance of the centrality of marriage as the most important institution in society, linked as it is with the whole concept of the family. I have spoken of the centrality of marriage. There are many of us, among whom I am one, who speak also of the sanctity of marriage as being more than a merely human institution, although it is indeed a great human institution. If I may be permitted a more personal note, I speak with conviction on this subject through personal experience of a happy marriage and a happy family life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Your wife is in the gallery to hear it.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I would say it whether she was here or not.


Stanley Howard Knowles: She would see to that.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It would not be a very happy marriage if she could coerce me in what I say in the House.
Marriage has been defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. I accept this definition and I regard the concept as one of indisolubility, and the purpose of this legislation which 1 am bringing forth is to advance and not diminish this concept. But it must be recognized by all of us that the hope and expectations of many for permanent union are dashed. Many marriages break down, and when they do serious problems arise, not only for the immediate parties but for the children of the marriage.
It is necessary, therefore, for the state to recognize the existence of the breakdown of marriage and make provisions for the legal ending of what morally is no longer reality. Indeed, some marriages are sources of strife in themselves. The approach of the matrimonial offences theory sets up barriers, and creates an adversary process in the courts which is both expensive and painful. Husbands and wives are often contending with each other. The present system creates these adversary procedures which, as I said, are expensive, provoke bitterness, and encourage-I say this advisedly-adultery, collusion, and sometimes perjury. The present system provides no effective means of encouraging reconciliation. When I say this I speak as one who has had some experience in the courts on these matters.
The present Bill C-224 defines the courts which have jurisdiction and provides that a petition for divorce may be presented when the marriage is broken down and there is no reasonable possibility of reconciliation.
When the husband and wife have lived apart and separate for one year, the marriage is deemed to have broken down. A duty is imposed upon the court to have special regard for the children of the marriage and to consider the possibility of reconciliation. Where in any stage of the proceedings reconciliation appears possible, the court may, with consent of the parties, adjourn the proceedings so that reconciliation can be worked at by the parties, or a person qualified in marriage counselling may be nominated to aid in the reconciliation. The court may refuse a decree if it would be unduly harsh to either spouse or prejudicially affect the making of reasonable arrangements for either spouse and for the custody, care and maintenance of the children of the marriage as might be necessary in the circumstances.
It is sometimes said that this is equivalent to divorce by consent, or divorce at the unilateral will of any of the parties. This is a misreading of the legislation. The proposed act provides that the court cannot grant a decree until two years have passed since the day of the marriage. This would prevent rushing to the divorce courts almost immediately after the
Divorce
marriage without time for proper consideration. There are cases now where divorce is granted on the basis of the committing of a single act of adultery. Under the breakdown concept the commission of a single act of adultery would not in itself justify a divorce unless it had led to the breakdown of the marriage and the breakdown of the reality behind the marriage.
It cannot be too much emphasized that the present system frequently brings the courts into contempt. The proposal we make would remove from the courts the sordid story of adultery and fabrication of evidence which are all too common at present.
In order to make this legislation work, it is clear that a different form of inquiry into the background is required, and we believe that there are those who are trained or could be trained in this field and who could report to the court on the facts of the breakdown of the marriage or whether there was a hope of reconciliation.
It may be asked what, in effect, is the breakdown of marriage. It is a condition or situation in which the life-long union of husband and wife is beyond hope of recovery; where the institution is not honoured, and human happiness and welfare are not being served, and the marriage has become a shell and ought to be declared non-existent.
It is our view that it is not divorce that destroys families, but bad marriages. As the Law Commission report says, the common assumption that liberal divorce laws breed irresponsibility must be challenged. We believe the number of people who marry and divorce without reason constitute only a fraction of our married population. If constructive solutions are to be sought, the answer lies not in our divorce laws but in family life education and marriage counselling.
Social welfare programs that reflect reasonable family policies and promote family cohesion must be developed to deal with such extrinsic facts as unemployment, sickness, and inadequate housing that place undue strain on the stability of marriage and the family unit.
I realize that the great objection many people have to this legislation, consciously or unconsciously, lies in the fact that it breaks new ground, but as the Law Reform Commission report indicates, the trend throughout the civilized world is to introduce marriage breakdown as the sole ground for divorce.
I urge this House to take a stand in favour of a more humane, more rational, and more civilized approach to the problem of broken homes and marriages. Many of the churches and other institutions I have mentioned, as well as the Law Reform Commission, have shown the way. It is up to us as legislators to have the courage to follow this way even if it is to some of us a new concept.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, 1 congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin),
80010-18%

March 1, 1977
Divorce
and I appreciate his introducing this bill in this House. Again, however, I fear that the whole approach to the vast social problems we have with regard to matrimonial law and law involving children's rights is being corrected in a patchwork fashion. I wish the whole of our law could be repaired in one piece of legislation suitable for the society of the late twentieth century.
However, I support this bill completely, and I congratulate the hon. member for Greenwood for his persistence in trying to eliminate, once and for all, the terribly destructive adversary system and in trying to correct the tragedy and pain of marriage failure. Our laws have compounded the destructiveness which exists in the very private matter of marriage breakdown. I agree that marriage breakdown must be the only and absolute ground for dissolving marriages.
I think our matrimonial laws must have been written by self-serving men. Men must take the blame because they authorized all laws, civil and secular, and now we are trying to catch up and correct those laws.
Laws with regard to matrimonial affairs are obsolete, as are many of today's laws. They complicate matters rather than add to the peace and joy of today's life. Our matrimonial laws are simplistic; they are black and white. They must be black and white because people in courts do not seem to be able to think in any other way. It must either be black-white, right or wrong, angel or devil, but no gray or shaded area. That is too subtle for some adjudicators of law to understand.
When the whole tragedy of love going sour occurs, we must have someone to blame. However, both sides could very well be blamed and the whole matter resolved without added trauma. It is an anathema in the late twentieth century to have courts determine who is the matrimonial culprit in an unsuccessful marriage. It is like walking in cold to the middle of a street riot and trying to find the single one who started it.
When the law was changed from the single ground of adultery, the halls outside and inside the court rooms on divorce day in Vancouver, where I worked, were rather like a subdued pilgrimage of children-drawn, pale, and waiting to join that terrible internecine war between their parents. They were obliged to tell a complete stranger, the judge, in a totally strange world of black-robed people how bad, cruel, and brutal one parent was, and how the other in goodness suffered.
One parent is good, the other bad, and child must tell this to the court. I saw this over and over again with despair, because the amendment which corrected the law only made it worse. Children had to testify-under oath in many cases-for one parent against the other. They had to tell family secrets. They had to tell shameful secrets which are terribly disturbing to youngsters. They had to tell what went on between their parents in the privacy of their home.
Internecine war must be the crudest and most vicious of all wars, and in this war the children are forced to the front line among all the bullets. They never forget. I have known children who have grown to adulthood who never forgot that they lived in that no-man's land of their parents' war, and for the

rest of their lives some of them blamed themselves for causing the marriage breakups.
As immature and chauvinistic as the one ground of adultery was, it was better than what happened when blame became broader and had to be proved in law. However, both laws, the old one with regard to adultery and the new one which includes many grounds, were designed by medieval minds, and to say the least they are inappropriate in Canada in 1977.
Worst of all these laws damage all parties who must participate in these sordid charades. I am not saying I want freedom or licentiousness in our human relations, and certainly no one was more vocal than I in damning the type of behaviour which developed in the latter half of the 1960's. Lifestyles during that period deteriorated to a point where anything was right. Morality and discipline in human behaviour was sneered at. Marriage was looked on as a joke, as old fashioned. Doing one's own thing was acceptable and was even touted by some impressive voices from the media and from academe, who also wanted to do their own thing in sex perversion and drugs. They touted this philosophy so that they could have their own gratification.
Marriage and an essential commitment of one human being to another, a lifelong commitment, make people strong, if they can work out that complex partnership. Certainly it is the safest and most ideal framework in which to raise and nurture children. Strong human beings come out of strong marriages, especially those which are not only strong but happy as well. It takes remarkable women and remarkable men to raise children successfully alone without support.
It is in this regard that I say the state should be active, rather than in intervention in the breakup of marriages, in helping people to prepare for marriage and to succeed in marriage. Many have raised children alone quite successfully, but if marriage fails the danger to children should not be increased further by the need to turn one parent into an offender before the law; to force one parent to be bad and to leave the mark of that bad parent forever in the memory of the child. In all likelihood that child will identify with the "evil" of the parent, and somehow believe forever that they, being of that same cloth, are also "evil".
Partnerships break up because it is humanly impossible to have total perfection and compatibility in human relationships. Those which are successful survive because one partner is willing to compromise, to suffer hurt, and to accept less than perfection. On rare occasions each party will adapt to the foibles of the other and love the weaknesses because they love the complete human person they vowed jointly to love, honour and cherish through all life. Some stay together, however, in mutual tolerance, perhaps even in indifference and, of course, there are numerous people who stay together in pain.
But to have the adversary system, the fault system, and to have to go before a court of law to dissolve marriages is absolutely beyond conception in this day and age. Among those who set the original design have been men who perhaps never lived in marriage. Some were men of the church who were celibate, preserving their world for men.
March 1, 1977

When a marriage is irretrievably broken, and all attempts between the two people and the family involved fail, the state is best served if the psychological and physical battering which follows marriage breakdown and precedes divorce does not happen. Desertion and abandonment have been the solution for some. There are even instances in which a partner seeks escape quickly by murder, foolishly preferring it to the slow anguish of divorce and all the public recriminations.
Love cannot be rehabilitated once contempt, boredom or hate take over. The progression from love to hate can be very speedy, and anyone who dreams he can cure a broken love affair or a broken marriage is certainly in dreamland. People like that have seen too much of Hollywood of the early days and too much of the bad television of today. If somewhere between those extreme poles of love and hate, a final decision could be made rationally, without the rancour, without the violence that too often is as passionate as the early love, both the principals and the children would be safer emotionally and physically.
As it is now, children are too often used for the barter in matrimonial trade-offs. In exchange for money-the maintenance that was not paid-the husband is allowed to have the children for a week end or at Christmastime. Christmas is the popular time for barter. The children soon become wise to a most devious human technique to achieve desires, or even power-manipulating one parent against the other for their personal gain.
The reasons I agree with the hon. for Greenwood are many. The law must be changed to forever end this charade we call divorce and the seemingly inevitable internecine war that so often accompanies it and that so sorely damages the principals, but most of all injures the children who are our future.
There are many cynical lines about marriage and divorce such as: divorce is like matrimony, a fellow has to go through it three or four times before he knows how. There are many lines that can be quoted but, Mr. Speaker, it is a serious business. When marriage breaks it is the most tragic business of all. There are many jokes about it, but it is the tragedy of our time that there is so much divorce which clogs the courts and destroys families and children.
In Vancouver there was a sanctimonious fraud on the bench, now deceased. I should not speak ill of the dead. Nonetheless, I cannot forget how he lined up all the women after a day of divorce hearings, usually a Friday, and lectured them on religion, their duty to their children and their duty to their now departed, divorced mate. It was deplorable, but it indicated the power tripping that I have seen on the part of some lawyers- and a few judges-in the tragedy of divorce.
One lawyer who specializes in divorce does everything to degrade a woman when she comes to his office. He calls her a tramp, a whore, spewing out epithets laced with four-letter words. A psychiatrist might suggest he nurtures his sexual inadequacies by using four letter words over and over again even though the woman is a total stranger. The women come
Divorce
away degraded, beaten, with their already devastated selfesteem totally eliminated. However, the woman endures this despicable tirade because the lawyer has the reputation of winning, and of taking all for his client. But this is all part of what can happen in the long drawn out divorce process, where a lawyer can play around with blame.
To put it simply, perpetrating matrimonial offences in law does many things. First, it damages the children. Second, it forces children to become the catalyst in the court battle; third, as John Barrymore once said, "a paper napkin never returned from a laundry nor love from a trip to the law courts". Fourth, reconciliation by court or by law is impossible; it cannot succeed unless the partners want it to. Fifth, marriage in quiet despair and constant battle makes people less able to function in the general fabric of society and serve in their jobs, occupations or professions. When marriage breakdown occurs, that is devastating by itself. Why then is it necessary for the state to add to the pain of adversary law and matrimonial offence, the court process in which both men and women are strangers in this strange land?
My sixth point is that battles between man and wife are absolutely confidential. What rationale can there be for going public? Did lawyers create the adversary system to keep lawyers rich or perhaps for justification to force these people into the open for the gratification of a society that cannot change what has happened in the privacy of their home? As Oscar Levant put it; "My first wife divorced me on the grounds of incompatibility. Besides I think she hated me." Sometimes one wonders who gave these people more pleasure; the clergyman who married them or the judge who divorced them.
The seventh point is one that is much in the news but has probably happened throughout the century although we have just become aware of it, that is the plight of the battered woman and child. They are no doubt the victims of marriage breakdown. No person should have to come to court to obtain relief from battering in marriage. Nor should she have to prove no fault to escape from such a horrible situation. Cruelty, a ground in law, should be accepted as absolute in such cases and should not have to be debated in a courtroom. As one woman said, "Yes, my grounds were cruelty; he tried to kill me several times."
Human failure is devastating enough without having to expose it in court. It should be resolved quietly, by mutual consent, registering an end to marriage with vital statistics. That is enough. If it is not done by mutual consent, the individual-the parties-will go their own way anyhow and the venom in one marriage will spread to other marriages and other homes.
Adultery and the use of prostitution is another way of solving the problem. Perhaps the state should concern itself with nurturing the marriage and if it fails, let the parties be free to suffer the failure with a certain amount of dignity and with minimal pain.
Everything should be done to prevent divorce by serving and preparing for good marriage. It is the most important partner-

March 1, 1977
Divorce
ship undertaken-certainly more important than those based only on making money. Think of all the laws we have now to protect corporations and business when making money is the prime objective-school for eight, 12 or 20 years to prepare for that, but there is no preparation for the most important duty a human being is ever to undertake-marriage. If the partnership fails, there is no restoring it. The adversary attempt at reconstruction is sheer madness. As usual, it is the imagined remedy of men and lawyers. Women have not been active long enough in the policy-making areas of society to clean up the act, but maybe it will be a different world now that they are becoming more involved.


