1978-04-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: 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.
In view of the fact that Sun Life shareholders are meeting today in Toronto to decide whether the company head office should be moved from Montreal to Toronto, and that the board of directors of this company feels very strongly that it should, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That the House advise the shareholders and board of directors of this company that it wishes their head office to remain in Montreal.


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.


INDUSTRY
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), in response to questions put to him by myself, announced on April 6 a policy allowing increased use of Canadian ports by foreign fishing vessels for purposes of repairs in Canadian shipyards, thus permitting the government-owned CN dry
dock located at St. John's to continue negotiations with the U.S.S.R. for a repair contract involving repairs to 60 Soviet fishing trawlers per year, and in view of the fact that to handle the work required by the U.S.S.R. fishing fleet and others, involving an increase in employment of several hundred people, the St. John's dry dock must install a synchrolift capable of handling vessels of up to 4,000 tons leaving its graving dock free for use by larger vessels with 18 months needed to do the work, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce immediately provide financial assistance to the government-owned dockyard at St. John's in the amount of $8 million as requested by the dockyard, as the government did for government-owned dockyards and shipyards in Quebec and British Columbia earlier this year.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Lionel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of this House and also as a former president of the Catholic Parents Association for the Sherbrooke diocese, I am rising under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
The sixth program of the CBC TV serial Duplessis gave unfair and shabby treatment to Bishop Cabana of Sherbrooke, one of the founders of Sherbrooke University, a grand accomplishment for the people of the eastern townships of which Bishop George Cabana was primary mover as head of the Sherbrooke diocese.
The program gave a false impression by suggesting that the foundation of Sherbrooke University was the result of a shady deal to obtain the tactical support of the church for the administration of the late Maurice Duplessis.
Since the program has falsely interpreted the facts and considerably blemished the reputation of Bishop Cabana, the
4826

April 25, 1978
church as well as the people of the eastern townships, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House direct the CBC and the authors of the serial Duplessis to apologize publicly to Bishop Cabana and to the church by setting the facts in their true light.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FUNDING OF ORGANIZATIONS STUDYING NUCLEAR ENERGY RAMIFICATIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the federal government has announced a plan to give the Science Council and the Royal Society of Canada $200,000 to explain to the Canadian people the positive side of nuclear power as an energy resource for Canada, in view of the fact that nuclear power technology as it relates to safety and pollution is a very controversial matter among North American scientists themselves, and since it is obvious that there is another side to the question, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility and Energy Probe be given equal funding so that the other side of the nuclear debate would be presented to the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my motion relates to today's Globe and Mail article wherein the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) disclosed that the government knew last September that there had been several hundred criminal investigation break-ins without warrant. The previous solicitor general told this House on October 28 that the government was committed to informing the McDonald commission, as well as any person entrusted with the administration of justice, of any

alleged breach of Canadian law, and in fact that evidence was adduced before the McDonald commission last week. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the Solicitor General make an immediate statement on motions as to why his predecessor's commitment to inform the McDonald commission and administration of justice officials of this alleged illegal activity was not honoured.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of grave national importance, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. In view of yet another senseless murder, this time of an RCMP officer in Saskatchewan shot down while in the line of duty, and because it is only sensible that, since punishment is a deterrent to crime, capital punishment be a deterrent to capital crime, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Dur-ham (Mr. Lawrence):
That this House reinstate the death penalty prior to the issuance of a writ, failing which a national referendum on capital punishment be included in the next federal election.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


AIR CANADA
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the exasperation of the Gens de Fair du Quebec over the lack of concern of Air Canada for matters relating to bilingualism and the hiring of bilingual employees in Quebec; considering the latest report from the Commissioner of the official languages who not only deplores the unacceptable level
April 25, 1978

of complaints but also denounces the undue delay of the head office and of the respective branches of Dorval and Mirabel in taking measures to correct the situation, and who also qualifies the status of the French language at Ottawa airport as particularly serious, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That the House order the Minister of Transport to implement the recommendation of the Gens de Fair du Quebec, namely to establish a special inquiry on the sources of resistance towards the French language and the Official Languages Act within Air Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. With our current account deficit aggravating our foreign exchange position, we now find that the capital outflow from Canada continues at alarming rates. The figures in the March, 1978, Bank of Canada review show that in 1976 unidentified capital outflows were $3.4 billion and in 1977 they were $3.2 billion compared to, say, three years ago when they were only $600 million. Will the Minister of Finance indicate if they have reviewed these figures to determine the cause of this type of outflow? If so, what can he report to the House?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this question was asked some days ago by the hon. member's seatmate. We have reviewed these figures. There is nothing special to report. I have prepared a letter for the hon. member's seatmate and I will send a copy of it to the hon. member for York-Simcoe in order that he will have a lengthy explanation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Minister of Finance has indicated there is nothing unusual about the $6 billion of unidentified capital outflows. Will he indicate whether consideration has been given to contingency plans in order to relieve the situation with regard to our foreign exchange position? If so, will he indicate what those contingency plans are?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There is nothing special that I can add at this time on the exchange rate and the policies that the government has been following. I gave plenty of explanation in my budget speech.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Is the Minister of Finance aware that the Department of Justice has drafted legislation which provides for a limitation on capital outflows by residents of Canada, restricting them in any year to $600 of capital outflow? Is he aware of that legislation being drafted in the Department of Justice? Will he indicate who requested it and what its purpose is?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of no such legislation and the government has no intention of introducing capital controls in Canada.


MEASURES TO REDUCE TRADE DEFICITS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is in connection with capital outflows and their relationship to our loss of round-the-world trade. I imagine the minister has seen the latest International Monetary Fund and Statistics Canada figures which show that Canada slipped last year to ninth place as an exporting nation, after The Netherlands, Italy and France, whereas 20 years ago we were in fourth place with France. Our share of world markets has dropped from 5.15 per cent in 1966 to 3.96 per cent in 1976. Canada is the only major industrialized country that lost ground in addition to the United Kingdom.
In view of these figures, and in view of the fact that the minister's department has a report, "Evaluation of Industrial Support Programs," which states it is futile-


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


John Carnell Crosbie: In view of the advice to the minister by his own department that normal measures are futile in an attempt to change these deficits, what emergency action is the minister and the government prepared to take to overcome this problem, apart from dive-bombing the Canadian dollar? What other program has the minister got?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the major program within the department to promote Canadian trade is a bill before the House, C-36, the Export Development Corporation Act. I read the hon. member's speech of yesterday. At the beginning of his remarks he said that he was a little mixed up because he had just flown 3,000 miles. His line of questioning today could be better put to the Export Development Corporation when Bill
80038-16%

April 25, 1978
Oral Questions
C-36 is through second reading and sent to committee. They would answer him quite clearly as to how they can assist Canadians in increasing our export trade.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously useless to ask this minister questions for information. Will he explain to the House why he feels, as quoted in the April 7 edition of the Winnipeg Free Press, that Canada has a very strong economic hand at Geneva, when we have slipped to ninth place in export trade among the nations of the world-the only industrial nation in the world besides Great Britain to slip-and we have slipped to seventh position in our trade with the EEC? We slipped from third place to seventh place with the EEC from 1962 to 1975. What is this strong hand that we have, as the author says that we have a pretty withered hand? Why does the minister think it is strong, in view of these statistics?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I said in my speech on Bill C-36 that in 1977 Canada ranked seventh in world trade. Actually, on a per capita basis, we as a nation are second in world trade.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: The hon. member refers to Canada's strong hand at Geneva. We have put forward a very firm offer. The Americans found it too restrictive and are asking us to be more lenient. This would suggest to me that our hand is indeed strong, maybe even too strong to facilitate the further liberalization of trade.


John Carnell Crosbie: As the minister knows, there is a large deficit in fully manufactured end products-$12 billion. Has the hon. gentleman read his own confidential report, "Evaluation of Industrial Support Programs", which states that our balance in connection with technological goods is so unfavourable that it is probably not correctable by any ordinary amount of stimulation? Has the minister read this report? If so, what is he doing to overcome this deficit?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I have read a great many reports about Canadian industry and dealt with a lot of them. The budget which the Minister of Finance brought down on April 10 spells out special provisions for increased R and D as a result of which Canadian industry will benefit a great deal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General. It arises from recent testimony before the McDonald commission which has shown that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police

took part in illegal activities for which they could be prosecuted under the Criminal Code. The Solicitor General is quoted in today's Globe and Mail as saying he is not planning to take any action in connection with these breaches of the Criminal Code. Can the minister tell us why he does not intend to take action against those who broke the law of Canada?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: The hon. gentleman has undoubtedly read the terms of reference of the McDonald commission. They include power to inquire into procedures which might not have been authorized by specific legal provisions. The evidence in the past week has shown-if this is what the hon. member is referring to-that there have been what are called surreptitious entries. A legal opinion has been forthcoming from the Department of Justice to the effect that these procedures are legal. There is a decided opinion with reference to their legality, and I wish the evidence were completely adduced before the commission so that the inquiry, which is proceeding apace, would be able to make a judgment and bring in its own recommendations.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the expectation that the McDonald commission will not be reporting until 1980 or 1981, and that in the minds of the Canadian people justice delayed is justice denied, and since the royal commission will be examining the procedures followed by the RCMP in carrying out their duties-while what we are talking about, in effect, has to do with the illegal actions of individuals-can the minister tell us what specific steps he and his department plan to take now that he is aware of specific criminal actions on the part of certain members of the RCMP?


Mr. Blais:: With reference to the specific illegal acts which the hon. member has mentioned, those acts were referred to the attorneys general of the provinces in which they were allegedly perpetrated. The inquiry is continuing to deal with other matters, such as the procedures followed. The hon. member has cited 1980 or 1981 as the termination date for the inquiry. That is a judgment which a reporter has made, it is not my judgment. Hopefully, the commission will be reporting post-haste-


An hon. Member:: Post-haste?


Jean-Jacques Blais: -to this House. Further, as I have said before, the commission can make interim reports as it sees fit.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely appalling that the chief law officer of the nation should give responses such as we have heard this afternoon. Can he tell this House and the people why any Canadian should respect the rule of law in this country when the government has decided it may be inoperative at any time the circumstances suit it?


DELAY IN INFORMING MCDONALD INQUIRY OF ILLEGAL ACTS
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. The press report indicates that the government knew last September
April 25, 1978

about several hundred entries made without warrants. I refer the Solicitor General to the commitment of his predecessor to refer to the commissioners of the McDonald commission and to law enforcement agencies, not evidence of alleged illegalities but, to quote the minister's immediate predecessor, "any alleged breach of Canadian laws"-which is a far different thing.
Can the Solicitor General tell the House why, if his predecessor knew last September, it was not until last week that the McDonald commission was informed of this type of activity in direct evidence, when a clear commitment was made in this House on October 28 by the minister's predecessor to inform immediately the commission and other law enforcement agencies of any alleged breach of Canadian laws?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman has read the terms of reference, he will know that the commission has jurisdiction to study procedures, as I indicated to the hon. gentleman from Nickel Belt. I indicated in that interview that indeed there was knowledge of the procedure of surreptitious entries. There was no indication by me that there was knowledge of 400 specific events, as was the evidence last week. However, that evidence, of necessity-


An hon. Member:: You were quoted.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I was not quoted. Of necessity the evidence relating to surreptitious entries was made known to me and my predecessor some time before, but in accordance with the procedures of the McDonald inquiry such evidence was prepared so that it could be led by my solicitors before that commission.
I would like to indicate to the hon. gentleman that it is an indication of the excellent co-operation that there is presently, and has been, between the RCMP, my department and the commission that there is a proper scheduling of the evidence and the presentation of that evidence before the commission. The hon. gentleman will understand that evidence relating to procedures cannot all be introduced before the commission on the same day.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, the issue is not the co-operation that exists; the issue is the competence and responsibility of the minister of the day and the present minister. Can the Solicitor General indicate to this House whether it is his view that the present terms of reference enable the McDonald commission to advise that charges be laid against whomever, because on reading the terms of reference it is certainly not clear to me nor, I presume, to others that any such power exists within those terms of reference?
While the minister is answering that, perhaps he would also tell the House the difference between an alleged culpable act committed one day before the McDonald commission was constituted, and a similar culpable act one day after; because it is very clear in the press story-unless it is incorrect-that the Solicitor General distinguishes clearly between any activity up to the moment the McDonald commission was constituted and any activity which occurred after that constitution.
Oral Questions


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. gentleman is making distinctions where distinctions do not appear. What I did say was that if an illegal activity is made known to me, and that illegal activity is expressly contrary to policy directives which I have issued or which my predecessor may have issued, that activity will be the subject of possible prosecution. I wish to advise the hon. gentleman that it is the policy of the commissioner of the RCMP that any illegal activity which comes to his attention is referred immediately to the attorney general of the province concerned, who has responsibility for the administration of justice.
With reference to the other distinction which the hon. gentleman wishes to make regarding the terms of reference, I would like to take note of his questions because they deal with a very precise interpretation. I will report to the hon. gentleman.


AIR CANADA
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
As the Gens de l'air du Quebec union recently denounced the policy of Air Canada on bilingualism and the hiring of bilingual personnel in Quebec, and also, as the Official Languages Commissioner has severely criticized Air Canada for its undue delay in respecting the Official Languages Act, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to implement the recommendation of the Gens de l'air du Quebec and set up a special inquiry into the pockets of resistance that exist within Air Canada against the French language and the Official Languages Act?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that Air Canada is not being unnecessarily slow or difficult with regard to the development of policies in connection with the Official Languages Act and its spirit. The corporation is in the process of developing its final formal plan for improvement in the way the official languages are dealt with within the corporation. It has been paying special attention to hiring to ensure that it will be able to serve the public in both languages. That is not an easy problem to solve in a short period of time, but I would like to assure the hon. member that at this time the will is there and it is a matter of how fast we can accomplish the kind of results we want in order that the grievances cited are removed.
[ Translation]


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary.

April 25, 1978
Oral Questions
The minister being aware that this matter has been under study for over a year, can he tell us whether he intends to take steps to redress that glaring injustice towards French in the air and in many other departments in Quebec, and whether he will bring in those measures before the next election?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased indeed if the hon. member would draw to my attention any specific instances to which he might be referring. I would also be glad to give him further detailed information about the progress which is being made and which we will ensure will continue to be made in this regard.


HOUSING
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the government's housing policy or strategy, and particularly the uncertain future of a number of important programs such as the Neighbourhood Improvement Program, the rehabilitation program, and so on.
In the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs for some days now, perhaps the Prime Minister is in a position today to tell the House, in the knowledge that there have been discussions with the provinces on these programs, what the outcome of these discussions was, whether these programs will be renewed, cancelled or changed significantly, and when we can expect an announcement on them, in view of the fact that the housing season is upon us and the industry throughout the country is held up and is in a critical situation, as well as people expecting to find shelter this year.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: I heard my name mentioned halfway through the question, and I am not sure what the hon. member is talking about.


Frank Oberle: The question was with respect to the government's housing policy and strategy, and particularly the uncertain future of a number of federal programs which have received widespread acceptance and support throughout the country from provinces and from individuals. The question is whether these programs will be cancelled or changed significantly, or whether we can expect them to be implemented in the near future?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I will be glad to take notice of the question on behalf of the minister.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In a recent statement in

Alberta, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated with reference to the Canadian dollar:
I don't believe it is any advantage to advocate it should be above 90 cents,
He also suggested that the Canadian dollar should be renamed Beaver. Can the Minister of Finance say whether that is government policy, or was the minister flying a kite to assess public acceptance of the fact that the Canadian dollar will never recover?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government regarding the dollar is well known. I think the suggestion of calling it Beaver is as original as the one made by the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States that we could perhaps call it Maple Leaf.


Thomas Gordon Towers: The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce also said "there is no rhyme nor reason why it should be equal" to the U.S. dollar, and then mentioned the advantages of the devalued dollar. Has the government calculated the adverse effects which the devalued Canadian dollar has on the economy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there are some positive and some negative aspects to the floating dollar. This is the policy which the government has been following for years. Of course, it is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to speak about the advantages because a weaker dollar is very good for the export business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Minister of Justice. If he is out of the chamber temporarily, I wonder if I could be recognized later.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Mrs. Holt:: Mr. Speaker, the minister whom I wanted to question is not in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where are all the ministers?


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the Stratton inquiry into the conduct of the commissioner and of certain officials of the Yukon was concluded about two weeks ago, could the minister tell me whether or not he has received a copy of the report or whether his commissioner in the Yukon has received a copy?
April 25, 1978


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received a copy of the report and I do not believe the commissioner has either.


Douglas Charles Neil: I wonder if the minister can tell the House when he expects to receive a copy of the report. Also, will he make it public or will it be tabled in the House?


James Hugh Faulkner: I expect it will be received shortly, and I expect it will be made public.


FINANCE
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that he recently presented the budget in the House, and that this budget involved specifically the jurisdiction of the provinces; in view also of the fact that the province of Quebec did not accept the federal government's proposal and that today the minister made a counter-proposal, I believe, to the Quebec government, that he gave a press conference just before-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No.


Roch La Salle: No? If the minister did not give-it seems to me that the minister officially made Quebec a counter-proposal. Would the minister be willing, at three o'clock, to make a statement on the counter-proposal he made officially, it would seem, to the Quebec government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I stated on several occasions that the offer I put in writing for Mr. Parizeau is the same as the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations himself made in his speech last week in the House.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. I understand that the offer he made yesterday to the Quebec government is nevertheless slightly different from the original proposal. Given the circumstances, would the minister make a statement before the House so that opposition members could question him on this matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to forward a copy of the letter I sent to Mr. Parizeau but the proposal I made in writing is more or less the same as the one proposed in the days which followed the budget and which was outlined in more detail by my colleague in the House of Commons.
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice; it concerns the decision of the minister to make the Canadian taxpayer pick up the tab for the Minister of Supply and Services with respect to the libelling of an innocent public servant, Mr. Larry Stopforth.
Yesterday the minister gave a press interview in which he quoted two precedents, one which involved a case which was never brought to trial and the other which involved a case in which the minister in question was successful and the court held that he was acting within the scope of his duties. In neither case did the defendant pay any damages. Will the minister now inform the House whether it is the policy of this government that a minister who unjustly defames a public servant is acting within the terms of reference of his position, and if that is the basis upon which he puts the judgment of the Minister of Supply and Services?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the question is a little academic or hypothetical because no decision has been made as to whether or not to appeal the decision. That decision will be made very shortly. With regard to the latter part of the question, there are precedents in which the Crown has acted for members of the ministry in their defence against actions for tort of one sort or another. In fact, while the situation is not necessarily the same in Canada as in Great Britain, in Great Britain the Crown Proceedings Act is very clear on the point. Therefore, if we defend someone in the course of their employment in an action for tort, the usual practice and the past practice has been to pay any damages resulting from that action.
Whether damages in fact are paid is a matter for Treasury Board to decide upon application. However, at the moment the matter is purely hypothetical because no decision has been made on whether to appeal or not.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the minister was not hypothetical; he indicated that it was the government's intention, if no appeal were taken, to pay for this defamatory action. The minister appears to be "amicus Goyer" in this particular matter. Therefore, does he accept the proposition that the minister's responsibility goes out the window in this particular case?
If he accepts the proposition that defaming a public servant is within the course of the duties of a minister, under the circumstances will he at least take the step of advising, in his capacity as Minister of Justice, the minister to stand in the House and apologize? Will he advise the minister that the person should be reinstated to the position within his depart-

April 25, 1978
Oral Questions
ment which he held prior to this particular, very regrettable incident?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, that would depend upon whether an appeal is taken and the result of that appeal.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Solicitor General. As the Minister of Justice has said, now that the government has decided, subject to possible appeal, to pay the costs and award against the Minister of Supply and Services for breach of the law on libel and slander, in the name of consistency will the Solicitor General recommend payment of the legal costs of RCMP corporal John Danch who won a very important case in the Federal Court of Canada on November 10, 1977, setting a notable precedent against arbitrary dismissal from the force? He has the discretion to pay these costs. In the name of consistency and appropriateness, I am wondering if he will give his undertaking now to do so.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I will take the hon. member's representations as notice.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of what he said, which I understand the law to be, that there is no statutory ability in the Government of Canada to pay the costs, and the idea is based on past experience, and in view of the clear indication that the government intends to pay the costs and the damages suffered by the Minister of Supply and Services for a wrongful act defaming a public servant who has been demoted-which is a rather interesting set of facts- would the minister be prepared to table before the House of Commons, not the opinion he was given, if he was given an opinion at all by the Department of Justice, but the precedents upon which he relied?
Will he inform the House whether there is a specific precedent, Canadian or British, relating to the libelling of a public servant and the minister carrying out that libel being entitled to compensation for his wrongful act?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, of course I would not want to table legal opinions; that is a long-standing practice. The two recent precedents which have been mentioned are Roman against Trudeau and Green-
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.l


An hon. Member:: Who?


Stanley Ronald Basford: -and Holiday Magic versus the CBC, Collins and Basford.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: They both won academy awards.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In the latter case, the Department of Justice acted for the CBC and the CBC acted for Collins.


An hon. Member:: How about the other one?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The Crown selected counsel for me when I was minister of consumer and corporate affairs. There were no damages resulting from that because the action was dismissed for want of prosecution.
With regard to earlier precedents, I am not sure 1 can supply them to the hon. member. I am sure I can supply him with public statements made by former deputy attorneys general including Mr. Driedger, who is well known to the hon. member, covering the subject.


ABUSE OF LAW BY PUBLIC SERVANTS-COMPENSATION FOR CITIZENS
Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that there are some people in the public service, not elected and not accountable, who are abusing regulations so seriously that they are damaging independent business and private citizens, and in view of the evidence citizens are producing of this to me and other members of parliament, would the Minister of Justice consider preparing a law to make these people liable for damage as a result of abuses which can be related to and proven to be directly responsible for that damage?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, obviously, if the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: The Crown will pay.


Stanley Ronald Basford: -has specifics of where regulations are being breached by public servants, they should be brought to the attention of the deputy head or the minister of the department. The hon. member asks whether we will prepare legislation. There is legislation before the House to establish a federal ombudsman whose express purpose will be to deal with citizens' complaints about administrative abuse of regulations.
April 25, 1978


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the recent news that at a meeting of the shareholders of Sun Life, 83 per cent voted in favour of the transfer of the head office from Montreal to Toronto, and in view of the commendable, symbolic gesture of the President of the Treasury Board to vote against the transfer, even though it was not persuasive, what steps does the Prime Minister intend to take to prevent the transfer of that head office?
Oral Questions
intercede with the Chinese government to have this senseless slaughter in Cambodia stopped?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the motion passed was a motion by the House itself. In that case the Secretary of State for External Affairs obviously would take whatever steps were necessary to ensure that the motion would reach the people for whom it was intended. I am not certain and I cannot tell the hon. member what other steps the Secretary of State for External Affairs may have taken since then, but I will make inquiries and report later.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware of the steps taken by the Minister of Finance and by myself when we met with the chairman of the board and the president of the company in an attempt to dissuade them. He is aware of the steps we took as shareholders in voting against the move.
The hon. member is referring to a fact which I understand took place just a few minutes ago. I will consider whether any step can or should be taken by the government. My recollection of the first meeting I had with the Minister of Finance and the officers was that we did not have the legal power to prevent any such move. I can look at the matter again, but I must confess that it is not the inclination of the government to force the shareholders of a private company to do anything they do not want to do.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government of Canada holds at least ten policies with Sun Life, would the Prime Minister consider either cancelling or transferring those policies as a demonstrative step to show that we mean action, rather than words?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I take that to be a representation, Mr. Speaker. I will have it studied.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and is on the same subject. Can the minister confirm that Canada intends to take 290 Cambodian refugees who have escaped from that country? Can he inform the House what further instructions he intends to issue to the Canadian ambassador in Bangkok to expedite the processing of applications from Cambodian refugees who wish to come to this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have 7,000 people in that particular quota and that number is almost filled at the present time. I have a representation which I will make to my cabinet colleagues probably on Thursday in connection with this specific problem.

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS	PUBLIC SERVICE
CONDEMNATION OF ATROCITIES COMMITTED IN CAMBODIA	COMPARISON OF SALARIES WITH THOSE OF PRIVATE SECTOR


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs. It has to do with the motion which was passed unanimously by the House on April 7 in which the Parliament of Canada condemned the genocide now going on in Cambodia, a resolution which was taken note of by President Carter in developing world opinion on this subject.
Over the noon hour a group of members of parliament met to voice their concern again. We want to ask the minister whether the Canadian government has yet raised the issue of genocide with the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, or whether it intends to do so. What instructions has the Canadian government given our ambassador in China to


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the President of the Treasury Board regarding the opinion of the Canadian Human Rights commissioner who indicated that the amendments to the Public Service Staff Relations Act which relate to comparing salaries and wages in the public service to those of the private sector are offensive in that under this legislation we must pursue equal pay for work of equal value. The minister was going to look into this matter.
This is a very important question. Has the Minister of Justice rendered his decision in light of the concern of the chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and does he know in which direction he will now go?

April 25, 1978
Oral Questions


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, before and after the letter from the commissioner the Department of Justice confirmed to me their view that this did not breach the Human Rights Act. Nevertheless, I have agreed with the Minister of Justice to make absolutely sure, so there can be no possibility of misinterpretation, that we will make the necessary change to the PSSRA amendment to absolutely, clearly state that the Human Rights Act is paramount.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Fraser Valley East.


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, I direct-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, one supplementary, after a week away?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how I can award a supplementary when the hon. member obviously got precisely the answer he was looking for in his question. However, I am prepared to be persuaded.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Thank you very much, sir; you have been persuaded. I ask the President of the Treasury Board, in light of the very important position that the chairman has regarding his functions in his own department, can the minister assure the House that if and when he introduces legislation which deals primarily with the public service and, of course, their rights, he will take into consideration the expertise of the chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and his officials in order that we do not have this sort of thing happening periodically? This is a good move and I hope the President of the Treasury Board can give me that assurance.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I have already given the assurance that we are quite prepared to ensure that the Public Service Staff Relations Act does not breach the Human Rights Act. I do not know what other comment the hon. member is looking for.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I am talking about the new legislation.


AGRICULTURE
Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that fluid milk consumption in British Columbia is increasing, and in meeting this demand there will of necessity be an increase in the production of industrial milk, will the minister consider the desirability of recommending the granting to that province of a higher percentage of the provincial market share quota in order that the industry will be permitted to expand, or will he make this possible through some other mechanism?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that the national market
share quota is divided among the provinces and is in turn divided by the people involved on that committee. They decide how to distribute that quota; I do not.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I would just remind the minister that 3.1 per cent is the share for British Columbia, which is highly inequitable. As surplus milk must be of sufficient volume to allow for the maintenance of an adequate processing facility and trained staff, and all such milk produced on the lower mainland of British Columbia and Vancouver Island is processed by the two Fraser Valley milk producers' plants in Abbotsford and Sardis, will the minister call upon the Canadian Dairy Commission to call a meeting of the national supply management committee at the earliest possible moment to resolve this problem which will seriously affect the B.C. dairy industry?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that the hon. member recognizes the fact that dairy products are being consumed by more Canadians all the time and that he recognized the success of our national dairy program, because without that there would not be the interest in wanting to produce the product.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In his answer to my question yesterday about the Bell-Saudi Arabia agreement, he said he would ask that the matter be looked into. Has he received a report on it from his officials and, if so, can he provide the information he has received to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I believe the question yesterday dealt with two matters. One was the question of whether Bell Canada was in compliance with our boycott regulations. I am told that their contract has been looked at in detail by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and they state that Bell has been very co-operative in indicating in every way that it would, and has indeed, complied with the boycott regulations.
The other matter had to do with the alleged prohibition of people of Jewish faith going to Saudi Arabia. I am told that there is nothing in the contract to this effect, that indeed such is not the case and that people of Jewish faith can and do go to Saudi Arabia. There is a requirement in their visa formulation for indicating their religion, but there is no prohibition against admitting people of religious faith into Saudi Arabia.


SOUTHWEST AFRICA-AGREEMENT REACHED ON RACIAL PROBLEMS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister: it relates to the meetings that have been taking place in London and New York over these last three or four days. Since SWAPO, a
[Mr. Alexander.!
April 25, 1978

movement composed largely of expatriates belonging to one particular tribe with only marginal support in Southwest Africa, has indicated that it is irrevocably opposed to a multiracial regime in Southwest Africa, I wonder, despite the multiracial nature of that country, if the Prime Minister can provide the House with a report confirming or denying news stories to the effect that the Secretary of State for External Affairs within the last three or four days has been seeking to undermine the Turnhalle agreement which was reached on a multiracial basis by a conference which the SWAPO officials, though invited, did not attend.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, far from attempting to undermine the agreement, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been designated by the four other countries participating with Canada in a proposed solution to the Namibia problems; and the hon. member knows that the Secretary of State for External Affairs is, and has been, at the United Nations putting forth his proposal. I understand that on behalf of Germany, France, the United States, Great Britain and Canada, of course, he has already put forth a proposal which has been accepted by South Africa and an answer is now awaited from SWAPO.


DISCUSSIONS ON RHODESIAN SITUATION
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the same conversations that have been going on, and its having been denied in this House within the last week or so that Canada had no initiatives whatsoever to propose in this area-particularly with respect to Rhodesia- could the Prime Minister explain what the Secretary of State for External Affairs is putting forward in terms of policy related to Rhodesia in the current round of discussions taking place in New York and whether, in addition to that, there are any commitments with respect to peacekeeping forces in which Canada would be involved in any such proposals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the hon. member to be now switching from Namibia to Rhodesia, because his first question was on Namibia and that is the question I have answered. I do not know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in New York now, is having any particular discussions on Rhodesia.


Donald W. Munro: We do not, either.


HOUSING
Andrew Hogan: 
IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Approximately a week ago I referred to a departmental memo sent to the minister which addressed itself to the problem of marriages of convenience. I should like to ask the minister whether he has investigated charges made by his officials in that memo and, if so, what action has he taken or what action is he prepared to take?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, we are conducting investigations at the present time. Our officials are in the field and we are endeavouring to use the avenues available to us to determine whether it is possible to make a subjective decision that a marriage is one of convenience as opposed to a legitimate marriage. Where the marriage takes place in the province of Ontario, for example, and meets the provisions of the act in that province, it is legal. It puts us in a somewhat difficult position to say that although it is legal, it is a marriage of convenience. We have a practical problem which we are endeavouring to deal with.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the detailed documentation included in the memo where specific charges were made of Canadians operating rings of marriages of convenience, I should like to ask the minister if that is also under investigation and if he is planning to lay charges in cases which have been proven to him.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, if the law has been broken and charges are to be laid, they would not be laid by my department. In all probability we would bring that matter to the attention of the proper authorities.
Point of Order-Mr. W. Baker PRIVILEGE

April 25, 1978


MR. BASFORD-QUESTION ASKED BY HON. MEMBER FOR YORK-SIMCOE
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to a question asked at the beginning of the question period by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). He implied that the legislative division of the Department of Justice was drawing legislation relating to foreign exchange controls or to the amount of capital that an individual could remove from Canada in any given year.
I think it terribly important that I state there is no foundation whatsoever for that question. The legislative division of the Department of Justice or the justice section of the Department of Finance is not drafting any such legislation and has received no instructions to draft such legislation. I think it important that I state that.
I also think it important to state that I think the hon. member's question, the innuendo contained in it, and the possible rumour established by it, are the height of irresponsibility coming from the financial critic of the official opposition.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, on that question of privilege raised by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) I noted that he said no legislation is being drafted. My question was to the effect that legislation had been drafted. In fact a member of his staff has let the word be known that the legislation is drafted and is now in the Prime Minister's office. It was confirmed by an executive assistant to a member of the government.
In no way did I feel it was irresponsible to ask for clarification if that legislation had been drafted and, if so, why did the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) feel it was needed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I apparently am drawn into this fictional account by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens). I can assure the House there is no such legislation in my hands and that, if the hon. member wants to invoke an unnamed person talking to other unnamed persons who were talking to him, of course he is still compounding his irresponsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will realize we have a disagreement and not a question of privilege.


POINTS OF ORDER
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of a matter dealing with the question period. First of all I want to thank the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) for staying, and I see that the Minister of

Justice (Mr. Basford) is also here. The point relates to matters involving the Stopforth case.
The Minister of Justice made it cleai that he would have no objection to tabling the precedents upon which his department is relying as opposed to a legal opinion. I thought that was quite clear, and I hope that can take care of itself.
There is another matter that I think important, however, and that is the position of the Public Service Commission which reports to the House of Commons through the Secretary of State. There is the unfortunate position of Mr. Stopforth who finds himself defamed, has recovered damages, desires to be reinstated in his old job and who has not been, notwithstanding the fact it was clearly established in a court of law that he was removed for the wrong reasons.
Given the fact that the Public Service Commission reports to this House and the minister is a conduit for that reporting, I think it appropriate that the House be informed at some point and in some way about what the government intends to do, and what the Public Service Commission intends to do with respect to Mr. Stopforth, and whether an investigation is being carried out into the elements of this case.
If the minister would rise in his place and deal with the matter affirmatively he could undo a great injustice to a public servant. This is a blot on the whole Public Service and it has to be removed. I invite the minister to deal with this matter openly in the House, today or at another time.


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has correctly described me as what would in other circumstances be unflattering-he described me as a conduit. That is exactly what I am in relation to the representation he has made. He realizes that my position is not to give direction or do other than communicate to the Public Service Commission the statement he has made today. I undertake to do so and to reply on some other occasion with whatever information it provides to me. I hope that assurance will be acceptable.


Walter David Baker: Certainly.


MR. STEVENS-TABLING OF COMMITTEE REPORT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from a comment made with respect to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). At page 4782 of Hansard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) is reported as follows:
... I have something to put on the record so that the people can judge the truth of the matter. It is the second report from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and I will table it. It was agreed on April 4, 1978, at 3.20-and the hon. member for York-Simcoe was there-that I was to be in the committee next Tuesday. The hon. member may have said something that was not dishonest, but it was not the truth.
I have inquired whether the Minister of Finance tabled whatever he was referring to and I find out he has not- procedurally he probably could not in any event. But, Mr. Speaker, apparently there is no such report of the Standing
April 25, 1978

Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, or at least it has not been tabled. So the Table informs me.
My point of order is to seek clarification. I would hope that in the tone of the question period yesterday at least the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lumley) would clarify for me what report the minister was referring to. The first I learned of the minister agreeing to come before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs was after I left the chamber on the day I originally raised the point. A notice was in my office for the first time definitively saying he would appear.


Mr. Ed Lumley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the report the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) is referring to is that of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure, dated April 4, 1978, which shows that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was requested to appear twice before the committee, one meeting to be held on April 25, 1978, at 8 p.m., and the other possibly on April 21, 1978, or any other suitable date.
At the meeting the hon. member refers to I specifically stated that the minister would appear on April 25 and, if possible, on April 21.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is not in the report.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to subsection 17(2) of the
Order Paper Questions
Anti-Inflation Act I wish to table copies of reports sent to the Administrator by the Anti-Inflation Board.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,230, 1,373, and 1,409.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Roy (Laval): 1.	Is or was there a farm operated by the Canadian Penitentiary Service for the production of vegetables, milk and pork in the City of Laval and, if so, what was the acreage, the production or the annual estimated value of production of
(a)	vegetables (b) animals, from 1960 to date?
2.	Was the production discontinued and, if so (a) in what year (b) for what reason?
3.	(a) What is or was the value of the dairy herd (b) is or was there a herd registered "purebred" involved (c) was the herd sold for breeding or slaughter purposes and, if so, what was the average price per head?
4.	Was the equipment and the livestock sold and, if so, was the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation entrusted with the transaction and, if not, for what reason?
5.	What are CPS's intentions concerning farming operations in the City of Laval?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: 1. Yes the Canadian Penitentiary Service has operated a farm for the production of vegetables, milk and pork in the city of Laval, (a) and (b)
Report on Production of Vegetables-Animals-Derivatives
Fiscal Years	Acreage	Vegetables	Grain	Annual	Miscellaneous	Eggs (Dozens) Poultry (Pounds) Beef and veal	Milk and	Reconstituted	Fresh Pork(Pounds)	(Bushel)	Feeding and	Canned Foods	(Pounds)	Cream	Milk 2 per	(Pounds)Bedding	(Gallons)	(Gallons)	cent (Gal-	(Tons)	lons)	1960/61	Records not available	1961/62	Records not available	1962/63	Records not available	1963/64	Records not	438,891	8,000	970	Records not available	available Records not	353,247	6,000	950	Records not available	1964/65	available Records not	383,574	4,000	725	Records not available	1965/66	available	1966/67	407	438,891	5,000	960	44,622	32,875	2,639	7,410	41,720	92,495	210,1311967/68	382	424,430	5,000	1,020	41,370	38,250	6,051	8,230	41,073	88,605	184,4581968/69	383	295,520	3,500	1,020	37,878	28,770	3,271	7,783	48,075	79,360	187,7781969/70	369	254,371	3,000	875	23,652	25,925	5,269	9,611	47,732	83,103	150,771
dicontinued September 1969 and finalized during fiscal year 1970/71

April 25, 1978
Order Paper Questions
Fiscal Years	Acreage	Vegetables (Pounds)	Grain (Bushel)	Annual Feeding and Bedding (Tons)	Miscellaneous Canned Foods (Gallons)	Eggs (Dozens)	Poultry (Pounds)	Beef and veal (Pounds)	Milk and Cream (Gallons)	Reconstituted Milk 2 per cent (Gallons)	Fresh Pork (Pounds)1970/71	369	82,548	3,700	900	22,224	26,675	3,508	3,200	58,731	65,706	91,6451971/72	369	28,711 Product discontinued September 1971	2,500	600	Product discontinued September 1970	16,650 Product discontinued September 1971	12,000 Product discontinued September 1971	24,470	60,196	59,563	1972/73	368	-	3,500	860	-	-	-	10,277	43,202	83,219	-1973/74	375	-	1,600	735	-	-	-	14,089	37,200	100,657	-1974/75	375	-	900	950	-	-	-	14,006	39,105	126,522	-1975	-	1,000	700	-	-	-	10,000	24,975	79,072	-
(April 1 to November 15)
2.	Yes, the production was discontinued in three phases, (a) 1970, cannery, piggery; 1971, hen-coop, vegetables; 1976, milling, dairy and farming, (b) The operations were discontinued as a result of the recommendations made by the "Committee on Farm Operations and Annex Programs" submitted to the Commissioner of Penitentiaries on March 21, 1973.
3.	(a) Approximately $40,000. (b) The dairy herd was composed of 82 thoroughbred and ten half-bred, (c) Seventy-one animals were sold for breeding purposes by public auction at an average price of $483 per head-twenty-one animals including pure-bred not recommended for breeding purposes were kept and slaughtered for beef consumption by regional institutions.
4.	The equipment was disposed of by transfer to CPS institutions in the Quebec and Ontario regions or through the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. The livestock was disposed of through an auction firm, pursuant to commissioner's directive No. 129, subparagraph (a) of paragraph 7. The sale of livestock is exempt from the provisions of the Surplus Crown Assets Act.
5.	The penitentiary service is at present re-evaluating its policies on farm operations with a view to increasing the number of inmates employed in farm operations, and to reducing food costs.


Mr. Jones: What are the costs of R.C.M.P. investigations into political patronage scandals in the province of New Brunswick from 1976 to date?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: It is not the practice of the RCMP to record its costs on an investigation-by-investigation basis. Moreover, it is not uncommon for an investigator to be tasked with more than one investigation at any given time, and to move from investigation to investigation during any working day. It is, therefore, impractical to arrive at the costs of any particular investigation or investigations.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (f)
$60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (i) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 to $399.99 per month (o) $400.00 to $499.99 per month (p) $500.00 to $599.99 per month (q) $600.00 to $699.99 per month (r) $700.00 to $799.99 per month (s) $800.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of R.C.M.P. personnel or of retired R.C.M.P. personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of R.C.M.P. personnel and also the number of widows of R.C.M.P. personnel or of retired R.C.M.P. personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of R.C.M.P. personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?
Hon	. J.-J. Blais (Solicitor General):	1 and 2. Retired	Amount	Members	Widows(a)	Less than $20 per month	0	10(b)	$20 to $29.99 per month	9	5(c)	$30 to $39.99 per month	44	2(d)	$40 to $49.99 per month	30	7(e)	$50 to $59.99 per month	14	8(0	$60 to $69.99 per month	7	6(g)	$70 to $79.99 per month	58	5(h)	$80 to $89.99 per month	35	9(i)	$90 to $99.99 per month	14	15(j)	$100 to $149.99 per month	111	51(k)	$150 to $199.99 per month	150	43(i)	$200 to $249.99 per month	204	50(m)	$250 to $299.99 per month	258	31(n)	$300 to $399.99 per month	538	69(o)	$400 to $499.99 per month	492	21(P)	$500 to $599.99 per month	405	8(q)	$600 to $699.99 per month	355	8(r)	$700 to $799.99 per month	311	4(s)	$800 per month and over	495	10Total	3,530	362Province	Retired Members	WidowsNewfoundland	189	9Prince Edward Island	23	2Nova Scotia	262	22New Brunswick	130	9Quebec	217	20 [DOT]Ontario	716	88Manitoba	169	14Saskatchewan	184	21Alberta	513	49British Columbia	1,028	121Yukon	14	1North West Territories	30	2Outside Canada	55	4Total	3,530	362171; $59.29 per month.	

April 25, 1978


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville) moved:: That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Transport has consistently failed to manage Canadian transportation policy in an efficient and effective manner and implement the promises of the 1974 election campaign, and the House calls upon the government to take positive action:
(a)	to abandon the user pay concept and develop overall transportation objectives which will enhance national harmony, reduce regional disparities and promote balanced economic growth;
(b)	to develop mechanisms which will encourage the federal government in consultation with all provincial governments to set national and regional transportation priorities;
(c)	to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Transport commission to ensure that the regional diversity of the country is taken into consideration in all decisions of the Commission; and
(d)	to implement the major recommendations of the Hall commission report on Grain Handling and Transportation in the West.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will know that pursuant to Standing Order 32(1 )(k) the motion is debatable, and that proceedings on the motion shall expire in accordance with Standing Order 58(11) at the ordinary hour of adjournment.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on this occasion to present this motion before the House on behalf of my party. I believe the subject matter of the motion is very timely.
It will give the House an opportunity to examine the Trudeau government's record in the important area of transportation. It will give the House an opportunity to examine the reliability of the Liberal government in fulfilling the election promises of 1974. It will give us an opportunity to assess and analyse the effectiveness and the manner in which the current minister is handling the day to day issues which arise. It will provide hon. members an opportunity to consider some new initiatives and new directions in the formulation of goals, objectives, and priorities for a national transportation policy in Canada into the twenty-first century. It will also give us an opportunity to discuss how we might be able to execute such policy. Perhaps what is more important is that as we now head into another election campaign there is no question in the minds of many people that Canadians will again, in all probability, be bombarded with another assortment of transporta-
Transportation
tion goodies, which the Liberals have no intention of implementing even if they were elected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As a matter of fact that process is well on its way right now, Mr. Speaker. Whole promises are being reactivated. So-called new commitments are being introduced, along with so-called new promises, all of which are politically motivated. I am glad the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is in the House because he is the master of political motivation. I am sure that Canadians this time around will look upon that kind of benevolence and that kind of charity with much disdain.
Let us take a look at some of the highlights of the 1974 election campaign commitments. On June 19, 1974, the man who once proclaimed that Canada's transportation policy was in a mess and who got his reward in the other place, said this in a press release-


An hon. Member:: What about the future?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Yes, we will get to the future, but we have to review the past before we do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. Will the hon. member please address the Chair.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly abide by your ruling. I would never insult the Chair, and you know that, sir.
The important issue in the next election campaign which will be the Trudeau government's record, and particularly its record with respect to transportation policy-


An hon. Member:: He does not want to run on his record.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In a June 19, 1974, press release it was reported:
Transport Minister Jean Marchand today announced sweeping changes in the institutional structures which manage Canadian transportation, a radical departure from past transportation philosophy and a comprehensive set of new transportation programs for Canada. "These changes and these programs are going to move Canada toward world leadership in the use and construction of passenger and freight transportation systems. We are reaching for world leadership in quality equipment and systems," Mr. Marchand said.
That was June, 1974, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member across the way has a short memory. He forgets about these commitments, as do most members across the way, including the Minister of Transport. These commitments were made by a former minister of transport. Let us bear in mind that this is the man who suggested that transportation systems were in a mess. I submit to you, sir, that if clearing up the so-called mess was contingent upon the fulfilment of that lofty statement, then one can only conclude that the mess has become worse.
What radical departure from past transportation philosophy have we seen or heard? What new set of comprehensive transportation programs or proposals have we seen? What

April 25, 1978
Transportation
kind of world leadership has been displayed by this government? The fact of the matter is none. Those who are involved in the transportation industry would probably not agree that our systems were all that bad. If there ever was a mess in the transportation industry in Canada, that mess was in the transportation minister's office. I have every reason to believe there has been very little improvement since that infamous statement was made. It is quite obvious the condition still exists.
Let us look at some samples, Mr. Speaker, first of all respecting urban transportation. On June 17, 1974, there was an announcement that some $290 million would be provided in the form of financial aid for urban transportation systems. That never got off the ground. The provinces took the commitment as a good word. They went to work, developed programs, and perhaps even committed the expenditure of those funds.
On February 17, 1977, the then minister of finance, Mr. Macdonald, announced cancellation of the program due to fiscal restraint. Lie cancelled it in the same city in which it had been announced three years earlier. They used fiscal restraint as an excuse, but it is very interesting to note that inflation was running at something like 11 Vi per cent during the election campaign of 1974. Restraint was not much of an issue at that time.
When Mr. Macdonald announced cancellation of the program, inflation was running in the order of 8 per cent. It is therefore obvious that the program was announced for political expediency and for political gain. There is no question about that. Even Liberal members of parliament could not stomach the government's about-face. Many of them spoke out on the matter, including the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Phil-brook), the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin), the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette), the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo), the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), and the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). All expressed shock and dismay at the blatancy of the government reneging on what was considered to be a formal and honest commitment. They did garner some votes however.
The minister of transportation in the province of Ontario described it as one of the most unresponsive and disappointing transporation programs put forward by the federal government in years. He stated that over the past three years the federal government indicated it would be willing to support the development of urban public transportation. This was not a casual or "maybe" commitment. They were public statements of the federal government's intent to give full support to this important program. What we have is a broken promise. It can be described as nothing else.
What about ferry service? The Liberal campaign document described that we would have a comprehensive new policy for expanding assistance to the ferry service in Canada. What was the result? A dramatic increase in tolls in our ferry system, reaching almost 70 per cent in the province of British
[Mr. Mazankowski.l
Columbia. It almost caused the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) to leave the cabinet.
What about ports? We were to have a comprehensive program to improve railway access to western ports and to Vancouver. This was to be launched immediately. As a matter of fact this launching was to have taken place in 1973 at the WEOC conference in Calgary. That launching is still sputtering. We were to have had new legislation to provide greater autonomy to the port authorities. Bill C-6 which was introduced contravenes that philosophy and principle.
What about freight rates? This is a dandy. It was the major priority of the Liberal government in the election campaign of 1974. They said this:
The third major priority of these new transportation policies is the removal of regional inequities in freight rates. Mr. Marchand said it has been demonstrated over the past six years that the principle of competition on which Canadian freight rates has been based, that is, competition between different modes of transport supposedly resulting in fair and low rates, has not worked for many areas in Canada. The Liberal government will adopt the principle of consistent and equitable pricing of freight rates rather than the old "what the traffic will bear" principle. This will be a dramatic change-and the government intends to monitor the implementation very carefully to cushion shippers and carriers.
The fact is not one freight rate discrepancy or anomaly has been removed. In fact the disparity has been widened as a result of inflation and other increases. The discrepancy between long and short haul rates still exists, as does the discrepancy in freight rates between raw and processed products. There is also the issue of rapeseed as it applies in the discriminatory application of freight rates in western Canada. My colleagues will deal with that in more detail.
The discrepancy in freight rate groupings still exists. These discrepancies continue to exist, notwithstanding the fact that in 1975 there was an agreement with the then ministers of transport of the western provinces and the then minister of transport, Mr. Marchand. These matters had been agreed upon and initiatives were to be taken. There was a short communique issued in February, 1975, in which it was said in respect of Mr. Marchand:
-he will propose a legislative amendment to reduce the rate differential anomalies between raw and finished products and in the interim will consult with the provinces and take measures necessary to correct urgent anomalies. Specifically the minister said he will recommend to his colleagues immediate steps within the existing legal structure to reduce the long-standing rapeseed products differential anomaly.
What do we hear today from the Minister of Transport? On October 20, as reported at page 59 of Hansard, the minister said:
On the question of equity, this is a matter of serious concern to us, as we have expressed over the years our belief in the need for greater equity in freight rates between processed and unprocessed products. There are very significant financial implications. We have been discussing this with the provinces in an attempt to reach some rational conclusion about what processing should take place, because the natural advantage in the prairie region does take place there.
That is just more words and more procrastination. Nothing has been done, nothing but more equivocating.
I turn to the question of grain handling where we have a glorious commitment. The commitment in 1974 was that the total grain handling system, from the grainery to the ships in
April 25, 1978

the harbour, would be revamped, and new systems introduced. What do we have? We have continued congestion in the port of Vancouver. We are now 35 million bushels behind our shipping target for the year. We have continued delays in loading. On any given day, there are an average of 24 ships waiting in the harbour. Elevators on the prairies are congested. Demurrage costs continue to pile up, some as high as $5,000 per ship per day.