Iona Campagnolo: Hear, hear!


Simma Holt: The people who constructed our social order, made it too complex, too unjust-an impossible framework in which humans must strive to live in peace.
I am afraid lawyers must take the blame for complicating our lives almost beyond endurance. It is as though the whole of our lives was designed to make lawyers rich and make us fearful. As you know, a man will joyfully pay a lawyer $500 for untying the knot of wedlock, but he begrudges a clergyman $50 for tying it. That is how little regard the man has for a commitment to marriage, and how speedily he wants freedom. It is true now of women as well because they are economically freer to escape the bondage of a bad marriage. It also explains why lawyers are richer than clergymen.
Our whole society seems geared to litigation and is routed through the courts. Marriages should never have to go that way, and certainly children should not have to be the arbiters of the good and bad of their parents.
The male rules for morality nurtured immorality and kept women tied to a separate set of rules for male convenience and service. Thus, if a man engages in adultery he is a gay blade; a woman who becomes involved is a tramp-a whore. If a man engages the services of a prostitute, the woman is charged with the offence while the man goes free. His name is not even recorded in the crime report. The man, who should be the complainant, of course cannot complain because his name would go on the record and his reputation be destroyed. No male who wrote the law would ever want that to happen to one of his. But it does not matter about the woman. Chivalry? No! male self-preservation-by law.
Divorce is of the same design, but now that women have been freed economically by their own ability to make a living, maybe the double standard will diminish.
When marriage fails there is no question that there cannot be recovery for that marriage. I have seen attempted reconciliations but they have never worked. They have merely delayed the inevitable, or the couples and the children have lived together in silent and often violent despair. Many ended up in mental hospitals or certainly as disturbed people.
[Mrs. Holt.)
Love can be a terrible weakening process. After it has started to deteriorate, it can leave its victims physically and emotionally debilitated. We are so easily victimized if we love too much but, worse, devastated if we hate too much. To put it in the words of Helen Rowland, a columnist and author who seemed to have first-hand experience, a grass widow was the angel a man loved, the human being he married, and the devil he divorced. She also described love as the quest, marriage the conquest, and divorce the inquest.
I would wish for our society that which the hon. member for Greenwood proposes-that the inquest be quiet, peaceful, and without search for someone to blame. The litigation route is destructive.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, despite some of the things the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) said about men and lawyers, and that was an arguable point which I could debate with her, I must say that, generally, I agreed with her approach and with the approach of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin).
I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway that the law was made by men. Originally it was made by so-called celibates. The ecclesiastical law for many years was the foundation of our divorce law. In mediaeval ages, and even later, the divorce courts were ecclesiastical courts. Henry VIII changed all that; he had a much more clear-cut way of getting rid of his wives-if I can make a pun. I remember reading a book about some of the oddities of the ecclesiastical law. According to that book, in the early days of the United Kingdom when a man took a wife he took her property and he also took her debts. But if he married her in her shift, he did not have to take her debts. I am sure the hon member for Vancouver-Kingsway will appreciate the dilemma of the woman in ancient days. She had to choose between getting dressed to kill, getting married in a beautiful white wedding dress and letting her husband pay her debts, and getting married in her shift and not letting her husband pay her debts.
I remember, when I came back from overseas after the last war, that I did a lot of divorce work. I was not happy to do it, did not like it, but it was work which had to be done. Many divorces arose because young people had married hastily in wartime and then parted quickly because one of the partners was in the armed services. When they met again they both discovered that their marriage partners were completely different from what they had envisaged. I did many divorces between 1946 and 1950. The divorce rate was fantastically high, compared with what it had been up to that period in our history.
I remember being in a building-it was not really a courtroom-and seeing the presiding judge grant 12 decrees nisi in one hour. Each divorce took five minutes on average. The lawyers knew it was a farce. It was all laid on. The marriage certificate was produced, there were photographs, proofs of service, proofs of the existence of children, evidence to estab-
March 1, 1977

lish that there was no collusion, evidence to establish adultery and, bingo, that was it. It took five minutes.
I remember the judge having difficulty with a newly minted barrister who was a little embarrassed at having to bring such evidence forward. The judge said to him, "Come on, hurry up. Adultery may be very pleasant to commit, but 1 have sat here for three days listening to such evidence, and listening to adultery cases is not my idea of a good time." He said, "Prove adultery, and let us end this case." That happened in a building in my town which had been turned into a courthouse. Actually, the building had been used before as a United Church. The new courthouse was being built at the time. One of the two clients I had in this series of divorce cases looked around him and said, "Mr. Baldwin, is this the old United Church building?" I said, "Yes, it is." He said, "My God, that's where I was married." Even though I believe in freedom of information I will not tell you what I charged him for his divorce, but I can tell you that it cost him much more to get his divorce than it had cost him to get married.
I agree with what has been said. I can say, on my experience as a lawyer, as a member of parliament and private citizen, that the reliance on fraud, perjury, hypocrisy, and all the nastiness involved in using the adversary system to prove adultery, bestiality or any of the other grounds which originally were grounds for divorce, is simply criminal in the eyes of society. Yet we persisted in this country for many years in accepting such grounds as the only basis for divorce. Our governments were far, far behind the people.
Finally in 1965 or 1966 a joint committee was set up under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) and Senator Roebuck, a distinguished member of the other place. That committee sat either for one year and a half or two years, heard many witnesses, read the book "Putting Asunder" which had been prepared at the instance of the Archbishop of Canterbury following an inquiry by a judge of the high court of England, a bishop, and one or two other people, and made some good recommendations. They did not go as far as the hon. member for Greenwood and I and others wanted them to go. On the basis of what we had read, heard and seen, we believed then, as we both do now, that marriage breakdown, properly established, should be the basic ground for the dissolution of marriage. But the committee did not go that far. It went half way to meet us.
I can recall that the hon. member for Greenwood, 1 and one or two other members of the day went to 24 Sussex Drive to see the then prime minister, Mr. Pearson. We proposed that marriage breakdown should constitute at least a major cause, or major ground for the dissolution of marriages. Mr. Pearson was quite receptive to our idea and said he would discuss it with the minister of justice of that day.
Ultimately the new divorce bill was presented in this House, either in 1966 or 1967. We found that not only had the then minister of justice not gone as far as we wanted, but he and his officials had not even gone as far as the committee had recommended. Try as we would, we could not persuade the then minister of justice to change his mind. I suggested at the
Divorce
time that, because of his attitude on social matters, politically the then minister of justice was slightly to the left of Ghengis Khan. That minister of justice became our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), Mr. Speaker. I have since come to the conclusion that he stands about even with Ghengis Khan.
Putting nasty politics to one side, I wish to repeat what the hon. member for Greenwood put forward: the adversary system is not the system to use in the dissolution of marriages. Adultery, cruelty and desertion are consequences, or the fallout, rather than the cause of dissolution of marriage. A time may come during a marriage when only the ashes are left, when there is no spark to revive. When that happens it is futile to compel two adult people to go through this forlorn process of manufacturing or creating evidence of adultery and all the rest of it. I think it is wrong. That is why I like what the hon. member for Greenwood has proposed in his bill, because it would provide that a divorce may be granted when there is no reasonable possibility of reconciliation. Generally that does not happen today. If, under the adversary system, the petitioner establishes adultery or such other cause as is contemplated by the act, as far as the court is concerned, it is over. It is finished. The judge is not required to make any investigation into the question of reconciliation. That is quite important.
An experienced trial judge, with long knowledge of human nature derived from sitting on the bench, is probably very capable of determining whether the marriage is completely shot, whether it is kaput, or whether there is prospect of some reconciliation. The mandate to be laid upon a judge by this bill is much better than the situation which exists today.
When people use adultery as a ground for divorce, they often go right through the trial without even a hint of reconciliation being considered. The same applies to the question of children, compensation or alimony, as the case may be.
I go along with the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. It would be excellent if jurisdiction could be combined with the whole matter of matrimonial life and the custody of children in one area or court. Obviously you are not going to get the kind of changes to the British North America Act which would bring this about. However, through the use of delegated authority the attorneys general of the federal and provincial governments could in due course consider this. Through the use of delegated power in the legislation, it is quite legal to transfer to one court or group, call it what you will, the right to deal with all aspects of matrimonial life including, where necessary, dissolution of the marriage, custody of children, and awarding of alimony and maintenance. This would be highly desirable.
I could speak on this for a considerable length of time but I think I have made it clear where I stand. Unless the hon. member for Greenwood has been more persuasive with members on the other side than is usually the case, I have no hope of this bill going beyond this today. However, 1 urge with all the strength I can that members on the government side take steps to emphasize to the members of the cabinet, the Prime

March 1, 1977
Divorce
Minister, and the Attorney General (Mr. Basford) that the public is ready for a reform of this kind.
I am perfectly satisfied that, far from increasing the number of divorces, legislation of this kind will probably lessen them. Using the grounds under the present law, manufactured evidence, and I am sure it exists now as it did 15 or 20 years ago when I knew what was going on, is probably used to obtain divorces without any attempt to provide for a reconciliation. A proper application of the philosophy contained in this bill would go a long distance toward minimizing the number of divorces. It would make certain that when the condition of the marriage had reached the stage where it was quite plain that nothing on God's green earth could save it, it would be dissolved. That is the kind of law we need.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I have some notes I would like to go through. Before I start, however, there are a couple of things which were said by previous speakers with which I would like to take issue.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) alluded to the fact that under the present system the judges of our courts have no right, obligation or, in his view, desire to satisfy themselves that there is no possibility of reconciliation in these cases. If the hon. member had practised under the new law, which apparently he has not, he would have had the opportunity to know that before any court in this land can deal with divorce at this time, the first obligation of the judge, before the witnesses are even sworn, is to satisfy himself that there is no possibility of reconciliation.
In all cases and in all the courts in which I have appeared on matrimonial matters, I have never seen a judge fail to discharge that obligation. It might have been cursory. It might have been insufficient in terms of what the hon. member would like to see happen. However, it is required by the present act and, in my experience, it is done.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) brought a very pessimistic approach to this House. I would like to add a little positivism from my point of view and experience, having done a substantial amount of family law work before coming to this honourable place.
The hon. member indicated that in no instance had she found that reconciliation ever took place once a marriage was on the rocks, or words to that effect. I would like to suggest to this House that on at least three occasions I have had the courts interject in the middle of the divorce proceedings and challenge both parties in the divorce cases that in fact reconciliation had not been tried enough. I had three that were sent back by judges. In fact reconciliation did take place and they are still together. It may not work as much as we would like, but it is working in some instances. It is not as pessimistic as the hon. member believes.
Like the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), I agree there is a need for change in the divorce law. Having dealt with it, I am satisfied there is room for change. In the area of family law, reform should be introduced only after very careful study. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) expressed this

point of view very well in his speech to the Family Law Section, Ontario Bar Association, in Toronto on January 26. I will not repeat his words. I ask only that hon. members interested in this particular issue look at the text of his speech at that time.
In speaking of the process of reform in which the government is now engaged, I shall assume, Mr. Speaker, that most hon. members are aware of the general nature of the recommendations of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, some of which the hon. member for Greenwood is asking us to enact in his bill. I should therefore like to direct my remarks more to the process of government consultation and the conscious effort to find a national consensus in the field of family law. I am directing my attention to these matters in order to explain why I think that it would be premature at this time to enact the bill proposed by the hon. member.
Following close upon receipt by the Minister of Justice of the Report of the Law Reform Commission on Family Law, the attorneys general met in Vancouver in June to discuss, among other things, family law and the administration of that law in the courts. The ministers agreed that it was important to move quickly to establish unified family courts, and there was a general recognition that both levels of government must move forward toward adopting the concept of marriage as a partnership of equals. During their conference the provincial ministers expressed the view that matrimonial property is exclusively a provincial matter. They agreed to urge their governments to press forward with matrimonial property law reform. There was a feeling that matrimonial property law reform should precede divorce reform.
The view that matrimonial property law reform should precede or accompany divorce reform is a view shared by a number of women's groups. They are worried that, if the grounds for divorce are changed before the matrimonial property laws are changed, then a wife who is economically dependent upon her husband could be deprived of her bargaining power in the dissolution process. 1 would not want to imply that these women's groups do not want a divorce reform. They are clearly dissatisfied with the divorce law as it now stands, but consider that any reform that would require a woman to support herself after a reasonable period of time must be accompanied by a property division that would reflect her participation in and contribution to the marriage.
By these arguments the federal government should wait and delay its reform of the Divorce Act until the law on matrimonial property is changed. On the other hand, as the Law Reform Commission emphasized, present divorce procedures are unsatisfactory because they are counter productive, that is, they aggravate problems rather than help to solve them. This happens, as the commission suggests, because the Divorce Act embodies the concept of marital offence or faults. To change the ground for divorce from fault to permanent breakdown or irretrievable breakdown, as suggested in the bill proposed by the hon. member, would be to move away from
March 1, 1977