An hon. Member:: Who pays that?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will tell you who pays that. The farmer pays it, further reducing his income level which has declined by some 54 per cent since 1975, translated in terms of 1975 dollars. The Canadian Federation of Agriculture calls it a horrendous drop. More important, Canada continues to lose its reputation as a reliable supplier of grain in the export market. Its reputation is becoming tarnished and deteriorated. That is the sad fact of the matter.
We were to have had an expansion of the utilization of the port of Churchill. Those initiatives continue to be delayed. Prince Rupert has once again surfaced. It seems to surface during every pre-election campaign. There has been another commitment. However, if we are really honest about it, we will not see any improvement in the utilization of that port for five or six years.
Since 1973 we have heard about the necessity of a rail link to bypass the Fraser Canyon, the Clinton-Ashcroft link. Although it was promised in 1973, nothing has been done.
What about the grain handling system, the great revamping, and the great new system that was supposed to be introduced? It still takes an average of 23 days for a car to be loaded with grain, leave the country elevator point, go to Vancouver, and return. Those are not my statistics but statistics of the Hall report and Snavely report. It takes 23 days for a trainload of grain to get from the country elevator to the harbour and back for another load. I think it is fair to say that even hon. members could probably walk faster than that. We have seen no progress, no improvement in that area whatsoever. What is sad is that this situation continues to prevail in spite of the fact that we have seen a great deal of branch line abandonment on the prairies, a great deal of rationalization of the grain handling system, a great deal of consolidation of the elevator system, all of which have cost the prairie producer more money because he is obliged to deliver his grain further.
Speaking of branch line abandonment and elevator consolidation, it is interesting to recall what the present Minister of Transport had to say during the election campaign of 1974. A report in The Globe and Mail of June 10 of that year reads as follows:
Countering opposition that he is out to close small grain elevators situated close to farms, Mr. Lang declared that the small elevators would remain as long as farmers wanted them.
He went on to say at Lloydminster, as reported in the June 11, 1974, edition of the Winnipeg Free Press:
Transportation
As long as the Liberal party forms the government and as long as producers wish to continue to deliver to the elevators of their choice not one rail line will be abandoned.
More hollow, shallow, empty promises, Mr. Speaker.
I believe producers are prepared to play their part in improving the grain handling system, but the government, the railways, and the elevator companies all have to do their share. Leadership lies with the federal government. My party recognizes that it is a government responsibility. But the fact remains that the party sitting across the way has failed to deliver. The promises to which I have referred by no means represent the totality of the government's transportation package which was unveiled in 1974. Those vote-catching promises, without any real meaning, uttered without any sincerity, are probably consistent with the Liberal approach.
The party opposite thrives and survives by misleading the people. It is likely that nothing new will emerge from the upcoming campaign. Perhaps there will be a repetition, a rehashing of the old promises. However, I am sure the people will not be fooled for ever because, after all, most of those promises have been floating around ever since the Western Economic Conference of 1973. We all remember that in 1974 leadership was said to be the issue in the election. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the honesty of that leadership will be very much an issue in the minds of most Canadians.
In 1974 Liberal propagandists were saying:
The issue-the overwhelming issue-is leadership. The answer for anyone who is willing to take a good look at the record is obvious. Prime Minister Trudeau and his team of Liberal candidates are asking for your support July 8th.
But we have to ask this question: who is likely to do the best job of fulfilling the commitments which were made during the election campaign? That is what we have to ask ourselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Consider the record when it comes to fulfilling the commitments which were made. What has become of those sweeping plans, those radical departures from past methods, those comprehensive programs we heard so much about? What became of the idea of world leadership in transportation? We can probably summarize all this in one phrase: all we have received following those lofty promises amounts to nothing more than the Otto Lang user-pay concept. What has been done in this field? I will give the House a few examples.
The government tried to eliminate or dismantle the "at and east" rates which are a very important tool of economic development for the Atlantic provinces. The minister tried to do this on three occasions. He doubled the Seaway tolls. He proposed a 533 per cent increase in user fees at airports.


An hon. Member:: For most people.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: For most people, as my hon. friend reminds me. He increased the tolls on the ferries by as much as 70 per cent in some cases-I have in mind the province of British Columbia. The gap in freight rates brought about by discriminatory rates and the anomalies to which I referred

April 25, 1978
Transportation
earlier, is ever widening, and the glib promises made during the campaign of 1974 are by now nothing more than a distant ideal-unless, of course, one happens to be the present Minister of Transport-he has a different version of user-pay for himself.
On behalf of my party I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we reject Otto Lang's concept of the user-pay philosophy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It has become a symbol of economic and political tension between the federal government and the provinces, between users and carriers, and I submit it is incompatible with the political, social, economic, and geographical dimensions of Canada. Furthermore, it leads to discrimination and decreases opportunities for economic growth and positive regional economic development.
I turn, now, to the Hall report. I say to you, sir, that my party endorses the Hall recommendations not only as a transportation charter for the west but also as an economic manifesto. This being the case, we are deeply disturbed by the minister's foot dragging in implementing the major recommendations of the report. There are some 92 recommendations in all. Six have been implemented, four have been partially implemented, 24 are the subject of further study, and 58 have not yet been acted upon. The Hall report must be viewed as a total package, a total concept for the economic development of western Canada.
The minister acted with great haste in the area of branch line abandonment, but it is interesting to note that he proceeded at a snail's pace when it came to removing the anomalies as between freight rates on raw and processed products. He has failed to make an unequivocal statement with respect to the Crowsnest Pass freight rates and the way in which the government would handle the gap between the Crow rate and that which would be viewed as a fair rate for the movement of grain.
As I understand it, the Minister of Transport has not even invited Mr. Justice Emmett Hall to discuss the implications of his report. That is very disturbing. There are a number of major recommendations in the Hall report which must be implemented, and we as a party would implement them very quickly and work together with Mr. Justice Hall in implementing them. Far too many specific recommendations which would revitalize processing activity in western Canada, broaden and strengthen its economic infrastructure, are in that document to let it sit around and gather dust on the shelf. We feel very strongly about that.
In conclusion, I want to outline some directions and some initiatives which we, as a party, feel are important in terms of developing and implementing a national transportation policy. We believe that transportation is a vital instrument of national unity. We believe it to be key to balanced economic growth, and we believe that it must be a positive tool of regional economic development.

We believe that a new transportation act is needed to serve Canada throughout the eighties and on into the twenty-first century and to reflect the fact that transportation must be a positive tool for regional economic development. Transportation must respond to national, regional, and urban challenges and realities. It must recognize the necessity of further processing and manufacturing of our resources, particularly our renewable resources, in those areas where they are grown, produced or located. We believe that it is the responsibility and the duty of the federal government to define national transportation goals, objectives, and priorities. The federal government must provide leadership in this area. These goals, objectives, and priorities must be developed, however, through meaningful and continuing consultation with the provinces. There must be a permanent mechanism for this to take place because transportation is very important to every region of Canada economically, socially, and politically.
We believe that consideration should be given to the establishment of a council of transport ministers composed of the federal minister and his ten provincial counterparts plus representatives from the Yukon and Northwest Territories. We believe that this would serve not only as a mechanism for development of priorities in national transportation but-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and I thank hon. members for allowing me additional time. I assure the House that I shall not abuse this privilege. I simply want to confine my remarks to some initiatives and directions which we would like to place before the House at this time in connection with the motion we are debating.
We believe that such a mechanism would be very useful and helpful in developing priorities, goals, and objectives for national transportation but, more important, it would promote understanding and, I believe, would result in national support for any priorities and initiatives which may be taken and which have to be taken in the national interest.
Having defined the goals and objectives, the regulatory body, the Canadian Transport Commission, should have its role very clearly defined. It should be responsible for the implementation and execution of the national policy which is defined, and it should function with a minimum of political interference. We feel that this is needed to provide the degree of stability and certainty which is urgently required at this point in time in the transportation industry, because there has been too much political interference, political manipulation, and ad hoc measures. It is necessary to restore confidence in the transportation industry if we are to improve our productivity, the reliability of our transportation systems, and our technology. It is important to have that climate of stability and confidence in order to attract the kind of capital investment
April 25, 1978

which will be required to develop and expand the systems we need in this country for the twenty-first century.
We hold in very high regard the importance of the regions of this country, and having regard to the regional needs and the uniqueness of the regions of this country we feel that consideration should be given to the establishment of a western and an Atlantic arm of the Canadian Transport Commission. This would provide an opportunity to respond quickly in meeting the regional needs and demands of users of the various modes. Furthermore, it would serve to speed up the regulatory process, which needs a lot of speeding up. It has become entwined in red tape and over-dominated by bureaucratic devices. That operation clearly has to be streamlined.
The act has to be clearly defined, and there have to be new mechanisms put in place for seeking and obtaining adequate redress for the problems which crop up from time to time. Such a mechanism would ensure that adequate and effective service is provided at a minimum cost, and would monitor and correct such things as freight rates, equipment supply, maintenance and modernization of plant and equipment facilities. We believe that this could be achieved without adding to the size of the existing Canadian Transport Commission. That would basically mean a regionalization of the operation to take into account the regional realities and the diversity of this country.
We feel that consideration should also be given to the establishment of a national advisory council on transportation, and that the users of all modes of transportation should be invited to participate. We feel that this is necessary so that the goals and objectives which are defined in a national transportation policy could be geared to the needs of users. We think that is very important, and it is something which has not been happening.
There has not been enough consultation in the development and administration of transportation policy. I see that the minister is smiling. His version of consultation is perhaps somewhat different from the version of hon. members on this side of the House. To hon. members opposite it is consult and "We will do what we want to do anyway". That is really not the way we describe consultation. We feel that the role of the Ministry of Transport should be reviewed and assessed with a view to reducing the monopolistic role which it now plays. That role often finds itself in a conflict of interest position. It was described adequately and appropriately by the Air Transport Association of Canada, which said that users view themselves as captive tenants of a monopolistic landlord. Airports are built and facilities are established by the MOT without any consultation, and without any advice from the people who use those facilities.


Otto Emil Lang: You are out of date.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: If I am outdated, there should be no problem in accepting the amendment to Bill C-4 which would enshrine the kind of consultative process which we think is necessary, and which, incidentally, is supported by all the users
Transportation
involved with the Department of Transport. You have accepted one, sir, and there is another one on the order paper. If the minister is saying they will accept the amendment which is now on the order paper in my name, I can assure him the bill will have speedy passage. The fact is, there is no appeal. Consultation is non-existent.
We think that MOT would do well to work toward divesting itself of its responsibilities in areas which might be better served by the private sector or by other levels of government. When you look at the conflict which arose with regard to the Edmonton International Airport, the desire to have new and better facilities there to accommodate the tremendous number of people who will be visiting that city during the Commonwealth Games, you find that the provincial government wants to help the federal government, but there is no co-operation from the federal government. There has been consultation, but there is no co-operation.
Perhaps other levels of government could involve themselves in supplying this kind of infrastructure, not deviating from the power and authority of MOT to lay down standards and of CTC to ensure that those standards are maintained, but there may well be another area in which we can expedite the development of our transportation infrastructure. We believe that immediate steps should be taken to stimulate innovation and to improve productivity in the transportation sector. The appropriate fiscal policy and incentives are necessary there.
We believe that steps must be taken to increase private investment in our transportation systems. We know that over the next number of years a huge infusion of capital will be required to provide the infrastructure and the equipment necessary to expand and to strengthen the basic transportation network to meet future demands.
Most important of all, what we need to get on with the job of building an efficient and effective transportation system is a climate of openness, a climate of trust, and a climate of co-operation. We have the most secretive government in the history of this country, and that is part and parcel of the problem. It is not only secretive, it refuses to consult, and it fails to co-operate. We believe that if we are to get Canada working again, if we are to get the most of our transportation system, we must do it together and, in order to achieve that, we must work together.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the motion moved by my good friend, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). One could think of another ten items at least to add to this motion, but it covers most of the ground.
The preamble to the motion states that the minister has sidetracked promises made by his own party and by his government in 1974. That is true and obviously plain to people all over Canada. They made promises that were glowing and that warmed the hearts of the public when they promised to abandon the outmoded freight rate structure and to remove regional freight inequities. They promised that rates at less than cost of service would apply in special cases, but instead

April 25, 1978
Transportation
they are trying to give us the user pay concept. They even tried to enshrine that concept in Bill C-33 in the last session, which, I gather, now is withdrawn as a result of opposition even from government backbenchers. Not only did they renege on those promises, but now they want to do away with the Crowsnest statutory grain rates, about the only benefit left to western Canada. They want to do away with the "at and east" rates on grain and flour shipments through the maritime ports, creating unemployment there, as if there were not already enough.
The federal government, with the capitulation of the Liberal and Conservative provincial governments in the Atlantic provinces, plans to tamper with the Maritime Freight Rates Act assistance. The government promised that not one railway branch line would be abandoned so long as the producers wanted to use it and the elevators continued to operate. What has happened to that promise?
About a month ago, for example, the Prairie Rail Action Committee-a little committee that was set up so that both the minister and the railroads can get their way, sometimes in spite of what the railroads want-recommended the abandonment of two lines, and everyone, including their railroads, the elevator companies, the producers, and the communities concerned, wanted to keep them. The Liberals promised a transportation information act to provide Ottawa with access to all information it needs to formulate freight rate policies, including companies' costs. We still have to rely on the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to find out how much the president of CPR is paid.
They promised a national freight car leasing corporation. We did not get it. Every day there are reports of some Canadian commodity unable to reach market because there is a shortage of railway equipment.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised to abandon the outmoded freight rate structure, one based on the competitive market place. What has happened is a greater reliance on market place competition and profitability, not a lessening of reliance.
The Prime Minister promised that a Liberal government would provide $290 million in urban transit assistance to provinces and municipalities. That promise has not been kept. The actual program announced last fall involves little or no new funding. They juggled the books. It will take $100 million from the commuter services program announced in 1975 but never implemented, and $130 million from the railway relocation and grade crossing fund. That is a program that needs more funds, not funds being taken away from it, but that is how they try to fool people into thinking that that promise of the Prime Minister was kept.
The Prime Minister promised to establish transcontinental excursion trains to supplement existing transcontinental services. That means more trains, not less. Instead, they plan to phase out one of the Montreal to Toronto to Vancouver services, or substantially reduce it.
The Prime Minister promised to bring into service high speed passenger trains to the central corridor. That was four

years ago. The minister finally got around to getting some LRC trains ordered just in the past year. These high speed trains are a laugh. The train from Ottawa to Toronto still takes five and three quarter hours. It travels at an average speed of 48 miles an hour. Another train takes six hours and five minutes and travels at an average speed of 46 miles an hour. If that is the vision of the Prime Minister and of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) of high speed intercity trains, we do not need that kind of vision. That will not entice people to get out of their cars or get off short haul plane flights and get on to trains. It will militate even further against them wanting to do so.
VIA Rail, which I think had great plans and great ideas, has been stepped on by the ministry. It wanted to do a good job, but will not be allowed to do it. They will not be provided with the funding that is required to implement the Prime Minister's own promise. They do not intend to provide train service between Edmonton and Calgary. Although the Minister of Transport has announced that some LRC trains are going to operate in the west and in the maritimes, VIA Rail has not provided a commitment that these units will supplement existing passenger train service. We suspect that instead it will replace existing passenger train service in which there is also some reduction.
The motion of the hon. member indicates that the Minister of Transport has failed consistently to manage Canadian transportation policy in an efficient and effective manner. That is true, but also it is true of the old line party administrations which governed previous to this one. As long as pofitabil-ity and competition are the cornerstones of transportation policy, we will remain in the same mess with inefficient duplicate systems, energy wasteful systems, further lay-offs in our transportation industry, depressed regional economies, and regional disparities.
I find it passing strange that the official opposition would call upon the government to abandon its user pay policy, when those same hon. members advocate profitability and competition. In order to attain profitability and competition, it is necessary to maintain user pay. One cannot have it both ways. I wish hon. members of the official opposition would stop attempting to work both sides of the street.
The official opposition persuaded the government to amend the legislation to require Air Canada to operate in contemplation of profit. That can mean only one thing: reduced service to Atlantic Canada, the prairies, and outlying regions which do not have the volume of traffic to sustain a commercial enterprise or, in other words, where it is not profitable. My Conservative friends cannot have it both ways on that one either.
The Conservative governments of Newfoundland and New Brunswick not only agreed to allow the federal government to do away with passenger services, but agreed to let the maritime freight assistance act fall by the wayside. Canada does not need Tories. The Alberta Conservative government was
April 25, 1978

not only opposed to letting rapeseed products qualify for the statutory grain rates, but suggested that domestic shipments of grain be taken off the Crow rate to Thunder Bay. The hon. member for Vegreville and his colleagues from Alberta should attempt to have that straightened out by the Conservative government in that province.
Activities are ongoing in the prairie provinces which cause me to want to move an amendment to the hon. member's motion. I am confident my amendment will receive approval from most members of the House. It is a worth-while addition, and I hope hon. members will agree with it. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a semi-colon, and by adding thereafter an additional paragraph:
(e) to reject the Prairie Rail Action Committee recommendations to close down the Liberty to Dilke and Eston to Lacadena rail lines, and to bring forward legislation to set up the Prairie Rail Authority.
The Hall commission made recommendations concerning these two particular instances, as well as a number of others. In the case of the Colonsay subdivision, which is a heavy grain line, the recommendation was that it should be maintained. The Prairie Rail Action Committee, which is a creature of the Minister of Transport, recommends that a significant portion of it should be abandoned. This would accomplish perhaps the aims of the minister, but both railroads feel that it should be maintained, not to mention the producers and the Hall Commission.
The affected communities have been betrayed, as well as the intention of the Hall commission recommendation. When I questioned members of the commission about this particular line I asked them, if this line was so important and should be maintained, why could it not be put into the basic network, instead of having it come under the Prairie Rail Authority. Their response to me was reasonable. They wanted it to come under the Prairie Rail Authority so that it would receive fast rehabilitation and upgrading, and then be transferred to the basic network. That is why the Hall commission recommended that, so that it would receive priority treatment in upgrading and then be returned to the basic network. Instead of that, the minister's committee recommended that a significant portion of it be abandoned, which betrayed those communities as well as the recommendations of the Hall commission.
The Prairie Rail Authority should be an essential tool for the rehabilitation of hundreds of rail lines in the three prairie provinces. Instead of that, the minister has a Prairie Rail Action Committee, which is designed to implement what the railroads and the minister wanted in the first place. After all the hearings, the consultations, and the fine work done by the Hall commission, it is being subverted in this backdoor manner which the minister and his committee chose. The same thing applies to the other subdivisions which were mentioned in my amendment. The people out west are worried that there is more to come. They are worried on good grounds.
The first vice-president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, on April 19, 1978, said the following:
Transportation
The pool may be forced into a greater degree of rationalization and consolidation than it would like in its country elevator system.
Mr. Donald M. Lockwood, the first vice-president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, made that comment. That organization is the largest farmer-owned grain handling organization in the world. Also he pointed out that the pool projected the reduction of its country elevator system to a network of 600 operating units at 500 locations. Also Mr. Lockwood indicated that PRAC may go further than the pool had projected in rail line abandonment. Their plans for the construction of new, upgraded, and high throughput country elevators have been thrown askew. Now their planning has to wait. Their intentions to build and rebuild country elevators for their members and the grain producers at dozens of shipping points, are in jeopardy. This is because of the recommendations the Prairie Rail Action Committee has come up with already, as well as other ones which we are afraid it will make.
The Minister of Transport should reject those recommendations. Also he should assure us in a concrete manner that the recommendations of the Hall commission, in the main, will be implemented and that he is committed to them. If not, the Minister of Transport, his colleagues, and Liberal candidates will rue that day. Of course that day will be called election day.
If the minister does not provide an irrevocable commitment to maintain the statutory grain rates, we have news for him. I am not only referring to the maintenance of those rates, but also to an extension of them to apply to grain products. It is not a subsidy to western grain producers or the processors of our grain products. It is a benefit to the nation as a whole. It allows us to compete in the markets of central Canada and around the world. Because of our geography and climate, the nation as a whole should share in the cost of moving raw products as well as processed ones. There should be an extension of the statutory grain rate principle to other processors and producers of raw products in the prairie provinces, as well as in the Atlantic provinces and the other outlying regions of Canada. That is only fair, if these regions are to have further economic development. If these regions are to have a fair crack at the markets of central Canada, the United States and other countries around the world, we must not handicap them with a freight rate system which causes their costs to rise to a point where they are unable to compete.
What has the government done instead of that? It helped finance an oil seed processing plant in Windsor, Ontario. They do not even grow it there. What does that do to rapeseed processing in western Canada? I understand that that plant will be capable of processing soybeans, peanuts, sunflower seeds, and palm oil. This will mean that the western Canadian rapeseed producers will be played off against the American soybean producers. It threatens the rapeseed processing industry and the other oil seed processing industries in western Canada.

April 25, 1978
Transportation
It is bad enough if the competition comes from other countries, but when it comes from within our own boundaries and harms people in a major portion of our country, it cannot be justified by anybody who would wish to do something about reducing alienation and increasing national unity. There is no reason why we cannot do this. The same should apply to our transportation industry when it comes to moving people as well as goods.
It has long been maintained that transportation companies should be publicly owned and operated. There are many instances in the transportation industry in which competition is taking place and it is not working. Such a position was even maintained by a former minister of transport. If you are going to maintain competition and profitability as a cornerstone, there must be discrimination against people and goods because of where they happen to live or where the goods happen to be produced. Unless we set up a transportation system that both cross subsidizes and directly subsidizes and equalizes transportation costs around this country, then that discrimination that we have been getting all these years is going to continue because the transportation companies will, quite rightly, say "It is not profitable and we are not going to do it." Because of this, another part of the country loses service entirely or has it reduced, and rates and fares go up to a level where the people who must use them cannot afford to do so.
What we need is a rail passenger service of a frequency and quality that will attract people out of automobiles and from short and medium haul plane runs. Those passenger services must be integrated, not only among the railroads but with other modes of travel such as bus and air. This scheme would allow people to buy a package of transportation with fast schedules at a reasonable cost.
I could not believe my eyes when I saw the proposal put forth by VIA Rail. To take one rail trip from Montreal to Regina one of the alternatives was to sit in the railway station in Winnipeg for nearly nine hours to make a connection to another train. That is really no way to improve railway passenger systems, and it will not entice people to get out of their cars and on to the train.
VIA Rail is being started off with a count against it. I believe the minister has already advised VIA Rail that they-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted speaking time has expired. He may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the House. Does he have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Vegre-ville has done, I too will not abuse the kindness of the House in the few extra minutes that I have been granted.
As I was saying, the minister, his department, and the government have told VIA Rail that they will be unable to operate a rail passenger system across this country to the

extent that they proposed. When the transportation committee heard the president of VIA Rail a number of months ago, he made a presentation to us that had us all delighted. We all complimented him and, indeed, we embellished upon it and promised him the support of the committee. Since then, however, there has been a steady erosion and reduction in the plans that VIA Rail has in mind. I would not blame the president, Mr. Roberts, if he resigned in protest tomorrow. In fact I would be willing to applaud him because it may be the kind of hit on the head that the government needs.
If VIA Rail is going to provide the attractive, efficient, safe, comfortable, and fast alternative in travel to the public it was meant to, it is going to require not only re-equipping but extra trains. There is no reason why we cannot be implementing, over the next two or three years, 125-mile an hour passenger trains on runs over 400, 500 and 600 miles in western Canada. It should already be in place between Quebec City and Windsor and it is not. There have been improvements in the Turbo, but it can be improved more and should be, if it is to operate at higher speeds. In a couple of years we should be looking at speeds of 150 miles an hour on the trackage we now have, provided there is some improvement in our signal systems and some curves straightened out on the roadbed. Generally, the trackage is capable now of taking trains at those speeds.
If we are going to reduce automobile travel and put an end to the nonsense of short-haul, commercial aircraft runs, in which money is wasted in the form of energy costs incurred in the use of airports which are in excess of what the public costs would be for high-speed, intercity rail passenger service, and down the road one or two years from now, if we are unfortunate enough to have a Liberal government, it may say, "Well, we tried VIA Rail and passenger business did not go up, so we are going to cancel some more". It is a self-fulfilling wish. If there is no incentive and no attraction for people to ride on the passenger train, then it can be reduced some more. That is the way the minister is setting it up. That is the way this government wants it, which is a tragedy as it does not serve the national interest as well as we think it should.
There are many other ways, Mr. Speaker, of making our transportation system in the area of moving people more efficient. There should be effort directed toward improving the use of ticketing, reservations, and downtown passenger terminals, which all modes of transportation use. The minister is perfectly aware of what we are trying to have implemented in Regina, and I hope we succeed. We hope to have in one terminal the bus service, rail service, the airport ticket office, airport limousines and transit stops all of which would orginate and terminate there. There would be ample taxi stands and private parking.
It is nonsense to have the Air Canada ticket office in the very prestigious Toronto-Dominion Bank building in Regina where there are only two parking places, and they are two-minute zones. The facility is cramped, and neither the public nor the employees like it, but there it sits. Yet, we have the railway station, most of which is unused, centrally located, with lots of parking. This is where Air Canada should be told
April 25, 1978