the adversary approach to divorce and to introduce a greater possibility of conciliatory action. This, perhaps, is an ideal, but if I could get away from my notes for a moment 1 would suggest to the House that I myself had an unfortunate experience with regard to the way in which the new legislation works out in practice. Where there is deemed to be a breakdown of marriage after so many years of separation, trained social workers are supposed to determine whether or not there has in fact been an irreconcilable family breakdown. I found that many of these trained persons relied on form-type letters to be checked off and signed by the individuals involved, and that they frequently advised the court that there had been a breakdown of a marriage without even having seen the parties involved.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Shame!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I think that is a crying shame, as the hon. member for Greenwood said. Unfortunately the legislation now proposed could lead to even greater abuses unless we protect ourselves.
The Minister of Justice is well aware of both sides of the issue: the need, on the one hand, for property law reform to precede or coincide with divorce reform and for new courts or court services to be in place in order to permit new divorce procedures to be introduced; and the importance, on the other hand, of pressing forward with the actual divorce reform itself. That is why he said in his speech to the Family Law Section of the Ontario Bar Association to which 1 earlier referred, and I quote,
I would point out to the remaining provinces, however, and indeed to the legislatures of Ontario and British Columbia (as distinct from the government's of those two provinces), that if, as they say, matrimonial property is a matter within their exclusive jurisdiction, then they have a responsibility to act and to act expeditiously. If the provinces do not move expeditiously to put in place meaningful changes in the law relating to matrimonial property to take account of the economic needs and the rights of both spouses, there will obviously be increasing pressure on the federal parliament to endeavour to try to implement the recommendations, in one form or another, of the Law Reform Commission's report relating to the disposal of matrimonial property. Canadian women should not have to wait much longer for provincial action in this regard.
Before proceeding to discuss the details of the bill proposed by the hon. member, 1 should like to say a few more words in respect of another matter that I have already touched on- family courts. One of the reasons for proceeding slowly in divorce reform is the need to put into place new unified family courts or family court services in existing courts. If there is to be a movement away from the adversary system toward a more conciliatory approach to divorce, then counselling services in the courts are necessary. Other services such as investigatory services and enforcement services would be useful. If there is to be an automatic enforcement of maintenance orders, then enforcement services will be vital. The development of these courts takes time and is costly.
The federal government is encouraging the provinces in their efforts to create these courts by providing money to enable the joint funding of experimental unified family court pilot projects of various types to test a number of possible alternatives. Discussions in respect of such projects are under
Divorce
way at the present time with the provinces of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland. Further, the government is sharing in the funding of the evaluation of the unified family court pilot project that was undertaken by the province of British Columbia in 1974. It is hoped that from these experiments valuable guidelines will be drawn for the future development of family courts in Canada.
I am sure many hon. members will be aware of the announcement made on February 17 last with respect to the appointment of judges to the first unified family court in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. Some of these problems are highlighted by the fact that, following this announcement, a number of people opposed the appointments saying they had come too quickly, that it would be a disaster, that the family court as presently established could never handle the overwhelming weight of this type of action particularly when this involved property and its disposition.
Speaking directly to the bill introduced by the hon. member for Greenwood, I should like to say that while I think it is premature to attempt to replace the Divorce Act at this time and in this way, I agree with some of the principles upon which the bill is based.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The bill is inadequate in that it would repeal the Divorce Act but not replace many of the provisions of the Divorce Act that are essential to a scheme of divorce. For example, the bill does not deal with the subject of how the maintenance and custody orders made by a court in one province would be enforced in another province. This is an important problem that must be dealt with in any new divorce act.
Taking the clauses in their order, I would first have to comment that the definition "court" is not adequate. First, it does not reflect the correct names and divisions of the Superior Courts that hear divorces in various provinces. I think the hon. member is probably not aware of the amendments to the Divorce Act that changed these definitions. Also, I do not think that it is necessary to make reference to the county or district courts of the province. In a number of provinces, judges of the county and district courts hear divorces but, in such cases, they do so as local judges of the Superior Court of the province. When acting as local judges of the Superior Court, they have jurisdiction to hear property matters that they would not have jurisdiction to hear if they were sitting as judges of the county or district courts. While, in the future, it may become possible for divorces to be heard in courts other than Superior Courts, at the moment, for constitutional reasons, it would seem better to retain the jurisdiction in the superior courts and provide that cases may be heard by judges of those courts or local judges thereof. Clause 3 gives me some problems also. While I have some sympathy with the idea of granting divorces on the basis of irretrievable or permanent marriage breakdown. I question how the courts would view the words in subclause 3(2). If it were to be necessary to prove that there is "no reasonable possibility of reconciliation", trials

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
to determine this question would probably continue to be necessary and many divorces that it would be reasonable to grant might be refused.
Subclause 3(3) relieves the onus of proof to a considerable extent by providing that where the parties have lived separate and apart for a year the marriage shall be deemed to be irretrievably broken down. However, nothing in the bill prohibits the parties from commencing an action prior to that year of separation. In those cases, acrimonious trials would probably continue. Spouses would still be coming to the court to make allegations against each other. I think that the hon. member wishes to provide for no-fault divorce and would not, himself, wish to see this new type of trial develop as a result of his bill. In order to avoid this result, it would probably be necessary either to prohibit divorces to be heard before the expiration of a year of separation, or to provide for proof that the marriage has irretrievably broken down to be given by some kind of non-accusatory evidence. I should like to see any bill put forward on the subject of divorce contain some provisions that would reduce the adversary aspects of the divorce proceeding and promote reconciliation and the preservation of the family unit to the extent possible.
The promotion of reconciliation brings me to another problem I find in the bill. I am not convinced it should be necessary for parties to live separate and apart for a year in order to qualify for a divorce. I think this is one of the problems with the present Divorce Act. The requirement for separation inhibits the possibility of reconciliation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. It being six o'clock, the hour for private members' business has expired.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Basford (for the Minister of Transport) that Bill C-33, to amend the National Transportation Act and the Department of Transport Act for the purpose of defining the objective of the transportation policy for Canada and authorizing the consequential rearrangement of powers and duties relating to transport and to amend the Transport Act and the Railway Act in respect of freight rates and other matters, be read the

second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, when the debate adjourned at five o'clock I was talking about the illogical efforts of the government, with the support of the official opposition, to retain competition and commercial viability in transportation. I said that if it were logical to have competing railroads and competing air lines, it would be just as logical to have competing sewage and water systems, streets, highways, telephone lines, and power lines. I want to quote a further excerpt from the speech made by the former leader of our party, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), in the debate similar to this one which we had in 1966. On that occasion he said:
The fact is that I do not believe that free enterprise and the competitive system of transportation can give Canada an adequate transportation policy at a price we can afford ... in a country of 20 million people, where ... we are more dependent than probably any country in the world on getting our goods to market over long distances at competitive prices, where we spend more per capita on transportation than probably any other country in the world, I do not think we can afford the luxury of having a free enterprise, competitive transportation policy ... I believe that what we need is more government control and direction, not less, in the field of transportation.
Those words are as valid today as they were in 1966. Competition between modes of transportation mis-allocates resources, in fact, wastes resources, through the inappropriate use of each mode. When it comes to rates, if a railway rate is too high, why not have the government intervene to regulate the rate? The free enterprise competitive system says that instead you should foster intermodal competition to hold the rate down by building another super highway parallel to a railway line, or subsidizing another railway line, or subsidizing some more airports and air lines.
I hope we will agree that it would be foolish, for example, to promote the trucking of heavy bulk commodities, such as coal, potash, fertilizer, iron ore or grain, over medium and long distances. Not only is it foolish, it is too costly in terms of energy and in terms of the misuse of a particular mode of transportation, namely, trucking. Truck transport of bulk commodities requires four to six times as much energy as rail transport.
Competition between modes of transportation denies the stated objective in the bill of integrating the modes together. For example, a bus company is not going to short haul itself to serve as a feeder to railway lines if it can get a full haul for its own revenues. Instead of intermodal competition, why not intermodal co-ordination? Why not integrate passenger ticket offices, baggage handling facilities and passenger terminals in common facilities? In many cases the facility already exists in former downtown railway stations.
Let me give an illustration, Mr. Speaker. In my own city of Regina, Air Canada established a new downtown ticket office in the new Toronto-Dominion Bank building which is very posh and plush. There are exactly two spaces to park a car in front of that building, and they are in a two-minute zone. If you want to buy an airline ticket, you will have to drive and then park your car several blocks away, if you can find a
March 1, 1977

parking place. This may give a good image for Air Canada's brass, but it is hardly the place to encourage people to come in and buy their airline ticket.
There is a downtown railway station in Regina with ample parking facilities which are mostly unused. This is where the Air Canada ticket office should be, and where the CN and CP railway ticket offices should be. This is where the terminal for the airport limousine should be, where the taxi stand should be, where the city transit busses should stop, and where the bus ticket offices should be. Instead of that, we have the so called intermodal competition. They all have separate buildings and separate ticket offices, all of which adds to the cost of transportation in our country.
That kind of commercial viability and competition in transportation is sheer economic nonsense. No self-respecting free enterpriser or businessman, in that kind of enterprise or any other kind, would willingly or knowingly resort to such an operation. But as long as you have old line party governments which cling to nineteenth century mythology about competition and commercial viability in transportation, you will have those kinds of boondoggles in every city in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: As I said before five o'clock, the elimination of competition and commercial viability in transportation is not some socialist dogma. It is not just some ideology of the NDP. It is a fact in countries all over the world with governments of all political persuasion, from the extreme left to the extreme right and everything in between. Canada, and to a lesser degree the United States, remain the only two still clinging to this mythology of competition in transportation. The days of the railroad barons and "maggots" of the 1880's and 1890's are gone.
Commercial viability for a transportation company may deny the economic needs of an individual community or of our nation as a whole. We submit that service to the public and national and regional economic objectives should take precedence over profitability. For example, in freight rates the maximum rate provisions in this legislation are virtually worthless since the maximum ceiling is so high that railway companies may charge whatever they deem suitable.
Let me illustrate with some specific examples where people are discriminated against because of where they happen to live. The agreed charge rate for food stuffs-and I wish the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) were here because the agreed charge rate for food stuffs applies also to Saskatoon-hauled from Toronto to Vancouver is 2.63 cents a ton mile, but it is 3.53 cents a ton mile from Toronto to Saskatoon. An average of seven different agreed charges indicates that the railways are charging 53.4 per cent more per ton mile for like goods hauled from Toronto to Saskatoon than from Toronto to Vancouver.


Ralph Goodale: That is what this bill will eliminate.
National Transportation Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, it will not, because if the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) will read the bill carefully he will see that it says "except for competitive reasons". The legislation will not correct that.


Ralph Goodale: Yes, it will.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If the hon. member will pay attention a little longer, I will give him some examples.


Ralph Goodale: I hope they are more factual than what you have given so far.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Them is the facts. If the hon. member has kept his nose in the keyhole of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), he has not sniffed out any facts there.
The maximum rate provision for railway rates is two and a half times the cost of service, not one and a half. Here is where the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), in reading the speech of the Minister of Transport, was wrong, or at least perhaps he misread the facts in the legislation. That is on small shipments. For large shipments the maximum rate is greater than two and a half times the cost of service. The Minister of Justice, reading the speech of the Minister of Transport, said that that was protection. All I can say is, some protection! The 100 per cent over the cost of service that the Minister of Justice spoke about in the speech of the Minister of Transport is up to 250 per cent which, if my arithmetic is right, is two and half times the cost of service.


Ralph Goodale: There is no protection now, and the bill provides it for the first time.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member does not know one end of a box car from another. With that kind of a maximum rate there will be no intervention because they can go to that maximum without intervention, and those who appeal for intervention will not get it because the companies will be within the maximum, which can be two and a half times the cost of service.


Ralph Goodale: But they are over that maximum now. They will have to roll some back.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Except for competitive reasons, and that is still in the bill. That ruins half the principles.


Ralph Goodale: That is not on the maximum-minimum, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The other items on freight rates that I want to comment on now are, for example, the prairie rapeseed crushing industry. They face inequities because it is more economical to ship raw rapeseed to central Canada for crushing instead of processing it on the prairies and shipping the processed products. Under the new rates-and I hope the hon. member for Assiniboia will make a speech and tell us how this will be corrected-published by the Canadian Transport Commission for rapeseed products, it costs 62.4 cents more per hundredweight to ship rapeseed products than it does to ship raw rapeseed from Saskatoon to Montreal. The previous dif-

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
ference was 25.3 cents; now it is 62.4 cents. The answer of the Minister of Transport to this inequity would be to jack up the rate on raw rapeseed so that it would move at a compensatory rate. This would price the western rapeseed products right out of the central Canadian market. They would no longer be competing with corn, peanuts, soyabeans, coconut oil or sunflower oil. It prices western processed rapeseed oil right out of the central Canadian market, let alone the export market.
It is bad enough when this happens under the Liberal Minister of Transport, but this had a lot of help from the Conservatives. They sold out to the government, as usual. I listened very carefully to the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner), who did not take any position on the bill one way or another except horizontal. He is neither for or against the bill. This is typical. It is no longer Joe who or Joe what, it is Jack what. On this issue of the processing of rapeseed in western Canada, the minister of transport in Alberta, who happens to be a relative of the hon. member for Crowfoot, not only opposed extending the statutory rate to rapeseed products but suggested that raw rapeseed be taken off the statutory grain rate. That is a lot of help from those Conservatives in Alberta.
The Tories talk motherhood about promoting decentralization and regional industry, but where are they when it comes down to the nitty-gritty of the future of our rapeseed industry in western Canada? They fell into line with profitability and commercial viability and said, "Take rapeseed off the Crows-nest pass rates". Like the Atlantic premiers, the premier of Alberta sold out. The Tories agreed with the Minister of Transport that there has to be competition and that there has to be commercial viability in transportation. The official opposition did nothing but some nitpicking with regard to this legislation. 1 listened to the hon. member for Crowfoot, and I like the man very much, but he did not take a stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. However he could continue with the unanimous consent of the House. [English]
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is not unanimous consent. The hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier).


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, do I have the floor?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There was not unanimous consent. I recognize the hon. member for Roberval.


Mr. Hogan:: Mr. Speaker, may I find out who said no?