to put their downtown ticket office, but instead they want to continue with that elitist attitude of having it in an expensive new bank building, which does not properly serve the people of that city. This is also the case in many other areas of Canada, and I only use Regina as an example. This is another area of deficiency, and I am certain that the bus companies and airlines would be willing to co-operate because it would reduce their costs and eliminate a lot of duplication.
The electrification of railway lines is another area into which we should be moving. I hope to get the figures soon, but I would guess that if you were to electrify the railway lines, the main and secondary lines between Thunder Bay and Rocky Mountain, the amount of diesel fuel saved would be equal to what our farmers in the west use to put in their crops. This would be a sensible innovation, and we have the capacity to produce the electricity for it. The cost of electrification would be approximately $100,000 per mile according to figures I can get from engineers. That is where the profit is-it profits the whole nation and improves our use of energy through a more efficient way to move trains, yet we are not doing anything about it.
We believe this kind of program for a 25,000 volt overhead electrification system on the main lines should be launched immediately, particularly on the prairies and through the mountains to the Pacific coast. That kind of imagination is required for the rebuilding and enlarging of our transportation systems. The present piecemeal, haphazard way of doing it- the continuous effort to make profitability and competition the priorities in transportation-these things are self defeating. They got us into the mess in the first place, yet the government and the Conservative party cling to the nineteenth century concepts in transportation that most other countries, socialist and capitalist, discarded a long time ago. This is the kind of fundamental change required in transportation in this country, but we are not getting it.
Many people thought the election promises made in 1974 by the Prime Minister would move us in that direction, but most of those promises have not been kept and, indeed, in some cases the opposite was done. It was a betrayal, and if the minister thinks the public will trust similar promises in the coming campaign he is just fooling himself. He will not fool Canadians.
Unless and until we have a government with the political will to make this fundamental change in transportation policy, and a more efficient organization, we will make no headway. We need buses that stop at every little town and take people 50 or 100 miles, trains that do not stop so often but travel at 125 miles an hour on 500 mile trips-if that is downtown to downtown it is almost equivalent to flying time. The train from downtown Ottawa to downtown Montreal takes less time than the flight, yet we have this nonsense of three or four engine jets wasting thousands of gallons of fuel on a flight of 120 miles. That is just stupid. The government seems to have no will to do anything about it, however, and I suspect a Con-
Adjournment Motion
servative government would leave everything to competition and profitability.
This party would make a change. I believe we can provide transportation for people and goods while making the most efficient use of all modes, gaining the confidence of the workers on all modes, and providing a service on a shared pay basis. People will be willing to share the cost with their fellow Canadians-to share the cost of things like statutory rates for grain and grain products and for other primary and natural products from the prairies, the far north, or the Atlantic region. We all share those costs; that is called confederation. It puts an end to alienation and strengthens national unity.
The transportation policies of past years have contributed to the alienation not only of Quebec but of other regions of Canada. Surely this fundamental change must occur in transportation, because it is an essential part of a renewed and lasting confederation. It is an essential tool.
The gentlemen in power in the 1870's and the 1880's had more foresight than governments of recent years. They regarded transportation as a tool of national policy. At least they looked at it in that way in principle. If the Minister of Transport implements that kind of policy, he will have made, and will be applauded for, a real contribution to national unity and a stronger confederation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)- Public Service-Liability for costs of court action; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Finance-Application of capital gains tax; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-External Affairs-Canadian participation in UN discussions on disarmament.

April 25, 1978
Transportation



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Transport has consistently failed to manage Canadian transportation policy in an efficient and effective manner and implement the promises of the 1974 election campaign, and the House calls upon the government to take positive action:
(a)	to abandon the user pay concept and develop overall transportation objectives which will enhance national harmony, reduce regional disparities and promote balanced economic growth;
(b)	to develop mechanisms which will encourage the federal government in consultation with all provincial governments to set national and regional transportation priorities;
(c)	to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Transport Commission to ensure that the regional diversity of the country is taken into consideration in all decisions of the Commission; and
(d)	to implement the major recommendations of the Hall Commission Report on Grain Handling and Transportation in the West.
And of the amendment thereto (Mr. Benjamin):
That the motion be amended by changing the period at the end thereof to a semi-colon, and by adding thereafter an additional paragraph:
"(e) to reject the Prairie Rail Action Committee recommendations to close down the Liberty to Dilke and Eston to Lacadena rail lines, and to bring forward legislation to set up the Prairie Rail Authority".
Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think it is apparent from the speeches of the lead spokesmen for the Conservative party and the New Democratic Party how much progress has been made in the field of transportation in the last several years.
The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) mentioned that my predecessor said we would be coming forward with a comprehensive statement in regard to transport, and he asked about that. I presume he has forgotten what has been a charter document, issued in June, 1975, and the basis in philosophy and analysis of many of the solutions we have since been applying to problems of transportation. In a few short years, what my predecessor described as a mess in transportation has been put right.
Further evidence is contained in the speeches of hon. members who preceded me. In saying what they would do about transportation they supported in almost every case the positive things we have done. When the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) calls for an integrated, intermodal transfer system, with common usage terminals, he is quoting one of our policy documents. When he says he wants the Crow rate retained he knows that I have made it very clear that any change in regard to that would have to reflect western interests and western analyses of the problems that may be created between grain and beef, and nothing else.
He says he wants to look at electrification. I presume he has forgotten that, just as the Hall commission was completing its report and recommending studies on electrification, we were
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
already producing studies on electrification and that experimental work on it is in progress at the present time.
The hon. member for Vegreville has put his party's views in regard to the field of transportation. I presume he is unveiling his platform. He wants a permanent method of consultation with provincial governments. He has forgotten that we have set up with each region of the country a permanent form of consultation and it is exactly what those regions want, because it recognizes in most cases the problems to be faced are regionally analysed in a superior way. In addition, ministers of transport can meet whenever they want to. He says he wants the Canadian Transport Commission's role defined. The bill he talked out in the last session-he joined in filibustering-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I never even spoke on it.


Otto Emil Lang: He also said that he wanted a western branch of the Canadian Transport Commission, enunciating what apparently is a platform policy he has taken from an announcement I made several months ago. That was our view as to what should be done in relation to the Hall commission recommendation that a prairie rail authority had exactly that kind of function and that kind of authority. We announced that was our intention and we hope to proceed in that way in the near future.
The hon. member for Vegreville wants consultation. Any organization significantly involved in transportation with federal jurisdiction involvement would agree that full consultation about changes we want to make or propose to make has been the order of the day these past several years. In many cases, as in the case of landing fees affecting light aircraft, we responded, and changed the form of the charge being made to meet the wishes of the people, who were, in that way, consulted. That puts the lie to the hon. member's suggestion that our view of consultation is to do what we intended to do originally.
The hon. member for Vegreville did refer to certain proposals that we had which we have not been able to carry out in full. He referred particularly to the urban transportation assistance policy where, instead of the exact program we had intended in the 1974 campaign, we produced an urban transportation assistance program worth $230 million over a five-year period. This includes a significant amount of $100 million of new money.
I recommend to the hon. member that he look at the nature of the program as it portrays our approach to transportation problems with the provinces and municipalities in this area where theirs is the prime responsibility. Under the urban transportation assistance policy we have set up, there is a great deal of flexibility for the provincial interest involved, speaking on behalf of its various municipalities to see its view expressed in terms of direct concrete results. In other words the federal government, in this case, has made available a specific amount of money for each province. It is basically saying that the provincial priorities in the broad field of urban transportation assistance are the ones that will determine how that money is
April 25, 1978

used. This is an important step in eliminating red tape and the complexity in our assistance to municipalities and provinces.
We have produced, and it is on the order paper, a ports act to revise and completely put into a new framework the ports policy of this country. It is a ports policy which has been generally welcomed across the country, particularly by those who are most involved in ports. It is designed in keeping with our policy and our principles to give as much local autonomy as possible to vital port commissions for each of our great and important ports throughout the country. That would be our intention as soon as we can find the legislative time to go forward with that important piece of legislation. It is there, and it solves an important problem in regard to organization of our ports.
The fact of the legislation being there and not having been dealt with has not stopped us from moving ahead rapidly with major port improvements in Canada. Announcements, sod turnings, and opening of port facilities in Halifax, Saint John, Montreal, Quebec City, Vancouver and Prince Rupert, to name the principal east and west coast ports of Canada, have shown that these improvements have been carried out. These improvements, which total many millions of dollars, are extremely important.
We have moved forward on the issue of freight rates. This is something which a Conservative government only tackled by setting up a Royal commission. This Royal commission recommended certain formulae and an approach to rates that was basically free and competitive rather than controlled. This has not worked. We now intend to put this right by introducing controls on long and short-haul rates so that the short-haul rate cannot exceed the long-haul rate. We intend to put maximum rates in place. These are not just to apply to those who are technically captive shippers but to those who are charged too much in any case and in every case.
When this measure in the form of Bill C-33 was before this House it was clear that the Conservative opposition at least intended to take a long time over it, and we were not able to invest adequate time to see its passage. They made that stand clear to us in private conversation as well as their conduct in the House. I think it is particularly sad that western members were once again stopping an important matter of interest-


An hon. Member:: What is his name?


Otto Emil Lang: -and vital interest to the west, just as they did in the case of stabilization-forcing us to take many more years to accomplish what we need to accomplish for the west.
That will come better after the next election if, as I expect, we will have more western members on this side of the House.


An hon. Member:: No; we will be over there.


Steve Eugene Paproski: We will be there and you will be here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Transportation


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the opposition likes to excite concern about the practical, sensible, financial approach to transportation-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: User-pay.


Otto Emil Lang: -that in many cases we try to apply. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) says user-pay.
It is a phrase they like to use to mislead people.
We do not think it is right that those who ride on a bus should pay their whole way while those who fly or go by rail or go by automobile get subsidy support for their way of moving. In areas where we can support these various forms of passenger travel it is better if we leave the system even in terms of the way taxpayers' dollars are used, so that the person choosing a transportation system chooses it according to his own view of how he weighs the value of the privacy of his automobile, the economy of the bus, the additional comfort of the train, or the speed at the great cost of air travel.
What we should not do is abuse the taxpayer by using taxpayers' dollars in one way or another to induce a person to travel in a way he would not travel if he were making the choice on his own. That is what a sensible financing policy in regard to transportation means.
What it has meant in regard to our airport policy is that increasingly we do consult the airlines, and the spokesmen who have to market the service, about what is needed in regard to airport services. We find that when they know they will be accountable for the amounts that are spent, they suddenly become more practical minded in regard to the demands they make concerning facilities which should be put in place.
As long as it was simply the taxpayer paying for an airport facility there was not the same regard as there is now under the new policy. This will be demonstrated step by step, not by airports which were built while the old policy was in place, but those which are being built now. It will explain why we are not moving forward with major changes and rebuilding at the Ottawa airport. We have no present intention to do that on the basis of current indications. Instead we have found a modest way of making improvements which are desirable and sensible but at really very low cost. That is the kind of change which happens when one applies a principle of sense and responsibility to the financing of airport construction-


An hon. Member:: What about Mirabel?


Otto Emil Lang: An hon. member has referred to Mirabel. Mirabel was built before the introduction of this policy. Even at that it is an airport which will prove to be extremely useful, as will the Calgary airport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: We have seen in the last couple of years in regard to two of our great transportation Crown corporations a complete turn-around of a past practice of inefficiency. Instead there has been a move toward effective provision of service. Both Canadian National and Air Canada have report-
4850

April 25, 1978
Transportation
ed profits in 1977. Payments of dividends on investments made by Canadians will begin. This is a reversal of the trend as was so often the case in the past when efficiency and good service were unimportant.
We do not intend to look over the shoulder of good management in those corporations, under pressure from spokesmen in this House on the opposition side who will want this or that done in terms of management, as though we should be running those corporations on a day to day basis. We continue to resist that, and produce instead a document in which good and effective service can be provided by Canadian National and Air Canada more and more, in full and complete balance, competitive with other companies in the same or other modes of transportation.
Hon. members have seen what has happened in our policy with regard to rail passenger service. We have announced an intention to give rail passenger service in this country a fair and full trial. To do so, we have made it possible, through our direct purchase and a purchase by VIA Rail, to acquire ten new train sets of the light, rapid, comfortable kind, which will be made in Canada and put in service in Canada to attract more and more passengers to the rail mode throughout this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The ten sets will allow us to have that improved service not only between the most populous cities in the country, but on the transcontinental service from ocean to ocean. Under the new management, which is putting together a new form of marketing and a unified ticketing system, we want a rededication to attract passengers back to the rail mode, not with heavy subsidies allowing rail to ride on the back of the bus system, but more and more in a way to attract passengers out of automobiles into public transportation. We believe this is possible and sensible in our revision of service.
Hon. members referred to the movement of freight by rail. The hon. member for Vegreville asked what we are doing in that regard. The railways are ordinarily expected to make the major move with regard to the provision of adequate capacity as movements are projected and foreseen. The railways have been doing a fairly competent job of that. To assist them to assure they would do the job, in each of the last two budgets there have been significant changes and improvements in the capital cost allowance for the railways so that their cash flow might be improved. They responded with plans to expand more rapidly their capacity where they foresaw that freight coming about.
The big exception of the railway's capability to do what is needed for freight has been in the area of grain. There, as the Snavely commission has identified, the railways receive very little for grain movement compared to the cost of moving it. The Hall commission stated there is a call upon the government to do additional things in the way of financing to ensure that the railways have the funds, notwithstanding the con-
[Mr. Lang.l
tinued existence of the longstanding statutory Crow rate on grain.
The government foresaw that before the Hall Commission recommendation. In our 1975 policy statement we made clear that where it is a matter of policy to maintain rates at a level below cost, the government should be willing to identify that policy and its cost, and pay the amount of money to the transportation system expected to bear the burden. Therefore, it would not have to pass the costs of that transportation system on to other people or, indeed, be inadequately provided for.
We responded to that spirit of need of an additional infusion of cash with the provision of 8,000 hopper cars for the movement of grain, at a cost of $255 million. Two western spokesmen speaking on transportation in the House today omitted to mention that very important investment, which was the first real important move toward improving our grain handling system in the way of capital and investment in some 40 years. I remind hon. members, with some dismay, that that includes a period of six years when the Diefenbaker government was in power. That western Prime Minister did not take any steps toward improving that grain handling and transportation system, except setting up one royal commission on transportation as a whole. We set up the Hall commission and the Snavely commission, and have been dedicating ourselves toward implementing their reports. In this moment of fiscal restraint we do not have the ability to move at once to pay to the railways what the Hall commission recommended, the whole of the difference between the Crow rate and what it costs to move grain. That recommendation was consistent with our 1975 policy statement.
What we did was immediate and of fundamental importance. The most important thing was to see that the railways went ahead with investment in those grain lines on the prairies which had been neglected. Within a matter of a few short weeks of the Hall commission report coming down, we transferred to the basic rail network the additional 1,813 miles which the Hall commission identified for that purpose, and we committed the first $100 million for the rail rehabilitation program in the prairie region. That is significant.
As a western member I am particularly pleased that, at a convention here in Ottawa in February, a resolution sponsored by the prairie provinces, under the leadership of Saskatchewan, was passed by that great Liberal convention of people assembled from all over the country.
Within a few short weeks that resolution, which recommended the allocation of $600 million for a further eight-year completion of the upgrading program, had been adopted as government policy. We were able to announce that in Regina at a cabinet meeting held there in March.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: After years and years of neglect, years and years of nothing having been done with regard to the grain handling system, we not only had the 8,000 hopper cars, but the commitment of the full amount of money required to put the
April 25, 1978

basic rail network, all of the branch lines which will be progressively transferred into it, into first class shape, at least for the carrying of the fully loaded aluminum hopper cars, if not in every case the steel ones. That is extremely important.
We also did the engineering almost immediately on the connections of one line to the other, as recommended by the Hall commission. We found those connections are in each case feasible. In several cases, we will be proceeding with them. One particular one in Vegreville is already completed.
The western CTC which the Hall commission recommended is something we will be proceeding with in the next session of parliament. We knew we could not in this session deal with the whole of the issue of the prairie rail authority to which the Hall commission referred. Therefore, we set up its equivalent in the Prairie Rail Action Committee. It is equivalent in so far as the important powers are concerned, which is to identify those pieces of track within the doubtful category where the Hall commission had not identified their future, and where the committee could recommend the permanence of those pieces of track which they think should be permanent.
We have had some of those recommendations. They have given us certainty where uncertainty, as was left by the commission report, would not have sufficed. That is why when setting up the Prairie Rail Action Committee and moving toward resolving these questions, we put our proposals and our action before 30 or more groups representing prairie farmers and prairie municipalities. We have had overwhelming endorsement of what we are doing. Certainty is what was wanted, certainty, and the rebuilding of lines identified as permanent. That is what we have been doing.
I remind hon. members, particularly the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, that we have in the Prairie Rail Action Committee recommendations a certain number of rail lines which that committee recommends be transferred to the permanent network. In several of those cases we have acted to move to transfer those lines and put them in our rebuilding programs. We have also moved to begin negotiations on the connections and the interchange of rail lines between CN and CP which was envisaged in the Hall commission report.
I want to remind the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, who moved the amendment, that when he speaks of Prairie Rail Action Committee recommendations in regard to the section from Liberty to Dilke, from Eston to Lacadena, these are recommendations only, and would first have to be considered by the Canadian Transport Commission before they could be acted upon, and if, as I propose, we set up a western arm of the Canadian Transport Commission they will be considered and acted upon there, no doubt with further hearings so that the communities concerned can be heard. What we have done on the positive side is something he chooses to ignore.
We have accepted the recommendation to go ahead with the permanence of the line from Watrous to Liberty, the permanence of the line from Wartime to Kyle, and included those
Transportation
lines in the basic network and in the program for rebuilding so that they will not just be lines of steel on a map or on the prairies without the substance to carry cars, but be in solide, first class shape. That, I think, is something the hon. member should recognize at this point in time, rather than leave great concern in the minds of people in the area about what is being done.
The Hall commission recommended action with respect to Churchill and Prince Rupert, and in both cases we have been taking that action. Last week I announced programs of $5 million and more for Churchill in connection with the installation of lighting, dredging, and improvement of facilities at the port and elevator, and the rehabilitation progam, to which I referred earlier, including $1.6 million for additional sidings at Herchmer on the way to Churchill. It is the very thing which is required in order to increase capacity for the carriage of grain to that port.
In the case of Prince Rupert, as hon. members know, we have announced a proposal to spend $28 million on that port to improve grain facilities and to provide additional facilities. A further $11 million or more is to be spent on the improvement of existing elevators so that more grain can be handled there and, of fundamental importance, an investment of $16.5 million is contemplated at Ridley Island in order to prepare the way for private investment by the grain trade, perhaps, I am happy to say, with the co-operation of others. I foresee this happening in a very large way.
We recognize the challenges. We recognize the challenge of continuing to increase our freight capacity through the mountains, for instance, and we have responded with the budget changes to which I have referred, thus allowing some additional double-tracking of rail so that increased capacity will be there. We are responding in that way because we foresee, with what I believe to be realistic optimism, not only the record of grain exports which we have already assured for this year but growth by about 200 million bushels over that amount in the several years to come. That is extremely important news for the prairies and, indeed, for all of Canada.
With the expansion at Prince Rupert we will have additional capacity because, in the opinion of those expert in selling our grain, the Canadian Wheat Board particularly, the bulk of the growth in our exports will be shipped through the west coast ports. We are therefore taking action. We are not simply standing by to see what may happen and see what is needed.
I could go on and on about other subjects. I could refer to air travel which, with our initiative, has moved forward with charter flights and charter competitive fares, initiatives which have led to airlines in this country not just Air Canada but all of them, becoming more efficient. It will result in their having a higher level of seat occupancy for the good of the passengers. I referred to Air Canada's profits, Mr. Speaker. It is significant that this profit reflected directly an improved efficiency of operation. The fare increases which occurred in the period can be shown to reflect only actual increases in the cost of base operations and that profit, instead of loss, has come from the fact that with the same kind of basic operation, and perhaps
80038 - 1 iVi

April 25, 1978
Transportation
even fewer flight operations, Air Canada has been carrying more passengers more passenger miles and is thereby becoming more effective and more efficient and is now able to offer lower fares, as well as showing a profit for the Canadian people.
It is the same with Canadian National. The profit is made by improved efficiency, by doing more things with fewer hands, it is true, and fewer inputs of investment, but still making a profit while carrying more freight more ton miles than in previous years when it showed losses.
The direction in which we are going gives one a sense of flavour of the important changes which have been made in transportation in the last several years and explains why it is that the opposition spokesmen from whom we have heard could only point to the direction in which we are going and say they agree that that is the way to go; their program and platform for the future will, in each case, follow programs and platforms which we have already adopted or implemented, or are well on the way toward implementing. That is why it is possible to say, Mr. Speaker, that transportation in this country is, every day, in better shape. The mess of old is behind us and we look to a brighter future in the air, on rail, on the roads, and in the water. Transportation in this country is in better shape every day, and will be continuing to get better as long as we can put these policies into play.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to entertain a question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, there are two problems. First, the minister would have to accept a question and, second, his time has expired so he would need unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister mentioned the railway rehabilitation program and referred specifically to the link at Vegreville. It is obvious he must know something about this and he may know that the link was built by CPR. Canadian National are going to provide the service but they refuse to put an engine on the track because of deficiencies in its construction. We, therefore, have a situation where CP has discontinued the service, CN refuses to put even an empty locomotive over that piece of track, the elevators have to rely on trucks to remove the grain, and there seems to be no mechanism in place to see to it that the line is put into condition to accommodate the traffic. As he is familiar with these conditions, perhaps the minister would be prepared to outline what mechanism is in place to ensure that the conflict is reconciled?


Otto Emil Lang: I think the hon. member has misstated the situation. There are complex discussions going on between Canadian National and Canadian Pacific about the appropriate relationships when there is a transfer of some rail sections from one company to the other. There will be larger transfers in cases such as the Gravelbourg line which is to be transferred
[Mr. Lang.l
from CN to CP, and the line at Watrous which is to be transferred in the other direction. In due course we shall be refereeing these matters. But at the moment there is no operating certificate for the connection at Vegreville and that has to be applied for. We shall ask the Canadian Transport Commission to look at that in an urgent way so that we can proceed. I have asked both railways to make arrangements in this regard, and I expect them to come up with a formula for dealing with these transfers. If not, we shall have to deal with them in another way.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy that the motion moved by the Progressive Conservative Party concerns our Canadian transportation policy and blames the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) for having failed consistently, and I quote:
... to manage Canadian transportation policy in an efficient and effective manner and implement the promises of the 1974 election compaign, and the House calls upon the government to take positive action:
(a) to abandon the user pay concept and develop over-all transportation
objectives which will enhance national harmony, reduce regional disparities
and promote balanced economic growth;
Of course, I shall not have the time in the few minutes allotted to me to talk about our three major transportation modes. I shall therefore speak only about the Canadian National and VIA Rail in the province of Quebec, as I am convinced that hon. members from other provinces can plead their own case easily. Mr. Speaker, in April 1977 we learned that the Canadian National had finally made its first profits in 20 years for the operating year 1976. In its annual report, the Canadian National said that it was optimistic about the future profitability of its business. When the CN management talk about profitability, I always hope they make the distinction between the transport of goods and the transport of passengers. The same report states that the profits of $11.8 million compared with the deficit of $16.4 million in 1975 are attributable to the vitality brought about by re-organizing the company in six operational divisions. It should perhaps be added that more vigorous marketing and the impact of the technological advances of recent years also contributed to this surplus.
We must now look to the future. We must analyse carefully what the future holds since the CN notes that manpower and equipment expenditures will continue to cause problems for some time. The solution suggested by the CN to solve future problems would be to restrict expenditures and boost productivity by increasing rates if need be and maintaining the user pay concept. It is not on this point that we disagree, Mr. Speaker.
We of the Social Credit Party of Canada have always told the government-and we believe this more than ever-that the major cause of deficit is the continuing increase in interest
April 25, 1978

costs. Then, there is the multiplication of positions at the senior executive level and in all the bureaucratic sectors which are not profitable for the CN. The major cause of the CN deficit is the millions of dollars the company must pay each year for interest on the old accumulated debt and which would not exist if we had a logical financial system. The second cause is personnel that I consider unprofitable for the CN: to many employees behind desks and too few along the tracks to ensure adequate and permanent maintenance of the lines. In the past there were four linemen and one foreman for each eight or ten miles of track. Today two linemen cover 25 or 30 miles of track with three foremen, verificators, inspectors, whatever you want to call them. No wonder then we have so many derailments, which are very costly to the government and are due to a lack of maintenance personnel not to mention the fact that the trains are too long for the capacity of the tracks.
Regarding this subject, I wish to remind the House of the motion moved on November 28, 1974 by the member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) calling for a royal inquiry commission on national railways safety. This inquiry has still to come and we still witness a doubling in size of the bureaucratic supervisory staff. Let us add to that the overcentralization taking place in Montreal for rolling stock maintenance. I have already mentioned that to the House and nothing has changed since because management keep having their coffee breaks in the comfort of their offices while the army of inspectors drive around in cars; they no longer dare ride in trains and, besides, all their expenses are paid for.
I can believe the report when it says that wages will continue to be an element of the over-all deficit, Mr. Speaker. There are too many senior officials who do not really earn their fat salaries, too few maintenance employees who can barely make ends meet. That is the real tragedy of the CN.
So long as we fail to eradicate the evil at its root, we cannot expect to get cost efficient transportation. How come, I ask you, the CP keeps on showing enormous profits while the CN has recorded nothing but deficits over the past twenty years? Is it due to the competence of the former and the incompetence of the latter? I do not think so, Mr. Speaker. The blame for all that rests squarely on our transportation policy which is solely geared to the cost-efficiency factor first; we are trying to achieve that by excessively inflating the higher echelons of that organization to a point where we actually lose track of its very foundation. In other words, the CN is a clear case of overplanning in the skies while forgetting the fact that the CN is still running down on earth. Could it be also that there is a conflict of interest within the CN management? I am seriously asking myself this question when I notice that some CN managers are also shareholders of or even belong to the CP board of directors.
Mr. Speaker, when someone's interest is outside his home, there are many chances he will neglect his own family by providing certain little advantages to his associates on the
Transportation
outside. How come the CP retains the best roads while enjoying the same financial benefits as the CN which has to serve locations where the CP refuses to go because they are not profitable? The whole population is seriously wondering about it. Most of the important producers of paper, lumber and other commodities such as grains are now complaining about a shortage of railways cars.
Mr. Speaker, for too long the Canadian National has invested billions of dollars in hotel construction, forgetting completely to renew and improve its rolling stock. Today we suffer from the disastrous effects of such an attitude. If the western provinces are complaining, I urge them to visit the province of Quebec where we are 20 years behind.
I think I have said enough about freight trains. I wish now to add a few comments on passenger transportation and more specifically on our new company called VIA Rail. I take this opportunity to salute the first president of VIA Rail, Mr. John Roberts, whom I had the pleasure to meet. I wish to tell him that we from the province of Quebec are expecting much from that new company under his direction and more specifically my area of Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean where I have been fighting in the last 15 years to obtain better passenger service.
Mr. Speaker, in recent years we have witnessed the closing of railway stations, public disenchantment caused by an unacceptable service to the extent that we were wondering if those responsible at the time had not sworn to abolish our only rail service between Montreal, Dolbeau and Chicoutimi. They even proposed an impossible day schedule that would be a disincentive to customers because of the late arrival time in Montreal. On February 28, 1977, I proposed a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 on that matter that read as follows:
Whereas 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.
-in the night-
Whereas at that late hour all connections with other trains is impossible.
Whereas 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; 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: That the Minister of Transport exert immediately the required pressures with the CN president and Mr. Jean-Marie Beaulieu, 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.
On April 4, 1977, I received the reply of the CN which reads as follows, and I quote:
You must have received a letter from Mr. Levasseur, advising you-
I shall spare you the opening paragraph of the letter in which I am thanked for the two letters I sent, one dated February 25, the other March 1.

April 25, 1978
Transportation
You must have received a letter from Mr. Levasseur advising you that we have decided to keep the night train in service. Besides, on Friday, I sent a press release to the newspapers saying among other things: "The Montreal-Chicoutimi and Quebec-Senneterre-Cochrane night trains will be kept in service in both directions after April 24, contrary to what had been previously announced. The decision to substitute day trains for them has therefore been suspended pending further notice, and the present schedule will apply except for a few minor details".
Mr. Speaker, I refer to this specific case. I would have some twenty others because I have a very thick file on this question but I will spare the House because time does not allow me to read more.
I would like to read an article published in the newspaper La Presse of Montreal of June 2, 1977. It is about VIA Rail integration with other modes of transport. I quote:
While trying to revive in the mind of the public the use of the train as a mode of mass transport, VIA Rail Canada does not intend to work in an ivory tower. On the contrary, it wants to combine its services with other modes of passenger transport in use in this country.
That is the essence of a speech made by Mr. John Roberts ... in March 1977. The basic objective of VIA Rail, Mr. Roberts said, will be to provide high quality service suited to the real needs of Canadians. The tariff structure will have to help make it attractive while ensuring its viability from an economic standpoint.
Mr. Roberts recognizes that railway transportation has been clearly neglected and said that for about a quarter of a century, 95 per cent of federal expenditures for human transportation have gone to aviation and the road infrastructure. But, he says, the mistake of neglecting railway transportation has been recognized, and VIA Rail is precisely one of the means to correct it.
However, any attempt by VIA Rail to develop without taking into consideration the other modes of transport would serve to give official recognition to the fact that what Mr. Roberts calls comprehensive national planning has been neglected. Hence VIA Rail's desire to combine with other passenger services.
Talking about that planning, Mr. Speaker, when in today's motion, the government is being asked to take action to clarify the mandate, paragraph (c) of the motion says about that planning: to clarify the mandate of the Canadian Transport Commission to ensure that the regional diversity of the country is taken into consideration in all decisions of the commission. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the CTC from now on will play its true role. I think that in the final analysis it has already started to play its true role based on the invitation they sent us recently. I would like to quote that invitation which reads as follows:
Find attached to this letter an order of the Railway Transport Committee of the Canadian Transport Commission advising you that public hearings will be held on dates and places yet to be determined concerning trains No. 170, 171, 172, etc., between Quebec City (Sainte-Foy) and Chicoutimi; Montreal and Chicoutimi; Chambord and Dolbeau; and Quebec City (Limoilou) and Rivierc-a-Pierre...
The commission thus informs you in advance so you will have more time to decide whether you will be making representations and to prepare and submit those representations if you feel that you are a person, corporation or public body interested or likely to be affected.
While reading this, I cannot help wondering if this notice has indeed been sent to all Quebec municipalities, as I had suggested to the department, and to all Quebec towns, chambers of commerce and social organizations to advise them that

such a survey would be carried out, because for many years now we have been urging the CN to consult the public. I think this is the first time we receive such an invitation, and I should like to mention here that the commission should send similar invitations to all public organizations involved which must use the railroads.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that the time I have is coming to an end, and I still have something to say about transportation in the province of Quebec. I limited my remarks to my own region, because I had something to say on behalf of my region, but I suggest there remains a lot to be said about the shortcomings of the passenger service throughout the province, in Abitibi as well as in the Gaspe area. I think that the consultations which the Canadian Transport Commission intends to hold will prove useful throughout the province, and we expect a lot from them.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin my remarks by stating to the House that I want to speak on the entire question of the grain industry and the movement of agricultural products out of western Canada, as well as on some of the things which have taken place under the aegis of the present government.
While listening to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) this afternoon, one thing Canadians must remember is that the present government has been in power since the early 1960's. The government has to accept the blame for what has transpired during that particular time. It cannot wash its hands of any past problems, and just look to the future. The government cannot indicate that it is sorry things are the way they are, and not provide any real solutions.
We must look at what has transpired since the 1974 election and the promises which were made at that time. We will draw the conclusion that very little has happened in terms of over-all transportation in western Canada. Some studies have been conducted, and a few recommendations have been implemented in connection with those studies. I give the government and the minister their dues, but very little concrete results have transpired.
Over the years the government has regulated rates in a fashion which has inhibited economic growth in the prairies, certainly from the point of view of processing and secondary manufacturing. It has allowed the entire rail system in western Canada to deteriorate to the point where it is struggling to keep up with exports at the present time. As a result of this deterioration and mismanagement, which has squandered millions of tax dollars, the government finally was forced into doing something. On April 19, 1975, the Minister of Transport announced the formation of the Hall commission to look at the entire situation of grain transportation in western Canada.
The Hall report was tabled in the House of Commons in May 1977. It contains some 92 major recommendations, ranging in scope from branch line abandonment, freight rates, to port facilities. It is a very comprehensive and carefully thought
April 25, 1978

out report, designed basically to bring back some sanity to the system, and to attempt to implement the principles that form the basis of the original Crow rate agreement, which is adhered to in western Canada at the present time.
Nearly one year after the publication of this report, the government's response virtually has been to ignore most of the recommendations and the provisions in it. Of the 92 recommendations by Mr. Justice Hall, the government has acted fully on only seven. Another three have been implemented partially, and 24 others have prompted statements to the effect that they wil be studied further. Better than two-thirds of those recommendations have never been acknowledged by the government. Neither the minister nor his senior staff have undertaken to meet with Mr. Justice Hall to discuss his very, very important report. In fact, it is one of the most important reports to ever come out of western Canada.
The minister has so far refused to act upon one of the most important recommendations in the Hall report. I am referring to the recommendation which dealt with the freight rate structure and the principles upon which it is based. I should like to refer to page 534 of the Hall report, where Mr. Justice Hall is reported as saying the following:
The production and processing of agricultural products should take place in the regions of this country which have a natural geographical advantage for such activities. Freight rates and other transport related policies should not destroy nor hinder these natural advantages.
It continues:
The flour milling industry in Canada be permitted to enjoy the natural geographic advantage of locating in western Canada.
Virtually this recommendation is repeated word for word later in the report dealing with the rapeseed crushing industry, the livestock processing industry, and the malting industry. Each of these industries would be encouraged to locate in the west to be near the producers of their basic raw materials, if the government's transportation policies effectively did not bar them from being cost effective. In many cases it is the inequities of the freight rate structure which prevent these industries from providing the prairies with needed jobs and the foundation for a healthy economy.
In the area of livestock, one example came to a head in 1976. In that year Alberta effectively lost one of its most thriving industries, hog production. There were many reasons for this loss which left over 8,000 hog farms idle in Alberta, but one of those reasons is surprisingly simple but nevertheless tragic. It is cheaper to ship 800 pounds of feed grain to eastern Canada on which to raise a pig to shipping weight, than it is to ship the 150 pounds of pork which the pig produces. At the present time, Alberta imports a substantial amount of pork products from the United States, and ships pig feed to eastern Canada. Nowhere else in the world is there a country which grows its feed in one region and raises its livestock in another.
Similar situations exist in other sectors which were mentioned by Mr. Justice Hall. As a result of stop-off charges and discriminatory interest and storage charges, it is cheaper to ship wheat east to be milled and import the flour, than it is to produce the flour in the prairies. Similarly, these problems
Transportation
exist in respect of the malting industry. I should like to quote from the report once again, which reads as follows:
Freight rates on malting barley continue on the statutory basis, and apply to both the malting barley and barley malt.
I emphasize that because one is raw material and the other is processed product. One of the clearest examples of the inequities in the government's transportation policy, if such a policy exists in any recognizable form, can be provided by referring to the case of the rapeseed industry. If ever there was an industry which enjoyed a locational advantage, it should be oilseed production. But that is not the case, in spite of the fact this crop is not really grown outside the prairies.
As recently as 1974 the Rapeseed Association of Canada was looking to the future with bright expectations. However, the rapeseed crushing industry in the prairies was not able to develop as fully as it might, because, once again, it was cheaper to ship the raw material to eastern and foreign markets than it was to ship the finished product, in spite of the substantial reduction in volume. By 1976 producers and processors alike were expressing serious concern about the future of the oilseed crushing industry in the prairies, and the origins of the problem can be traced simply to the fact that the Crow rate applied to the bulk shipment of rapeseed and not to the finished oil product. This fact makes it more economic to export seed than oil or meal, but at the same time thousands of jobs that belong in western Canada are being filled instead by workers in Japanese crushing plants. The federal government has stepped in with an interim subsidy program, but it is not good enough.
A recently published study of the effects of the Crow rate structure on the rapeseed industry by a group of economists in Saskatchewan concluded that the low Crowsnest rate and a high Japanese import tariff were holding back the rapeseed processing industry in western Canada. As partial relief in this area, however, the government would be well advised to take heed of Justice Hall's recommendation at page 536 of his report, namely, that the federal department of transportation and communications devote more effort to export market development for rapeseed meal and oil.
Nevertheless, at least one half of the problem is directly associated with the freight rate inequities between processed oil and meal and the unprocessed seed. The ideal situation would be an extension of the Crow rate to cover processed oil and meal combined with an elimination of the Japanese tariff. Hopefully the tariff question will be settled at the current round of GATT negotiations.
However, the study concluded, using 1974 figures, that if the tariff were maintained and only the Crow rate extended to cover oil and meal, the advantages :o producers, processors and westerners in general would have been substantial in 1974. Rapessed oil consumers would have paid approximately $1.3 million more for the product. To offset that, crusher earnings would have risen an extra $907,000; grower earnings would have increased by some $3 million; the rapessed meal consum-

April 25, 1978
Transportation
er would have paid nearly $900,000 less; and our foreign exchange earnings would have have risen by a dramatic $3.6 million. This represents a clear benefit of some $7 million but, more importantly, it provides support for the development of an industry natural to the prairie provinces-one that would provide needed jobs and contribute to the evolution of a stable western economy, which in turn would go a long way towards overcoming western dissatisfaction and what is commonly known as western alienation.
The Hall report dealt with a broad range of specifics and general problems relating to grain handling and transportation in the west. It demonstrated two overriding facts. The first is that the grain handling system has deteriorated immensely as a result of this government's misguided attempts at policy formulation. The second relates in many ways to the first, and putting it simply, this sorry excuse for a management team has not been able to devise a national transportation policy which allows for the development of an industrial base and a market system which would promote the processing of agricultural products in the west.
On this side of the House we have continually asserted the need for a rational transportation policy which would support and encourage regional development priorities. We have continually argued that since transportation is one of the most heavily subsidized industries in our economy, the Canadian people are entitled to a meaningful return on their substantial tax dollar investment. That return should be in the form of new and expanded industries which are based on the particular geographical, social and cultural advantages of our various regions.
Our transportation system should be a tool which will help us to build a stronger, healthier and more united Canada. Neither government regulations nor administration of our transportation system should result in road blocks which are placed in the way of progress, but this is exactly what is happening time and time again when one looks at western Canada. The government has allowed the grain transportation system to deteriorate to a point where it threatens the very livelihood of the prairie grain producer, and when it threatens that group it threatens the foundation of the prairie society and, in fact, has a certain spin-off effect on the entire nation.
This government's failure to act in any comprehensive or meaningful way with regard to the over-all transportation system in the west has produced chaos which has significantly retarded growth in the prairies and even in those areas which enjoy a natural advantage. We are at the point at the present time-certainly all of the blame cannot be laid on the transportation system, but it has a great deal to do with it-where we are going to be owing over $12 million in demurrage charges that will ultimately be paid by the farmers in western Canada. The demurrage is there because the grain cannot be moved to the Vancouver port in time to load the particular boats that are waiting.
With the exception of the expansion at Prince Rupert, not one of the seven fully implemented proposals involved any significant expenditures, although some reorganization is
[Mr. Murta.l
implied. The minister has done a good job of undermining the original effectiveness of these proposals. Instead of the prairie rail authority recommended by Justice Hall, for example, we have the Prairie Rail Action Committee, which is a watered down version of the Prairie Rail Authority, and is not what we on this side of the House would have liked to have had. The minister has not moved to implement Justice Hall's recommendation that the railways be compensated for the cost of moving grain by rail. As a result, the responsibility for maintenance and upgrading of those lines already in the network and those to be added still rests with the government through its branch line subsidy.
Shortly after the release of the Hall report, one of the minister's frequent press releases stated that he intended to encourage branch line rehabilitation with an initial "firm commitment of $200 million." This was less than one half of the $450 million recommended by Justice Hall in his report. To compound the confusion, it was not long before the minister had cut the $200 million in half, leaving $100 million earmarked for 1978. During the cabinet's recent roadshow to western Canada, the minister announced that $75 million would be made available for branch line improvement in 1979. So the amounts of money are certainly dropping, and this still does not add up to the minister's firm commitment of some $200 million. In fact, it represents a decrease from that recommended by Justice Hall.
More significantly, the branch line subsidy just is not working. The railroads are receiving too much of the taxpayers' dollars without having to account for the way in which those dollars are spent. The railroads really have the best of both worlds-subsidies plus grants to be spent as they wish. But not one cent of branch line subsidy in recent years has been spent on upgrading branch lines in western Canada.
We on this side believe, with Mr. Justice Hall, that the railroads must be compensated for the difference between the cost of transporting grain and the statutory rates. But then they must be responsible for retaining and upgrading the prairie rail network without further subsidy from Canadian taxpayers.
There is much more I could say about the inequities which have existed over the years and which still exist. They predominate in the minds of many westerners who seek a natural advantage in terms not only of growing the product, which they do so well, but also the processing of that product and shipping it to other parts of North America and the world.
The government must realize that secondary manufacturing is needed very badly in western Canada. Without it we will have alienation and frustration. Proper transportation policies would be a way to alleviate this very troublesome aspect of life in western Canada.


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to note that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) agrees that the present branch line subsidy program
April 25, 1978

that has been in effect for a number of years by virtue of the National Transportation Act passed in 1967 has not really worked. The railroads have taken the money and put it into general operating revenue, but they have not applied it to upgrading the various lines for which the funds were paid. That is one of the reasons for the government's policy-to make sure that a work program in connection with the rehabilitation spending is applied to specific lines. It is for that purpose alone that federal funds go to the railroads. That is one point on which we can agree with the hon. member.
I am sure the hon. member for Lisgar knows very well that the problems he alluded to in his remarks regarding the pork industry in Alberta, the beef industry in western Canada, flour milling, meat packing, rapeseed crushing and other related processing industry problems, are not solely the result of transportation policy or lack of it. Things are a great deal more complex than that. Since we have an 1897 rate that has not been adjusted for the last few years for the raw product, while the other rates have been allowed to change and adapt to the rate of inflation, it is obvious that there will be problems. As usual, my hon. friend opposite did not offer any concrete solutions.
This government shares his concern but I think we have made real progress in implementing the thrust of the Hall Commission report on these and other major issues of importance to western Canada.
The motion before us seeks to keep alive a number of the myths that the opposition continue to propagate in regard to transportation policy. My hon. friend opposite, who is my neighbouring member in the province of Alberta as well as opposition critic and whom I consider to be an excellent member, very knowledgeable about transportation, said some things today that no doubt were due to the over-zealous writing of his caucus research staff. He spoke of the lack of effort by the government in this part of the country. Mr. Speaker, he knows full well that this government has made more progress in the last three or four years than any government in the history of the country in addressing some of the very real problems of Canadian transportation policy.
Dozens of examples can be cited to demonstrate the efforts of the government and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) in that respect. There are the selective freight subsidies paid on commodities moving in and out of the maritimes. These have been worked out with people in the maritimes and have evolved as a result of policies brought forward three or four years ago. Committees of transport ministers exist in the maritimes, western Canada, Quebec and Ontario. The hon. member said he was in favour of approaching these problems on a regional basis. That is what the present federal and provincial committees do-they recognize regional differences. Support is given to ferry services on the east coast and the west coast; air facilities have been improved and expanded; we have developed not only a fully consultative mechanism but a new ports policy, and new container terminals are operating, are under way or have been announced in practically every part of
Transportation
the country. Improvements have been made and issues addressed.
The question of passenger rail service was raised in this House yesterday and again today in this debate. Highway agreements have been developed and are in operation across the country. There are two or three in western Canada. There is the highway strengthening program for the prairie provinces with over $20 million paid to the province of Saskatchewan, more than that to Alberta and a similar amount to Manitoba. The money is given by the federal government at the request of and with the co-operation of the provinces to upgrade the standard of highways so that load limits can be raised and made uniform from British Columbia to Ontario. This will allow highway transportation to develop with greater uniformity across the country.
Another agreement which is of particular interest to me and other members from western Canada is the western northlands agreement. I am sure that hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) will be familiar with that in general. An agreement has been signed with each of the three western provinces. An interim agreement has been completed with Saskatchewan for an expenditure of $35.6 million for transportation, roads and community access roads in northern Saskatchewan. There is a similar program in Alberta and a larger, more comprehensive program in a long term agreement with Manitoba. These are specific and concrete examples of programs designed to meet regional needs in this country which have been enunciated by members of parliament, provincial spokesmen and other interested groups.
There has been a real need to develop transportation networks and links into isolated communities in Saskatchewan. There was a contribution of $9 million odd dollars in federal funds to Highway No. 2 from Montreal Lake to Lake La Ronge, $2.3 million for Highway No. 155 from Green Lake to Beauval, and $5 million for Highway No. 135 in the Creighton area. These communities have existed in the north for a long time, are out of the main stream, and have been brought in by these programs. The community access road to Stanley Mission, the oldest community in Saskatchewan, received $1.7 million. A community access road was constructed there last year for the first time in its history. Similar programs have been operated throughout a dozen communities across Saskatchewan, including even airstrips.
Toward the end of the remarks made by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Vegreville, he elaborated to some extent on the platform of the Progressive Conservative opposition. As usual that party is anxious to implement the Hall report, being very careful to be non-specific about that, not to spell out what they are going to do and when.


An hon. Member:: You will hear about it.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Secondly, they are anxious to make use of transportation as a tool in rectifying or remedying regional disparities in this country. This is exactly what this govern-
4858

April 25, 1978
Transportation
ment has been doing, and it has been succeeding to a much greater degree than has ever been the case before.
If I heard my hon. friend correctly, his party would modify the CTC to establish a western arm, as the minister has already announced. My hon. friend was good enough to enlarge on that by saying that he would like a maritimes arm as well. That is a good concept and he will have no argument from the government in that respect. But, again it is policy which has been announced by this government and by the present Minister of Transport.
The opposition are talking about a huge infusion of funds that will be required. As one listened to the hon. member for Lisgar, particularly it appears it will be a very large infusion. I believe fiscal policy was also mentioned. I am not sure if my hon. friend was here, I think he was, but in the last budget a new policy was introduced providing for a faster write-off of railroad equipment. This is designed to encourage railroad rehabilitation and an updating program which this government has already embarked upon.