A. Daniel McKenzie: The member of parliament for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) said no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my speech, may I say that I disagree with the government leader for having introduced this bill today, not because I am against the introduction of a bill on transportation, but because we were informed only half an hour before the House resumed of the change in the business of the House. Today we were supposed to discuss Bill C-27 on unemployment insurance and we got ready for that. A few minutes only before entering the House, we were told that the government had changed its mind and that we would be discussing Bill C-33 on transportation.
I asked why this sudden change. The answer was that this was because the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) was in the House and he wanted to introduce his bill himself, but here we were in for another surprise: the presentation was made by the Minister of Justice on behalf of the Minister of Transport. This demonstrates again the lack of planning on the part of the government in submitting the other leaders in the House an orderly schedule. We are lost in conjectures about the real reasons behind these changes which were made at the very last minute.
Still I am pleased to see this bill introduced because I have a lot to say about the administration of the Canadian National and about the passenger service which these officials seem to discredit. I see some of them up there smiling and conferring. They know they are protected because they sit behind the minister; it is impossible to find the name of a single one or to know their opinion about the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.
For the last 15 years I have been struggling in this House to save to some extent what is left of the passenger service in our area. Barely 15 years after the flourishing period of our railway, we were visited by so-called specialists from the large cities; they closed all the passenger stations; they turned express and postal services over to the private sector because it gave them too much work; they dismissed all employees in those services and suppressed two thirds of the personnel entrusted with the maintenance of the railroad track and tripled the clerical work force. They forgot one thing: trains best operate on well-maintained railroad tracks and not on television screens. Even though the contrary may seem true, it was wishful thinking on their part. Today we have a bill dealing with railways and whose first clause reads as follows:
.. . the National Transportation Act is repealed . . .
We spend our time in the House repealing laws to replace them by others which are sometimes less efficient-
"3. (1) It is hereby declared that the objective of the transportation policy for Canada is to achieve a transportation system that
(a)	is efficient,
(b)	is an effective instrument of support for the achievement of national and
regional social and economic objectives, and
(r) provides accessibility and equity of treatment for users,.. .

All that makes me laugh, Mr. Speaker. And we read in the recommendation that it is for the purpose of defining the objective of the transportation policy for Canada and authorizing the consequential rearrangement of powers. The rearrangement of powers and duties relating to transport, now that is important!
Mr. Speaker, when talking about rearrangement of powers and relations in transport, it means another change in the staff. As you see, there will be another rearrangement of responsibilities in the field of transport. In short, what do these proposals mean? More technocrats and bureaucrats who are going to strut about like their predecessors or spend their time sleeping in their sumptuously furnished offices.
We may read the whole bill but at the end at the very last line, Mr. Speaker, we read that the Minister of Transport will decide. What does that mean? It means that technocrats will keep their own preserve in the field of Canadian transport. That is that! Technocrats are never mentioned, they only refer to the minister, but we know very well what it means.
That was a realistic summary of Bill C-33. Mr. Speaker, it would be better for us to keep only the last line of the bill and throw the balance into the wastebasket, because in the end decisions will not be made in the House, but elsewhere. The goal of the bill is to meet the regional needs in an efficient fashion. If I had time to read again the bills on transportation passed since Confederation, I would always find the same goals set out, perhaps with a different terminology. That is a good indication how our high officials repeat themselves.
Then the minister tells us that the bill is aimed at combining the various means of transportation and set up joint public and private services. It has been done for a long time, Mr. Speaker. And I would add that if our public carrier did not have its annual deficits paid by the taxpayers, I mean freight transport, never could it compete with the private sector. As far as freight transportation is concerned, our public carrier was anxious to hide its own administrative incompetence, hence the agreements with its competitor, that is private enterprise.
I wish I had more time to provide you with background information on these freight rates. I should have a lot to say but I prefer to make use of my own time telling you about passenger services generally-since this bill deals also with this-but more specifically in my own Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region. Someone may say that this is not the first time I have raised this issue in the House. However, following the remarks I made in the House the other day, I feel this is an excellent opportunity to tell you about this famous train.
I am afraid someone has called down curses from heaven upon our region, for technocrats have apparently decided to put down or even make us hate the only passenger service which has survived the devastating attacks launched by Montreal officials. Especially in the past 15 years officials have been anxious to prove to the authorities of the country that a railway in the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area is not profitable. Every trick has been used, such as no adequate maintenance of
National Transportation Act
the tracks and antiquated passenger cars. They have even used the suburban cars of Montreal to provide service between Montreal-Chicoutimi-Dolbeau or still


An hon. Member:: Jonquiere.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -Jonquiere is also included, so that the tracks are left clear for freight trains while passengers have to wait for hours and hours on a siding because freight trains have priority. We have to say how we are treated in our area. Or the passenger from the Dolbeau-Chicoutimi train must cool his heels for two or three hours at Hervey-Jonction waiting for a train from Abitibi when it would be more logical to proceed directly to Montreal as it has been done each Sunday night for years. But during the week one has to wait for the Abitibi train which must travel to Montreal in two and a half or three hours. As the Abitibi train is always late, we arrive late in Montreal. That's it! Finally, the favorite sport of senior civil servants is to play with schedules. They are interested in schedules, they often play with them. They juggle with them. It is a little like the torment of the drop of water. The latest draft schedule for April 1977 has not been published yet, but I have it. It is concrete evidence of what I just said.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, that according to that new schedule, any passenger from Chicoutimi, Jonquiere, Chambord or Dol-beau will leave Chicoutimi at one p.m. From Dolbeau, he will leave at noon and arrive in Montreal around 11.30 p.m. We might as well say midnight, because there is always a halfhour delay.
When I saw this schedule, I thought it was the height of stupidity. Those people should either go and see a psychiatrist or be confined. They are due for some mental rest. Let's imagine someone going to Montreal on business. Right now he can leave Dolbeau or Chicoutimi at seven in the evening. At 6:30 in the morning he gets into Montreal, does his business, and then at eight or nine o'clock in the evening he is ready to take the train back home. He does not lose time. Two nights aboard a sleeping car or a coach during eight and a half or nine hours. But with the new schedule, the train will leave Chicoutimi at noon and arrive at midnight: so the businessman getting into Montreal at night will have to check in a hotel, spend the night in Montreal and do his business the following day; but since the train leaves for Chicoutimi at seven in the morning, he will have to wait for the next morning train to go back to Chicoutimi. So he will have to take two days and three nights for his business. Anyone can imagine what results this schedule will have. And now, Mr. Speaker, this schedule will become effective on April 1.
Starting April 1, this schedule will be implemented. Never, and I want parliament to note this, never before would any public servants have had the gall to suggest such a ridiculous schedule. We can now imagine what the situation will be for the hundreds of workers who leave each fall for the fruit and vegetable harvest in Ontario, for the 600 to 800 workers, for entire families, who take the train to Ontario. They will reach

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
Montreal at midnight and they will have to spend the night on the floor of the station waiting for the train next day. With the present schedule, they reach Montreal at 6 or 6:30, which means that they can transfer as soon as they get off the train to another train going to Ontario. This is why, on February 28, I presented a motion in the House to appeal to the Minister of Transport so that this decision may be postponed for six months. My motion, dated February 28, reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a matter of utmost importance and urgency to the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area.
As according to the new CN passenger service schedule becoming effective in early April, the only passenger train will be arriving into Montreal at 23:30, as at that late hour all connection with other trains is impossible and as, according to that new schedule, three days and two nights will be needed to spend one business day in Montreal, that waste of time never having existed previously because the same trip is now made during the night, and as the implementation of that new schedule will cause serious prejudice to the travelling public in the area to the extent where the clientele will disappear, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Allard):
That the Minister of Transport exert immediately the required pressure
with the CN president and Mr. Jean-Marie Beaulieu-
-He seems to be in charge there-
-general superintendent, to delay the implementation of the new schedule for six months, with a view to allowing local organizations to present their suggestions in that regard.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know if this time the minister will have the courage to act in the interest of the public, because 1 suspect premeditation on the part of the public servants who thought up this schedule change to try to prove to the minister that the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean passenger train was no longer necessary because of a lack of customers. We can expect anything these days, especially on the part of those who have nothing to think about in their office except how to do a disservice to others while pretending that they are helping them. With such a schedule, who will want to take the train to spend two nights in a hotel in Montreal? Once again, if the minister wants to meet his objectives and meet the needs of the travelling public, he will have to eliminate certain public servants who are dedicated to destroying everything. One thing encourages me however, and this is the news reported in the newspaper Le Devoir of March 1, 1977, and I quote:
Lang Annouces Creation of VIA Rail for Passengers Federal Transport Minister Otto Lang announced yesterday the creation of VIA Rail Canada to operate passenger train services.
In announcing the news, Mr. Lang said the new corporation will be a subsidiary of Canadian National Railways, with plans and budgets subject to government approval.
Creation of the new corporation comes three years after it was first mentioned by the government in the 1974 election campaign.
That is where I started wondering, is he preparing another election campaign?
VIA Rail will take over routes gradually from CN and CP Rail, starting with that part of the network located in the Quebec-Windsor axis. Other lines will follow later.
I hope ours would be turned over immediately.
The Minister of Transport said the government is ready to contribute to capital requirements for trains and track and help with operating losses. Nevertheless, the government is now considering with CN and CP Rail ways to improve performance and minimize costs.

The new company will contract with CN and CP for the operation of passenger trains on existing routes.
The name of VIA Rail president will be known later this week. Already, Frank Roberts, now vice-president of CN's St. Lawrence region, is understood to be the choice.
That is precisely our area. I had heard that Mr. Roberts would be the president of the new corporation. I am very pleased with that, and I ask him to correct the mistakes of his predecessors and give our area a little bit more justice. I am convinced that if a good passenger service is set up between Montreal-Chambord via Dolbeau-Chicoutimi since the run goes well from Chambord to Montreal between 8 and 8:30, at night-I repeat at night-because of the energy restrictions that will soon be mandatory people will be surprised to see how well it will stand up against the competition, even of buses and airlines, because it is proved that rail service is always more reliable. I therefore ask the new president to hold an inquiry in the area and invite all hon. members, who will make it their duty to accept his invitation, to discuss that famous problem of passengers and solve it once and for all.
The problem will never be solved by civil servants in Montreal who barely know the area having gone there only a few times and, mind you, by plane. Mr. Speaker, I promise to ask all companies in the area to use the freight trains, and appeal to all municipal councils, all Chambers of Commerce and local R.D.C.s to prove to the minister and the CN that a passenger service is needed in my area; if it is improved, through both services and schedules, the clientele will triple within a year. Of course, the image of that mode of transport will have to be uplifted because it has been rather battered in the last few years.
Meanwhile, we must keep the current schedule before taking further decisions following the consultations I have suggested earlier. Indeed these consultations could deal with ticket prices, rates for beds-the actual rate is a ridiculous $45-and finally with everything that could attract the clientele and guarantee a satisfactory passenger service. One must never forget that the passenger train is first of all a customer service. It is not a money making industry but government officials are trying to convince the population that it must be a paying proposition. It is not worse than in other regions. The same goes for all other public services whose purpose is to offer the public a better service. Besides, the Canadian Transport Commission has come to the same conclusion and 1 quote Le Devoir of March 1, 1977:
The Canadian Transport Commission has already come to the conclusion that there is not a single profit making trunk line in all of Canada .. .
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are no worse off than these regions. No better, but no worse! We want the same services as the other regions.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina);: Mr. Speaker-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The hon. member is going to rebel.


Peter A. Stollery: -this is a particularly complex subject for an urban member like myself to discuss, but it is important that
March 1, 1977

we discuss this important bill, C-33, effectively. It concerns rail passenger policy. It concerns not only national transportation policy but amends the Railway Act. It has an effect on the Canadian Transport Commission.
Transportation is an extremely difficult and complicated business for most Canadians. Canadians in the urban centres can never understand why members of parliament spend so much time on matters of transportation. Naturally, they use such things as urban transit, streetcars and buses and they do not understand the special difficulties in the west with regard to moving grain.
Members opposite are making remarks at the moment because they do not have the courtesy to listen to a few of my remarks, although I spent a lot of time listening to theirs. The hon. member who spoke previously spoke for 40 minutes on a rather contradictory speech. We sat here and listened to him. 1 should think he would let me get on with my few remarks.
Many of the people I represent understand the fact that transportation is one of the things that brought Canada together in the first place. The railway is a part of Canadian history. They know the story of the CPR and the way that railway had to be built in order to bring this country together. Perhaps it is appropriate that this subject be raised again at this time.
There are members in the House of Commons who represent areas in the maritimes which are concerned about better air service. We know of the difficulties in British Columbia with the coastal ferry service. There are many difficulties in Toronto with urban transit, such as the tremendous costs for subway construction and buying the kinds of vehicles needed to run a modern city. Even a few years ago this would not have been considered for the national government. It was a provincial and municipal problem. Now it has become so costly that the amounts of money required can only be provided by a national government.
I can only speak of the Toronto area with some knowledge. We have always understood that transportation in Canada has never been a paying proposition. We have always had to cough up. We have had to pay a lot of money because in this country we do not have the concentrations of population which makes transportation an easy matter to deal with.
We have the problems of freight subsidies, ferry subsidies, rail passenger subsidies, and other subsidies as well. I was looking at some of the figures. In his speech this afternoon the minister pointed out the deficit. Deficits can always be argued because the figures are so hard to obtain. But according to the minister's statement this afternoon, the deficit was $1.6 billion in 1975-76 to operate the Ministry of Transport in all the areas of Canada with which the Ministry of Transport deals.
Now, philosophically, I agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). Transportation in Canada is crucial to the unity of this country. I hesitate to use that word which is being thrown around these days. But it is the concern of all of us.
National Transportation Act
The fact is that transportation is as important in Canada today as it was in 1867. In fact it may be more important. In 1957-58 the whole world started travelling at 550 miles an hour, the speed of a jet plane. As the former minister of manpower and immigration knows, there have been scenes in this House with regard to immigration matters because populations can move around this planet at 550 miles an hour. That is something that has never been seen before and it has to be dealt with in this age.
But originally it was the railway that.brought us together physically. Now we have the problem of what form of transportation should be used to bring us together. That is the big question which this House spends so much time discussing.
I have some figures. The cost of operating a railway is phenomenal. I am not using this as an argument not to subsidize the railways, but while the number of passengers declined 1 per cent between 1972 and 1974, the deficit rose 30 per cent. That is the kind of problem with which we have to deal. How do we go about what is needed to run our railway efficiently when the costs are so tremendous?
I was born and raised in Canada. Yet I could not afford to visit the city of Vancouver before being elected to the House of Commons. I imagine that was the case for many members of the House. I think most members get the picture.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre referred to Europe in his speech. We have this habit of talking about how well the railway system operates in Europe and how poorly it operates here. In Europe there are high population concentrations that are fairly close together. They are easily served.
In the 1950's the government of France made a conscious decision to put its investments in the railways. When the French delegation left Paris for the Rome talks in 1958, they took the train. The delegation did not meet at the airport the way we do here. They met at the Gare de Lyons. It is a 15 hours trip to Rome. It is a good trip. The other side of the coin is that you cannot rely on airline service to get you from Paris to Rome. Those of us who have had the experience of European airlines know that their standards are not up to Canadian standards.
We talk about the tremendous railway system they have across the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union must have the best rail line I have ever seen in my life. It is fantastic the way it runs between the Soviet Far East and Europe. They do a tremendous business in trans-shipping. The railway line is several tracks wide for thousands of miles and it is most efficient. Any Canadian who rides it cannot believe that this is what a railway can be like. Of course, if he looks outside the train he notices there are no roads. They do not have any roads, and most Canadians probably feel they would like to have roads as well as a railway, and also they would like to have airplanes as well as a railway.
In Canada effectively we have a choice. We want all of them. We want everything. We want the ferries, we want the roads, we want the airlines, and we want the trains. I think

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
that in Canada we should have the trains. We have a society with enough experience to find a proper balance between these various modes of transportation.
Something which has become apparent to me over the past few years since I have been here as a member of parliament is that we have given too much power to the Canadian Transport Commission.