An hon. Member:: Five to ten years too late.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: After nine years of study by the Progressive Conservative commission of years ago, that still has to be their record in transportation. That is all we can compare it to. We have nothing more than that rusty old record of that royal commission dealing with transportation from the last Conservative government of this country. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians both from the east and the west will be looking at that record of theirs as opposed to the record of this government in the field of transportation in the various areas that have been dealt with.
I had to smile at a point made by my hon. friend. The Conservatives wish to generate an attitude of trust and confidence. That has to be a first. That is the one I could certainly endorse. In my short time here, and elsewhere in public life, I have seen the Conservatives excel at generating an attitude of mistrust across this country, whether it concerns transportation or any other issue. I was pleased to hear my hon. friend from Vegreville say that they wished to generate an attitude of trust and confidence. I am sure he would want to see that happen; he has the opportunity to begin now.
He could have begun sooner to implement and generate trust and confidence from one end of this country to the other. That certainly has not been demonstrated in transportation policy, grain policy, fiscal policy, tax policy or any other subject or field one might examine, if one listened to the remarks made inside and outside of this House over the last couple of months. So that is a very welcome change.
I think it is worth noting for the record the achievements of this government with respect to implementing the Hall commission report. I would remind my hon. friend opposite that it was this government, the Department of Transport and the present minister, when he was minister in charge of the grains group and the Canadian Wheat Board, which established the Hall commission to look at and deal with the whole complex question of improvements in the grain handling system of

western Canada. That commission did an excellent job throughout western Canada and elsewhere in looking at and assessing the problems and making recommendations. The commission did a great deal to allay the fears and concerns which have been there, and genuinely so, for many years.
What did the government do upon receiving the Hall commission report? Within 11 days-and this has to be something of a record for any government, be it a municipal government, provincial government or otherwise-an order in council had been passed which added 1,813 miles of prairie rail lines. This addition was recommended by the Hall commission to the basic rail network. It increased the total to some 14,000 miles, which was about three-quarters of all prairie rail trackage. In other words, there was no more fear or apprehension about abandonment, of elevators being closed or lines closed, over three-quarters of the prairie network. That was accomplished within 11 days. That certainly has to be the main thrust of that report.
Another 2,344 miles that were suggested should be transferred to the jurisdiction of a prairie rail authority were protected from abandonment until January 1, 1979. Again that portion of the rail lines examined by the Hall commission and sort of left in limbo was set over until such time as it could be assessed, looked at and categorized one way or the other into a permanent network or abandoned.
The question of prairie branch line rehabilitation has been alluded to by both of the hon. members opposite and by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) as being something which is still a long way off. There is evidence that work has proceeded on a number of rail lines right now in the prairie area and money has been budgeted. The work program is lined up.
Perhaps it might be worth putting on the record of the House of Commons some of the projects that are either under way or scheduled for this particular year. They are: Swan River to Sturgis; Delisle to Beechy; Delisle to Dunblane; Dunblane to Elrose; Glidden to Alsask. I have about four or five pages of these projects covering every part of the three prairie provinces. Vegreville, Alberta, is mentioned; the hon. member referred to problems there. There is another line going out of Vegreville that is scheduled for revamping or new ties. There is another one out of Lloydminster into Alberta which is scheduled for new ties this year. Both the lines from Kerrobert to Rosetown and Lloydminster to Wilkie involve new ties and renovations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member still has three minutes left of his allotted time. I suggest that we do not see the clock for that three minutes. We could allow the hon. member that time and then give the floor to the next speaker and call it six o'clock. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few brief comments in conclusion. The NDP spokesman today, along with other representatives of his party, will have to devise a new
April 25, 1978

version of a transportation policy for western Canada. For the last good number of years their sole policy in transportation has revolved around the fears and apprehensions of massive rail abandonments across the prairies. The implementation of the Hall commission report and the study itself has put the rest those old fears that have been developed and fanned by harangues from many an NDP spokesman, both federal and provincial, over the years.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre in this debate today resorted to a good ploy from his own point of view; he expressed concern for the line in his own area. There are some lines where there has been and will be abandonment. Above all, there are many lines, many communities over the prairie provinces today, by far the majority of the total geography affected by rail lines, where that uncertainty has been cleared away. There is no longer any uncertainty. That has been the most positive achievement of the Hall commission in my opinion and, indeed, of this government in dealing with that particular question, plus the major commitment to rebuild, upgrade and renovate the entire branch line network.
That is a major beginning and a major part of any transportation improvements in the entire grain handling network, to go along with the various other things that I am sure other hon. members will be referring to in this debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Carleton-Char-lotte (Mr. McCain).


Mr. McCain:: Thank you for your recognition, Mr. Speaker. May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being after six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At 6.03 p.m. the House took recess. [DOT]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) as he outlined the progress, so-called, in the west in the field of transportation. He had the courage, or lack of it, to venture into the Atlantic provinces and tell us how good they had been to him. But, Mr. Speaker, he never rode the rails from Port aux Basques to St. John's, Newfoundland. He never got on the ferry from Cape Breton to Newfoundland. He is not aware that there was a time when the government regulated transportation in such a way that it was possible to ship steel from Sydney pretty well across Canada and make money at it; that there was a time when we could ship a number of products from the maritimes to central
Transportation
Canada. That was the good old time. Nowadays freight rates are so high that we have been obliged to seek other markets.
There is no need to review the position of the steel company on Cape Breton Island to find out how it is doing under this government, because that is done on a regular basis in the House. Among the reasons which have led to the affairs of this company being in very serious shape, along with others, is the level of rates which have been imposed. Contrary to the intention when confederation was entered into, rates have been imposed which have precluded the maritime provinces from the Canadian market.
The hon. member spoke at some length about the moneys the central government had provided to the provinces. But he did not tell the whole story, and unless people read other contributions to this debate they will be seriously misled. What the hon. member did not say was that every time the minister held a lollipop out to the provinces what he said to them, in effect, was: "You can have it if you put another one with it, but if you don't have another lollipop you won't get this one".
One might, for instance, review the $100 million or the $130 million-I was not quite clear as to the amount when he had done garbling it out-which he proposed to give to the Atlantic provinces toward the rationalization of transport services. But when the provinces began to deal with the minister they found the terms were extremely expensive. They found that he would not give the Atlantic provinces anything unless they matched it.
In the field of transportation, and particularly as it relates to highways, on which most of this money will be spent, the Government of Canada was in the habit of offering to provinces in eastern Canada and in certain cases in western Canada a 90-10 federal-provincial program or an 80-20 federal-provincial program; but when the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) started to deal it out, he dealt it out to the provinces on a 50-50 basis, and he said, "If you have another lollipop to go with this one, we will give you the one we have, but under our terms and conditions".
This means that by the time a province buys a right-of-way to build certain highway connections which are necessary, under this program the province will spend $60 for every $40 spent by the federal government. I submit that if this Santa Claus pulled off his mask, Jekyll and Hyde would be revealed. The minister did not tell us that the railroad on Prince Edward Island has got to such a state that it is doubtful if five years from now there will be trains moving on it. I am not aware of any grant-and I am sure the minister did not miss any- which is going to be given to P.E.I. to recondition that rail service.
The minister sounded as if he was going through a batch of Liberal promises to local constituents. He sounded as if he was trying to save his own conscience, sweeten the disposition of those scattered across the prairies and other parts of Canada and cajole them into voting for his party. However, when you start describing a situation in which you are putting in new
80038-18)4

April 25, 1978
Transportation
ties, you are talking about railroad maintenance, and that goes on every month of every year under every government. The minister certainly got down to the nit-picking level when he started to brag about that.
The transportation structure as it exists in Canada has been getting some attention as election year approaches. Whether the election is this year or next only one man knows, but as it approaches there are ad hoc solutions to the transportation problems of Canada. Some specific problems have been attacked, but basically it has been an ad hoc program without rationalization. The government has chosen to buy many rail cars for the west. I do not quarrel with that, if that is the right approach, but why has there not been a rationalized program to examine equipment shortages which exist across Canada and not just in the area of Canada in which the minister lives? That is not good enough.
I would like to cite another example to which perhaps the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley should have paid a little attention. The minister has been giving much attention to the new ports policy. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley said that the government is looking at the east and the west and having meetings here and there, but what happened? All at once the east and the west met without the minister, and they found that the minister had gone to the west and said that the eastern provinces agreed with the government's ports policy. When the east got out west and heard what the west had to say, the east found that there were ten provinces in Canada, none of which agreed with the ports package.
They all disagreed with it because they felt that they should have a voice in their own destinies with regard to the ports of Canada. They pleaded with the minister to be represented on the various ports boards which would be appointed, and he said no. The premiers of Atlantic Canada then sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) telling him that they wanted to be represented on the boards which are to be appointed and to have a say in the management of the ports of eastern Canada, but the Prime Minister said no.
The destiny of Canada and of particular provinces rests with the decision-making process with regard to ports policy, and the provinces will have no say. The provinces have had no say about rates and little, if any, about VIA Rail. There has been practically no consultation, but much dictating, with respect to expenditures of so-called joint moneys by Ottawa, and we just do not have a transportation policy. This government has not been capable of analyzing either the needs of shippers or the capabilities of carriers.
Does the government know that when a certain commodity group met with the railroads it found that it took 24 to 28 days for a round trip of less than 500 miles for one car? Why should the Government of Canada buy cars for a railroad which cannot make a round trip of 500 miles in less than 24 to 28 days for one car? Why should the government buy cars to transport any commodity when a railroad as a competitor takes 18 to 20 days for a 400 mile round trip journey for one car? If we buy cars for this outfit, we are buying cars for the outfit to park without knowing the substance of the problem

with which we are trying to deal. We are trying to deal with it from the wrong end. Under this man's policy we do not know what it costs the railroads to carry a car of potatoes from Prince Edward Island, a car of fish from Newfoundland or a car of wood pulp from New Brunswick to any destination.
If the minister has this information, it is secret and will not be divulged. These questions have been asked in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, but we in Atlantic Canada do not know whether we are being charged what the tariff will bear or a fair rate; and neither does anybody else in Canada because the CPR does not have to account, as Bell Canada does. The CNR does not have to account for its charges, as does NB Tel. We pour subsidies into an operation, the mechanics of which we do not understand. That is not a policy. There has to be service, and at the moment we are not getting it.
I remind the House that we have been having problems at the port of Saint John. The only way the ports of Saint John and Halifax can be expanded is if the provinces and municipalities put money into federal works which they will never own. The provinces will never own them, but they have to put money in. I do not want to be misunderstood by any member of this House. I do not begrudge the St. Lawrence Valley the policy that the Government of Canada is exercising, but I want the same policy in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: The government is selecting its political plums and spending its money in an unjust fashion, which brings about disunity in this nation. That is discrimination of the rankest kind. We are talking about the CNR and its recapitalization. We are going to double track through the Rockies, fix tracks across the prairies and examine tracks from Quebec City to Windsor; but when the president was asked what is scheduled for the maritime provinces, he said that everything is great down there and that we do not need anything in Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. He told us there are no plans for that area.
That is the policy which the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley praised to the sky. That is the Santa Claus of the Jekyll and Hyde type. When the minister wears his beard, he is the true Santa; but when he pulls off his beard, we see the other discriminatory personality. That is typical of this government.
There is another matter which must be rationalized. We must operate on a competitive basis. Let me give an example. In the last five years the freight rate on grains from Thunder Bay to Woodstock, Ontario, has gone up 30 per cent. Members opposite from Quebec should be interested in this. I think they were present when it was discussed. To Sherbrooke, Quebec, it has gone 80 per cent, and to Moncton, New Brunswick, it has gone 90 per cent. And this from the minister who claims he has a transportation policy for Canada! When the rates from Thunder Bay to Woodstock, Ontario, are raised up to 30 per cent and from Thunder Bay to Moncton up to 90 per cent, is
April 25, 1978

that a good transportation policy for this country? It is discrimination, lack of judgment and lack of understanding. I suggest it is ignorance of the things that are going on.
In the Atlantic area we have a regional air carrier which served in good faith points which were not economically viable on the advice of and with aid and direction from the government. They were assured that a certain subsidy would be paid them if they would serve these particular points of interest to the Government of Canada, and to all of Canada for that matter. What did they find? Inflation came along, the subsidy remained constant, there was no indexing of it, no increment in it, the company lost money. On top of this there was lack of rationalization again, because in those routes which were then profitable for Eastern Provincial Airways, Air Canada paralleled and inconvenienced them. They did everything they could to take the business away from them.
It is no use improving the tracks in the prairies, it is no use improving the tracks from Quebec to Windsor, and it is no use improving the tracks from Quebec to Saint John, for that matter, if you do not understand the problem. What is wrong with this government's transportation structure is that they do not understand the problem, and I want to tell the House why. You cannot approach a subject as complex, complicated and meaningful to all of Canada as is transportation to this country, by pulling people out of a hat or from the Prime Minister's office to lay down policies for Atlantic Canada, how much subsidies you will give to the prairie provinces, and say that this should be a good plum for this area or that area, and it should make them happy politically so they will vote for you. Whether it is land, sea or air transportation, there must be rationalization.
For example, you cannot have recapitalization of the CNR when it can be established, in spite of evidence which was presented to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, that the trucking companies owned by CNR are getting advantages in the piggyback service which are not extended to their competitors. This can be established, contrary to the evidence which was given. I do not think we should recapitalize that structure until we are guaranteed in an unqualified way that the competitive structures will not be placed in a position of disadvantage because we forgive the debt of $808 million to the CNR.
I have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not believe there is anybody in the House at present who, in spite of the Hall report, the work which the committees have done and the time which the minister and other hon. members have spent, really knows just how a proper transportation program from eastern Canada to western Canada and all the points in between can be put in place. But I can tell you that we are not shipping lumber products out of New Brunswick by Canadian National Railways; we are trucking them from the mills to the U.S. railroad companies, which are taking them to markets in New England and farther down into the states because our rails, which are beside the mills, have a subsidiary just across the
Transportation
border which will take the products to the New England states and to other American points at a price that is lower than the price at the mill, a price that is so much lower that you can truck them to a main point and put it aboard the U.S. railroad.
I said this in the House on another occasion and somebody across the floor yelled that the U.S. railways are subsidized so they can do this. Let me point out that Mr. Bandeen, president of CNR which owns three subsidiaries in the United States, told the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications that he is not aware that any of his subsidiaries are receiving any subsidies whatsoever for the normal service which they provide in the United States. So this shoots down that balloon.
Atlantic Canada wants to know why rates in Atlantic Canada are not competitive with rates in Maine. We want to know why rates to Atlantic Canada have gone up by 90 per cent while they have gone up by only 30 per cent to Woodstock, Ontario. We want to know why, when you take the beard off Santa Claus, you find Jekyll and Hyde. We think we deserve a reasonable break in the ferry service to Newfoundland, for the transportation of potatoes to central Canadian and other markets and for the transportation of potatoes to export markets, for fair competition within the competitive structure in transportation which exists between rail and road, for an open policy, an open rate structure, a known quantity with which we can deal and with which we can come to an understanding. The hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley should take off the blindfold and go back to the veterinary service which he understands so well and about which I know nothing.


Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to follow my colleague the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), who has given us the down side of transport in Atlantic Canada. Possibly I can balance the record on that score for that particular region.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Bring back the Newfie Bullet.


Bill Rompkey: We have new highways and new buses to replace the Newfie Bullet. The Newfie Bullets are on this side.


An hon. Member:: Bunch of duds!


Bill Rompkey: I am quite happy to speak on this motion in one sense, but in another sense it seems to be a waste of debating time because this motion is quite erroneous as it applies to Atlantic Canada. I do not know if it is intended to apply to Atlantic Canada because I notice that towards the end it says:
... to implement the major recommendations of the Hall commission report on grain handling and transportation in the west.
A couple of studies have been carried out in the east also. I do not know if the opposition is aware of them, but they are certainly not mentioned iii the motion. If the opposition is concentrating on the west rather than on the Atlantic area,

April 25, 1978
Transportation
that is understandable because, after reading Charles Lynch's columns and having come back from the west, I know that there is a great need for the opposition parties to pay attention to the west. They certainly cannot take the west for granted and they need to come up with some policies for western Canada.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, keep on listening to Charles Lynch.


Bill Rompkey: I suggest to opposition members that they should start developing some policies for Atlantic Canada also.
I also want to point out what might be a pattern of development for such a policy. The motion states that the government failed to implement the promises of the 1974 election campaign. I invite opposition members to examine the Atlantic Liberal manifesto of the 1974 election campaign. I do not have it with me. Do you know why? I filed it away far back because we in Atlantic Canada know that it has been dealt with.


An hon. Member:: Empty promises.


Bill Rompkey: Eighty per cent to 90 per cent of the commitments made in that Atlantic Liberal manifesto of the 1974 campaign have been dealt with. If hon. members opposite have a copy of it, I invite them to spread it around to their colleagues because the facts speak for themselves.
The second part of the motion refers to the abandonment of the user-pay concept and the development of transportation objectives which will enhance national harmony, reduce regional disparity and promote balanced economic growth. I want to set on the record some of the policies that this government has carried out in Atlantic Canada to achieve those aims and objectives. I will have to read because I cannot remember all the facts and figures. There are a myriad of them, and they are substantial. I want to refer to the government's record in transportation in Atlantic Canada.
Last year the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) announced a $125 million transportation program aimed at improving services and facilities over the next three years. Approximately $100 million will be spent by the federal government to improve highways in the four provinces. Only last week the federal government and the province of Newfoundland announced a formal agreement on a three-year $60 million highway improvement program in that province. We have been scored because it is 50/50 and not 90/10. How many 90/10 agreements can there be?
There is much to be done in Atlantic Canada. I do not think the federal government has been niggardly in its agreements in the past. In addition to the $60 million, which was formalized in Newfoundland last week, I suspect the total is something between $60 million and $70 million of DREE money which has gone into the establishment of trunk roads and major highway building programs in Newfoundland. If that is added together, the total amount is over $100 million in one province

alone, most of which was 90/10. That is a record the government can be proud of.
We have not built all the highways that should be built. I will not be satisfied until there is a highway across Labrador. Last week the Minister of Transport was in Labrador to talk about that very subject. I hope some funds are found in the future to aid the province of Newfoundland in carrying out that project. Is a 90/10 agreement user-pay? It is not. It is the taxpayers all across Canada providing the funds for the federal government to assist provinces which are less able to pay. It is not a user-pay concept. It is the spending of money on transportation in a region which needs it, without regard for the payback on the part of those using the transport system.
In addition to the highway program, there has been new airport construction at a total cost of $21 million. It will provide valuable links to areas at some distance from major New Brunswick and Newfoundland centres.


Mr. Whittaker:: Is that pork-barrelling?


Bill Rompkey: That is looking after transportation needs.


George H. Whittaker: It sounds like pork-barrelling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) listened to all the other speeches. I suggest we listen to his.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: Hon. members opposite do not want to hear the facts. They do not want to hear the truth. They want to preach doom and gloom. This new airport construction will provide for fast and efficient transport of equipment and supplies to valuable resource areas in New Brunswick. In New Brunswick, $6.4 million will be spent over the next three years to complete the development of Charlo airport. A new airport at St. Leonard, on which work was already begun, will be built at a total cost of $3.8 million over the next two years. In addition, funds have been budgeted for the construction of an air strip at Grand Manan, at an estimated cost of $1 million.
Improvements to airports in Newfoundland and Labrador also are part of this program, with a total of $10.8 million allocated for Wabush, which is in my riding. A new air terminal and operations building is being built at Wabush, as well as a maintenance garage, fire hall, aircraft parking ramp, taxiway, air cargo site, parking lot and access road. In 1978 airstrips will be at Nain and Makkovik on the Labrador coast, at a total cost of $1 million for each site. Studies are under way for similar facilities at Marys Harbour and Hopedale. Also there is a master plan for 13 airstrips along the Labrador coast, which will revolutionize transportation in that eastern extremity of Canada. With that airstrip pattern, we will be able to institute a Twin Otter service, or perhaps a Dash-7 service. That will revolutionize transportation in that area.
The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte referred to the good old days when things could be transferred from the east to the west. The government has been studying the Maritime
April 25, 1978

Freight Rates Act and the Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act which cover the Atlantic region and the Gaspe coast. Following consultation with the provincial governments, the government determined that existing subsidy for movements within the region did not provide the maximum possible economic benefit for the region, and in turn agreed a subsidy should be paid on selected regionally produced goods moving on all means of transportation. There will be a subsidy on selected goods manufactured and processed within the Atlantic area. The subsidy will not apply to those goods which come from other parts of Canada to be processed in the east and shipped back out again. The hon. member for Carleton-Char-lotte said that the rates are higher coming from Thunder Bay to New Brunswick. So what? It is a chance for the people in New Brunswick to produce their own goods and to become self-sufficient. I do not see that being a bad thing. We are changing the freight rate pattern and the levels of freight rates in Atlantic Canada in the interests of Atlantic Canada.
This subsidy will be implemented by September 1 on a selected list of commodities worked out by federal and provincial officials. I am convinced the revisions to the blanket 15 per cent subsidy program will have a positive economic effect on the entire region by making goods produced in Atlantic Canada more competitive and by improving competition in various forms of transportation.
Another program which affects all four Atlantic provinces is the urban transportation assistance program. It was designed to tackle a number of transportation problems affecting major cities. Each province would receive an amount for urban transportation projects which require attention. In the Atlantic region, New Brunswick will receive $6.8 million; Nova Scotia, $8.2 million; Newfoundland, $5.6 million; and Prince Edward Island, $1.2 million. As a result of these programs, I hope areas in my constituency, such as Grand Falls and Windsor, are provided with much needed arterial roads for the expansion of industrial parks and housing areas.
The province of Newfoundland has special transportation difficulties. In an attempt to solve them, the government formed a commission of inquiry to assess a wide range of factors affecting present and future transportation needs. I mention that in the beginning, because the Hall commission was referred to and the Sullivan commission was not mentioned. I draw the attention of hon. members opposite to that commission. The commission is charged with studying economic, social and geographic conditions in Newfoundland. It will provide us with an excellent framework through which we can work with the provincial government to achieve the best possible transportation system for that province. In other words, we are rationalizing transportation.
Marine coastal service has been subsidized over the years to the tune of tens of millions of dollars. The same amount of money can be put into transportation, a variety of modes, so that transportation in that province will be rationalized. The Sullivan commission has just about finished its work. Either the minister has a copy of its report in his possession or he will
Transportation
be provided with one soon. It will provide us with a policy line for the future of Newfoundland.
Also the government has been investigating the distribution system for potatoes from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Working with provincial governments, potato producers and distributors, some significant improvements to the distribution system have been made, including revisions to potato freight rates, some improvements to port facilities in several places in Atlantic Canada, and a new operational planning system.
An important segment of the economy of Atlantic Canada centres around the shipbuilding industry. I am sure the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte will be interested in knowing that there are several projects which could mean a significant boost if a shipyard is the successful bidder. The design and construction of a hybrid nuclear gas-turbine polar icebreaker has been estimated at $310 million. If hydro-carbon development in the high Arctic continues, there is little doubt the government will need a polar icebreaker by the early 1980's. We hope that construction can be done in Atlantic Canada. We do not want absolute guarantees, but we do want to compete on a fair basis and we are hoping that that work can be done in a shipyard in Atlantic Canada.
Apart from the government's general programs, it has begun a number of specific improvements to transportation facilities throughout Atlantic Canada that will have a significant effect on both passenger and freight transportation in the area. For example, one project is the building of a new container handling terminal in Fairview Cove off Halifax harbour at a cost to the federal government of $2.1 million. The construction of this facility is already providing additional employment in the area, and following completion in 1980 more than 100 jobs will be created to operate the facility. The significant project in Prince Edward Island is the redevelopment of the Charlottetown airport to include a new terminal building, maintenance garage, fire hall and eventually a new 5,000 foot runway. This project, developed in consultation with provincial and municipal authorities, will cost more than $21 million, and work is expected to begin in the summer of 1978.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bill Rompkey: They do not want to hear the facts, Mr. Speaker. They do not want the record set straight; they only want to preach doom and gloom.
Other improvements at Charlottetown airport include a new maintenance garage, aircraft apron, carpark, access road system and taxiways. Gander airport in Newfoundland will also be receiving a new air control centre, expansion of its air terminal building and improvements to the north runway. The complete project will cost $18 million, and that is in addition to the movement by the federal government of the search and rescue centre to Gander, which is not only providing facilities and protection for our fishermen, but employment for people in Gander.

April 25, 1978
Transportation
Let me go on with the record.


An hon. Member:: It must be election time.


Bill Rompkey: This is not going to do any harm for the election either.
The construction of one shed of the forest products terminal in Saint John, New Brunswick, was completed last year, and an additional shed will be completed shortly at a cost of $3.5 million. This new terminal is a major improvement in the handling of forest products at the port since they were previously handled at a number of diverse harbour facilities. The new specialized terminal ensures more efficient handling of all forest products, a major export of the province.
Although there is no funding involved, a major step towards streamlining the management of east coast ferry and coastal service was taken in December with the establishment of CN Marine, based in Moncton. The new corporation will function as a subsidiary to Canadian National Railways to provide incentives for efficient ferry operation, and help to control costing and deficits in providing these services. The previous method of offsetting operations deficits with federal funding created an ineffective management system and provided no incentives for operating efficiently. This new arrangement in no way diminishes the federal government's constitutional obligations, nor its responsibility for maintaining levels of service for those vital shipping links. We will continue to control rate setting and all major decisions affecting the services.
In addition to that movement of the centre of operation of east coast marine, new ferry services have been instituted in the Atlantic area. In my own riding, for example, they received a $500,000 subsidy last year to provide a new service across the Strait of Belle Isle between Newfoundland and Quebec and southern Labrador. There was an announcement just a week ago on the Sir Robert Bond


An hon. Member:: What have you done for the west coast?


Bill Rompkey: Listen; just pay attention to the facts.


An hon. Member:: What about the ferries in B.C.?


Bill Rompkey: There was a $4 million grant for the conversion of the Sir Robert Bond which links Louisport with Labrador. There has been a new truck carrying ferry inaugurated between Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and New England in addition to the Bluenose on that run.
These are substantial ferry improvements in eastern Canada and just some of the examples that this government has been concerned with, illustrating the fact that it has been doing something.


An hon. Member:: What did you do on the west coast?


An hon. Member:: What about the unemployment rate?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The rules state that a member should be entitled to speak without interruption. I suggest we listen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: I welcome the interruptions, Mr. Speaker, from across the way because it shows their frame of mind. They do not have any real facts to put on the table, but are simply shouting and bawling to make themselves heard.
The opposition is talking about federal government consultation. Two years ago the Department of Transport created a directive to establish sound lines of communication between the department, provincial governments and industry. With respect to liaison with the provinces, this directive provides an effective channel for consultation and communication and ensures that the provincial point of view on transportation issues is known and understood by Transport Canada policymakers and given an objective and fair hearing. There are mechanisms within the department that we have set up to ensure that the provinces are consulted. Apart from these mechanisms, the Minister of Transport has had adequate consultation with all four Atlantic provinces-


An hon. Member:: Take Newfoundland, for example.