Some hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Peter A. Stollery: You know, the member for-


An hon. Member:: Jack Pickersgill!


Peter A. Stollery: The Conservative transportation critic who spoke earlier today gave me the impression that he did not think politicians should make political decisions about transportation in Canada. 1 think that is crazy. I think that when you have a choice between railways, roads, ferries, and airlines, when you have important services on the east coast, vital services on the west coast, and a large amount of investment to be made, political guidance is needed. We are not talking about just a few thousands of dollars. To my way of thinking, $1.6 billion is a lot of money, it is a heck of a lot of money. Allocating large sums between various forms of transportation has been a national question for more than a hundred years, so when an hon. member suggests to me there should not be political input into the question of how this money should be spent, I just think that is crazy.
Over the last few months we have had experience with Polysar. We have had our experiences with these different agencies which were set up in the 1940's and the 1950's. This is not a problem which is unique to Canada. This is common in many countries. There are only 265 of us. We have to do all the things which have to be done. There are committees, and all members know how busy they are. I guess at some point we decided we ought to establish an independent commission to do this, an independent committee to do that, and a non-political thingamajig to do this, and another mechanism here to do that. And the first thing we know, we have the Minister of Transport standing up in the House of Commons saying "It's a mess, it's awful, and I cannot do anything about it because 1 don't have the political control necessary to resolve this very difficult question."
We are dealing with a very complex issue, but I think that when I see on the first or the second page of Bill C-33 that we are redefining the objective of the transportation policy for Canada, and when I see this business that we are amending the functions, powers and duties of the Canadian Transport Commission, nothing gives me greater joy. A step is finally being taken to get the kind of control back over the transportation system in this country that the government should have.
Members opposite are talking about Pickersgill in 1966 or 1967. Well, it is 1977 now. They may have forgotten it, but we are living in 1977, so we are prepared to acknowledge that reforms have to be made because we have gone a little bit forward, we have found things that are not right and we are
(Mr. Stollery.)
prepared to change them. 1 think that is perfectly sensible and reasonable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Liberals have been saying the same thing for one hundred years.


Peter A. Stollery: Well, Liberals have been doing things about 100 years. The hon. member opposite says that Liberals have been saying that for a hundred years. It is true, and Liberals have been performing things for a hundred years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Chretien) would say, "My eye!"


Peter A. Stollery: Liberals have been making things better. Just before I opened my remarks on this area of transportation, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) spoke about the train service in his area. I take the train quite a lot from here to Toronto. This brings me to the point made by the hon. member for Roberval.

The railway issue is under consideration and the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) has dealt with it. I understand perfectly well that story about the time required to go by train from Ottawa to Montreal, but personally I travel by train between Ottawa and Toronto and I remember that three weeks or a month ago there was a snowstorm. We left Ottawa at 5:30 p.m. for a 250-mile ride. Not 120 mile but 250 miles! And we arrived in Toronto at 2:30 a.m. Why? Because... I see the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) next to me. We have travelled together a few times and we know very well that from here to Belleville the train runs at only 45 miles an hour because CP owns the line and passenger trains always yield to the large freight trains which we encounter because they have priority.


Mr. Ellis:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member
for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) is rising on a point of order.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Speaker, I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that only the track between here and Smiths Falls is CP; from there on it is CN. There is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. This is a point for debate, it is certainly not a point of order. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) has the floor.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to learn that the hon. member knows that, because after all he is the member of parliament for Belleville and that is where the section gang changes on the train. If he does not know it, we are all in a lot
March 1, 1977

of trouble. He is also a former mayor. I acknowledge that he knows more about Belleville than I do, and it is true that it is CPR to Smiths Falls and CNR from Smiths Falls to Brock-ville. But it does not matter. The fact is:

At any rate, one cannot go faster than 45 miles an hour between here and Belleville, no matter what railway company you may use. The speed is 45 miles and hour. And I know it because I have travelled by train for many years, at least 15 or 20 times every year to go to Toronto. Besides, 1 would like to see the hon. member travel by train with me one day because I have not yet met him on the train between Ottawa and Belleville.

Mir. Ellis: You know I always ride the engine, Peter.


Peter A. Stollery: The hon. member always rides the engine. 1 ride in the coach so 1 do not see that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Be careful, we have the engineer back in the chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Peter A. Stollery: We seem to have gotten off the track, Mr. Speaker. What I started out to say was that this very complicated question of transportation in Canada has, for the last ten years, been too much in the hands of-


A. Daniel McKenzie: The Liberals. That is why we are in such a mess.


Peter A. Stollery: -of appointed officials. I think this bill is the first step to regain that power over transportation in Canada, and to me it represents a major step forward.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to intervene on second reading debate of these amendments for three or four particular reasons. First of all, as has been indicated, these are the first substantive amendments that we have made to the act since it was in front of us about ten years ago. These amendments are overdue. To a lot of us, for the time being it remains, at least on the surface, another piece of ad hocery. 1 see nothing particular wrong with ad hoc approaches to very complex problems, but 1 am a little cynical whether or not the amendments proposed by the government will achieve what they are touted as having been designed to achieve.
I am a sort of wait and see-er. We have to proceed with this debate with some degree of caution and try to attract the widest possible dialogue from the different regions of the country and the various economic sectors concerned with transportation. When we are in committee it is absolutely necessary that we have the widest possible opportunity to call witnesses and to pursue our own investigative work respecting the two or three principal suggestions in this particular package.
The first of these is the degree to which the legislation departs from the policies of the last ten years. I am not a great
National Transportation Act
believer in bringing back on to the floor of the House of Commons details about how to run a national transportation system. 1 think that if we have a valid accusation to make regarding inaction in the last ten years, it is that we have lost political control over the policy of the government respecting transportation problems. If what we are learning from my hon. friend from Toronto is a lesson in the degree to which politicians should be running national transportation systems, then I think he had better get off the train and back on to an airplane, or take a taxi to get back and forth.


An hon. Member:: What have you ever done for transportation?


A. Daniel McKenzie: You have made it a mess. Marchand says it is a real mess.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) has the floor and 1 suggest we listen to him.


J. Michael Forrestall: As long as it remains in a mess we will try to help you out and encourage you to do the right thing. If the hon. member wants, I will talk to him about transportation and about how little he has done for New Brunswick. What have you done for Nova Scotia today in the field of transportation?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he address the Chair, please.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do you want me to tell you what they have done about the "at and east" rates? Do you want me to tell you about the two or three thousand jobs that we are going to lose?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member get back on the rails of the National Transportation Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: I will address my remarks to you, Mr. Speaker. If they want to listen, they can. But I don't need chastisement from you, and I certainly don't need it from the people across the floor. We have one or two comments to make on this important piece of legislation. They fouled up the port of Halifax. They fouled up our shipping industry. They will foul up our transportation system. They have done this for the last ten or 15 years, and they sit there and ask what we have done. The absence of any meaningful direction in transportation policy in the last ten years stands as an indictment against the government. It indicates to me, as someone from eastern Canada, the real level of their concern for the hinterlands of this country. They don't care. Traditional Liberal thought in this country has never cared; it has been centralized.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


J. Michael Forrestall: Go back and read Mackenzie King. Read a little bit of history.

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act


Simma Holt: Why is it such a great country? Because the Liberals have run it.


J. Michael Forrestall: Yes, they ran it right into the ground. Stand up and tell me that this is not ad hocery. It is a piecemeal approach to a complex problem. You fellows will try anything.


Simma Holt: You had the chance and you failed.


J. Michael Forrestall: It is you who failed. This is just an attempt to do something. If you want some support for your legislation, listen once in a while.


Simma Holt: It is not worth while.


J. Michael Forrestall: It just might be that I will support this aberration because, God knows, anything is better than nothing. We have had nothing for ten years. Perhaps it is a step in the right direction, but there are things we want to know about. What is it going to do for the port of Halifax? What is it going to do for the "at and east" rates? Where is all this grand money about which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) tells our Atlantic premiers? All these words mean nothing.
The degree to which this piece of legislation will be affected and will be well received politically by the people in Atlantic Canada will be measured by the degree to which the minister does something with regard to the powers he will give to himself. Before giving him those powers, I want to know what he is talking about. I want to know where the extra funds will come from. I want to know what he is talking about when he says we will not only get rid of ineffective and inefficient subsidy programs, not only will we take that money and give it to the economically depressed regions to upgrade their transportation facilities, but we will find more money. Where is that money coming from and what will he do with it?
He went to the Atlantic provinces and came out of there with the blush of sunshine, praised by everybody about his user-pay principle reversal. How will he forgo that? It shows up here in the bill. The concept is there about avoiding it where economic contingencies come to the fore, and it should be avoided or set to one side. It has been there for a long time. What he is going to do for us, what is he going to do for Canada? All that he is doing here is to take unto himself enormous powers.
Let us go through the principles for a minute or two, the eight or ten principles. It says: the federal government will establish the national policies and the CTC will enforce them. How have we been running transport for the last 30 or 40 years if it has not been that way?
It says that the development and regulation of the transport system will be done in co-operation with all levels of government and the public. Probably I will support this bill on second reading, but before I do I want to hear from the minister-not the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) but the Minister of Transport-and from some members from Atlantic Canada.
[Mr. Forrestali.)
How will they consult with the general public about something as broad and sweeping as that particular principle? I welcome it, it has to be done, but stand up and tell me how you intend to do it.
It says here that competition within and between transport modes will be encouraged where other considerations permit. What other considerations? What are you talking about? What does that mean? Do not ask us to buy something unless you are prepared to tell us what it means and what it is all about.
It says here that conflict between public and private interests will be resolved in favour of the public interests. I am down to paragraph (d). I think Sir John A. Macdonald talked about this 110 years ago. What else is there? A little bit of mother love so far.
It says here that there should be opportunities for both public and private ownership, national, regional, and local carriers, and for Canadian ownership of private carriers. What does that last little tagged-on phrase mean? You have all spoken to your truckers, to people in the transportation industry, and you know exactly what it means. There is enough authority in that one sentence to make a dictator out of the minister if he wants to be one. Why? We will not give it to him until we have heard. That is the purpose of our being here.
It says here that commercial viability for both transportation and related services is an objective. Of course it is a desired and good objective, but stand up and tell me what it means.
It says here: where government policy militates against commercial viability, the benefits and costs involved should be identified and the additional costs assumed by the government. What will that apply to? Will it help our neighbours, the provincial people in Prince Edward Island to move their potatoes to the mainland, or to move other produce into Newfoundland or out to the Madgalen Islands? Is that what it means, and if so how will it happen, because these are the things that are important?
It says here: the market place will determine costs and services where effective competition exists; where it does not, these will be regulated to give users the same protection that the competition will give them. It is not the market place that will protect them. The minister has assumed that right and responsibility himself. He has the power and the authority. When he stands up and tells me what he is going to do, only then will we make a decision on whether or not this is a useful and meaningful step in the right direction. Until he does, let him sit there and think about an area of Canada that cannot survive without an efficient and competitive transportation system.
We do not have a market area of 600,000 people to support secondary manufacturing in industry other than in the primary products such as forestry, fishing, and our coal industry. We cannot make shirts. We do not have enough people to sell them to within reasonable transportation distance. We have to come back up to Montreal or Toronto to get rid of our surplus