Bill Rompkey: With Newfoundland as well. Before bringing in his policies this minister consulted with his counterparts. The record of this government in Atlantic Canada is clear, and the record of this Minister of Transport is also clear. Members on this side of the House from Atlantic Canada will agree with me that this is a minister that has been responsive and responsible.
When the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte says that policies are made by somebody pulled out of the PMO who has to go to work on transportation in Atlantic Canada, I want to inform him that we have had the Minister of Transport come to an Atlantic caucus. The improvements that have come about have been a result of this caucus. My caucus colleagues from Atlantic Canada will agree that this is one of the best ministers of transport that we have had, and certainly one that is-


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a contribution to this most important debate initiated by my distinguished colleague from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I would like to put into proper perspective some of the things mentioned by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), particularly as they relate to western Canada. One thing that has really concerned and amazed me in this whole debate about transportation policy-particularly with a minister who comes from western Canada-is that when this minister is discussing the Hall commission report, which is so important to the future of western Canada and its buoyancy, I can come to no other conclusion than that he either has not
April 25, 1978

read the report, does not understand it, or cares not to understand it one whit.
I hope to demonstrate today by some of the points that I make that the minister completely misreads the importance of this particular commission report or completely misreads the very important and most germane portions of it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He is trying to head it off.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My colleague from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) says that he is trying to head it off. One can come to no other conclusion except that the minister is in a position where he does not want to embrace the recommendations contained in this report and, in fact, is dragging his feet on some of the very important recommendations mentioned in it.
It has been pointed out on a number of occasions that of the recommendations made in the Hall commission report, there were something in the vicinity of-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Two recommendations.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -six-I am being generous-of these recommendations which have been acted upon, notwithstanding the protestations of the minister. There are five others that have been partially acted upon but no action has been taken on the rest. The minister misunderstands the purport of the Hall commission report. He misunderstands this report which must be taken as a whole. Unless the recommendations are taken as such and implemented as a package, the results that are hoped to be gained from this particular report will not be attained.
It is interesting to see the minister's attitude toward this report. He takes a portion of it and indicates that he considers it the most important. He does not look at the report as a whole. Of the 92 recommendations he decides that number 91, say, is less important than number 90 and so on. In a letter to the Gravelbourg Star in Saskatchewan the minister indicated that he approached the report in that way when he wrote:
Since last May 16 when the Hall commission report was tabled in the House of Commons, the government has taken a swift but methodical approach to its implementation. On May 27 the most important recommendation in the Hall Report was implemented when some 1800 miles of prairie rail line was added to the basic network guaranteed to the year 2000.
The minister regards this report as one that merely deals either with the retention or the abandonment of rail lines in western Canada. That is a narrow approach. In his beneficence he announced, during the course of the debate, a number of very large grants for the improvement of rail lines in western Canada. Just after the report was presented the Western Producer carried the following report:
The elimination of some 2160 miles of branch line railways in Western Canada will save the Canadian taxpayers about $400 million annually, Chief Commissioner Emmett Hall told a May 16 press conference.
Referring to the minister's suggestion that the proposal for additional hopper cars would be a great asset to western Canada, the report went on:
Transportation
Regarding the federal government's proposal to build an additional 2000 grain hopper cars at a cost of $80 million, Mr. Hall said while these may be needed some time in future, they are only "make work" projects for Eastern industries and do not represent one additional dollar of revenue for Western Canada.
That is what Mr. Hall said about the minister's claims that he is paying great amounts of money to western Canada. Through rail line abandonment the government is saving something like S400 million annually, but the minister would suggest that he is giving about $100 million to western Canada for rail line improvement. People in western Canada understand what is happening, Mr. Speaker, and will not be fooled by such financial transactions. It has been pointed out that something like $55 million of that money will be spent in central Canada on rail and other supplies necessary for the improvement of rail lines.
I was somewhat amused during the debate when the minister accused the opposition of filibustering Bill C-33, introduced in his name. I think I should put some facts on the record with respect to that legislation. The minister said it was impossible to get the bill through because of the Conservative party. Mr. Speaker, I checked the record and I find that of seventeen speakers eight and a half were Liberals, two were NDP and six and a half were Conservatives. Hon. members may wonder about the two halves. One of the speakers was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), so I apportioned one half of him to each side. If there was any filibustering I suggest the government should look within their own ranks.
The Minister of Transport said that Bill C-33 was a wonderful piece of legislation and would solve our national transportation problems. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce had other ideas, however, and I think it would be interesting to see what he said about it. Since the minister is not in the House tonight and there is no member present on the government side from western Canada, I shall put this on the record and they can read it tomorrow. I see the parliamentary secretary is here. Indeed, he is always here and does a good job. He stays in the House and listens.
The Minister of Transport thought this bill so important that he had the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) introduce it and read his speech. This was supposed to be an important breakthrough in transportation policy but that is what happened.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, then an ordinary member like the rest of us, chastised the Minister of Transport for not being in the chamber. At page 3530 of Hansard for March 1, 1977 he is reported as follows:
... 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.
The Minister of Transport has accused us of holding up the bill and filibustering, but here is what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said a little later.
I believe that this legislation takes the government from the mess it was in and puts it in another mess.

April 25, 1978
Transportation
What words of commendation for this wonderful legislation that the Minister of Transport says is essential to the future of transportation in Canada!
I could go on and on Mr. Speaker, but I have underlined portions of the speech and would be glad to send it to any member of the government who wants to know what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce thought of Bill C-33. March 1977 was a critical period in his political life; that was when it became crystal clear to him that the time had come to accept a portfolio under the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I want to deal with the Hall commission report because it is so very important to western Canada, although in its ramifications it affects all of Canada. Because the grain handling system in western Canada is being improved, we tend to take it for granted that any assistance given or changes made will fill the pockets of western Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. If we consider the importance of grain exports to the balance of trade and consider the amount of money spent on goods and equipment from other parts of Canada, we realize that the agricultural industry, and the grain industry in particular, must be seen as essential to the future well-being of the country.
The minister seems to think he is moving fast enough on the recommendations of the Hall commission. Although he pays lip service to those recommendations, only five have been implemented and there is ample evidence to suggest that the minister has no interest in the total package. I am sorry to report that the Minister of Transport has not approached Mr. Justice Hall or called him in since his report was presented to discuss the ramifications of it.
What a peculiar situation we are in. The minister said that we are going to go ahead with the report. But what they forgot to do was to ask the person who was the head of this important commission for his advice and interpretation of the recommendations contained in the commission's report. As I say, not once has the government got together with Mr. Justice Hall. Not once has the government sought an explanation or a clarification or asked him for his assistance in bringing forward meaningful implementation of this most important report.
What have the government done? They have set up what they call a Prairie Rail Action Committee. In Saskatoon we know what action committees are all about. It is a political motto used by the Minister of Transport. It is a convenient kind of spin-off between what has been going on politically on one side and what is going on now with this commission. We have some serious reservations with respect to this action committee. In my opinion the creation of this committee is merely another form of stall for the purpose of avoiding the implementation of these worth-while recommendations of the Hall commission. The effect of it will be to put the control of transportation and grain handling, in particular transportation,

back into the hands of the Canadian Transport Commission which is now a central and eastern dominated commission.
I want to briefly go over some of the points which must be taken in the total context as far as the Hall commission report is concerned. It has to be taken as a package. One recommendation cannot be isolated and expected to solve the whole problem. Concerning the grain handling system in western Canada there were something like 5,758 elevators in the prairie region in 1938. In 1976 the number of elevators had been reduced to about 3,964. The Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, one of the largest grain elevator companies in western Canada, say that it is their intention to rationalize the number of elevators down to something like 550. There are presently just over 1,000. If elevators on a line are removed, then there is nothing left to justify retaining a railway in that particular area.
The Hall commission could not get specific information from the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool as to which elevators would be retained and which elevators would not be retained. As a result they recommended the creation of a prairie rail authority. The commission could see that some 2,000 miles of railway would have no grain to carry if these elevators were closed down. Therefore, they directed abandonment of roughly 1,800 miles. This left about 2,343 miles in doubt. The commission indicated that nothing could be done with respect to decisions on these lines until the grain companies had made up their minds regarding these elevators.
In his brief, Mr. Runciman of the United Grain Growers pointed out that decisions made in this connection in 1976 could be wrong in 1986. As I mentioned, the commission recommended a prairie rail authority. It was felt that money should be spent to keep these doubtful lines operational, but that no money should be spent to upgrade them.
I suggest to you, sir, that the government has ignored the recommendations of the commission in setting up this Prairie Rail Action Committee. It has been stated by my colleagues on this side, the hon. member for Vegreville and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), that the concept of a western component of the CTC should be kept alive and should be implemented. Notwithstanding the statements of the government that they would do this at some time, I suggest it is something which should be looked at as an immediate priority. The decisions that will be made by the Prairie Rail Action Committee will be made before decisions are made by grain companies as to which elevators will be abandoned. This, I suggest to you, sir, could result in very high costs to the country.
It is also important to understand in terms of western Canada, central Canada and so on, that central Canada benefits from the grain industry and derives substantial benefits with respect to the price paid for grain, flour and ultimately bread. The commission has pointed out that eastern millers get the benefit of the Crow rate which is so often attacked and which was brought into question by none other than the Minister of Transport on a number of occasions. Wheat is stored along the seaway. With western grain produc-
April 25, 1978

ers-that is, the Canadian Wheat Board-paying, storage charges were originally one-thirtieth of a cent per day and 1 believe it has now been moved up to one-twentieth of a cent per day. This is paid for out of the pockets of the western farmer. There is no question that the Minister of Transport and this government have abandoned the prairie rail authority concept by having named the Prairie Rail Action Committee-


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


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting for a long time for this opposition day on the transportation policy in Canada. I was naive enough to believe that opposition members might suggest some measures and concrete solutions to the admittedly important problems we must face when drawing up a national policy in this very important area of our economy and the life of this country, because that policy has an impact on national unity.
So, Mr. Speaker, I admit that I am very disappointed, after listening to this debate from the start, to have heard for hours on end all about what the government failed to do, that the transportation policy should provide for advisory groups with the provinces, that it should be based or oriented toward a better economic development of Canada, that there should be a western arm, and an eastern arm of the Canadian Transport Commission, when all those points, Mr. Speaker, were made repeatedly by the government, and more particularly in the 1975 transportation policy statement.
I should like, Mr. Speaker, to deal more specifically with the achievements in the area of transportation, particularly in the province of Quebec. During this debate and in previous ones, we did not often have the opportunity to hear from members opposite about what is being done by Transport Canada in Quebec. Every time they deal with transportation issues pertaining to the province, all they can say is that the government is spending too much money in Mirabel, that freight rates in the province of Quebec are too favourable in relation with the rates in the Maritimes, or that the aircraft maintenance facilities in Dorval should be moved to Toronto.
I am aware that our hon. friends opposite are sadly lacking as far as their representation in the province of Quebec is concerned, and that is why I am so glad, Mr. Speaker, to be able to enlighten them a little about the great accomplishments of Transport Canada in that province.
Most hon. members opposite have complained with a lot of energy and concern about the great problems we are facing in the rail passenger service in Canada. Unfortunately all of them have touched very lightly on this great achievement of this government, namely the creation of VIA Rail. And 1 should like to deal briefly about this new Crown corporation which is
Transportation
especially beneficial to the province of Quebec. Everyone knows that historically railways originated in the Montreal area and that Montreal is also the site of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific head offices, therefore it was only logical in my opinion that the headquarters of VIA Rail should be located in Montreal as they have been.
Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that in 1967, under the National Transportation Act, the government had committed itself to pay 80 per cent of passenger service deficits of both railways, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. It became obvious in 1974 that that policy had fallen short of the expected results for there was a SI67 million deficit and the projected deficit for 1980 would have reached $400 million. So in 1977 the government decided to set up a new corporation called VIA Rail and to merge the services of both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways in order to give a boost to that important mode of transportation.
Mr. Speaker, the challenge faced by VIA Rail is to establish an efficient passenger rail transportation system at reasonable cost. They must also aim at a significant reduction of the subsidy and launch an innovative marketing program to regain public trust in this means of transportation. We are convinced that the income will increase in the long term. Of course they are not expected to report profits in the first years of operation, but I am quite confident in the management and in the chairman of VIA Rail who I know are all doing their best so this new service will earn the share of the Canadian market it deserves in the field of transportation.
In order to allay the concern of our friends of the New Democratic Party who often complain that we tried to deprive Canadians of services for the sake of profit, they must be reminded that in the terms of reference of VIA Rail as in the legislation passed last fall on Air Canada-and this also applies to the CN bill we are now examining-in each of those acts there is always a provision allowing the government to decide that, in a given underdeveloped area of the country that is either underpopulated or lacks a good industrial infrastructure, a service can continue to be given through government subsidies whether it be passager trains, air service or freight trains.
Mr. Speaker, as we know also, in order to help VIA Rail, Transport Canada has entrusted a Montreal company, after calling for tenders right across the land, of course, with the care of redecorating passenger cars that will be transferred by the CP to the CN. Those cars will first be used on the lines running in the Quebec City-Windsor corridor and on the continental run and allow passengers to travel by train in greater comfort. The minister has also asked the Montreal company, Bombardier M.L.W., to build ten LRC trains; that new material will include 22 locomotives and 50 cars bought jointly by the federal government and VIA Rail at an approximate cost of $90 million.

April 25, 1978
Transportation
Mr. Speaker, I feel all hon. members must rejoice in the fact that a Montreal company managed to get that contract; when those new trains go into service in 1980, we will prove to the whole world how technologically advanced we are in the field of railway transport, which will surely help us export and sell Quebec and Canadian technology in world markets.
This $90 million project will create 1,500 man-years of employment over a three-year period. Many Canadian companies, including Alcan and Dofasco, are partly responsible for developing this new LRC train and will be the main suppliers of Bombardier M.L.W., which means Mr. Speaker, and this should be emphasized, that the Canadian content as concerns manpower, material and engineering will be 80 per cent for the engines and 96 per cent for the cars.
Still in the railway field, Mr. Speaker, MOT has just purchased 488 cars for moving grain at a cost of $18.5 million from Marine Industries Ltd. of Sorel, and these will be added to the 150 other cars which are now being manufactured at a cost of $6 million under the Prairie branch line rehabilitation program. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I would like to note that while the previous speaker complained about the government's delay in implementing the recommendations of the Hall report, he should remember, as one of my colleagues on this side of the House said earlier, that 11 days after the publication of this report, about 1,800 miles of lines were transferred to the basic railway network of western Canada, and that since then, we have spent $175 million to rehabilitate the lines and that the government is also committed to an eight-year program to rehabilitate all western lines at an approximate cost of $600 million. This is not doing nothing, Mr. Speaker, and I feel that we should not worry but rather keep going in this direction, because I believe that our transportation policy is very useful to all Canadians, both from eastern and western Canada.
Mr. Speaker, after speaking briefly about railways, I should now like to go on to another area, that of the automobile. I am happy to note that the work done at the car testing center in Blainville which has cost us $20 million will soon be completed. The center will provide various tests this summer. It will undertake research and investigations on the defects and the compliance to Canadian standards of the various car models. This center will also make its equipment available to the government, private industry and private research organisations. There is another area, Mr. Speaker, where great progress was made by MOT in 1977 in Quebec, namely shipping. I should like to recall briefly the extensive investments made in Montreal harbour which have already started and the announcement made during a cabinet meeting held in Montreal last December, namely that the government will try to develop Montreal harbour so as to increase considerably the handling of containers which is important for our economy, and to give a new economic impetus to the Montreal area by

creating new jobs there. The National Harbours Board will invest $37.5 million in this project. One of the aspects of the project is the upgrading of the Racine container terminal, at a cost of $26 million, which will be of tremendous benefit to the economy of the Montreal area.
Along the same lines, Mr. Speaker, this terminal will create 80 permanent jobs and 500 man-years of employment in the four years of construction work. The other group of projects concerns the $11.5 million program for the upgrading of grain elevators. This amount does not include the demolition of centres 1 and 2 but it covers the old harbour modernization project and provides for the automation of weighing facilities and for the improvement of both the electrical system and the grain-loading facilities for trucks at elevator No. 3. Other changes will be made under the form of interconnected galleries and so on, at elevators No. 4 and 5. Those extensive works, Mr. Speaker, will enable Montreal harbour to maintain its strategic and competitive position and to continue to serve efficiently the agricultural food industry in Quebec and the Canadian export market.
Mr. Speaker, another harbour where we have tried to improve conditions is obviously the Quebec City harbour where, under a federal project of $42 million to refit the old harbour, an amount of $8 million will be allotted to the reconstruction of piers along the shores of the St. Lawrence, that is piers 21 to 8 and their extension up to the western limit of the federal property. Those works will provide 300 jobs and will accommodate visiting ships as well as freighters at anchor. Also in the Quebec harbour, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Transport has approved an investment of $3 million for the renovation of a grain elevator. That elevator is owned by the National Harbours Board and has been rented to Bunge of Canada Limited since 1967. This company will provide the other $6 million required to carry out this program. Again in the Quebec City area, Mr. Speaker, the National Harbours Board is working in co-operation with l'Administration du port de Quebec on a development plan that would create an industrial harbour zone on the sandbanks of Beauport. Their objectives are the following: minimize the development costs, provide functional and harmoniously integrated development and finally secure the development of management techniques suited to the efficient application of such a plan. The Beauport sandbanks cover approximately 1,065 acres, including 450 mainly from embankments made up from the dredging of the river.
We have also discussed at length, Mr. Speaker, the adverse effects that the move of CP Navigation will have on Quebec harbour. To offset this loss of tonnage, Quebec harbour authorities joined with l'Association des producteurs de bois de sciage and the province of Quebec to carry out an important study of the viability of a forest product terminal in Quebec City. This study will deal with transport, distribution, marketing and organization of that undertaking. The cost of the
April 25, 1978

study, that is some $73,000, will be shared by the three parties involved and we expect the study to be published by late May or early June.
I could give many more examples of investments, such as the $3 million invested in the Chicoutimi dock to make it a tanker dock open to ships carrying oil products for the Saguenay region. I could also refer to a plan for improving the use of Trois-Rivieres harbour, but I could not leave unmentioned the $12.5 million investment at Gros-Cacouna for the establishment of a general cargo harbour. Also, Mr. Speaker, as concerns Sept-Iles, the second most important harbour in Canada, the department will soon publish a long range development plan which will give this harbour the tools necessary for its development. It will therefore be necessary to develop an implementation strategy as soon as possible. The provincial and municipal authorities have already recognized the importance of Sept-Iles harbour and of its development, and are willing to offer us all the support necessary for its achievement.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are some of our achievements in the maritime field in Quebec for 1977. I did not want to go back to 1974 or 1970, for fear of frightening my colleagues opposite. Despite all these investments in 1977, there are others to be made, and the minister himself as well as his officials are conscious of the fact that maritime development is a major asset in the economy of Quebec which is the door to the rest of Canada. As far as other future projects are concerned, and which are under consideration at the moment, I think we must look into regional development, for example the development of a harbour in Pointe-au-Pic, in Charlevoix county, which would complement the harbours in Quebec City and Baie-Comeau which serve a more important purpose.
In the few minutes I have left, Mr. Speaker, I also wish to refer briefly to air transportation. I should mention that in 1975-76, 13,000 people in Quebec were working in air transportation in the private sector or in the public sector. And this excludes employees working for provincial or municipal governments or for local carriers. In addition to that direct effect on employment, the air transportation industry has significant economic fall-outs in distribution and manufacturing throughout Quebec. Suffice to recall the production by Canadair of the Challenger aircraft which is one of the outstanding achievements of modern aviation on international markets. Or again the numerous contracts awarded to the firm Pratt and Whitney to meet the requirements of the Department of National Defence; in its Quebec plant that firm will receive $140 million in Department of National Defence contracts out of a total of $250 million.
In October 1976, the federal government authorized Canadair to build a total of 250 Challenger aircraft which represent, Mr. Speaker, an injection of $1.2 billion into the economy of the province of Quebec. To date, 120 aircraft have been
Transportation
sold which represents an inflow of $600 million. The total number of employment created only by that aircraft is 1,900.
As concerns airport facilities, everybody knows that Montreal has two major airports, Mirabel and Dorval. We are now studying a development plan for Mirabel airport that should be implemented at the beginning of 1980. This plan will include the development of Dorval airport. I shall not mention the many investments in air transportation at Sept-Iles, Mont-Joli and Quebec City, but there is still much to do in that field and within a limited budget, we are still working to find answers to the problems of the people in Magdalen Islands, Gaspe, Bonaventure, Havre-Saint-Pierre and other communities.
So, Mr. Speaker, I insisted on mentioning a few figures and a few accomplishments to make it clear that the motion introduced by hon. members opposite has no ground whatsoever when you compare the unfounded statements it contains with the facts and the achievements of Transport Canada.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of his speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lapointe) said he hoped to hear positive suggestions from this side of the House. From what he said, it is obvious he would not acknowledge a positive suggestion coming from the opposition, because the contributions of opposition members did contain a great many positive proposals in the area of transport. I will do the same, although with some concern I must admit, because this government is well known and famous throughout Canada for their policy which is to borrow ideas from the opposition. Government members just might appropriate the ideas I will submit tonight and convert them into electoral promises.

Because, after all, they were only electoral promises. Some may have noticed how many of the projects contained in that long catalogue recited by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) were cast in the future tense-the government was about to do this or that; it was about to build a road up into Labrador, it was about to do something at Wabush. Why, after ten years, has the government decided so late in the day to put forward this enormous catalogue? Why did it decide to wait until now before bringing these proposals forward? All it was, was a catalogue of goodies, an attempt to get votes.
Indeed, I was afraid, when my hon. friend from Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was referring to certain aspects of the need for reform in prairie transportation policies, that the government would be prompted to issue still more election promises between now and election day. I say, let Canadians beware.

April 25, 1978
Transportation
I do not remember too much Latin, but there is one thing I do remember. I will not say it in Latin, but the English translation is: "I fear the Greeks when they come with gifts in their hands". I would like to update that quotation from Virgil. I think it should read like this, and I put it in the exhortative: "Mistrust the Liberals, especially when they come with gifts on their tongues". With all these misgivings I intend to take a risk and deal with a problem on which an election promise might very well be made. I will just have to take the risk, but once again I go back to that old expression which we see so often, and I will translate that to the occasion and say, "Cave, Canada,"-"beware, Canada". I will come back to that.
There are two problems about which I would like to speak tonight. One of them has to do with a railroad on Vancouver Island which has a long history of being shut down by the Canadian Transport Commission, started up again and shortened, and I think it may very well be lengthened. I suppose it goes back to 1905 when a grant was made to the CPR or to another company to establish a railway between Esquimalt and Nanaimo.
The E and N Railway had been in service in one form or another running from Esquimalt right up to Courtenay, and for some reason there was an interruption. The CPR claimed it would not be able to carry on the service any longer, and it asked if it could be discharged of its responsibility to run that particular service. Hearings were called by the CTC in Victoria. I, for one, made a submission to that hearing on March 8, 1976.
I had a variety of reasons for arguing against the closing of that particular service. My first reason for opposing the CPR petition stemmed from the legal obligation accepted by the CPR when it applied in the first instance to operate the railway, which it was prepared to accept in return for proprietary rights and a substantial grant of land by the Crown amounting to 1.9 million acres. That was what the CPR was granted in return for building and operating the railway. I thought that was a sufficient argument for it to go on operating the railway. It was supplemented, actually, by a rather philosophic argument connected with the relationship between the acceptance of a privilege, that is, the right to make use of the 1.9 million acres, and the performance of a service undertaken as a result of that acceptance.
There was a variety of other reasons which I brought forward, and I submitted them to the Railway Transport Committee. That was on March 8, 1976, and in July, the Railway Transport Committee ordered that the CPR reconstruct two bridges located at certain mileages in accordance with an annexed order, and so on. That was promptly done. The date of that order was July 28, 1976.
Then came the next step in the proceedings. The CPR finished the job. It built the bridges and prepared the railway for operation. Then, having heard from the CPR that in the year 1972 there was a loss attributable to the operations of the passenger train service of the order $176,000, in 1973, $190,-
[Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).l
000 and in 1974, $231,000, the Canadian Transport Commission ordered that, as of January 31, 1978, the CPR should discontinue the operation of the passenger train service, having previously instructed the CPR to build bridges and put the railway back into operating condition.
That, of course, was quite an extraordinary order. Freight was being transported on that line twice a week. It was carried throughout the whole service, but the transport of passengers was to cease. That caused the province of British Columbia to give notice that it was going to appeal that ruling. A letter to that effect was sent on December 27, 1977 to the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission.
I too felt that that was not quite the way things should be, but with a little bit of pressure from the provincial government and letters from a variety of people, including several members of parliament from that part of the country, we managed, on January 20, 1978, to get the CTC to agree that the date should be changed to June 30. We are fast approaching June 30. June 30 may be a very important date, and this is why I have some fear about the conversion of this suggestion into an electoral promise, but there has been more pressure built up suggesting that this railway is required. The Regional District of Greater Victoria, for example, submitted a telegram to the CTC on January 18, 1978 indicating that the railway should continue. I too argued for that.
I was not aware yesterday when I was working in my office that I would be taking part in this debate, but I received a submission from one of my constituents, and last night I dictated a letter which I sent to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), a copy of which was sent to the chairman of the Canadian Transport Commission, arguing that the June 30 date should be erased from the record and that the CPR should be ordered to maintain the service through the summer months until there is opportunity to have another look at this matter. I have this letter in front of me now.
I was puzzled as to why June 30 should be chosen as the date to close the railway. June 30 is just the beginning of the tourist season.


Mr. Symes:: Election.


Donald W. Munro: I do not think it was known back in January when the extension to June 30 was discussed that there might be an election in or around June, but it is beginning to smell a little bit like that now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They still don't know.


Donald W. Munro: That is true.
One of the arguments I advanced then-and I advance it again now-is that the timetable for the running of this particular railway should be more in tune with the needs of the communities up island so that people can come down to Victoria and go back on the same day. People from Victoria who wish to have a day's outing on the railway are able to leave in the morning and come back in the evening. That is not the way it works for people up island. The train leaves from
April 25, 1978

Victoria and comes back to Victoria at night so that people up island have to stay in Victoria overnight and go back the following morning.
As I have said, there is some danger that between now and election day a promise will be made that an order will go out to the Canadian Transport Commission to continue this service at least through the summer months. If that happens, I think that by now the Canadian public will be aware that it is an election promise and will look at it for what it is worth.
One other matter that could well become an election promise-because the Minister of Transport has been reminded of it often enough within the last three or four weeks or months- is the provision of radar at Victoria International Airport. I remember when I raised this question that I spoke of the incident which really prompted the question. It was on January 21, 1977, and I made a note about seeing an aircraft go by the port windows as we made a swift bank to starboard. I looked into the matter and found out what had happened.
There are a few statistics here which I think are worth putting on the record to indicate the place of Victoria International Airport among other airports across Canada. I will give the rank of these airports according to the traffic using the airport. I will be happy to see this information on the record.
In fifth rank is Vancouver International Airport. In 1977 there were 235,825 flights in and out of the airport. Edmonton is eighth in rank with 231,060. Calgary is ninth, with 208,170. Victoria is thirteenth with 178,707. Then I will mention two important and interesting ones. Number 16 is Dorval International with 159,361, as compared with Victoria which has 178,707 flights. I have a funny feeling in the pit of my stomach that there is radar at the Dorval International Airport but there is not at Victoria. I would like to bet that there is not a member in the House who could guess where Mirabel ranks on the list of airports used. It is forty-seventh, with 50,447 flights a year.


An hon. Member:: That is not so.


Donald W. Munro: Mais si. This is the report here.


An hon. Member:: Which year?


Donald W. Munro: Gander is fifty-fifth in rank with 36,686 flights. I have a reason for making this selection. I suspect that Edmonton and Calgary both have radar. I do not know for sure, but I suspect they do because I am always being told that the traffic coming into Victoria is being directed from Vancouver. What about Dorval and Mirabel? Are hon. members going to suggest that only Dorval or only Mirabel has radar? Mirabel needs it to bring aircraft in from overseas, I agree, but does it control the traffic to Dorval as well?
I would like to mention why I have picked Gander as No. 55 with only 36,686 flights, about 3,000 a month. The old radar
Transportation
that was taken out of Vancouver airport was hurriedly put on a train and shipped out to Gander so that there could not be a movement afoot in Victoria to have it shipped 80 miles across the water and mounted at Victoria International Airport.
The figures I mentioned are impressive and I do not need to repeat them. They will appear in tomorrow's Hansard and they can be checked and rechecked against the statistics put out in the annual report of aircraft movements by Transport Canada. It is simple and straightforward.
I warn everybody that if a promise is made between now and election day that radar will be placed in Victoria International Airport, we will all be grateful but we will know why it is being done.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to say a few words in this special debate on transportation because those of us who live in northern Ontario have suffered from the inadequacy of every national transportation policy that this Liberal government has designed.
I have made speeches in the past outlining the concerns of those of us in the north about the need for a rational transportation policy. I do not have time to go into that again this evening, but I would like to reiterate our concern that if we allow the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) to implement fully his concept of profit oriented and user-pay modes of transport to override the concept of service, then in areas of sparse population, such as northern Ontario and elsewhere in Canada, we will suffer because we just do not have the population or the usage on the various modes of transport to make them always pay their own way. Surely if we are serious about national unity, service at times must come before profit.
We in northern Ontario know what it is to have discriminatory freight rates, how this has inhibited the development of secondary manufacturing in our part of the province and how it has perpetuated the export of resources because it is always cheaper to ship out the nickel, the iron ore or the pulp and paper than to have them processed, developed and manufactured in northern Ontario. Until we solve the transportation freight rate problem, we are not going to solve the problem of unemployment. Only by developing manufacturing industry will we be able to provide jobs for young people living in northern Ontario.
I do not want to go into details on that aspect because I have talked about it in the past. What I would like to focus on is some discriminatory policies of this government as they affect my constituency of Sault Ste. Marie. We have witnessed over the past decade or so, as I have said, discrimination in terms of the freight rate policy on rail, lack of air service and bad highways and roads. But recently, under the present Minister of Transport, we have suffered another blow, in fact two blows, the first being the ending of the passenger rail service between Sault Ste. Marie and Sudbury in the name of economy. This government, which subsidized passenger rail service, decided that it could save some money by ending that subsidy, and therefore the CTC was allowed to let CPR discontinue

April 25, 1978
Transportation
that passenger rail service. Many communities along that route suffered, making the transportation problem even harder. People were forced to rely on buses and other modes of transport, to the detriment of their travel schedules.
That was the first blow that we received only about a year and a half ago. More recently, in fact a couple of weeks ago, the Minister of Transport dealt us another blow by announcing a cut-back in the operation of the ship canal or lock at Sault Ste. Marie. We have only one Canadian lock to bring vessels from Lake Superior to the lower Great Lakes. The rest of the locks are owned by the United States. Our lock was an old one that had not been upgraded or enlarged over the years and was indeed allowed to deteriorate.
The first rumour was that the government was going to close the lock at Sault Ste. Marie by 1982. It was based on the erroneous argument that the lock was no longer commercially viable, that tonnage was being reduced, and therefore, the government could not afford the $1 million annual expenditure to keep the lock open. Representations were made by myself, the union involved, the city council of Sault Ste. Marie and the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). Our arguments were in favour of increasing the usage of the lock by upgrading and indeed building a larger lock. Those arguments fell on deaf ears.
I should like to examine the minister's argument in favour of cutting back the service provided by the lock. He has cut out the night shift, which means the lock no longer operates on a 24-hour basis. The inevitable result of that is a reduction of the tonnage going through that lock. Thus, this time next year the Minister of Transport will be in a position to produce figures indicating that the tonnage is down even more, and that therefore the lock is not commercially viable and must be closed.
When the announcement was first made regarding the closure of that lock, I made immediate representations to the minister as to why I felt the lock should remain open and indeed should be improved. The Minister of Transport sent a letter to me dated February 15, 1978, dealing with the prospect for growth in traffic and whether the lock should remain open. In part the letter reads as follows:
Nevertheless, when I look at projections of traffic through the Canadian-Ameri-can lock system at Sault Ste. Marie, I note that no capacity problems are envisaged until some time after 1995. In these times of financial restraint for the federal government, I am doubtful that there would be much merit in Transport Canada undertaking a cost-benefit analysis of a new super lock, since there would be very few benefits in terms of a more efficient transportation system until after that date.
The minister has erred by not doing a cost-benefit analysis. He has not taken into account some recent developments. That is the reason I appeal to the Minister of Transport to reconsider his argument that he does not foresee any problems concerning growth in the system and the need for building a new and larger lock at Sault Ste. Marie.
The minister has not taken into account some recent figures concerning projected coal shipments from western Canada to
[Mr. Symes.l
Thunder Bay, and then through the St. Lawrence seaway system, in order to fulfil Ontario Hydro contracts. By 1980, 3.9 million tons of coal will be delivered annually to Thunder Bay, and then trans-shipped by water to various points in the Great Lakes. That represents a 12 per cent increase in total Canadian coal production. It means that increased tonnage will go through that lock system, carrying coal to various parts of Canada. In light of that increased tonnage projection, there is a strong argument in favour of that lock's hours of operation not being reduced. The 24 hour operation should be maintained, and indeed the size of the lock should be expanded, or a new one should be built.
This would ensure a Canadian presence and a Canadian option at this important junction in the Great Lakes. Of course, that is important in terms of future bargaining on the seaway, but also it would help our failing shipping industry. New vessels will have to be built to trans-ship the coal. They will be larger vessels. Thus, the expansion of the lock would encourage the Canadian shipbuilding industry to make use of this new movement of goods.
Also I am discouraged that the federal government has not taken into account, aside from the need for a Canadian presence at the lock and the need for a fully operative lock at that point, the fact that this lock provides annually an infusion of $1 million into the local economy of Sault Ste. Marie in terms of wages, repair work and other contracts let in conjunction with the operation of the lock. That is not an insignificant sum, especially considering the repressed state of much of the economy in northern Ontario.
As an alternative, the minister proposes building an historic park in the area and infusing $170,000 a year for the maintenance of that park. That falls far short of the revenues which would be generated locally by maintaining the full operation of the lock. We should not be backed into an "either/or" situation. An historic park in the area is compatible with a full-time commercial operation of the lock. Indeed, it is important for our tourist industry. Some 80,000 visitors are attracted each year to the lock to watch its operations. The Americans attract over one million visitors a year who view the operations of their lock. The reason the Americans are able to attract more people is because larger vessels can be handled by their lock. By upgrading our lock, a shot in the arm would be given to the tourist industry in the area.
Also I am disturbed by the information which the minister has been given by officials in his department concerning the actual tonnage going through the lock. His figures indicate that in 1972, 1,120,570 tons went through the lock; by 1976 it had declined to 564,350 tons. The figures I have obtained from the union involved, which are the figures of the lock itself, indicate that in 1972 the tonnage was 1,523,754; in 1976, 1,288,903; and declining in 1977 to 709,890 tons.
Those figures are very different from the figures of the minister. They do not indicate as dramatic a drop as his figures do. The factor which has not been taken into account, as far as the drop in 1977 is concerned, is the summer-long strike in 1977 of the iron mining industry in Minnesota. Also,
April 25, 1978

the fact that the average water level on that system of the lakes had dropped from 20 feet to 17 feet 10 inches was not taken into account. That prohibited many ships from making use of the facility.
We cannot allow the kind of discrimination practised by this minister to continue. That system is important to Sault Ste. Marie. The workers want to continue working there under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority. I appeal to the minister to reconsider this very regressive decision.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 10 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), that proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is your problem?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the problem I have to raise tonight is not my problem but one of the government's. The government misinterprets the attitude of the people of Canada with respect to the kind of activity and mentality that would lead the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford), in responding to questions by me in this House yesterday and today, to indicate, in the event no appeal is taken with respect to an action commenced by Mr. Larry Stopforth, a former senior official of the Department of Supply and Services, against the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) relating to alleged defamation and libel to his character, an action in which the Supreme Court of Ontario awarded substantial damages in the amount of $10,000, whether or not the award and costs with respect to this libel action is to be paid out of the public purse.
Very briefly, I would like to put the facts and the contentions that I have with respect to this matter before the House to determine whether or not there is any justification whatsoever that the parliamentary secretary can give to this kind of circumstance. Let me start by saying that I do not think that anyone seriously disputes the fact that, in the ordinary course of carrying out one's responsibilities as a member of cabinet, there should be indemnification to ministers of the Crown.
We have a very unusual and different situation before us in this particular case. We have a situation where a minister of the Crown has stood in the House of Commons and blamed a senior official within his department for misinformation and
Adjournment Debate
incompetence; and the innuendo was there very clearly that it was the fault of Mr. Larry Stopforth and literally millions of dollars were put in jeopardy and a great financial loss was suffered by the Government of Canada. We have privilege in the House of Commons, and the minister was not able to be sued for that statement, wrong as it turned out to be according to the judgment of Mr. Justice Lieff. Subsequently, the minister took it upon himself to go outside the House of Commons and repeat, in effect, those statements with respect to Mr. Stopforth's competence, blaming him again for the loss that was sustained by the Government of Canada.
By virtue of this particular action the minister took a positive step outside the scope of his formal duties as Minister of Supply and Services. He said to the world, without the protection afforded to him as a parliamentarian within the House, that this man was the cause of a loss of money by the Government of Canada and that it was really no fault of the minister that it occured. The judgment laid that particular contention to rest. It in fact, exonerated Mr. Stopforth and said there was no basis upon which the minister could make that statement. The minister was therefore found to have libelled and defamed a public servant.
The result of this whole situation is that Mr. Stopforth has suffered serious damage as a result of the actions of the minister. Not only has he suffered the ignominy of being publicly singled out by the Minister of Supply and Services, but he has in effect been demoted within the department and is now in a position of having to go to the courts to collect money for this defamation. The Minister of Justice then stands in the House and informs us that it is the intention of the government, on the basis of precedents, to pay this particular judgment.
In acts of commission or omission by a minister in the ordinary course of carrying out his duties, it is understandable that there be indemnification. However, in this particular case it is going, if we accept the answer of the Minister of Justice, to set the precedent that in all future cases if something goes wrong within a department the whole concept and parliamentary tradition of ministerial responsibility is thrown out of the window.
Now, apparently, the minister can say that someone in his department has given him bad advice, that a certain segment of the public service has given him wrong and incompetent advice. The government will not have to worry about such a statement because the Minister of Justice says that precedents show that a judgment incurred as a result of wrongful accusation will be paid out of the public purse. Imagine the precedent that will set and the relationship that will be developed with the public service. No public servant will feel secure about giving advice in the performance of his duties when he can apparently be singled out with impunity, be subjected to vicious statements by a minister made outside the House, and face a reversal in his career as a result, the public purse, in the

April 25, 1978
Adjournment Debate
final analysis, protecting the minister and paying any damages and court costs.
Even if this were an isolated instance we would have a very strong case for chastising the government for its actions. I would point out, however, that the same minister was involved in the infamous blacklist incident, circulating a list to the cabinet of people in the extra-parliamentary opposition- people who are enemies of the government. It is the same minister who, in effect, blamed his executive assistant in the "Habourgate" matter when a controller from Hamilton came to his office to tell him about the situation. In committee he said, "My executive assistant received the message and did not pass it on to me." He has a record of blaming other people.
This has to stop both in the interests of the public service of this country and in the interests of maintaining the concept and the fine tradition of ministerial responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised in the first instance that the hon. member persists in pushing a question which is entirely premature and hypothetical.
Second, I am rather surprised that one trained in the law, as he is, would expect a defendant in this issue to compromise his legal right to an appeal.
Third, I am somewhat surprised to hear the veiled suggestion that the Supreme Court of Ontario judgment, with all due respect to Mr. Justice Lieff, should bind this House, which has always been the final arbiter and has been looked upon as the final court. Such would conceivably lead to a blurring of the principle of separation of powers and the separation of the judicial and legislative functions in this country.
There are three points which must be understood. The first is that the question of payment of costs or damages is academic pending the decision on appeal. Second, any decision to pay damages cannot be made until the Treasury Board has first approved them. Third, the decision to appeal is one that is mutually arrived at, in this case between the defendant, his counsel and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford).
It is the generally accepted principle that ministers are servants of the Crown and that therefore any damages incurred by them would be paid by the Crown if the act in question arose during the course of their duties.


FINANCE-APPLICATION OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, on April 5 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) to spell out clearly the provisions of the capital gains turn over for farmers and small business. In 1971 this government imposed the capital gains tax and in two subsequent budgets, on March 31 last year and on April 10 this year, they started pulling back on capital gains. They told the Canadian people that they were reducing the tax load, but the fact remains that it was this

government that imposed the capital gains tax in the first place.
The issue has been surrounded by confusion from the beginning. For example, valuation day was back in 1971. It still concerns Canadians as to how a valuation made in 1971 will relate to the amount of capital gains assessed when farms are disposed of. Someone has said that this capital gains tax is the greatest single assault on small pools of capital which were held formerly in the hands of farmers and owners of small businesses.
Many members of parliament lobbied that a change be made in the capital gains provisions whereby a farmer or owner of a small business would have the right to roll over his business or sell it and use that capital to buy another business or farm.
In the March 31 budget of last year we thought that we had won a major victory. The budget of that day states the following:
Taxes are to be deferred on any capital gain that arises from voluntary sales in cases where a farmer or small businessman sells his farm for business, providing the funds received are re-invested in the same type of business.
Members on both sides of the House welcomed that change. They again welcomed the change when corporate farms were included in this last budget. But once more we have been misled by this government. It is not important that members of parliament have been misled, but that the wrong impression has been left with the Canadian taxpayer. What was thought to be the case, namely that a farmer could sell his or her farm and use the proceeds of that farm to roll over and buy a larger unit, in fact now is not the case. The regulation, now hidden in a department of Revenue Canada, is that a farmer, for example, who has a dairy farm and sells it, and who uses the total proceeds to buy a grain farm, is liable to capital gains tax. In other words, it is only if that gentleman sells his dairy farm and buys a larger dairy farm that in fact capital gains tax is deferred.
That was never the impression on March 31 last year. As we talked about this provision in the budget the government never indicated at any point that what was meant, for example, was that a farmer would have to sell his farm, specifically a dairy farm, and could only have a deferment of tax if he bought another dairy farm. If a farmer sold his farm and remained in farming-and I would think a grain farmer is as much a farmer as a dairy farmer-capital gains tax would be deferred. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not to be the case. It is important that farmers and owners of small businesses recognize that this government, having said one thing, is doing another thing through regulations that have not been passed by this House of Commons.
Incidentally I raised a case during my intervention in the budget debate last week concerning an example in my riding. In a letter sent to a gentleman in Alberta dated April 6, 1978 by the Director of Rulings Division of Revenue Canada it says:
April 25, 1978

For example, the replacement of farmland used in a wheat farming business with farmland used in a dairy farming business would not qualify under the new provisions of the Act dealing with property dispositions; consequently, capital gains tax would not be deferred.
I asked the government, if they knew this on March 31 last year, why did they leave the impression that if a farmer sold his farm and stayed in farming he could defer capital gains? Why was it never said to the House, never said to members, but more important, never said to farmers and owners of small business, that in fact they could only have a roll over if they stayed in the same operation?
I guess we now have to interpret that budgetary provision in this way. For example, if a businessman who owns a shoe store sells it and buys a clothing store, he will have to pay capital gains tax. That was never the impression that was left.
I say to the parliamentary secretary that the pool of capital that is in the hands of Canadians, owners of small business and farmers, is being eroded rapidly. This provision was going to change that and bring back some equity. Surely this regulation is not in keeping with the spirit of the budget, and I ask the government to change it.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) pointed out, Bill C-l 1, introduced in 1977, included a provision that allows farmers and other businessmen to defer tax on certain sales of business property where the proceeds are reinvested in replacement properties. A number of questions have arisen in the House concerning the availability of this rollover, particularly as it affects farmers.
Technically, the words in the Income Tax Act require that the replacement property must be for the same purpose and for use in the same business as the property sold. This raises the question: What is the same business when, for example, a farmer who has been growing crops decides to sell his property and go into livestock?
Officials in the Department of Finance have had extensive discussions with officials in Revenue Canada to determine the most appropriate way of ensuring that a tax-free rollover will be available for farmers, so long as they stay in the farming business. This is what the government intended when the law was introduced.
The most appropriate way of ensuring the rollover is available for all farmers would be to amend the income tax legislation. Accordingly, consideration is being given to incorporating in the bill to implement the April 10 budget measures an amendment to the Income Tax Act, to ensure that rollover provisions will be available to farmers even though they change the nature of their farming business. Any such amendment would be made effective March 31, 1977, the date on which the original rollover was introduced.
Adjournment Debate


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN UN DISCUSSIONS ON DISARMAMENT
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing a lot in the past few days about the TV show "Holocaust". I want to spend a moment tonight talking about another kind of holocaust, a nuclear holocaust that is very possible to be visited upon the world. The neutron bomb controversy merely highlights the unbelievable escalation of the arms race that has come about in the world. World-wide military expenditures have now reached S400 billion per year. That figure is 26 times more than governments spent on international development.
The focus of my question concerns the special session of the United Nations General Assembly which will be held in New York beginning May 23. The complaint I bring to the government is that very few Canadians know anything about this special session that is going to take place.
In the words of the United Nations Secretary General, Kurt Waldheim, this session may well be the largest and most representative gathering ever convened on disarmament. He hopes it will become a turning point in our search for peace.
Today there is a great escalation of nuclear warheads in the world from divers countries producing the capacity for "first strike" defensive strikes. Half a dozen other countries are now on the threshold of this horrendous capacity. At long last we have at least reached the point where the United Nations is going to devote a special session to this problem.
We find not only a lack of information, a lack of public opinion on the subject throughout our country, but that whatever opinion there is tends to be skeptical of what the United Nations session might be capable of achieving. This skepticism is not unfounded when one considers the Soviet arms build up, for example, or when one considers the presence of Cuban troops in Africa. All this tends to make us uncaring, even in terms of the effort which must be made and the steps which must be taken at this special session far beyond simple rhetoric. This special session is attempting to focus world attention upon the tremendous danger into which we are all being thrust and to consider whether certain steps can be taken to alleviate this danger.
Project Ploughshare was set up by some 18 non-governmental organizations in Canada including the Canadian Council of Churches and the Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace. I want to commend Project Ploughshare for playing its part in the development of public opinion and pointing out certain things which could be done-for example, holding this special session-with the participation of the Canadian government, and highlighting the need to eliminate weapons of mass destruction by asking the super powers to suspend production of all new weapons of mass destruction- for example, the Cruise and Trident missile systems in the U.S. and the SS 18, 19 and 20 in the U.S.S.R.
Further, those engaged in Project Ploughshare, and I in support of them tonight, ask that Canadian initiatives be taken

April 25, 1978
Adjournment Debate
to secure a comprehensive test ban treaty banning underground nuclear tests of any size.
Third, Project Ploughshare urges that all proposals to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons be coupled with guarantees from the nuclear weapons states to begin the reduction and eventual elimination of their nuclear stockpiles. Then we must consider curbing the growth and use of conventional weapons, halting the international trade in arms and the linking of disarmament with development which, in itself, is a whole theme worthy of development.
Consider what only 5 per cent of the enormous world military budget would do if it were properly spent upon the social development of mankind today. So far, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence has devoted only one meeting to the subject of disarmament, and when we asked that there be a special sub-committee set up on disarmament the government dragged its heels, with the result that now, on the eve of this conference, Canada is going to the United Nations with hardly any knowledge of its importance among the public generally and without the benefit of discussion in this chamber.
Could the spokesman for the government tonight tell us, even at this late hour, whether something special might not be done to develop Canadian public opinion so as to strengthen the government's hand when it goes to the United Nations for this important session?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on April 5 last, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs to specify what stand the Canadian government will take at the special session of the United Nations General Assembly on disarmament which will start in New York on May 23, 1978. I am pleased to be able to provide additional information on behalf of the minister.
Even during the preliminary stage, the Canadian delegation played a leading role by submitting a series of specific and constructive proposals designed to stop the arms race and to backtrack in the matter of conventional as well as nuclear weapons. The proposals have been submitted either on behalf of Canada or jointly with a group of western countries which take the same position.
On April 27th 1977, Canada released to the Secretary General of the United Nations the essence of the recommendations and the content of the closing document which the Extraordinary Session will have to submit. In that same line of action, in January and February of this year, Canada co-sponsored the presentation of three papers on the following themes: a declaration on disarmament, a program of action for disarmament and international mechanism for disarmament. Canada presides over the western group caucus of the UN members and a great many members of that group have co-sponsored these papers with us. Canada also played a major role in the preparation of these important contributions to the success of the Extraordinary Session.
Mr. Speaker, these documents are bulky and exhaustive and can be made available to my hon. colleagues and to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. If he wishes to get a copy, I will be willing to let him have one. As the hon. minister already stated in this House, the Department of External Affairs is at present carrying on a thorough study of the proposals and supplementary initiatives which could be put forward on the occasion of representation by Canada during the Extraordinary Session of May 25 in keeping with the government's objective of not sparing any efforts during that session to bring a new input to the international proposals for armament control and disarmament.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, April 26, 1978