production just to maintain the efficiency of our plants, and our plants are not inefficient due to bad management but they are hamstrung by ad hocery. There is nothing wrong with the word ad hoc. It is a good, useful word. Perhaps if it had been employed ten years ago, bit by bit we might have had some semblance of a transportation policy. I say it is ad hoc because it deals with a section of transportation. It refers to air, it refers to water, it refers to the upgrading and improving of the road system. It refers to taking dollars from this system and giving them to another system. Do not tell us all that vaguely without telling us what you are going to do.
One could go on with that for the next hour. There has to be the widest possible input in our discussion with respect to this because, while it sounds good and encouraging to those of us who live in areas totally dependent on transportation, I suggest that it skates awfully close to a very dangerous precipice.
What does the minister mean when he says to us that he is going to do away with subsidies that are inefficient and ineffective? Will he use those subsidies to give more appropriate help to some of the regions of Canada to overcome the disparity?
In the bulletin of the Ministry of Transport of February 8, Bulletin No. 18, at page 3 we are told about the agreements arrived at between the Minister of Transport and the Council of Maritime premiers meeting together with Mr. Morgan of Newfoundland. It reads:
Mr. Lang, Mr. Morgan and the Maritime premiers agreed in principle that improved passenger transportation could best be achieved by providing special assistance for upgrading bus and air services in that region, to be followed by changes to existing rail passenger-services, for which the demand is relatively low-
In the name of all that is holy how can we improve rail transportation by improving air services and bus services? Perhaps we can. We can in Newfoundland because the Bullet has been closed down. All there is from Port aux Basques to St. John's is a bus, and no doubt my friends and colleagues from Newfoundland can wax eloquently about that and about the difficulty that has been caused in that province with respect to its provincial transportation system.
However, leaving that little bit of logic to one side because, after all, this is just a press report, and it obviously was not written by politicians who have the answers to everything-or should have, according to some speakers here this evening- what does the minister mean when he says passenger services can be improved by operating air services and road services? Are we going to get dollars and cents to bring our highways up to Trans-Canada standards so that we can move potatoes from one end of Prince Edward Island to a dockside, so that they can be shipped to a rail siding, or so that the lumber industry and the primary industries of Nova Scotia can get into the woods eight or ten months of the year instead of four or five?
Are we talking about subsidies so that we can get from Bathurst to Port Hawkesbury, or from Sydney to Yarmouth without spending two days doing it? Is that what we are talking about? If it is, we welcome that because, yes, that
National Transportation Act
would be a meaningful step ahead. But we do not hear that. We hear from the minister that he is going to assume the authority to do these things if he so chooses. This afternoon the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) said we should be careful about freight rates when buying boats. They have a habit of kicking you in the teeth. That is exactly what will happen in the Atlantic region, if that is not what is intended.
You cannot raise the expectations of the people or play politics with transportation in Atlantic Canada. It is too serious and important. It is too vital to our lifestyle to take away the "at and east" rates from us, but in the mind of the minister I am absolutely certain he considers that to be an inefficient subsidy. What is he going to do with $3 million or $4 million? What roadway is he going to improve? What bus transportation system is he going to improve? How far would that amount go toward providing an adequate feeder aircraft service in the four Atlantic provinces? Not very far.
On the other hand, that is the vital lifeblood of the Port of Halifax and the Port of Saint John, and of grain elevators stretching all the way back to the Lakehead. We are not talking about a dozen jobs. Hon. members will pardon my anger when people play lightly with the jobs of maritimers. They are too damned scarce in the maritimes today. Unemployment there is too chronically high. Hon. members will pardon my justifiable anger. What is the minister talking about? These are some of the questions which have to be answered.
Where is the minister going to get the subsidies? What is he going to cancel? We know about the "at and east" rates. What else is there? We are going to save $200 million on this joint operation, this management passenger sales team? Are we going to get $5 million or $50 million of this $200 million we are losing? Are we going to be so efficient that we will recover enough money to direct elsewhere? What are we talking about, or is that all we are doing, just talking? Do we have some concrete plans? Do we know what we want to do?
I am sorry the minister is not here. I do not know whether he had to be out in British Columbia to make an announcement. Why could that not have been done in Ottawa on the floor of the House of Commons? We have known about this for a long time, but where are these subsidies coming from? What is going to suffer? We cannot help one part of this country by hurting or harming another section of its economy. We want to know the inefficiencies of those subsidies which are not considered to be effective, or which are considered to be less than effective.
I see nothing in here which moves us ahead. If there is nothing concrete, why are we not talking about restructuring the tax system so that there can be an incentive to encourage Canadian owners of merchant ships which are registered offshore for tax purposes? Why are we not talking about that so that we can at least encourage industry, encourage new jobs, and encourage more work for our shipyards? Those are the things we want to know about. There is nothing in this bill. We have not yet had the benefit of hearing the minister speak to us. There has been one speaker from the government side. He

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
rambled on about going 45 miles an hour between here and Toronto. Well, hell, he has had ten years to complain about that. Why did he not go to the minister and do it privately to get something done?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That wouldn't help.


J. Michael Forrestall: It probably wouldn't. Until we know what the minister intends to do with this enormous power he is taking for himself and with the right he is giving back to CTC under conditions he will determine and deem to be right in terms of time, structure, and content, this movement back and forth of powers is bound to lead to uncertainty and confusion. And when we have that, we have unrest and an impaired ability to utilize fully the structure because the people simply do not understand it.
We can go on with this reallocation of subsidies program. It sounds great, but until we know what is going to be taken away we are in the dark, and there is not very much we can do.
There are just one or two other items I will touch on because I know there are others who want to speak. They are related more to the institution of the minimum, maximum freight rates, than the discontinuation of the so-called long haul freight rate discrimination which has been built into our system. These provisions are somewhat important, not only to the rail companies, which is obvious, but they also have a serious impact on the trucking industry.
I think we all recognize that shippers who are attempting to broaden their market potential in their part of the country, in other parts of the country and abroad, are going to be very directly affected. As we understand it, the formula set out in the bill is not sufficiently clear to permit the people who will be most directly affected the opportunity at this point in time to make any substantive or in depth comment on whether they will in fact work or whether they will have the long-term effect of working backwards. The present act declares as its goal an economic, efficient, and adequate transportation system, and why not? What else should it have as a goal?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motherhood.


Simma Holt: Fatherhood.


Andrew Hogan: Atta boy, Simma.


Simma Holt: Atta girl.


J. Michael Forrestall: Those words have been amended now so that transportation is simply to be efficient and nothing else. That is all it has to be now. After that it has to be an instrument of government development policy. National defence is an instrument of national development and stability. Sir John A. Macdonald thought transportation was an effective instrument of national development 110 years ago, so this is not a new concept. We do not want platitudes, Mr. Speaker; we want programs, and we want to see the details. We want to know what the reallocation will be, how much money we are talking about, how much will go where-road improvements, harbour and port improvements, and so on. That is what we want, not

this bland policy. I am prepared to accept what the experts say because I am not an expert.


Mr. Pelletier:: We know that.


J. Michael Forrestall: Is the hon. member an expert?


Irénée Pelletier: No, and I know it.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is my point; we are not experts. This is not the place to cross the "t's" and dot the "i's". I do not think the minister's office is the place for the enormous amounts of responsibility that the legislation would seem to be extending to him. He wants to get the control, to get active, yet he cannot tell us on the floor of this House of Commons in broad general terms what he intends to do under the act. I suspect that at the present moment there are two or three people in the gallery who know exactly what they want to do. The minister has not even bothered to tell his own colleagues what he intends to do.
Perhaps ministerial powers should be looked at very carefully. They may have to be tightened up to ensure an effective use of the power. In effect, the minister could turn any part of the country on or turn it off. But, Mr. Speaker, he is a layman and does not know any more about transportation than I do, although it is likely he receives a good briefing every day. Indeed, he probably has so many briefings that he cannot keep track of them.
Another thing we will have to examine very carefully is the reallocation of subsidies. We want to know where the additional money is coming from and how the consultative process will operate-how the money is to be spent. We will want to be assured that the discontinuance of existing subsidies will not impair the ability of other parts of our economic structure- particularly in the Atlantic provinces-to operate. We must know, for example, that there will be no detrimental effect on the movement of basic materials into Sydney for the Sydney steel plant, and of coal out of the region into the central Canadian market. We cannot make real national progress by doing harm to one segment of the economy even though there may be a sincere intention to assist another segment.
I hope when we get to committee stage the government will permit the widest possible-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If we get to committee stage.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is possible. This bill may never see the committee-it may die somewhere along the way. It was not a matter that was to have come before us at this time and the fact that it is here now is an indication that the government must be bereft of work for us to do. It shows the level of its sincerity in attacking the problem of transportation. The upgrading of airports and harbours and dredging programs- these are all transportation programs. I do not think the people want to hear about transportation programs just from somebody in Toronto. All of us have something to contribute to this problem, something more than just mouthing the motherhood words of the bill.
March 1, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook).


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield the floor to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie).


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Chair recognized the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Philbrook).


Frank A. Philbrook: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be able to speak on Bill C-33, the transportation bill. First of all I should like to compliment the previous speaker, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Haiifax East (Mr. Forrestall) for his usual very sincere and heartfelt representation on behalf of his area and the people there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: I hope he sees some progress in that area. 1 am pleased to speak on Bill C-33, an act to amend the Transportation Act, the Department of Transport Act, the Transport Act and the Railway Act. I should like to say, and 1 hope hon. members opposite will be pleased, that I intend to speak off the cuff and 1 intend to speak with some feeling because I have very sincere concerns about the state of transportation in our country and the state of our transportation policy at this time.
This bill has three main objectives, Mr. Speaker-First, to define transportation policy, that is, what to do; second, to define or authorize the rearrangement of powers and duties, that is, who is to decide and who is to do it; third, to amend freight rates and other matters, that is, how to do it better.
I can only agree with these general aims. 1 imagine most reasonable people believe that transportation anywhere, and particularly in this country, is a tough, urgent proposition. A big sprawling country with empty spaces and few people crowded together make for problems. Other speakers have reminded us that one previous minister of transport described the transportation situation in this country as "a mess". He was probably right, although this was often misquoted. It was a reference to the system and not to a sincere and well liked former minister.
The transportation problem has grown like Topsy. We are at the stage now where we have some urgent problems that have to be taken firmly in hand. Even the department is described as huge and sprawling, with a series of competing empires within one department, all in competition with each other. It has been described as a man-eater, and many people say it should be split into several different departments. The question is how to do it and who should do it.
Support for even a reasonable bill like this, a bill which could do some good if carried out well, has to be conditional on some other things-on previous commitments and on the order
National Transportation Act
of business for the government which must be logical, reasonable, and honest. Members like myself support this bill. I certainly would not want to suggest that what the newspaper headlines mention will happen. 1 do not think there will be a revolt by backbenchers. We, on this side of the House, support our party's leadership. We support the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: 1 say that in a general sense. When we come right down to it, our prime duty on particular issues is to support our constituents, and I intend to do it. 1 have no difficulty at all identifying with the constituents of Halton in their concern about the issue of transportation. My constituents feel strongly about transportation; they need help. Being an urban constituency, or a suburban riding, we need help, particularly in the area of commuter transit.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Read your election platform.


Frank A. Philbrook: I am coming to it. As a private member I shall do all I can to make sure my constituents get that help. In 1974 the Liberal party showed leadership in transportation.
I prefer to think of that as a sincere, imaginative effort, Mr. Speaker. That leadership was shown in the 1974 election campaign promises, which 1 feel must be kept, one way or another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: We have followed up these promises by bringing in the national transportation policy in June, 1975; the rail passenger policy on January 29, 1976; the program to improve inter-city passenger transport by rail, on January 21, 1977; and assistance to provinces and municipalities for urban transit, on January 21, 1977. Clearly we have done all this in an effort to carry out original election promises. They are an indication of the direction in which the government wants the country to go.
In the two and a half year life of the present parliament, what has happened to those exciting and imaginative election promises? I would say, little has happened in commuter transit, and in other areas as well. Toronto has sometimes been labelled Hogtown. Perhaps it deserved the label in the past, for its tendency to take more than its share of wealth. That name does not apply to Halton, lying half way between two great cities, Toronto and Hamilton. Somehow, in the consideration of transport questions areas like mine tend to be overlooked. Nevertheless, I still feel-and perhaps I am biased-that suburban areas still count for a great deal in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: Suburban life is the butt of a good deal of humour. Nevertheless, there are real difficulties connected with suburban living, and most Canadians are forced into that kind of life. Most jobs are in the city, but most of the places where we live are not in the city. Our people live in the

March 1, 1977
National Transportation Act
suburbs. Mr. Speaker, rush hour traffic is terrible to endure and we must do something about it. The other day I myself was caught in rush hour traffic. Actually I was late for a TV interview on commuter transit and my experience brought the point home to me, especially as I had not undergone such an experience for a number of years.
On paper, the program which the government has put forward looks great. It includes provisions for transit, urban and commuter, for STOL systems for our small, outlying cities; for freight which, God knows, are urgently needed; for western grain, and so on. It could be called the Magna Carta of Canadian transportation. So far as I am concerned the bill is of top priority, for transport in Canada is the glue which holds Canada together, is the lifeblood which nourishes it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This bill is going to undo the country.


Frank A. Philbrook: We hope not.
The idea underlying the original transportation concept involves more than the mere spending of money, although of course it also involves the spending of money. The concept is in two parts, for besides providing better transportation for Canadians it will also bring industrial benefits. For example, there would be the opportunity to provide more jobs in Canadian industry. GM buses would be built in London, Ontario, and Hawker-Siddeley rail cars in Thunder Bay. The policy would enable us to get in on the ground floor of a home grown, indigenous industry, analagous to the American automobile industry. We missed our opportunity with that industry.
We need more industry in this country and our new transport policy will give us the opportunity to create more Canadian jobs, real manufacturing jobs, and not makeshift jobs like those you get under the LIP program, Canada Works, and so on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) spoke on these questions. I agree with what he said. Makeshift jobs are fine for the short term, but they are not our ultimate aim. The creation of more industry and more jobs would also give us greater opportunities for export. We would import less and enjoy a better balance of trade. The policy would lead to a greater use of Canadian national resources in Canada. We should use them here instead of shipping them to other countries which manufacture goods for sale back to us at inflated prices.
The policy will mean greater Canadian control of our own economy, the opportunity for boosting this country's secondary industries, including manufacturing, processing and "value added" items. In other words it will put us right in the ball game, right in line to fulfilling our human and economic values.
This policy offers us the opportunity for more Canadian research, development, and design. It is not merely a money saver and job creator; it is an opportunity to offer our young

people more interesting jobs and greater opportunities. Certainly one of the great purposes of this bill, which follows on the election promise, relates to energy conservation and lowering of pollution. We shall conserve energy as we use less the private car and airplane, and rely more on public transportation, particularly trains.
Finally, I suggest that the purpose of this policy goes beyond the provision of transportation. It would provide the general economic stimulus which this country definitely needs.
May I call it ten o'clock and resume tomorrow afternoon, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when I posted for tonight's late show my question having to do with the report of railway pensions by Dr. Noel Hall, I assumed that because we were debating Bill C-33 today the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) would be here and prepared to answer my question. Since he is not with us I presume that a parliamentary secretary will answer for him, and I dare to hope that his answer will be even better than the answer we might have got from the minister.
I addressed my first question on this matter to the Minister of Transport on Friday, January 28, as recorded on page 2493. It had to do with the fact that the Hall report on railway pensions had Finally been published, and since it virtually threw the question of the improvement of railway pensions back to the companies and to the government, I asked the Minister of Transport if he could tell us what steps the government was going to take to try to improve railway pensions. The Minister of Transport answered that the government would take a hard look at the Hall report.
I then asked the minister if he would do something about the specific recommendation made by Dr. Hall calling for the pensions of CPR employees to be brought up to the level of those of the CNR. That, of course, did not get an answer that day.
I returned to the subject on Wednesday, February 23, as reported in Hansard at page 3338. On the general question, I got the same reply I had received earlier, namely, that the government was not yet in a position to give me an answer as
March 1, 1977

to what it was going to do about the Hall report. His exact words were these:
We are continuing to look at what is a very complicated matter.
When I asked the Minister of Transport whether he had had any talks with the CPR about the recommendation made in respect of that company's pensions, he said that he wanted to have a position on the whole matter before talking to someone outside the government.
I think it is interesting that Your Honour is the occupant of the chair tonight. With your railway interest, you must have tried to figure out what the Hall report is all about and why we had to wait two years for it to be produced.
In all frankness, I have to say that railway workers and railway pensioners across this country are somewhat disappointed in this report. It contains a great deal of information in terms of facts, figures, and statistics. It is true that Dr. Hall finds railway pensions terribly inadequate, especially in the case of those already retired and who have had little or no indexing of their pensions. Dr. Hall does make the recommendation that the CPR ought to bring the level of its pensions and the level of that company's indexing up to that of the CNR. He proposes a kind of heritage fund to do something about the inadequate funds of all retired railway workers. However, in terms of anything specific, he literally throws the ball back to the companies and the government. Therefore it is appropriate that questions should be asked of the government as to what it is going to do about the whole matter.
As my previous questions of January 28 and February 23 have indicated, I see this under two general headings. One, there is the specific proposal made by Dr. Hall that the CPR should come into line with the CNR. The other aspect is the whole problem of all railway pensions in Canada.
Dr. Hall says there is no question about it, that those already retired are having a rough time because their pensions have not been indexed. He even goes so far as to say in one paragraph of his report that unless private pension plans can do something about keeping pensions up with the cost of living, their days are numbered.
I shall probably have to raise this matter a good many times judging from the length of time it has taken to get any action. My point tonight is to try to get from the parliamentary secretary an indication of what the government is going to do.
Railway workers and retired railway workers are getting a bit cynical. When the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) appointed the Hall commission two and a half years ago, they accepted that in good faith. I think the Minister of Labour also acted in good faith. However, when two and a half years later the workers and pensioners are handed a report that really does not recommend anything significant, they wonder if the whole operation has just been another snow job.
The government can set aside that cynicism. The government can answer the charge that it is a snow job by saying it now intends to do something. It is not good enough for the Minister of Transport, on the two occasions I put the question to him, simply to say it is a complicated matter, and that the
Adjournment Debate
government will have to take a hard look at it. Pensioners have been waiting a long time for an answer that you, Sir, as a railroad worker, would like to see.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Jacques Olivier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for raising this matter. Unfortunately he will no doubt agree that this is an issue of such significance that it cannot be comprehensively dealt with in three minutes. He knows that the 277-page report of the industrial board of inquiry on Canadian railway companies pension funds, as submitted by Dr. Noel A. Hall from the University of British Columbia, was published on January 20, 1977 by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro).
The report deals at length with Canadian railway pension funds, a complex and difficult matter. Indeed its highly technical nature made it extremely difficult to arrange for its French translation, which accounts for the delay in publication. During his exhaustive enquiry, Dr. Hall reviewed a number of issues connected with railway pensions. Possibly the most urgent that arose in the course of the study was inflation's repercussions on current pension funds. All along his report, Mr. Hall clearly stressed the need to avoid making recommendations when the parties involved are capable of solving issues of problems within the frame work of the established system of free collective bargaining. The improvement of railway pension funds is one of the areas the solution of which is the responsibility of the parties involved, in Dr. Hall's view, through consultations and collective bargaining. Mr. Hall stresses that unions and companies alike have shown they are capable of dealing with most of pension matters.
In the circumstances, it would seem the government should not intervene in areas that would hinder healthy collective bargaining relations. I should refer to the significant improvements made to railway pensions since 1973, when railway pensions became open to collective bargaining for the first time. To help the parties involved solve the highly complex question as to how pensions should be protected against dollar erosion, Dr. Hall assessed a number of methods for ensuring cost of living escalation under railway pension funds.
The choice of a method, however, is left entirely to the parties involved namely labour and management, in order that their pension and other general priorities may be met. In his study Dr. Hall proceeded at length to compare railway pension funds to other systems.
Mr. Speaker, it clearly stands out from that comparison that in many respects railway pension plans can be favourably compared with the best plans in both public and private sectors. However Mr. Hall did make specific recommendations aimed at achieving more uniformity between the provisions of the pensions plans of the two large railway companies. The government agrees with the hon. member of the opposition

March 1, 1977
Adjournment Debate
that it is a desirable goal. As for the fiduciary provisions, the plans were found ...


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to inform the parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired.


AGRICULTURE-PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL REFRIGERATED RAILWAY CARS FOR TRANSPORTATION OF POTATOES
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is not here this evening I presume his parliamentary secretary will be answering this question, I am delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lumley) here, as well as some officials from the Department of Transport still in the gallery, because the matter I have to raise clearly pertains to all three departments. It is not new, but it is of fundamental concern to those who come from the two provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island.
Perhaps we are fortunate, too, inasmuch as the parliamentary secretary has his roots deep in the province of New Brunswick and I am sure he is very much concerned about the subject I propose to raise, as is his colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin), who has also raised this matter in the House from time to time. I am sure he shares the view that something decisive should be done with respect to the railway situation affecting the movement of potatoes from eastern Canada.
While I was reviewing the background to this situation today with citizens of Prince Edward Island, we were shocked to discover that the movement of potatoes by rail from Prince Edward Island has been handled for many years entirely by foreign carriers and that the railroads of this country have never supplied any of the cars which have moved potatoes from the island to the central Canadian markets.
I suppose it is another very clear indication of the kind of long-term discrimination which has existed for eastern Canada that we have had to depend so heavily and totally upon the American railroads to supply us with rolling stock necessary to move our potatoes to market. Perhaps we would have gone along in this dependent state into the indefinite future had it not been for the fact that the Americans decided that it was no longer in their interests to carry on with this particular situation. Over the past few years we have seen a very rapid deterioration both in the quality and number of railroad cars available to move our potatoes to central markets.
I was very much encouraged by the comments of the Minister of Agriculture last fall when he made a commitment on one or two occasions to the effect that he was going to make a recommendation to cabinet with respect to ordering somewhere around 800 to 1,000 of these insulated boxcars. However, what disturbed me, not back on January 26 when the motion was put down for an adjournment debate, was the response of the minister yesterday. In response to my question

on whether or not the memorandum was still going forward he said, as reported at page 3464 of Hansard:
-if they would give an absolute assurance-
He is talking about the P.E.I. potato marketing board and the New Brunswick potato growers.
-that they will use these cars and guarantee a certain usage of them-
He went on to include not only the potato growers in the maritimes but the horticultural producers in western Canada, and said he would do something with respect to pursuing the need for more cars. I found this an incredible response, because surely the Minister of Agriculture must know that the absolute decline in the number of rolling stock is exceedingly serious. We have somewhere in the neighbourhood now of 1,000 cars, yet it was only four or five years ago that we were servicing the same situation with 2,500 cars. In fact ten years ago we had well over 4,000 cars.
What the minister was saying was that this year almost all the early orders were going to the export market. So unusually for us, because of the great demand in the European market, many railroad cars sat idle for two months longer than normal before they got rolling some time in December. There was also a change apparently in the United States with respect to the previous per mile charge. They are now renting these cars on a per diem basis, so Canadian National was upset about paying for unused stock.
That the minister would use such an excuse bothered me, because it appears that he may now be prepared to wriggle out or slip away from his earlier commitment, something that I would find both intolerable and unacceptable, and is certainly not in any way dealing with the realities of the situation. In view of the present experience respecting the sale of maritime potatoes to European markets, the minister must know very little about the long-term situation with respect to potato marketing in eastern Canada. Or if he can predict when Europe will be hit with the next drought, I am sure the P.E.I. potato marketing board would be delighted to have him on their staff as a full time weather adviser because that kind of information would be most valuable to them.
I can accept, as I am sure all members can, that there has to be a definite balance between rail and the growing use of highway trailers. Obviously this has not been worked out. But given the existing situation where more of both are desperately needed, surely the minister could get production going now. 1 say this particularly in view of what has happened with respect to the order for grain cars placed at three plants across Canada, but particularly the one placed at the Trenton Car Works. This was referred to earlier in the House by my colleague from Madawaska. Hawker-Siddeley has called back 630 employees to work on the 688 railroad cars which have been ordered for carrying grain. But this is less than half of their total number of employees and, as they have indicated, they could still very actively use an order of this kind to guarantee further employment for about 400 workers who are still out of work, and for whom a job and a return to employment would offer tremendous incentive, and would deal
March 1, 1977

directly with the very high unemployment situation which exists in the Atlantic provinces.
I hope that the minister's parliamentary secretary tonight can assure us that there is no holding up or fooling around with this situation, because I would remind him that last year the minister asked the eastern potato producers to put their own house in order, especially to have more organized marketing, before he could help them in a substantial way. It would be a poor show on his side of the bargain if, after the spectacular success of the potato producers in the export market in Europe, he would not move immediately to deal with our long-term domestic situation and give us an assurance that we would have these domestic rail Cars ordered and in place, or else, quite frankly, we will see the real collapse of the transportation system as it affects both P.E.I. and New Brunswick in terms of servicing the market in the next two or three years.
I know the parliamentary secretary will want to take this question seriously and give that kind of strong assurance to the eastern potato producers.


Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to respond to the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) on a question which has been of prime concern, not only to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) but, as the hon. member has said, to several other members of the House for some years, especially members from the Maritime provinces, including the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) who has on different occasions, I believe, spoken to the minister on this problem. I have noted the keen interest in this subject which has been indicated by members on both sides of the House.
When it became apparent that there were deficiencies in the transportation system for Maritime potatoes, an interdepartmental committee was established by the government to consider all aspects of this very important question. This committee has made significant progress and has kept ministers advised on their findings as they were developed. However, before committing the government to significant expenditures for the purchase of a fleet of new refrigerated railway cars, we must be certain that this would be the best means of assuring the industry of the most efficient means of transportation in future years. Therefore, the consideration that has been given to this question has involved not only whether additional railway cars may be required but also whether the expenditure of government funds in this area would be of the greatest benefit to Maritime potato producers in the years ahead. I am sure hon. members are aware of the advances offered in transportation by such modes as truck transport and containerization.
It has become clear that not only may there be deficiencies in the equipment presently available for the transportation of potatoes, but a very major problem has been the inefficient use of railway cars which are already available. For instance, it has been estimated that a more orderly system of scheduling cars would serve to reduce greatly the problems which now exist during the peak periods of the shipping season. Also of
Adjournment Debate
concern are the storage and loading facilities at the port of Saint John.
It must also be realized that 1976 was a year of good crops and has been most unusual in the export opportunities which have become available to Canadian producers because of the drought experienced last year in Europe. It is unlikely that this volume of exports can be maintained in spite of the efforts of the Potato Exporters' Association in this respect. Therefore it is necessary to assure that railway cars are not purchased solely on the basis of peak demand.
In summary, I would like to assure all hon. members that the government is giving considerable attention to this very important issue and is quite aware of the time constraints which exist.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-DISMISSAL OF MR McNUTT, VICE-PRESIDENT OF MAGI-GOVERNMENT POSITION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I have a question or two further to the question that has been raised in the House by me and other members in recent months with respect to the operation of the so-called MAGI joint federal-provincial equity investment group in the Halifax-Dartmouth area.
What basically prompts me to bring this question out at this time is that MAGI, which started with great hopes and expectations and which is an equity corporation prepared to take certain risks-not necessarily investing in losing ventures but prepared to take equity positions-is a good idea. That is essentially what I am saying. It is a concept we badly need in metropolitan areas such as Halifax and Dartmouth.
It is an idea which got off to a very bad start. From the time it was announced in October, 1972, 38 days before that general election, by the then minister, Mr. Marchand-


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Good timing.


J. Michael Forrestall: Great timing-nothing has happened. It was funded with $20 million, as the parliamentary secretary knows. It received no actual cash until sometime in 1975. In the intervening period between 1972 and 1975 there appeared to be a fairly substantial difference of opinion between the federal authority and the provincial authority as to how this would be operated. It was to have control of the appointment of the chief executive officer and of the board of directors.
That was done, MAGI got some money, and the only thing we know it has done to this point has been to invest in a cruise ship which for tax evasion purposes has gone off to the tax haven of the Bahamas for registry purposes, thus avoiding Canadian laws, the Canadian tax situation, and so forth.
The concept is a good one, too good to lose. When I am out making a noise about it, it is not because I want to kill it. Quite the opposite, I want to restore it to some vigorous health so that there can again be a viable instrument for the development of our economic climate in metropolitan areas. What
3562

March 1, 1977
Adjournment Debate
concerns me it that the business community no longer trusts MAGI. It has lost its faith in it. Of the thousands of applications and inquiries made with respect to equity positions we understand that only a handful, perhaps two or three, have been proceeded with by the corporation.
Mr. Scott McNutt was removed from his position and put in charge of the Workmen's Compensation Board. Why? What is going to happen to the chairman and chief executive officer of MAGI, Mr. Haysom, who held a $75,000 a year position?
What happens to MAGI when these people are summarily removed without any reason given publicly? My basic questions arise out of the fact that what does happen, of course, is that there is a loss of confidence, and the business community does not use MAGI. These questions have to be answered, and they have to be viewed in a public forum of some type.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could briefly comment on two or three things. First, can he comment on the impact of the minister's visit to Nova Scotia a week or ten days ago? Can he comment on what role the minister played, if any, in the change of the senior executive officer and other changes which seem to be taking place? Indeed some changes have already taken place. Would the minister consider a reference to the Standing Committee on Regional Development of some MAGI matters so that the committee would at least be able to review this matter either publicly or in private? Even if it were done in private, the business community would at least know its elected representatives had an opportunity to review the matter, and if there is cause to go further in the investigation and make it public, that could be done as well. Failing that, would the minister cause himself to become fully informed? He should in a public way reassure members of the House that all is well with MAGI. Failing that, we should be informed if the minister would make a reference to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments in order that we may be satisfied that MAGI is operating in direct response to the statute that was passed.
Going slightly further, I should like to know whether the parliamentary secretary could comment this evening on the proposed expansion of MAGI, and whether the minister intends to introduce amendments which would change the concept of MAGI and permit it to operate in another way. Failing any of those things, would the minister urge upon his counterpart and his colleagues in the province of Nova Scotia the urgency, as he would see it after investigating the situation, for the matter to be referred to a standing committee of that legislature with clear instruction for MAGI to be open and frank-


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


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, needless to say
we are gratified to hear not only from his comments tonight but from news stories in his riding that the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) thinks the concept of MAGI is good and that he does not want to lose this type of venture equity.
I am sure that when the standing commitee meets, the hon. member will have an opportunity to question the minister on some of the points he raised tonight particularly as a result of the minister's meeting with the premier of Nova Scotia. Unfortunately I am not aware of the specific details of the minister's meeting with the premier, but it was reported after that meeting that the premier thought the proposed expansion of MAGI to other areas of the province deserved consideration. Based on the hon. member's comments tonight, 1 am sure that he and his party will endorse such a concept.
As the hon. member indicated, I am advised that Mr. Scott MacNutt has accepted the post of chairman of the Nova Scotia Workmen's Compensation Board and has resigned from the vice-presidency and board of directors of MAGI. As the hon. member was informed in answer to a question he raised two or three weeks ago, it is important to put the role of this government with respect to MAGI into proper perspective. It has a management, a board of directors, and shareholders like any other Corporation. It is intended to function much as an ordinary private corporation, and make profits.
The essential difference with MAGI is that its two shareholders are governments. They are not ordinary shareholders. In this regard the MAGI agreement of September, 1972, is quite specific. The agreement states: "The parties are not to intervene in the day-to-day management of the corporation." The shareholders have been careful in ensuring that this has been observed. The day-to-day decisions are and will continue to be made by the board of directors and by management acting for the board. The shareholders do, however, have a unique responsibility for ensuring that the corporation operates within its mandate, that it is well run, and that it conducts itself in a manner which is proper for a corporation whose shareholders are governments.
It is not the role of the shareholders to examine in detail the individual investment decisions of the corporation and to be involved in day-to-day operations. It is their responsibility to ensure good general management, that MAGI carries out its general mandate, and that the investment policies of MAGI are sound. The House may be sure that the minister will be careful to fulfil this role in his communications with the other shareholders and with the board.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
March 1, 1977


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Table 1: Civil aviation infrastructure costs and revenues CANADA 1956-197 31
(In Millions of 1973 Constant Dollars; Rate of Cost of Capital: 6 Per cent) Annual Costs
Year	Depre-	Cost of	Total	Current	Total	Annual	Total Revenues asciation	Capital2	Capital	Operations	Costs	Revenues	a Percentage ofCosts	and	Total CostsMaintenance	(Per cent)Costs	($M)	($M)	($M)	(SM)	($M)	($M)	1	2	3 = 2+1	4	5 = 4+3	6	7 = 6/51956	24	23	47	89	136	24	181957	27	24	51	97	148	24	161958	29	27	56	116	172	29	171959	34	29	63	125	188	30	161960	36	33	69	134	203	32	161961	44	40	84	138	222	39	181962	46	43	89	139	228	39	171963	46	44	90	139	229	40	171964	51	51	102	154	256	50	201965	51	51	102	156	258	51	201966	51	51	102	160	262	51	191967	51	51	102	177	279	63	231968	53	52	105	171	276	76	281969	53	52	105	171	276	86	311970	54	53	107	183	290	92	321971	58	56	114	193	307	96	311972	62	59	121	207	328	103	311973	67	64	131	223	354	111	311	Totals may not agree due to rounding.2	Includes opportunity cost of land.
Source: Haritos, Z., Transport Costs and Revenues in Canada, Canadian Transport Commission, Ottawa, 1973, p. 7; Ministry of Transport, An Interim Report on Inter-City Passenger Movement in Canada, Ottawa, June 1975, p. 75; and special calculations by the author to provide a breakdown of costs for the years 1969-1973.
TABLE 2: ROAD COSTS AND REVENUES CANADA 1956-19731
(In Millions of 1973 Constant Dollars; Rate of Cost of Capital: 6 Percent) Annual Costs
Year	Depre-	Cost of	Total	Current	Total	Annual	Total Revenues asciation	Capital2	Capital	Operations	Costs	Revenues	a Percentage ofCosts	and	Total CostsMaintenance	(Percent)Costs	(SM)	(SM)	(SM)	(SM)	(SM)	(SM)	1	2	3 = 2+1	4	5=4+3	6	7 = 6/51956	318	267	585	591	1177	800	681957	342	291	633	572	1205	890	741958	365	318	683	601	1284	938	731959	379	356	735	637	1372	980	711960	427	400	827	612	1439	1019	711961	470	446	916	625	1541	1143	741962	515	487	1002	657	1659	1189	721963	566	524	1090	706	1796	1266	711964	625	567	1192	739	1931	1382	721965	693	617	1310	787	2097	1419	681966	760	665	1425	802	2227	1430	641967	823	716	1539	853	2392	1526	641968	884	755	1639	875	2514	1805	721969	881	814	1695	913	2608	1870	721970	944	871	1815	978	2793	1863	671971	991	915	1906	1026	2932	1943	661972	1037	958	1995	1075	3070	2028	661973	1078	996	2074	1117	3191	2041	641	Totals may not agree due to rounding.2	Includes opportunity cost of land.
Source: Haritos, Z., Transport Costs and Revenues in Canada, Canadian Transport Commission, Ottawa, 1973, p. 15; Ministry of Transport, An Interim Report on Inter-City Passenger Movement in Canada, Ottawa, June 1975, p. 76; and special calculations by the author to provide a breakdown of costs for the years 1969-1973.
80010-19%
[Stage Direction]
March I, 1977
TABLE 3: CIVIL MARINE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS AND REVENUES

[Stage Direction]
(In Millions of 1973 Constant Dollars; Rate of Cost of Capital: 6 Percent)
Annual Costs
Year	Depre-	Cost of	Total	Current	Total	Annual	Total Revenues asciation	Capital1 2	Capital	Operations	Costs	Revenues	a Percentage ofCosts	and	Total CostsMaintenance	(Percent)Costs	($M)	(SM)	($M)	(SM)	(SM)	(SM)	1	2	3 = 2+1	4	5 = 4+3	6	7 = 6/51956	93	148	241	113	354	77	221957	91	149	240	114	354	73	211958	90	150	240	120	364	73	201959	113	170	283	125	408	85	211960	112	194	306	138	444	86	191961	114	199	313	144	457	92	201962	117	200	317	150	467	92	201963	121	202	323	153	476	94	201964	122	202	324	157	481	106	221965	122	201	323	166	489	113	231966	127	202	329	180	509	117	231967	132	206	338	181	519	110	211968	137	210	347	177	524	110	211969	141	214	355	178	532	108	201970	139	225	364	179	543	109	201971	141	230	371	183	554	111	201972	144	235	379	186	565	112	201973	146	240	386	190	576	110	191	Totals may not agree due to rounding.2	Includes opportunity cost of land.
Source: Haritos, Z„ Transport Costs and Revenues in Canada, Canadian Transport Commission, Ottawa, 1973, p. 11; Ministry of Transport.
An Interim Report on Freight Transportation in Canada, Ottawa, June 1973, p. 19; and estimates for the year 1970, 1971 and 1973 by the author.
TABLE 4: NATIONAL RAILROAD SYSTEM COSTS AND REVENUES

[Stage Direction]
(In Millions of 1973 Constant Dollars; Rate of Cost of Capital: 6 Percent) Annual Costs
[Stage Direction]
Year
[Stage Direction]
Depre-
[Stage Direction]
Cost of
[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
Current
[Stage Direction]
Total
[Stage Direction]
Annual
[Stage Direction]
Total Revenues as
[Stage Direction]
ciation
[Stage Direction]
Capital2
[Stage Direction]
Capital
[Stage Direction]
Operations
[Stage Direction]
Costs
[Stage Direction]
Revenues
[Stage Direction]
a Percentage of
[Stage Direction]
Costs
[Stage Direction]
and
[Stage Direction]
Total Costs
[Stage Direction]
Maintenance
[Stage Direction]
(Percent)
[Stage Direction]
Costs
[Stage Direction]
(SM)
[Stage Direction]
(SM)
[Stage Direction]
(SM)
[Stage Direction]
(SM)
[Stage Direction]
(SM)
[Stage Direction]
(SM)
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
3 = 2+1
[Stage Direction]
4
[Stage Direction]
5 = 4+3
[Stage Direction]
6
[Stage Direction]
7 = 6/5
[Stage Direction]
1956
[Stage Direction]
275
[Stage Direction]
358
[Stage Direction]
633
[Stage Direction]
2270
[Stage Direction]
2903
[Stage Direction]
2099
[Stage Direction]
72
[Stage Direction]
1957
[Stage Direction]
281
[Stage Direction]
371
[Stage Direction]
660
[Stage Direction]
2168
[Stage Direction]
2828
[Stage Direction]
1949
[Stage Direction]
69
[Stage Direction]
1958
[Stage Direction]
304
[Stage Direction]
387
[Stage Direction]
691
[Stage Direction]
2004
[Stage Direction]
2695
[Stage Direction]
1737
[Stage Direction]
64
[Stage Direction]
1959
[Stage Direction]
315
[Stage Direction]
392
[Stage Direction]
707
[Stage Direction]
1944
[Stage Direction]
2651
[Stage Direction]
1744
[Stage Direction]
66
[Stage Direction]
1960
[Stage Direction]
322
[Stage Direction]
394
[Stage Direction]
716
[Stage Direction]
1827
[Stage Direction]
2543
[Stage Direction]
1577
[Stage Direction]
62
[Stage Direction]
1961
[Stage Direction]
325
[Stage Direction]
391
[Stage Direction]
716
[Stage Direction]
1784
[Stage Direction]
2500
[Stage Direction]
1519
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
1962
[Stage Direction]
321
[Stage Direction]
385
[Stage Direction]
706
[Stage Direction]
1764
[Stage Direction]
2470
[Stage Direction]
1504
[Stage Direction]
61
[Stage Direction]
1963
[Stage Direction]
314
[Stage Direction]
376
[Stage Direction]
690
[Stage Direction]
1768
[Stage Direction]
2458
[Stage Direction]
1533
[Stage Direction]
62
[Stage Direction]
1964
[Stage Direction]
316
[Stage Direction]
372
[Stage Direction]
688
[Stage Direction]
1847
[Stage Direction]
2535
[Stage Direction]
1657
[Stage Direction]
65
[Stage Direction]
1965
[Stage Direction]
323
[Stage Direction]
372
[Stage Direction]
695
[Stage Direction]
1867
[Stage Direction]
2562
[Stage Direction]
1681
[Stage Direction]
66
[Stage Direction]
1966
[Stage Direction]
329
[Stage Direction]
376
[Stage Direction]
705
[Stage Direction]
1875
[Stage Direction]
2580
[Stage Direction]
1741
[Stage Direction]
67
[Stage Direction]
1967
[Stage Direction]
337
[Stage Direction]
379
[Stage Direction]
716
[Stage Direction]
1850
[Stage Direction]
2566
[Stage Direction]
1785
[Stage Direction]
70
[Stage Direction]
1968
[Stage Direction]
344
[Stage Direction]
376
[Stage Direction]
720
[Stage Direction]
1717
[Stage Direction]
2437
[Stage Direction]
1777
[Stage Direction]
73
[Stage Direction]
1969
[Stage Direction]
359
[Stage Direction]
375
[Stage Direction]
734
[Stage Direction]
1685
[Stage Direction]
2419
[Stage Direction]
1841
[Stage Direction]
76
[Stage Direction]
1970
[Stage Direction]
354
[Stage Direction]
384
[Stage Direction]
738
[Stage Direction]
1677
[Stage Direction]
2415
[Stage Direction]
1931
[Stage Direction]
80
[Stage Direction]
1971
[Stage Direction]
350
[Stage Direction]
390
[Stage Direction]
740
[Stage Direction]
1720
[Stage Direction]
2460
[Stage Direction]
1870
[Stage Direction]
76
[Stage Direction]
1972
[Stage Direction]
355
[Stage Direction]
395
[Stage Direction]
750
[Stage Direction]
1750
[Stage Direction]
2500
[Stage Direction]
1900
[Stage Direction]
76
[Stage Direction]
1973
[Stage Direction]
358
[Stage Direction]
405
[Stage Direction]
763
[Stage Direction]
1785
[Stage Direction]
2548
[Stage Direction]
1877
[Stage Direction]
74
[Stage Direction]
1
[Stage Direction]
Totals may not always agree due to rounding.
[Stage Direction]
2
[Stage Direction]
Includes opportunity cost of land.
[Stage Direction]
Source: Haritos, Z., Transport Costs and Revenues in Canada, Canadian Transport Commission, Ottawa, 1973, p. 19; Ministry of Transport, An Interim Report on Freight Transportation in Canada, Ottawa, June 1973, p. 19; and special tabulations for the years 1971, 1972 by the author.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 2, 1977